L
levinas12
Guest
Is there a philosophically significant distinction between “ends” and “purposes”?
For example, Aristotle talks about “ends” in nature. But the Aristotelian “ends” were not the “purposes” of anyone (there is no creator god in Aristotle - not even a demiurge).
The question of “ends” as distinguished from “purposes” is perhaps the defining theme of ancient Greek philosophy - for that matter, one could make the case that it is the defining theme of philosophy for the past 2500 years.
If there are no “ends” in nature, then all that’s left are free-floating “human” purposes which, in the final analysis, have no justification in the larger cosmic context.
Since “natural” ends do not necessarily imply “purposes”, the question transcends banned topics.
In fact, I would argue that, without being able to talk about “natural” ends, it would be impossible to engage in the discussion on many of the existing threads on this forum (e.g., same sex marriage).
For example, Aristotle talks about “ends” in nature. But the Aristotelian “ends” were not the “purposes” of anyone (there is no creator god in Aristotle - not even a demiurge).
The question of “ends” as distinguished from “purposes” is perhaps the defining theme of ancient Greek philosophy - for that matter, one could make the case that it is the defining theme of philosophy for the past 2500 years.
If there are no “ends” in nature, then all that’s left are free-floating “human” purposes which, in the final analysis, have no justification in the larger cosmic context.
Since “natural” ends do not necessarily imply “purposes”, the question transcends banned topics.
In fact, I would argue that, without being able to talk about “natural” ends, it would be impossible to engage in the discussion on many of the existing threads on this forum (e.g., same sex marriage).