I have a Question

[Freeman]

Hi

Briefly , the fact that ontology is impossible forces itself upon our conviction.With the disappearance of ontology,what becomes of all those meta-physical a prior judgments from which a philosophical foundation of religion was to be deduced ? If it is impossible to demonstrate the nature,and even the existence,of matter,how should it be possible to demonstrate the nature and existence of God,soul,creation,revelation,and the number of notions connected therewith ? How will it be possible to recognise either the purpose or the origin of anything,physical or metaphysical ? How it is possible to recognise the Ego ? As the course taken by modern science in the investigation of Nature doesn't tend to improve the interests of a priori demonstration.Teleology will have to share the fate of Ontology.The theories of natural selection , of the struggle for existence, will ill accord with the theory that the adaptation of every detail of creation to a certain purpose was the raison d'etre of its existence . If the theories set up by Darwin,and followed up since his time , be made the basis of our reflections,the result will be further inroads in the most universally adopted notions . I fear me that our notions of development and progress will stand a poor chance , what do you think ?

[sean]

Briefly , the fact that ontology is impossible forces itself upon our conviction.With the disappearance of ontology,what becomes of all those meta-physical a prior judgments from which a philosophical foundation of religion was to be deduced ? If it is impossible to demonstrate the nature,and even the existence,of matter,how should it be possible to demonstrate the nature and existence of God,soul,creation,revelation,and the number of notions connected therewith ? How will it be possible to recognise either the purpose or the origin of anything,physical or metaphysical ? How it is possible to recognise the Ego ?

The obvious truth of the human condition is that it's impossible to verify the extent and fundamental rules of our universe. Besides, the notion of a universal consciousness "ergo we are all connected" is not demonstrable. Causality only matters on a timeline. The idea of gods necessarily having to be omnipotent is just a cultural assumption informed by centuries of Middle Eastern theological arguments, there are plenty of cultures that are chock-full of stories about the gods getting tricked or deceived and often even killed.

Different sentience's have different 'axioms' regarding their engagement within existence, neither ontology nor teleology has anything necessarily to do with God or religion.

Teleology will have to share the fate of Ontology.The theories of natural selection , of the struggle for existence, will ill accord with the theory that the adaptation of every detail of creation to a certain purpose was the raison d'etre of its existence . If the theories set up by Darwin,and followed up since his time , be made the basis of our reflections,the result will be further inroads in the most universally adopted notions . I fear me that our notions of development and progress will stand a poor chance , what do you think ?

Teleology lost steam long time ago probably with the advent of Newtonian mechanics, Spinoza urged to consider natural things with the eyes of a scientist. Darwin's theories showed that things exist not to please our aesthetic feelings or to demonstrate the refinement of the Almighty's taste, but to satisfy the extremely earthly needs of vegetable organisms. The notion of social and moral progress is nonsense. It's not even vaguely scientific.

[Sasimoyhui]

The obvious truth of the human condition is that it's impossible to verify the extent and fundamental rules of our universe. Besides, the notion of a universal consciousness "ergo we are all connected" is not demonstrable. Causality only matters on a timeline. The idea of gods necessarily having to be omnipotent is just a cultural assumption informed by centuries of Middle Eastern theological arguments, there are plenty of cultures that are chock-full of stories about the gods getting tricked or deceived and often even killed.

Different sentience's have different 'axioms' regarding their engagement within existence, neither ontology nor teleology has anything necessarily to do with God or religion.



Teleology lost steam long time ago probably with the advent of Newtonian mechanics, Spinoza urged to consider natural things with the eyes of a scientist. Darwin's theories showed that things exist not to please our aesthetic feelings or to demonstrate the refinement of the Almighty's taste, but to satisfy the extremely earthly needs of vegetable organisms. The notion of social and moral progress is nonsense. It's not even vaguely scientific.

Is this denying lookism and sexual selection? Lol

[sean]

Is this denying lookism and sexual selection? Lol

Darwin considered sexual selection to be different from natural selection. Because sexual selection in the humansphere is dysgenic.