Teleology and Philosophy
Offline Hi y'all,
I have a good friend who has been studying Heidegger and Nietzsche seriously for over 20 years (he's quite brilliant actually). He also has studied Taoism heavily, Gnosticism, and the Vedas. After many years, he has decided to call himself a believer in teleology (perhaps even deism), at least in the sense of Nietzsche's Will To Power, the Tao, and/or divine chaos, etc..., but not in a subjective sense. He can't stand Christians (though is fascinated by Gnosticism), nor is he necessarily promoting a subjectively conscious higher power (except maybe by an experiential extension of biological consciousness, e.g. human, animals, etc...).
Some of his arguments for teleology involves Heidegger's later thinking about potentiality. For example, Heidegger stated something to the effect that "sight" only exists after there is "potentiality for sight." And determinism must deny the existence of pregnant being and latent energy (potentials with creative attractions), thus Being must be a non-determined motivation- a product of choice... which leads to teleology (if I'm understanding this argument correctly). He argues that the drive or impulse in Being (or also in the Will To Power for Nietzsche), is an example of teleology that is quasi- subjective (though he concedes Nietzsche always held that the Will To Power is not subjective). Why the impulse even if it is non-directed? Theists love to use any admission of teleology as a jumping off point from an objective universal drive to monotheism, so I am inclined to knee jerk here. Is there a coherent way to view these concepts as drives, impulses, etc... without invoking the "goal", "plan", or "target" that is implied by teleology?
I was hoping that since Richard Carrier was also a Taoist, maybe he could address teleology as it relates to Taoism, Heidegger's Being, and Nietzsche's Will To Power, etc. in a show some time. I am currently reading his book and hope to come upon it there eventually, but our conversations are in the thick of it and I am impatient.
Thanks
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash
- Login to post comments
- Login to post comments
Is no one going to touch this? I need rational responders please!
I can offer some insight from a bilological/evolutionary POV.
I had a rather interesting discussion a long while back over at IG on the subject of teleology and how it related to such subjects. I'm sure the sentiments I share there are analogous to the discussion you are having now.
I'll try to elaborate on what I said in the thread I link I can:
http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopic-9375-0.html
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Thank you Y#5! I will definitely read that when I have a little more time!! The conversation with my friend has since morphed into epistemology and substance issues (e.g. today he said something to the effect of: universal matter, which modern physics has proven to be, essentially, a play of frequency/energy- add to that the subjective maleability of Will in the Heisenberg Principle and the universe is just as likely to be the 'dream' of Being [Spinoza comes to mind- which I don't personally discount], since it fits nicely into a notion of connection via the psychic (for lack of a better word) properties of a universal mind (with which we are all connected on some very esoteric level [Hiedeggar's Region], actualized via meditative states, etc.). We were wanking at this point because parts of this claim are not testable. Bottom line, he claims the mere impulse (not necessarily directed or planned) to do something (e.g. Nietzsche's fundamental impulse [Will to Power] to simultaneously create/destroy) to be sufficient evidence of a kind of teleology- though, again, not necessarily a subjectively conscious one. He also offered something that amounted to a more cryptic version of "nontheistic" reformed epistomolgy [think Plantinga w/ a non-subjective God]). Anyway, he claims the potential validity of issues like these plague the validity of empericism... which lead me to question the relevance of emperically untestable states of Being in the first place (that do not intersect with emperical states- those that do intersect, would hopefully, with some creativity, be testable- like astral projection, for example, because locus can be determined). Anyway, yes I will read that and get back- thanks for your time,
Sorry if this came off as convoluted- I'm exhausted,
AV
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash
Wow, you would not believe how similar our conversations were- recognize these quotes:
(him) Divinity that opens up in chaos does not release CHAOS
from its nature as chaos and fate, etc.
(me) We still haven't defined divinity (subjective? objective?), so I really don't get what you're saying here, nor do I understand how you would know such a thing without having the capacity to comprehend all of the parameters of the data neccessary to know such a thing. Subjective physical motivation in science (in particle physics) has shown that it doesn't have to be divine (if I may exclude humans from your definition of divinity- if not, than I agree), as when particles actually change depending on the method of human observation chosen. It's much easier for me if you reply to me under my words (either in italics, bold, or underlined), so that I can see things in context- it also compels you to address my points, some of which have been getting lost.
and
(him) Given that this divinity "opens"
as I said, it opens in no particular locus. "Open" is
a metaphor for origination, which I can't explain, but
which is the basis for the subject that I never
asserted was at the root of anything. I said the
subject was the fruit, or if you prefer the flower,
but not the root. What is at the root is definitely
pre-subjective. Definitely, as far as I can see...
The motive force is prior to the subjective will, as
it is in the evolution of the organism. This does
relate to the first-there-must-be-that-which-can-see
argument of Heidegger. First there must be that which
can will, on the basis of that capacity it can become
subject. What can become will is presumably in some
sense already will. Which brings us back to will
preceding any specific intention or act of will. I
gotta go back to work...
(me) Sounds possible- but only possible. If you want to assert the first-there-must-be-that-which-can-see argument of Heidegger, it seems that that would imply we have an eternal subjectivity- if not, then our subjective will is "opened up" temporally by some objective force. If our subjective will is "opened up" temporally by some objective force, then that would show a dilution (in regress) of (at least one particular kind of) awareness- in the least, there is a change in the quality of awareness. I see no reason why the force itself could not have that same 'gap' in the connection between itself and its cause (whether as a 'dilution' of one aspect or another or as a qualitative change that remains 'on par.' Of course, we must take into consideration that what may appear to be a dilution of awareness going in regress [e.g. the awareness of a rock], may actually be a higher form of awareness that biological awareness obscures in its inferiority). So why wouldn't infinite 'prime movers' be contingent upon infinite prime movers and/or motivators in regress? This seems like a non-subjective version of the cosmological argument.
and
(him) Well, for starters, you talk as if we were the only
potential appreciators for this universe of 13 billion
tears. I would assume that there is life teeming in
various solar systems, wherever the physical
conditions for it exist. I think it is a potential
inherent in being. But I assert again that the
proportions of animate and inanimate matter are simply
irrelevant. And yes, immense empty spaces are
necessary for the teeming multitudes of life in
various solar systems. The suns of these solar
systems can be viewed as manifestations of the life
force just as readily as a frog or a heron. Why not??
Life is teleology, per se. That doesn't mean it is a
plan in the purview of a conscious agent. It doesn't
require that at all. At least I know of no one having
established that it does. To me teleology is NEVER
simply to be equated with subjective will. The latter
is always an outcome of the more fundamental activity
of the former.
(me) Well that makes a huge difference in the use of teleology. Perhaps I have been exposed to too many religious people who have appropriated the word to imply subjectivity. Still, the Tao, Will, Divine Chaos, etc... are in a gray area, perhaps in the same way that a virii are in the gray area of being 'living things.' A virus is just mobile DNA that can leave a cell. Structurally, it is a shell made of protein or membrane filled with genetic information. Perhaps it is analogous to this subjective teleology and should be viewed in grades. Determining subjectivity in non-biological things seems impossible to me. Sure, non- biological entities are causally active in the universe. Let me ask you to do this: define No Being or an object without Being (my present assumption of your position is that if there is Regioning, than everything exhibits Being). Couldn't potentiality allow for an inverted expression of all things? Perhaps that's what a black hole is. It is interesting that subjective consciousness would come from an objective force. Yes, there are probably other life forms in the universe too, but that is not my point. My point is that, evidentially and quantitatively in comparison to the vast majority of therest of the universe, they appear to be more of a byproduct of what is happening (you may think I'm downplaying the significance of human consciousness, but I'm merely suggesting that it might not be the pinnacle of universal expression). We can toot our horns and say it's all for us, but that seems arrogant to me when the overwhelming majority of the universe (which make the 'teeming multitudes of life' look like a speck relatively) is manifested in other ways. I realize you are arguing for the qualitative elements of consciousness. I wonder if a black hole (who's existence is extremely deleterious to biological life) has some level of consciousness or as I said earlier is a universal counter (balancing?) expression of No Being.
There seems to be an intersting component in any teleological chain. It's a chain of manipulation. Objectively, this is probably fine and has no ethical implications. Subjectively, this is a nasty pants way to operate. If this universe is a manifestation of a subjectively conscious divinity with a divine plan (whatever it is), it obviously entails internally chaotic elements (e.g. subjectively conscious beings with free will) who don't have the capacity to communicate with the planner and/or are unable to comprehend the plan or the universal parameters. Since this plan involves biological consciousness on some level (maybe as a key element), wouldn't you think that communication with this plan-maker would be fair (this being determined by the reason we were supplied with in order to participate in the plan- or were we ill-equipped)? If so, wouldn't clarity of communication also be an element? (Why would we be set up to fail with obscured information?). This is one reason I reject the jump from deism to theism from here... unless this planner admits to being EVIL! MUAAAHAHAHA!
and last:
(him)> You demand proofs but offer no proofs of your own.
(me)
Proof of what for what exactly? It's not so much demand as expect. And you're not taking into account what I said about proof. The more evidence, the more credibility. Evidence that is corroborated over several fields of science is even stronger. It's based on observation. If you think that's flawed, then you should have a good reason for it that you can illustrate, otherwise, it's leprachans and pink unicorns for all. If the problem is that you claim you need to redefine the whole paradigm of how we determine what is what based on observation to prove something is reasonable (in it's own reasoning), that's fine, but my guess is that it will be circular logic. Is empericism tautological (which is what I think you're implying)? If it is, at least we know (by observation and predictability) that it's, in the least, a parameter the realm that we are in. If you don't want to default to physical observation, that's your perogative, but for a functioning society, I believe it's best for everyone to utilize predictable information.
we then go on to talk about how he defaults to philosophy and I default to observation.
Oh, now we're on Bigfoot... it's fun.......
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash
Of course the potentiality for sight must exist if there is sight.
Seems to me that Heidegger's argument rests on backwards logic. He looks at the world, and marvels that he lives in a world where humans have these wonderous eyes that can see the world.
But it's backwards to begin at the present and then marvel at the odds that had to be overcome to reach the present.
It's backwards because it places some special meaning on the present. It makes the assumption that the present was the goal of the past. And this assumption alone is where the sense of 'teleology' comes from.
Once we remove this human born need to grant special status to things that we find marvelous, the sense of 'teleology' is exposed as human vanity. A projection of our own need to grant meaning to things.
Consider a hand of cards in poker. Imagine being dealt a royal flush. Then consider that it is equally against the odds for you to be dealt a hand of cards that includes a jack of clubs, a six of hearts, a seven of diamonds and a king and two of spades. Both hands are billions to one to receive.
The first hand needs an 'explanation". Because it's astonishing to be dealt a royal flush. A person would explain the situation as evidence of divine providence, or luck..... there would be seen the need to find the purpose forthe particular hand... a potentiality for the hand, guiding the hand to its present existence...
The second hand does not need any explanation at all.
None.
But what's the real difference?
There is only one: the importance that humans grant to the first hand.
There is no other difference. The only feeling of 'specialness' that we may encounter when examining the hand comes from our own human need to project out meaning onto the universe.
Only if we assume that the present has some special status. But once we remove this 'special status' and recognize it as human vanity, the problem disapears.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
given enough people, and enough coin toss tournaments, there will be someone who wins 100 straight coin tosses. In fact, one can give an algorith for such a prossess. If this person though he was "meant to win" he would, of course, be mistaken. SOMEONE had to win...it is a mere contingent fact that it was him. Anyway, that is my observation.
"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions
Thanks Todangst,
We've discussed just that before (I used the Lottery example), but it's more possibility, and not probability, that's at issue here, because his version of teleology is a bit more oblique. The probablity issues are not as relevant to his version of 'teleology' as they are to that of Christians. I think what he's trying to convey is that the 'teleological' part of 'divinity' is merely the fulfilling of the impulse to create/destroy (ala Nietzsche's Will to Power)- and that's it. No specific end goal or plan other than fulfilling the impulse to create (which in turn destroys). No big plan. No throne and beard. In fact, he calls it 'divine chaos.' He claims divinity is beyond mind and therefore beyond definition. I question the perpetuation of these loaded words (Spinoza probably did it to save his life, but times have changed) and point out that whenever he describes this 'indefinable' divinity, he lends definition to it. So far he's been imposing very subjectively conscious actions onto it. It's a tough position that he's taking- that all Hindus, Taoists, and Buddhists must take when compelled to define whether or not there is teleology, intelligence, or even simply pure motivation in the "impulse" or "energy" that they propose serves as an impetus for Being.
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash
By the way, I'm a HUGE Laing fan and have some ideas about doing musical versions of some of his "Knots"
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash
Well, it's been a while since I've contributed to this, but I've continued to have lively conversations with my friend almost every day since long before the beginning of this forum. We have come a long way and gotten somewhere and nowhere at the same time.
At this point, he asserts that teleology/purpose is manifested as a conditional property (such as hot/cold) in all being (Heidegger's sense of it), therefore it is difficult to qualify, let alone prove or disprove. He claims purpose may mainfest as "allowance" (passivity) in form which is an extension of universal mind (the brain is also a manifestation of teleological purpose bridging the spirit dimension with the physical one) and that space time is the vehicle. He stops short of asserting a universal agent, but believes in universal mind, intelligence, purpose, will, teleology, and drive. He believes 'life' is in all energy that makes up the form of all matter and those forms are representations of the universal mind. I guess I'm just putting this out there to see if anyone has a comment on this type of world view, as it is nothing like we see in the Christian camps.
I have done my best to: inquire how mind can exist without brain and offer examples of the failure to detect mind/soul outside of observation (to which he posits the universe and all its volatile black holes and strange phenomena may function as a giant generator of will/purpose/even consciousness), show how "stupid" teleology is if it is 'trying' to bridge the dimensions of mind in such a round about way via evolution, with all of its dead end mutations, etc., when it could have easily achieved a more streamlined result (he claims it's perfectly imperfect and we don't know if those failed mutations actually were usefull in some way- some of our discussion do appear ID-like at times), I've asserted that modal properties (possibilities) are sometimes limited, and that purpose and teleology, like consciousness and mind are qualified analogously (he asserts Heidegger's notion that in order to see there must first be the possibility of sight), I've commented that purpose is an illusion superimposed upon motion, which is the force of gravity created by space/time bending under the weight of matter, I've shown our tendency to anthropomorphize the universe, I've commented that the parameters of objects are often, if not always, identified subjectively and that the supposed 'purpose' in them appears to contradict itself and is, more likely, totally subject to contextual forces (he claims that the purpose is to "allow" the forces to manipulate it- I ask how he can tell the difference), I've asserted that chaos and organization have been shown to be integral and ultimately account for our higher consciousness/self-awareness, etc. (he asserts that the organization is a mode of being and evidence for mind), I have commented that aggregation of organization over time helps the universe to evolve exponentially, etc, etc, etc... does anyone have a comment on this line of discussion?
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash