OMG dude. You think "purpose" doesn't exist. I went through a process of explaining to you that "purpose" in the human intentionality sense doesn't have to exist in Nature for the generic meaning of the term as an "end" or "aim" to apply. That because there are substances in Nature which exhibit regular patterns of behavior, this is evidence that ends/aims exist. If causality as such did not exist in Nature, then "one thing would not follow another except by chance" meaning that there would be no guarantee that cause A would produce effect B and not effect C, or D, or Z. That is the particular context in which I used the term. The fact that A produces B every time - or enough to state that temporality of such regularity is a non-issue - instead of C, or D, or Z, is an argument for the notion that something intrinsic exists within A that "points to" producing B, and hence the idea of a "final" cause, or end/aim, in the Aristotelian sense, i.e., teleology.
--
I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU
reply
share