RE: The difference between ethical atheism and nihlism is that ethical atheists have more faith
March 10, 2013 at 1:13 am
(This post was last modified: March 10, 2013 at 1:38 am by genkaus.)
(March 9, 2013 at 5:10 pm)jstrodel Wrote: I understand that perfectly well, but how does that transcend phenomenological understanding and appreciate teleology?
How many times do I have to repeat myself? By use of reason and evidence.
(March 9, 2013 at 5:10 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Do you understand phenomenological methods of belief formation to yield authoritative answers to teleology?
That would be an apt description of religion. Thankfully, use of reason and logic requires you to depend on more than phenomenology.
(March 9, 2013 at 5:10 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Why should any person feel like they need to accept your approach to defining teleology or your sense of explanatory power or something like that?
Because its rational and justified.
(March 9, 2013 at 5:10 pm)jstrodel Wrote: How does your approach to teleology become more than an opinion?
By being logical.
(March 9, 2013 at 5:10 pm)jstrodel Wrote: How can it capture the nature of something and be shown to more than some other way?
Same answer.
(March 9, 2013 at 5:10 pm)jstrodel Wrote: How can someone feel bound to accept your methods and values in assessing teleology, and ultimately, if something is more your perception of teleology, how can it be said that thing actually has that end?
Again, if I can provide a valid argument for my case....
(March 9, 2013 at 10:09 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Genkaus, I know we have fundamentally different opinions about what 'concepts' really are. Don't you suppose that some things are discovered rather than fabricated. It seems to me that mathematical truths do not vary, though we may not fully understand them. Why must we exclude final ends from the discovery process? Why assume that final ends are abstract fantasies?
I never excluded discovery from being an important part of the process of having concepts. Understand that I do not consider final ends to be abstract fantasies nor do I consider them to be fabricated. As a matter of fact, if someone was to justify a "final end" of an object to me, then I certainly would not consider something that was fabricated but something that was "discovered" through an examination of what that object is.
The discoveries you make depend upon the premises you start with. To take an example of one of the mathematical truths - the value of pi is discovered as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. But perfect circles do not exist in the natural world. They are an idealized form of shapes found in the natural world, all of which can at best be an approximation to the perfect circle. This does not mean that the concept of the circle has been fabricated or is simply an abstract fantasy - it is formulated from reality, from things that exist. The closer your axiomatic concepts are to the natural world and the closer your methodology is to how nature works - the more aptly your discoveries would describe it.
Ultimately all concepts and ideas are made-up - that is, formulated, not fabricated - by humans and therefore ultimately all 'final ends' are made-up as well. The validity of those 'final ends' is then compared based on whether they were fabricated on the fly or if they were logically derived from other concepts that were formed on the basis of real world.
