We can never know what is going on in the OP's mind because he always tends to not answer our thoughts and posts:cry: — javi2541997
No matter. :cool: I just posed a question to think about. Philosophy is all about missing questions not 'truth'. It's aporia. — magritte
Can you be a little more specific? — Alkis Piskas
Having a lively imagination is no excuse to misunderstand what possible interpretations exist. Biological facts do not support a teleological interpretation. Period. — Benkei
No it isn't. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works to suggest we're programmed for a purpose — Benkei
That's not food for thought, that is a regression to Aristotlean teleology instead of taking into account what we know now about evolution. — Benkei
A thousand apologies. — Ranjeet
Now for the philosophical point (remembering that I don't care what Catholics think, I only care about what makes sense - which seems very different). — Bartricks
Oh, do you regret not living in Peoria? — Bitter Crank
That sounds about right to me. Scientists freely determine the bounds and setup of controlled observation and analysis. In between, the experiment proceeds in the physical world in real time independent of humans. Experimental details are indeterminate to start until analysis succeeds in sifting planned or fortuitous often statistical information from the data. So the simplified question becomes what small part of nature can be described by any logic.
What would nature do in our absence, could there possibly be any conditions for either determinism or free will? — magritte
Anal intercourse more common among straights than gays? Not likely. 80% of gay men report anal intercourse while about a third of straights report anal intercourse. And the third of heterosexuals reporting anal intercourse ay not be your typical couple in Peoria or suburban Atlanta: — Bitter Crank
I think we're on the same page. A philosophy book should tell us about the/our world. It can do this be focusing on the 'how' of our seeing it, and phen. sometimes does this well (Heidegger's hammer is cool!). I'm mostly just griping that constructing the world from the inside out doesn't make much sense. Yet it's taken as the 'obvious' starting point. It's like 'well clearly Venusians run the world, but we don't know if it's through the CIA or the Girls Scouts of America.' — Pie
