Teleology, the so called "Naturalist" perspective | INFJ Forum

Teleology, the so called "Naturalist" perspective

Discussion in 'Philosophy and Religion' started by Satya, Mar 15, 2009.

Share This Page

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Watchers:
This thread is being watched by 3 users.
More threads by Satya
  1. Satya

    Satya C'est la vie
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Threads:
    540
    Messages:
    7,278
    Likes Received:
    546
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INXP
    I thought this might make an interesting discussion since I've encountered it 3 times now in discussion with Pristinegirl, just me, and Flavus Aquila.

    Teleology is basically the philosophy that argues that there is an inherent purpose for all that exists. The key to teleology is it is purpose driven.

    Normally nature is defined as
    the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized. For example, a dog who has four feet is natural, whereas a dog who has fins would not be considered natural.

    However, when teleology is applied to nature, it produces a different definition of natural, in which organisms are recognized by the inherent purpose they serve. By this definition it could be argued that it is "natural" for a dog to be loyal and best friend to its master. No longer is the dog recognized by essential qualities or characteristics, now it is recognized by a certain inherent purpose it is expected to serve. A dog who acts deviant to this expected purpose, for example biting his master, would be seen as "unnatural". Therefore, any deviance from the expected purpose of an organism is considered 'unnatural".

    This has come into discussion 3 times with the aforementioned members in discussions about homosexuality.

    Pristinegirl argued that homosexual couples (who are inherently incapable of reproducing on their own) must be incapable of accomplishing the purpose of raising children as adequately as heterosexual couples (who can inherently reproduce on their own). This wasn't based on reality, where it is shown that gay couples can raise children just as well as straight couples, but on the belief that heteroseuxals are the ones who best adequately serve the purpose of raising children because they are capable of reproduction and that homosexual couples, who are a deviation from that design, could not possibly serve it as well. (This was not Pristinegirl's position, but simply an argument she was making.)

    However, JM (just me) took this rational a step further and argued that homosexual couples would cause children great pain if they tried to raise them. He extended it to the conception of gender roles, which argue that there is an inherent purpose for men and an inherent purpose for women when it comes to raising children. Two men or two women would thus fail at raising a child because the child would be missing half of the equation. Once again, this is not based on reality, where it is shown that gays can raise children just as well as straight couples can, but on the conceptions of "inherent purposes".

    Flavus Aquila argued that homosexual couples would find less happiness or satisfaction than heterosexual couples. He based this argument on the belief that the ultimate purpose of humans was to beget offspring, and any deviation from that could be considered unnatural. He argued that those whose purpose is not to beget offspring will not accomplish the purpose of forming a family, and thus they will not find much satisfaction. Thus heterosexual couples inherently have the most satsifaction, followed by homosexual couples, and finally single people would inherently have the least satisfaction. This is despite the reality that there are very unhappy and discontent heterosexual couples and that there are incredibly happy and content single people. And of course, all the variations in between.

    So it seems to me that this form of reasoning leads people to dismiss reality for an inherent belief, or in other words, to embrace a delusion.

    Thoughts on teleology?
     
    #1 Satya, Mar 15, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2009
  2. Pristinegirl

    Pristinegirl Well-known member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Threads:
    36
    Messages:
    3,085
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    ANFP
    Actually I argued for gender roles as well. You are SAYING this in a hybris way, which you supposedly hate. Talk about double standards...

    I never said that they couldn't raise a child, I argued that it would be more bad for the children than it would if they had straight parents.

    A NATURALIST, believes in the laws of nature.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  3. slant

    slant Ruboobie

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Threads:
    338
    Messages:
    10,594
    Featured Threads:
    41
    Likes Received:
    18,149
    Trophy Points:
    1,901
    Gender:
    Female
    MBTI:
    ENFP
    Enneagram:
    6-4-9
    I've removed my post.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    #3 slant, Mar 15, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2009
  4. Pristinegirl

    Pristinegirl Well-known member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Threads:
    36
    Messages:
    3,085
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    ANFP
    This is so mean and evil. I cannot believe you can even do this, because I have never put forward arguments because they strengthen an argument for god? NEVER ONCE have I mentioned that and for you to even state that is so hurtful. We even covered this Satya what I meant by a naturalist approach, it was not that of a RELIGION?!?!?! But of mother nature, the fact that xx-xy (males and females) can reproduce and xx-xx or xy-xy CANT!

    THIS WAS MY 'NATURALIST' EMPIRICAL APPROACH, which is clear for EVERYONE in the whole world to see...
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    #4 Pristinegirl, Mar 15, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2009
  5. mayflow

    Banned

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Threads:
    71
    Messages:
    783
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INFP
    "Teleology" seems just another convoluted way for Satya to lash out at Pristine girls and Just me's to me. This is bordering on the uncool at this point.
     
  6. OP
    Satya

    Satya C'est la vie
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Threads:
    540
    Messages:
    7,278
    Likes Received:
    546
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INXP
    There is nothing about religion or deities in my post Pristine. Teleology is a philosophy. I tend to argue that it is theological because most theologies use it, but it isn't in itself a theology.
     
  7. Pristinegirl

    Pristinegirl Well-known member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Threads:
    36
    Messages:
    3,085
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    ANFP
    No but often it is used for that. Also you make teleology look like a bad thing, is that really what it is?

     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    #7 Pristinegirl, Mar 15, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2009
  8. OP
    Satya

    Satya C'est la vie
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Threads:
    540
    Messages:
    7,278
    Likes Received:
    546
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INXP
    That is my argument in this thread. Do you wish to defend teleology?
     
  9. Pristinegirl

    Pristinegirl Well-known member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Threads:
    36
    Messages:
    3,085
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    ANFP

    Well I know too little about teleogy but I took on a naturalist argument - the opposite. So that I defend and therefore perhaps you should remove me from there because I did not take on telelogy?
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  10. Quinlan

    Quinlan Right the First Time!

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Threads:
    160
    Messages:
    4,066
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Likes Received:
    316
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    ISFP
    Ns looking for meaning and structure where there is none.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  11. OP
    Satya

    Satya C'est la vie
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Threads:
    540
    Messages:
    7,278
    Likes Received:
    546
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INXP
    Incorrect. You started with a naturalist argument.

    Two people of the opposite sex are needed to reproduce.

    But then you made a teleological jump.

    Therefore, two people of the opposite sex are needed to raise children adequately.

    Whereas what really happens in nature for primates is that it is very common for some members of the tribe to adopt or help raise the offspring of other members of the tribe. That is very clearly observable in human beings as well.

    So you are faced with your teleological jump versus what actually happens in nature, and you reject what actually happens in nature for your teleological jump and pretend that your teleological jump is a "naturalist" argument because you began with a naturalist argument.
     
    #11 Satya, Mar 15, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2009
  12. Pristinegirl

    Pristinegirl Well-known member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Threads:
    36
    Messages:
    3,085
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    ANFP
    No I argued that because of this, naturally the opposite sex's are for a cause and both are needed for a child, which you agreed on to btw (that homosexual couples may have genders from outside be closely related to the child). Thus, where the gender significance came in. This can also be seen on the quote below, which you emphasize:

    By the way the quote refers to social interaction, if you did not see that.

    I HAVE NEVER pretended anything and I NEVER said that we don't bring in extra help other than from our parents because I know that we do :S You are too quick to draw conclusions, I'm actually wondering if you simply want to provoke a discussion/rise.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  13. IndigoSensor

    IndigoSensor Product Obtained
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2008
    Threads:
    762
    Messages:
    14,154
    Likes Received:
    1,297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Enneagram:
    1w2 sx/so/sp
    I really hate to say this sayta, but you are pushing it a bit.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  14. OP
    Satya

    Satya C'est la vie
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Threads:
    540
    Messages:
    7,278
    Likes Received:
    546
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INXP
    Gender roles are also a teleological jump. But you provided some naturalist data to support your argument, so I had to agree that having a male figure available in some form for young female children seemed important to their health. I still don't agree with gender roles.

    I'm not trying to provoke anything. I'm simply pointing out why I see your arguments as teleological.
     
  15. OP
    Satya

    Satya C'est la vie
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Threads:
    540
    Messages:
    7,278
    Likes Received:
    546
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INXP
    It was very poor judgment on my part to use names in this thread.
     
  16. IndigoSensor

    IndigoSensor Product Obtained
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2008
    Threads:
    762
    Messages:
    14,154
    Likes Received:
    1,297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Enneagram:
    1w2 sx/so/sp
    You wouldn't have to say name because (well at least for me) you could still tell who you would be talking about. I do agree with the majority of your views, but you don't seem to back down easily. I understand why you get mad when people run away from aruments, I get annoyed as well. But when someone recripocaes, you dont respond with very much sensitivity (however unintentional), and it comes across as mean to others.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  17. OP
    Satya

    Satya C'est la vie
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Threads:
    540
    Messages:
    7,278
    Likes Received:
    546
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INXP
    I agree, and I think I'm going to close this thread for now.

    It stirred up people rather than focusing on teleological reasoning.

    Thread closed.
     
    #17 Satya, Mar 15, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2009
    acd likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page