Which comes first in time, the end or the means? I am not referring to any thought about the end, or the desire for the end, or the decision to adopt a particular end as a goal; I am talking about the end itself. — aletheist
The end or goal isn't an intention. The end or goal is to drive in nails. — Terrapin Station
As I said "to drive nails" implies intention — Metaphysician Undercover
It is impossible that winning the lottery is the cause of me buying tickets because I never win. — Metaphysician Undercover
It's not impossible that it's the final cause, however, because all that "final cause" refers to is the end or "that for the sake of which" something is done. The final cause doesn't have to be realized. — Terrapin Station
We're talking about a cause here. Do you not understand this? The word "Joe" could refer to any non-existent thing, a pink unicorn, or me winning the lottery which never happens. How could these non-existent things be a cause of anything? All you are doing is making "final cause" into some sort of nonsense. But if the concept appears as nonsense, then surely you have misunderstood the concept. That's what I am trying to demonstrate to you. The way you understand "final cause" renders it as nonsense, my understanding does not. Surely you have misunderstood the concept, especially if you can switch out your understanding for mine, and have the concept make sense.What's throwing you off is the word "cause." Think of "cause" as simply a name in this context--like if we'd call it "Joe" instead. If the "Joe" is the end or goal of something, then the "Joe" in this case is "winning the lottery." The "Joe" isn't "your intention to win the lottery." You're not buying the ticket with the end or goal of your intention. — Terrapin Station
There is no necessity of realization, because the cause is the goal itself, not the realization of the goal. — Metaphysician Undercover
We're talking about a cause here. — Metaphysician Undercover
Right, the goal itself, and not the intention prior to the object in question. — Terrapin Station
The word substitution is meant to break the associations you're making with the word "cause," because that's resulting in a mental block. — Terrapin Station
First, in Aristotle, intention isn't necessarily implied by ends or goals, because objects that have nothing to do with sentient creation have ends or goals, too--Aristotle buys the notion of telos in general. Sentient beings are the only ones with intentionality, however. In fact, intentionality is often taken to be a mark of sentience.What are you talking about? Intention is necessarily implied by goal. There is no goal without intention. — Metaphysician Undercover
If, when you put the word back in, the result is nonsense, then clearly the exercise has failed. Your exercise demonstrates that any non-existent thing could be a cause. — Metaphysician Undercover
It's not true that our intention to win the World Series is the end or goal. — Terrapin Station
First, in Aristotle, intention isn't necessarily implied by ends or goals, because objects that have nothing to do with sentient creation have ends or goals, too--Aristotle buys the notion of telos in general. Sentient beings are the only ones with intentionality, however. In fact, intentionality is often taken to be a mark of sentience. — Terrapin Station
To win the World Series" is identical to the goal. It's the goal under a different name. — Terrapin Station
"To intend to win the world series" isn't identical to the goal. The goal is not to intend to win the World Series. — Terrapin Station
"Goal" is the "directed-towards" in this situation. It's not the what's doing the directing, in other words. — Terrapin Station
This demonstrates your misunderstanding of "final cause". Under the concept of final cause, the goal is doing the directing, not vise versa, that's how the goal is a cause. — Metaphysician Undercover
Which is you not caring that you're grafting a contemporary, narrow sense of "cause" on to this.
You think I'm misunderstanding it. I think you're misunderstanding it. Will either of those change? — Terrapin Station
Can you make sense of the idea that something which never has, nor never will, exist, is a cause? My way of understanding final cause allows that a real existing thing, with observable effects, intention, is a cause. — Metaphysician Undercover
Broken record time: That's because you're grafting a contemporary, narrow sense of "cause" on to this. — Terrapin Station
No, I'm offering a reasonable interpretation of "final cause", as intention, exactly as it is described by Aristotle. — Metaphysician Undercover
The contemporary sense of "cause" wouldn't say that an intention is a cause of something in vacuo, but that's not what you're saying either. — Terrapin Station
A seed in the ground or a ball at the top of an incline does not have any intentions, yet each has a final cause - the full-grown plant and coming to rest at the bottom of the incline, respectively. — aletheist
There is a continuity of usage which makes any term comprehensible. — Metaphysician Undercover
In theology, the intention (Will) of God is assigned to such cases of final cause. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is a Philosophy Forum, not a theology forum. You are effectively conceding that there are no final causes apart from willing agents, which - as I understand it - was not Aristotle's own position. — aletheist
That's a claim for which you're supplying neither any empirical evidence nor any argumentation. — Terrapin Station
I told you, the continuity of usage is within theological principles, — Metaphysician Undercover
... this is the theological argument which introduces God as the source of telos in natural things. Aristotle did not seek the source of telos, he just affirmed that it was there. — Metaphysician Undercover
We are not discussing "the source of telos in natural things," we are discussing what that telos is itself. While I am a theist, it seems problematic to me to require the existence/reality of God in order for natural things to have final causes. It also seems highly dubious that Aristotle himself would have endorsed such a view. — aletheist
Which has nothing to do with the claim you made. Your claim was about the conditions required for comprehensibility. — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.