/lit/ - Literature

>>3726055
What am I supposed to do? I hear by apologize for trying to be humble. There. You got me.

As well, argumentum ad logicam does not apply here. I thank you for your direction to it, but the entire reason this talk of fallacy was that I said that morality is not what the masses think. I am pretty sure that is something that is indeed relevant to an ad populam fallacy.

>>3726048
Actually, it seems to me that most anons (may or may not be you) here are trying to discredit me on the basis that "Lol final causes.
I seriously wonder how people can still believe in that." or "teleology is basically the most retarded thing everyone has ever thought of," implicitly saying that I am an idiot without actually saying WHY I am an idiot. Same to you you have yet to say WHY I am a moron and say instead that "You are a moron because you are a moron," ironically sounding as if "moron-nes" was an intrinsic value within me (a teleological idea if there ever was one.

>>3726031
I am sorry for my ignorance. English is not my best language, so I apologize for mixing up "A moral nihilist" and "I don't believe in morality." As well, forgive me for not knowing, but I always thought logic was logic and informal fallacy was still a fallacy and should not be used in any argument whatsoever.

>>3726022
Whom should I ask?

Or am I being dense and are you making a joke?

>>3726011
Wait.

Somehow I am a moron because
A: You disagree with me,
and
B: My age?

Sounds like ad hominem to me.

>>3726000
How can you have a system of morality without an idea of objective good? I mean, I guess you could be moral by the definition of what society says, but that is just argumentum ad populam. To me (actually searching for an answer, not trying to make fun), a "Moral nihilist" sounds like an oxymoron.

>>3725957
I am indeed sorry for misreading what you wrote. I do apologize for trying to talk about Aristotle as if OP has not read him, but my first impression of the "tryhard" OP was that he was someone who had just discovered what a nihilist was, and therefore believed himself to be "Darker and Edger" by talking on /lit/. As well, when talking to people in real life, I also make the casual assumption that amongst my age group, (High School Seniors) that the vast majority of them are not well versed in Philosophy. I do apologize. Lastly, I fail to see how common sense is a bad thing amongst those who search of truth. Sounds vaguely elitest if I do say so myse... oh wait. This is e/lit/e.

>>3725921
Oh, Plato is a lot cooler that Aristotle, I will give you that. And a lot better of an orator as well. However, I do still say that Aristotle is just Plato + Common sense.

I have to have a "superiority complex" to think Aristotle is cool (right in most things)? You must be new here.

I would call you a rage quitter and then give you a copy of Aristotle's metaphysics so you can learn about final causes, intrinsic purposes, and other cool shit you ignore.

>>3714839
Can you please direct me to some modern, popular, teleologically interested philosophers? I was not trying to be rude, but from Occam to the present most popular philosophers; Hume and co., seem to have left any sort of Final Cause or Teleology in the dust.

>>3714806
Petitio Percipi anybody?

Fact:

The end of the common use Aristotelian thought and Metaphysics was the worse thing that ever happened to western philosophy.

>>3705193
I agree! The purpose of the book is to be read, not to finish it. "Final" here is meant as "Highest" or "Most important"

>>3705138
Well, not from what I can see. Truth is objective (lets take that as a premise for the purpose of this post), and thus a things purpose is inherent within itself. Existentialism is manufacturing a meaning, what I am saying is that meaning is inherent.

>>3705100
A Final Cause is a things final purpose or meaning. You are using it in the modern sense of the word, but that is not what it meant here.

>>37050
Even Aenesidemus's logic here is self destroying. He says, using logic, that we cannot use logic. He says, trying not to contradict himself, that any axiom is untrue; the principal of self contradiction itself is a axiom. He trys to prove that nothing can be proven. He trys to show that nothing can be shown.

>>3704974
So it is bad to take certain things as axioms? Certain pieces of logic must be taken on trust, least logic not exist at all. "It is better to be right that to be wrong," "You cannot contradict yourself" and so on. The foundation of logic is axioms and thus trust in certain principals that are only proved by the fact that as soon as you argue with them, you agree with them.

>>3704969
I think you misread what I said. The final cause was what all said mystics and such were searching for. As well, please don't be so general with your accusations on religion. It makes them hard to refute.

>>3704950
Because you disagree with my conclusion? How very scholarly of you.

>>3704926
Why not?

>>3704923
The Final Cause of a thing is it's meaning. The meaning (point, purpose) of a pencil is to write. The final cause of humanity had been the search of all thinkers, mystics, sages and churches; but in my mind (as well as aristotle's) the final cause of mankind is to meet something which is by nature pure actuality and thus makes possible all potentiality. This is the "Unknown God" of classical greece; the ultimate theistic being. This conclusion has led myself to the work of Thomas Aquinas and has made me a Catholic.

>>3704873
Just because something is inevitable, like entropy, does not mean that entropy is the purpose of the thing created. “It is as if a man were asked, 'What is the use of a hammer?' and answered, 'To make hammers'; and when asked, 'And of those hammers, what is the use?' answered, 'To make hammers again'. Just as such a man would be perpetually putting off the question of the ultimate use of carpentry, so existentialists and all the rest of us are by these phrases successfully putting off the question of the ultimate value of the human life.” -GK Chesterton

>>3704873
Actually a pencil, being carbon, would rot some point or another.

>>3704814
Please, Troll. Go learn some Aristotle. Death is no more a final cause than a pencil breaking or becoming too small was the point of making a pencil in the first place. Sure, men have the potentiality of death, but that must be acted upon by some external actuality (murder, old age, ect) to become an actuality in of itself.