Re: KT boundry event


r norman wrote:
On Tue, 02 May 2006 07:55:24 +1000, John Wilkins <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

r norman wrote:
...

Frankly, this is not a subject I am particularly interested in. My
daughter is an expert in 18th century German philosophy and in
translation, widely published in both areas. I already presented
some of her comments which she based on the limited information on
this subject I shared with her. I, myself, am interested in
comparative animal physiology something rather far afield from this
discussion. It is quite apparent that you can continue responding
indefinitely, mostly by repeating the same information even more
insistently that we have already seen and rejected. So, officially, I
give up. I don't yield, I merely stop.

UC seems to be a semantic creationist. Words are created fully formed with
only one meaning...

And in the off chance that my daughter should ever see this thread, of
course I meant 19th century!

The term 'purposiveness' was created to serve a particular need by
specialists (biologists). That meaning was the original one, the first
one that you cited earlier. As not infrequently happens, others got
hold of it and started using it without quite understanding the fine
distinction it was intended to convey. I assure you that it has
absolutely NOTHING to do with the philosophical term Zweckässigkeit,
and I have given you the reasons. The fact is that there has been
confusion makes it all the more important to pay close attention to
what I presented. I am well aware that these terms have been confused.
Your 'resident expert' is familiar with these terms in their confused,
degraded form. Going back and researching the origins of these terms
helps to lift the fog of confusion. I frequently find this to be
invaluable in clearing up questions of this kind.

It is plain that Sachs and Kant are using the term Zweckmässigkeit to
refer to some aspect of nature or the world that 'looks like' what
today goes by the name 'intelligent design' (what we could call
'rational arrangement'). It is abundantly clear that 'purposiveness'
cannot refer to some aspect of the world or nature, because it refers
quite specifically to biological BEHAVIOR (seeking light, food, mates,
etc.), not something static or essential. What a plant or animal DOES
can be characterized as 'purposive'. The plant or animal cannot itself
be 'purposive'.

So, those who claim that they can see 'design' in the world have a
point. That's indeed what it looks like, but it is Nature's design.
Adaptation through natural selection does indeed create 'designs':
eyes, wings, teeth, fur, etc. The fact that these things are never
perfect, however, shows their natural origin.


.

Relevant Pages