>>723550971
You're mistaking a description of physical reality for a philosophical position.
Morality and ethics might be human constructs, but that doesn't make them any less "real" or meaningful.
>>723551306
>No, the original anon did.
Yeah, I meant to reply to both of your posts.
>Where is this purpose that you are talking about? You cannot show me empirically that it's anywhere to be found. You also can't deduce it logically. (you) as a subject are imposing "purpose" to a perceived regular pattern with no right to do so. Is the purpose of Earth to go around the Sun? No, I don't think so.
The quotation marks are there for a reason. It is to indicate that I'm not using the actual definition of the word, but that the meaning I'm trying to convey is similar enough that it's the best term to use.
And comparing the Earth rotating the Sun to blood transporting oxygen is a false equivalency. Heliocentrism is a result from simple physics, evolution has an "unintelligent designer" in the form of natural selection, which is what I meant with
>insofar as a natural process without agency can have intent
Natural selection has a "goal" (note the quotation marks) in that it gives results that trend in a certain direction, with the specifics differing vastly in different situations. Gravity is a process that fits in a single equation, of which the result is universally "Heavy object attracts lighter object"
