tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post111244090970254619..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Natural TeleologyRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1130970958823212862005-11-02T17:35:00.000-05:002005-11-02T17:35:00.000-05:00You will be interested in a new wrinkle in natural...You will be interested in a new wrinkle in natural teleology, elaborated at www.starlarvae.org. Ontogeny is teleological, and the universe is ontogenetic. And human beings are an essential, transitional form in the ontogeny of the universe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1112644090951477092005-04-04T15:48:00.000-04:002005-04-04T15:48:00.000-04:00Happy A.Yes, I agree with the post, and I've had t...Happy A.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I agree with the post, and I've had that view for many years. But over the years, I've also noticed a parasitical concept of teleology in human nature: the disposition to desire. I recommend it to you, so that perhaps you might not overlook it as long as I did.<BR/><BR/>An Aristotelian might say that there are objective purposes and functions of the sort spelled out in NE. The reply is yes, but those brilliant insights of Aristotle's just get at our dispositions to desire, which, wired in as they may be, and independent as they may be of what one happens to desire at the moment, are nevertheless not purposes that are independent of desire in the sense that Aristotelian or Thomistic natural law theorist means them to be.<BR/><BR/>There is no conflict between British sentimentalism and the NE. Maybe Hume's inquiry on morals is an example of the coherence of the two, with all his talk of virtues.Jim Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.com