"This is not what nature intended"

Is this a logically sound sentence? Does it make sense philosophically?

>>24501031 (OP)
Kinda
Nature intended for woman to have loads of hair in their pussies, it's biologically necessary and to deny it is to blaspheme the human form that took thousands of years to be masterfully crafted. Jungle hairs are absolutely beautiful.
From a more religious point of view we are made by God in his righteous image and to tempt and toy around with what he created us for mere commercial aestheticism dug into our heads is to defy his authority and rot his creation. A hairy pussy is a truly divine thing.
Oh wait was this about philosophy or something...

>>24501031 (OP)
What's wrong with it?

It makes sense if and only if you attribute intentionality to nature. Naturalists largely don't, so they wouldn't agree or would phrase it differently.

>>24501031 (OP)
It's just a way for people to say "this will clash with our biology, which is not adapted for it"

>>24501051
Nature made girls more beautiful than women. Men and women both subconsciously acknowledge this, which is why women make themselves appear more childlike either for their own benefit or to attract more and better men.

Nature intended men to have foreskin. But Jews, Muslims and Americans deny God's great design and choose to mutilate their children.

>>24501056
everything

>>24501031 (OP)
i find that the idea of "nature" is too broad. "nature" is whatever anyone wants it to be

>>24501031 (OP)
People assign anthropomorphized reasoning to nature. If the “intent” is as minimal as survival, nearly everything you attempt to explain using nature’s intent is wrong. Did nature “intend” for your knees to give out or is it just because they last long enough for you to fuck which is the real goal? Bad designs follow the “good enough” bodge principle, not some natural mastermind of agency.

Think of it this way; did nature intend for you to be a philosophizing virgin? Why are you equipped with enough intelligence to think about useless questions and not enough sense to put benis into bagina? If nature has a purpose you are its dead end.

>>24501260
>more and better men
>better
>pedophilic husks of stunted development, spiritual Jewry and jealous impotent rage that can only be doled out to children because you'll get pretzel-folded and stomped in your cunt if you brought that attitude to anyone else in real life
You can't argue with morality and aesthetics, the behaviour, consequences and psyche of pedophilia is reflective of its nature. Sedition, degeneracy and destruction as a cope for mediocrity. The lashing out of the least and last of all men against a world that owed them nothing by raping children.

>>24501031 (OP)
Yes. /thread

>>24503556
elaborate

>>24501031 (OP)


NO, BECAUSE «NATURE» IS NOT ENTITY WITH AGENCY; IT IS NOT AN ENTITY AT ALL.

THE CORRECT FORMULATION WOULD BE: «THIS IS NOT WHAT GOD INTENDED.»

>>24501031 (OP)


NO, BECAUSE «NATURE» IS NOT AN ENTITY WITH AGENCY; IT IS NOT AN ENTITY AT ALL.

THE CORRECT FORMULATION WOULD BE: «THIS IS NOT WHAT GOD INTENDED.»

>>24503670
M O T H E R N A T U R E
SHE
IS
EVER BEING BORN
EVER GIVING BIRTH

>>24503681
GOD NUTS
IN THE UNIVERSAL WOMB
AND MOTHER NATURE
ETERNALLY PLOPS OUT
INFINITE VARIETY

>>24501031 (OP)
It is logically and philosophically sound when it supports my position. It's a fallacy when it does not support my position.

>>24501455
What's wrong with you is that you are a botched abortion
Summer can't end soon enough JFC

>>24501031 (OP)
There are two questions here: can nature have intentions, and can the speaker determine these intentions?

For the first, I do not think nature has a purpose. If it did, and this speaks to the second, I believe it beyond the reasoning capabilities of humans. We are byproducts of nature, enclosed within it's bounds of logic; I picture the vector space of all possibilities as nature, where the basis consists of the bare rules for reality. We can use science to find these basis vectors, but to view the vector space itself, we would need to see beyond it, requiring another dimension (ie, vector) of logic.

>>24501031 (OP)
it's perfectly cromulent if that's what you're asking

Humans are not separate from nature, there is nothing that "nature did not intend"

>>24504825
Thinking on this further, discovery of the basis would be equivalent to finding nature's limits. Therefore, natures "intent" could be captured since all intended outcomes are within this area. The question then becomes one of limit verification: how can one know if the discovered basis is complete? Unless they were capable of escaping nature completely, they could not; this leads to a paradox because we cannot escape nature while within it.

Humans can only perceive a subspace of the entire vector space, due to limitations of biology; think, for example, of a 4D structure and you will find it beyond you.

>>24504825
The history of the universe as best understood by modern science describes a series of "creative horizons" where the possibilities of physical interactions dramatically expanded. One of these horizons occurred approximately 380,000 years after the Big Bang when the universe cooled and expanded enough for atoms to form, which allowed for the emergence of stars and galaxies. The first stars forged the heavier elements, expanding the possibilities of chemical interaction yet further, making possible the formation of rocky planets such as Earth. The formation of rocky planets in turn made possible the emergence of biological life and its endless and ever-expanding diversity of interactions. And the history of life is filled with creative horizons such as The Great Oxygenation Event (which enabled aerobic metabolism and more energetic and complex life) Eukaryogenesis, Multicellularity, the Cambrian Explosion, the colonization of land, and the evolution of sociality and intelligence. Likewise with the history of humanity.

The universe has a trend towards "increasing complexity," meaning greater creative freedom and novelty. The Cosmos perpetually grasps beyond the immediate actuality of "now" towards unrealized possibilities.

The question is what is the expression of this aconscious Eros of the universe as conscious intention?

It is Curiosity, the desire for The Unknown, the urge to create, explore, discover, learn, connect, relate, and love.

>>24504844
Charles Sanders Peirce had a limit theory of knowledge that is roughly "Truth is what a team of dedicated researchers would agree upon after an investigation lasting an infinite amount of time." Truth is an ideal limit converged upon via ongoing inquiry, but never arrived at. This simultaneously allows for the possibility of gaining knowledge while absolute Truth is an impossibility.

Unless you simply perform indefinite integration on the vector space, in which case you save a literally infinite amount of work.

>What happens when an integral integrates itself?

>>24503553
And that's why women don't shave or use makeup.

...oh, wait.

>>24504866
>>24504896

I believe you misunderstood my description of nature as a vector space. I was trying to say that the base rules of reality are completely arbitrary; keep asking why to any law and the final layer must be arbitrary. From these base layers, reality can be constructed, metaphorically like the basis vectors of a vector space.

In this case, there's no actual driving force, just a "space" (not 3D, but a set of all possibilities) defined by these rules. The specific time order of these possibilities is of no matter, since time itself is contained in it.

There is also no absolute truth to reach, just comprehension of some part of the space based on your constraints. The human mind, for instance, can only conceive of and perceive a subspace of reality (Kant realized this too). It would be foolish to extend this limited understanding and generalize for nature, including those incomprehensible aspects always beyond us.

>>24501031 (OP)
What does one even mean by nature? In my way I'm pretty cultivated, especially with respect to music, and live in luxury by world standards, more or less by accident. I suppose it's vanishingly rare for a guy in a car to do that wink thing to a neighborhood feral cat from the driver's seat, at least on the cosmological scale of things.

>>24504835
Likewise, there's nothing that it did intend. One can side one way or another, but in general i incline to the astronomer's point-of-view, which is of immense desolation dotted by very few islands rich as ours.

>>24504934
I understood your metaphor and line of inquiry and many of the ideas involved with it. You are philosophically literate and fluent.

Your major point is that because we are a part of nature we cannot view nature from "outside" as some objective God's eye view that would confirm whether our model is "complete" or not. It's like a shadow trying to know the hand that casts it. For example we might encounter a period of relative stasis where our model of reality doesn't change much, giving the illusion of completeness, when in fact we could be caught in an explanatory equilibrium where a fuller model of reality requires radically different concepts that makes such a framework extremely difficult to imagine based on the existing one. Your discussion about needing another dimension of logic to view the vector space is related to this, but suggests a more ultimate limitation: to truly transcend this would require to transcend nature.

As you note Kant maintained the same premise: we can never know the thing-in-itself because our experience of the world is always filtered through the human mind: inherently and inextricably subjectively positioned.

My replies were an attempt to suggest that you may missing an approach that jives with some of your thinking but has a radically different foundation, that is the result of both scientific evidence and a precisely defined ultimate metaphysical principle meeting.

A thing-in-itself has independent existence: it is what remains when something is removed from its dynamic relationships with the world. It is what is truly timeless and permanent: what resists all change. And of course this is intimately related to the Aristotelean notion of substance. Thus independent existence, timelessness, and permanence are all mutually implicating concepts.

Your concept of the vector space of all possibilities being timeless (as all possible events at all possible times exist together in this space) with temporality being secondary to this Platonic set jives very nicely with this entire category of philosophical thought.

But what if independent existence and timelessness is the ultimate fiction? What if we start with radical temporalism instead? Now we're in the current of process-relationalism which of course includes Heraclitus, (to some extents) Hegel, Peirce, Whitehead, Deleuze, Stengers, Gare etc.

>>24505311
Just as permanence and timelessness are mutually implicating concepts, so is change and relationality. For example "motion in itself" is a completely meaningless concept, as motion is defined as a relationship between multiple entities. Instead of there being an unchanging "ground" that is the foundation of relational change, entities are inherently situated in a web of relationality and interaction and this is the fundamental nature of reality.

If change is the nature of all things, and calculus is the mathematical study of change, could it be possible that the fundamental theorem of calculus which describes integration and differentiation as inverse operations of the same process be _one expression_ of a first metaphysical principle?

It works really, REALLY well. The picture here >>24504896 describes some of the intuitive relationships involved with considering the FToC as a first principle. But the biggest insight comes from applying it as a principle of conscious perception.

We percieve change in two mutually necessary and interdependent "reference frames" or fundamental perspectives: instantaneous change in the ever-unfolding flex of an omnipresent experiential moment (differentiation) and cumulative change over time (integration.) Differentiation is the mode of our contemporary sense-experience, *our exposure to novel information,* while our experience of time is inherently narrative in nature: experience of stories of change over time.

The attempt to "transcend language" and have purely "direct experience" of the world as an exercise in folly, the same as the attempt to "transcend sense-experience." Both perspectives are mutually fertilizing and necessary for the evolution of effective understanding.

Our experience of instantaneous change is the mutational aspect of consciousness, altering our minds by exposure to novel data. The mode of narrative, of cumulative change is the mode of selection: items of experience (past, present, and future hypotheticals) are integrated into a coherent goal-directed narrative according to the selection criteria of one's desires. Consciousness uses the same creative alchemy as biological evolution, AND as described this is the creative alchemy of existence itself, the reason for the universe's profound trend towards increasing complexity and freedom (increasing variety of possible interactions.)