Clearly the ability to detect certain things in language isn't something you possess. I was quoting you. I simply did not add quotations. Quite facetious of you in a way..

I'm asking you to provide evidence. I do not agree nor disagree. I simply won't accept something because you say it is true. So please provide evidence.

There is no primary thing which something does.
One word... evidence.


It is obvious that this Is the case: if something had two primary modes of teleology... That is to say, that it had two ends for two reasons- they would logically contradict each other in most cases. Especially here.

The heart cannot simultaneously stop beating as it also beats, guaranteed by it's own telos.

I'm actually starting to think a few things. 1. You've only investigation of minute amount of metaphysics. 2. You don't understand the basics of the language to which these topics produce.

*Goal- an end bases in its very own teleology. Also referred to as finale causation.*


As I said before: if you want to do what Hume did, that causes problems. Other than that I don't see any reason for us to disagree. But taking a look at your profile, I can say you like that pitiful thing people call an intellectual haha.

Hume is wrong for a few reasons.

1. A thing which does not have a finale cause is something that is without teleology, and therefore, has no end to which it exists.

2. Causation which does not happen at that level allows for unprovoked change. Both substantially and accidentally. Especially where the accidens have no nature to which it can change at any given moment. Of course, without a cause.

3. Hume's idea of causation and change doesn't allow for a thing to change in-and-of-itself. Considering the action for change is preceded by it's own will to change.

(i) The thing desires to change accidentally

(ii) causation is not required for a thing to change.

(iii) the desire to change itself is preceded by the actual change. Which happens out of change without a required cause.
----
By the mere desire to change, it changes. However, without any reason aa to why it changed other than it's will. Which denies the nature's of things ontologically speaking. This seems to object to much of what is observed and much of what the sciences have disclosed. But that was his point.
----
This is all said if you are leaning on Hume, of course.

And where did I say I disagree. Why can thing which has an end include that which it can do. Including stopping beating? I just disagree that this is teleological. If anything, that is a secondary principle in its ontology. Which is something that it has the possibility, even necessity to do- however, it does not prioritize it over the primary. For the sake of its teleology and for the sake of the goal of that in-and-of-itself.

1. For it to pump blood

2. For it to keep the person alive by virtue of that.
---

The secondary would be:

1. For it to stop pumping blood when it can no longer.

2. For it to stop keeping the person alive by virtue of that.
---
I don't think there is much to disagree on that notion

I understand that. You just present zero evidence for the fact that you disagree. Do you understand that?

"You're seeing x being in state y due causal interaction with z as indicative of something not in x's nature."

Perhaps. That isn't isolating it from the rest of the world. Especially if it's possible.

Secondly: you commit a fallacy in presuming that the state in which it can be in is teleological.. Or presumed to be intrinsic to it's nature on its own self. Which is blatantly incorrect.

Which is why I gave you the choice. A things nature is that which it ends itself towards. If it's end was to stop beating, it would stop. If it was to beat, it would beat. You also cannot account for substantial change in these regards.. Which is another error.

Another error you commit is when saying, "Being crushable is something that's in a heart's nature. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to crush it."

"Is in a hearts nature." Really? In what way is it IN it. As a secondary or primary mode of its ontology? Or is it substantial or accidental? Because the way I see it is: 1. The thing is stopped not by it's own nature and end to stop, but rather another cause. 2. I'm not saying that is not anything it can do.. I'm simply questioning this presumption you make without stating In which way it relates to it's ontology. I don't see any reason to believe that it isn't anything It has the possibility to do. However, I do not see any reason to believe that these things are the ends themselves. To stop beating and such.

"No idea why I would think that."

What kind of stupid answer is that? Where did I isolate the object from the rest of the world?

And in any other sense... you accepted teleology 50 times over. If only you understood the concept of teleology, ontology and the natural law in relation to those two things- you'd be aware of it.

Why are you certain that it is something that it can do, rather than it is lacking in what it can do.. being caused by some other alternative cause to stop it from beating? If I squeeze a heart and crush it, is it lacking in its capability to beat, or is it simply stopping due to its nature?

It's either: 1. The nature of the heart is to beat until it no longer can. Or 2. The nature of the heart is to beat, and by some other cause it stops it from doing so.

Either way, we must accept teleology in those regards.

You seem concerned with what everyone else believes. You aren't trying to make the silly argument from popularity are you?

I have read Camus, Sartre, Kierkegaard and many others. Some of what they say is good.. and others is absolute rubbish.

Again: this is an argument based on ontology. It is not a naturalistic fallacy. Saying it is over and over has no foundation and gets us nowhere.

You should also understand the differences between teleology as I noted... we may not be forced to do anything but the parts to the whole are.... as I said for the 100th freaking time.

So for the last time: This is an 'ONTOLOGICAL' idea. Not one based In the perceptions of nature itself. Rather the end of a thing based in its ontology. If you cannot understand that this isn't a naturalistic fallacy- and yet you keep repeating that it is.. I'm going to have to end the conversation. Repetition is only good when the thing repeated is good. Right here is not an example.

I don't know. Typically, anti-natalism argues that it is intrinsically evil rather than relatively evil or subjectively evil.

Thats false in the way I used the word. And I specifically added 'telos' as well. We already discussed that the eyes are for seeing, the heart for pumping - in which you made no objection. Unless you desire to take Hume's approach of causation, I see no reason for you to object either.

Hard to quote Gnostics when they believe in many odd things.

By the shear manifestation of choice.

We should not confuse the end of a thing with another. As I said before. Rather we should focus on the parts to the whole than the whole to the parts.

Self-consciousness is that which simultaneously allows myself to be aware of my own individuation from an other, and be aware that they are aware of their own individuation and of me. The production of this is unknown to me.

However ...

Teleology should also be understood in two ways:

(1) by the end of an object or part. I.e the eyes, ears, heart.

(2) By the end of a collective goal.

Im speaking of number 2. You can never will to stop your heart from beating or your mind from thinking. However, you can stop the goal of this species (Its telos), which is its survival. Hence why I related it to anti-natalism.

The problem with using the GTA is that anti-natalism bases itself in the objective idea that it is immoral to have children. The GTA is a goal-oriented model (which is in its early stages), and has nothing to do with intrinsic evils. Penn state likes to quote 'what does not kill you simply makes you stronger' when referring to GTA. For the sole fact that it requires pain .GTA is also pro change through suffering and the like. It is also referred to PTG as well. Funny enough, Penn State quotes St. Paul when speaking of Growth through adversity."Suffering produces endurance, endurance produces character and character produces hope." An odd quotation if the view can be opposed to it, eh? UH also seems opposed to the GTA idea as a stand-alone concept.

Your combination of the two is interesting. What would prove difficult would be to define Undue hardships. As well as to not contradict the two.

I never said anything one can do is with the natural law- that is a strawman. And no, that is a false-comparison to say appealing to teleology is equal to appealing to god. The two can be exclusive.

Oh my bad. I must not have caught that typo. Self-Consciousness possesses the ability to contradict the natural law because it manifests the will. But it Isn't inherently contradictory. As in "if this then that." It is also a non-sequitor to think that this disproves teleology and such. Considering they are not logically opposed.

I already told you. You should give a look at Hegels idea of self-consciousness for these matters. Especially since this concept is that which manifests the will. It does not contradict the natural law. It has nothing to do with it. Which is why I said in a plain Darwinist view of the world, it does not exist. I should also note that Darwinism bases itself in teleology and natural law theory.

Cough cough... The natural law is an idea based in teleology and is a metaphysical argument. So saying I committed a naturalistic fallacy is baseless.

"There's nothing that the eyes can do that's not part of their nature."

Hmmm.... you just accepted the idea of teleology. Teleology is that which is the end of something in relation to it's ontology. Which you just verified.
.

And it should be made clear: that the natural law is in relation to teleology. Not the will and not to the individual in-and-of-itself. But rather the parts to the whole than the whole to the parts.

The eyes for seeing, the heart for pumping. These all have their end. Which is why I see that you misunderstand precisely what is being said by the words 'natural law.'

I'm assuming he's talking to me.

Anti-natalism doesn't have to be forced for it to be evil. The same way murder is evil. Precisely why it is evil... you chose to do it.

What argument do you have against teleology? And self-consciousness is not inherently contradictory to the natural law. So if teleology exists, it would not contradict it

Oh Lord. Has the understanding of teleology in relation to ontology escaped you? It Was my point that self-consciousness, which manifests the will, is contrary to the natural law. I would ask: have you read any of the studies and philosophies concerning natural law?

But as I said: Anti-natalism is the position that pregnancy, birth, etc- are all intrinsically evil because they induce suffering. However, there is obviously a teleology to the end of the sexual organs and to the species itself. It seems idiotic to contradict that. Which is why I proposed it in a specific scenario. However, that is not anti-natalism. Anti-natalism will and must cause the extinction of a species. It's never been held to absolute credibility either. Since those who argue for it cannot argue for it to not be against the natural law. Which of course, means that anti-natalism is evil and not vice versa.

No it is unreasonable. Self-consciousnes brings are unnatural in-and-of-themselves because they can contradict the natural law. Which betrays a Darwinist view of the world and nature. But that isn't the point... we must understand that a species orients itself to it's own survival. That is the very basis of Darwinism. If we stop having children indefinitely, we are contradicting the natural law. Which is in-and-of-itself immoral.

And suffering seems to be an unreasonable thing to want to stop. It's superfluous to want to eliminate It- or perhaps create a utopia. The term "life is suffering" originated from a Christian understanding of the world. It has been adopted by many others. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Pascal... The idea was that suffering is intrinsic in the very nature of an individual, who suffers for a plethora of reasons. By himself, by others, by mother nature- mentally, physically and to some spiritually. If it is intrinsic ontologically, then it is preposterous. Perhaps transcendence is your best bet.

"If it is evil, why does it exist" was in reference to Gnosticism. Murder, rape and theft are not natural. They are not oriented in nature through some teleology which is intrinsic to their ontology. "Anti-natalism doesn't end anything." I'm not sure you understood any of the language I've used. Teleology, the law, nature, etc. Which would have me question if you have studied any amount of philosophy. I'd ask you to read it again because it seems you aren't understanding what I meant.

It is obvious that the position of antinatalism cannot be made to be one of an ethical position. The law, that is to say, the end of a thing by virtue of its essence, shall be oriented to reproduction. However, if we are to posit that it should be done out of another position- perhaps one of a position that we should withhold from procreation because overpopulation is bad.

However, that would be mediocre compared to anti-natalism. Which is the position that birth itself is evil. Sounds much like Gnosticism in a way. Where the position was that matter was evil. The question must be proposed in the same manner: if it is evil, why does it exist? In the same way- if it is evil, why does it exist and co-operate with nature?