tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post3834275302906519817..comments2024-03-28T21:32:26.550+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: We (including Christians) need to fix our (implicit) metaphysicsBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-49075870749535602212018-02-11T08:15:56.739+00:002018-02-11T08:15:56.739+00:00@CCL - I don't think I can explain what I am s...@CCL - I don't think I can explain what I am saying within the framework you are using to enquire about it. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-11651399638638648132018-02-11T05:47:29.210+00:002018-02-11T05:47:29.210+00:00It seems that you are talking about the inherent t...It seems that you are talking about the inherent teleology necessary to a Christian outlook. But when I queried before, you seemed to reject that understanding. Of course, that might be because I asked from a non-teleological perspective, since I personally have no teleology.<br /><br />That is to say, I don't believe in any <i>fixed</i> distinction between 'ends' or 'means', only the quantitative difference in timescales (and hence causal horizon limiting awareness of retributive mechanisms, which are in reality infinite or coterminous with existence). So I assess teleology as being "valid" or "invalid" by whether it is infinitely <i>extensible</i>. That is to say, whether there is a point at which an ethic will run into the problem of diminishing/negative returns as the timescale (and hence retributive factors) increases.<br /><br />Teleology, to me, is simply a conceptual tool for making definable something that would otherwise defy categorization, by saying that there is an 'ultimate' purpose (and not saying whether it is ultimate in the literal sense of being a final outcome that occurs at some point in time).<br /><br />A Being doesn't "happen" at some given point in time...to the extent that an entity exists only at a given moment we tend not to call it a being. "Being" already implies an ongoing 'process'...but one that doesn't need to <i>change</i>. We can (and should) say the same of love...a love that is temporally limited is less a love.<br /><br />And perhaps it is more typical of software, but something that is no longer under development is dead. Unless someone else takes over development.<br /><br />I feel that this has significance to genuine conservation efforts, though.Chiu ChunLinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03519192610708043962noreply@blogger.com