timtyler comments on 'Is' and 'Ought' and Rationality - Less Wrong

2 Post author: BobTheBob 05 July 2011 03:53AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (70)
Tags: rationality naturalism oughts

Comments (70)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: timtyler 06 July 2011 12:30:47PM *  1 point [-]

When you talk about "the illusion of teleology in nature", that's exactly what I was getting at (or so it seems to me). That is, teleology in nature is merely illusory, but the kind of teleology needed to make sense of rationality is not - it's real. Can you live with this?

The usual trick is to just call it teleonomy. Teleonomy is teleology with smart pants on.

Comment author: BobTheBob 06 July 2011 04:45:42PM 0 points [-]

Thanks for this - I hadn't encountered this concept. Looks very useful.

Comment author: timtyler 06 July 2011 05:18:40PM *  0 points [-]

Similar is the Dawkins distinction between designed and designoid objects. Personally I was OK with "teleonomy" and "designed". Biologists get pushed into this sort of thing by the literal-minded nit-pickers.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit