What are books that defend atheistic, physicalist teleology?
>>23327313it was made up as a joke you idiot, the ruling bloodlines don't actually believe they come from gorillas or that magic doesn't exist, that would negate their own rulership
>>23327318>Implying "God says I have the authority to rule you" isn't a 100 x better lie to obtain conformity
>>23327313>teleologyDoesn't exist. Purpose is in your head not out in the world. Your feelings don't define reality.
>>23327313Probably Aristotle or any biology textbook which speaks of the *function* of a heart. Teleology is present everywhere in the natural sciences whether some like it or not
>>23327313Natural selection is ateleological. At least try to understand the basics of what you're strawmanning before coming up with bait.
>>23327386>Teleology is present everywhere in the natural sciences whether some like it or notIt was definitely everywhere in Aristotle's physics. Reminder that Aristotle thought rocks fell to the ground teleologically since their purpose was to be there. Same with the planets orbiting the earth, that was their teleology. Seems kind of stupid doesn't it?
>>23327373Teleology isn't about purpose, it's about end. If a seed develops into a plant, it is the final stage, the form of the plant, that explains the development. This is necessary for anything to act in any sense whatsoever - action is always directed, hence there is an end. A world where action was without end would be a world that was completely random. And that's, in essence, all Aristotelian teleology is. It's not like "the purpose of a banana is to fit in my hand and God made it that way because we need food," the purpose of a banana is to grow into a banana tree, the purpose of a person is to be a healthy and fulfilled person.As for an atheist teleology - I've never read any, I'm sure it exists, but Aristotelian teleology does point to God. Not in the sense that "there must be some super mind above everything that thinks all of these ends into reality, or something", but in the sense that the universe as a whole is always in motion and must be moved by something eternal, which is an end. God for Aristotle isn't a craftsman who makes the world, but an ultimate good that moves everything else by the force and attraction of its goodness.
>>23327413Not really. He was wrong about the details obviously, but any modern scientific explanation will fit just as well under his teleological framework.
>>23327415>Teleology isn't about purpose, it's about end. If a seed develops into a plant, it is the final stage, the form of the plant, that explains the developmentThat isn't what is meant by teleology. To use your example if a seed didn't develop into a plant because it was on a concrete slab then would you say it's teleology wasn't to develop into a plant? In fact most seeds don't develop into plants. If teleology just meant the end something came to it would fit fine with modern physics. It would also be impossible to violate your teleology since whatever end you came to would be your teleology. An ethics founded on that meaning of teleology would allow anything.
>>23327425>but any modern scientific explanation will fit just as well under his teleological frameworkAny modern scientific explanation would also fit under the framework of a bunch of fairies trying to trick us into thinking physics works. That you aren't suspicious of an explanation that you claim works on both true and false theories shows how goofy you are.
>>23327452The difference isn't that I think it's magic, the difference is I think the question is worth thinking about at all - i.e. what is the nature of change, as opposed to what are the things that do change and all the ways in which they change. The telos isn't a "deus ex machina" to provide protoscientific explanations, it's just something that follows from the fact of change + essentialism.>>23327442>To use your example if a seed didn't develop into a plant because it was on a concrete slab then would you say it's teleology wasn't to develop into a plant? In fact most seeds don't develop into plants.No, the end of a thing is its good. If a seed fails to develop, that's strictly speaking an accident. The cause of the failure is whatever it may happen to be (lack of moisture, sandy soil, etc.) - the accidental causes are always indefinite.>It would also be impossible to violate your teleology since whatever end you came to would be your teleology.You're right there - teleology is a first principle. In the same way, anything you say invokes the principle of noncontradiction. As I said above, it's not meant as a scientific explanation but more something that stands behind any explanation/any order in the world at all.>An ethics founded on that meaning of teleology would allow anything.Teleology is tied up with essentialism. So in that sense teleology is the metaphysical backdrop for an ethics based on the nature of man. If a bad man decides to do something bad - yes, this is teleology, because the end is the satisfaction of his appetite. But this doesn't mean that the bad thing is the true telos of man. Of course that's another discussion, but teleology does not make ethics impossible.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/
>>23327514>No, the end of a thing is its good.The end of a thing is where it ends up. If you're going to try and redefine the end of something as it's "good" then you're going to have to show such "goods" exist. They don't.>If a seed fails to develop, that's strictly speaking an accident. The cause of the failure is whatever it may happen to be (lack of moisture, sandy soil, etc.) - the accidental causes are always indefinite.Strictly speaking from what? Again the vast majority of seeds don't develop into plants in reality. Your attributing something as an accident is just as arbitrary as your claiming to know somethings purpose>Teleology is tied up with essentialism. So in that sense teleology is the metaphysical backdrop for an ethics based on the nature of man. If a bad man decides to do something bad - yes, this is teleology, because the end is the satisfaction of his appetiteThis stupidity is just you trying to redefine what end means like you did above. Is the end of something where it ends up? Then of course ends exist. Is the end of something it's "good" or it's purpose? Then ends don't exist.>Of course that's another discussion, but teleology does not make ethics impossible.If teleology is about ends like you claim in an above post then whatever end you wind up is your teleology be it saint or murder. An ethics based on teleology would say that both of them fulfilled their teleology.
>>23327332It clearly isn't. Have we seen any truly major societal upheavals in this penultimate stage of the post-religious West? No, it's been made clear that encouraging people to believe in a God gives them too much strength of will. If there is a divinity, if people believe there is even a fleck of divine essence in man, then we get stuff like "human rights" and "emancipation". Why should deities be pushed when doing so only presumes an existence greater than rulers? To give rulers an external claim to rule? What need when the mere placement of a ruler is enough to pacify most? Dissenters will always exist, but religious dissidents have the potential to be much more dangerous than others. Right to rule has been thoroughly dissected: removal of objectivity and discomfort while intentionally keeping the world in an volatile state is the surest road to maintain empire. All you need to do is give people a place to run to. Your administration ends only when your citizens feel cornered. This includes giving them a harmless outlet for their frustrations. Deity has absolutely nothing to do with it.
>>23327313The Satanic bible
>>23327332
>>23327563We're comparing a very brief, unspecified period of history with all of human history. So I don't buy the claim that social change has slowed down.
>>23327563I agree with your post, and I think this is what Hobbes also understood. I just don't understand this passage:>If there is a divinity, if people believe there is even a fleck of divine essence in man, then we get stuff like "human rights" and "emancipation"Isn't it the opposite? People should be reduced to a common right that is granted by constitutional rights, say, instead of natural or theological principles.
>>23328331>People should be reduced to a common right that is granted by constitutional rights, say, instead of natural or theological principles.I suppose this is possible in theory but if you look at the people who actually advocate for "human rights" and "emancipation" aren't doing so on the belief of universal egalitarianism but on the explicit belief in classes of man and the need to dissolve the evil classes based on the will of divinity, or something approximating it. Going back to the Jewish antinomians that lead to Yeshua, this has always been the case: "Yahweh said that the law has been fulfilled ergo you don't have to do rituals anymore" is fundamentally the same thing as "the US Constitution says that all men are created equal ergo Ireland gets infinity Somalis". It's the dissolution of distinction. Such a thing only makes any sense to do if you aren't some hardcore materialist rationalist, wherein the entire idea of dissolving distinctions is absurd. They exist, and that's a fact, wanting to dissolve them to attain some theoretical eschatological state of purity is absurd (how can they be dissolved if they exist?). It is only when one is animated by something higher than mere "atoms bumping around" that they can take the fundamentally (im)moral act of declaring that distinctions must be dissolved. The Jewish antinomians, the Christians, the Communists, the SJWs, whatever group you choose, it's all the same, and they all act the same because they're fundamentally doing the same thing. Like, come the fuck on just look at the people you're talking about. The people who talk about how trannies "lack rights" aren't saying it because they actually believe that men who cut their cocks off lack some kind of legal technicality owed to them, they say it because it's an attack on White people. That's not just "muh atoms say i can be a douchebag because there's no afterlife" or whatever, it's a conscious attack on the principle of nobility.
>>23327318"A Beginner's Guide To Pegging".
>>23327318>the ruling bloodlinesIs exiled on a remote mythical island. Evolution is real and so is magic. Gorilla leaders physically change when they adopt their roles, like kings do.
Edward Feser's "Natural Law Ethics and the Revival of Aristotelian Metaphysics", chapter 14 in The Cambridge Companion to Natural Law Ethics
>>23327313>atheistic, physicalist teleologycontradiction in terms
>>23328352Where is the source of those rights? Surely couldn’t come from nowhere, right?
guys I just think God is fake and homosexuality is a mental illness
>>23327313The Catechism.
