Re: Why we must kill God, after we kill Aristotle

From: J. R. Molloy (
Date: Sat Feb 17 2001 - 20:40:32 MST

> Further, where a series has a completion (telos),
> all the preceding steps are for the sake of that.

And where no series have any completion (reality),
all preceding steps continue on into eternity, past and future.

> Now surely as in intelligent action, so in nature;
> and as in nature, so it is in each action,
> if nothing interferes.

"if nothing interferes" certainty subverts unnatural intelligence,
resulting in unintentional inconsequence. So it doesn't really matter. τΏτ

> Now intelligent action is
> for the sake of an end; therefore the nature of things
> also is so.

"Can'st not conceive intelligence beyond teleology? Hast not heard of
--H. Tsktsk Dorito

> Thus if a house, e.g. had been a thing
> made by nature, it would have been made in the same way
> as it is now by art (techne);

Human nature has indeed produced houses, but Aristo, baby, ya gotta see
some the new stuff they're putting up in California, and check out the
hi-techne art out in Vegas. It looks unreal, if not unnatural.

> and if things made by nature
> were made also by art, they would come to be in the same
> way as by nature.

Not necessarily. You see, humans opt to create (or to cause the evolution
of) synthetic chemicals, artificial medicines, and so forth. These are
things made by human nature, and by artists, scientists, and experimenters
who don't always decide to do things the way nature does them.

> Each step then in the series is for
> the sake of the next; and generally art partly completes
> what nature cannot bring to a finish, and partly imitates
> her.

Yeah, well, let's not get too sexist about it, OK? BTW, if the first step
is for the sake of the next, who stepped for the sake of the first?

> If, therefore, artificial products are for the sake
> of an end, so clearly also are natural products.

As I understand it, life does not evolve "for the sake of an end," it
organizes into increasingly complex adaptations which bring increasingly
complex systems to fruition, and it does this at an accelerating rate.
Furthermore, once in a while people do things for no end at all... just an
irrational and random act of kindness. (Like this message.) So, by the
same token, if humans can act senselessly, then of course, so can nature.

> The relation of the later to the earlier terms of
> the series is the same in both.
> - Aristotle, Phys. II, 8

Well, naturally!

> And the science which knows to what end each
> thing must be done is the most authoritative
> of the sciences, and more authoritative than
> any ancillary science; and this end is the good
> of that thing, and in general the supreme good
> in the whole of nature. Judged by all the tests
> we have mentioned, then, the name in question falls
> to the same science; this must be a science that
> investigates the first principles and causes;
> for the good, i.e. the end, is one of the causes.
> - Aristotle, Metaph. 1, 2.

There you go again, Aristo. Someone on this list may accuse you of
circular arguments. But who could disagree that "the end is one of the
causes." Like going back to the place where you began and seeing it as if
for the first time, like deja vu over and over again, like wow... upload
this before it gets to the second principles and causes... for the causes
came from the same ends... which never proves the falsifiability of
uncertainty principles... perhaps it takes a super sentience to understand
that life without care transcends the desire to preserve it... according
to William Blake, "who seeks to bind herself a joy... does its winged life
destroy... who touches beauty as he flies... lives in eternity's sunrise"
... as some people have pointed out, the buddha nature that goes around,
resembles closely the buddha nature that comes around... so, the super
sentient entity would rather die than have to think about survival... what
a drag.

"Everything today has its point, but the art of making yourself count for
something the greatest: more is demanded to produce one wise man today,
than seven formerly; and more is needed to deal with a single individual
in our times, than with a whole people in the past."

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:44 MDT