202410060005 Status: #idea Tags: #philosophy #philosophy_of_science #morality # Even if teleological world views are wrong, they're more useful A teleological world view is one based on *telos*, or purpose. It orients itself around a higher good or value that we strive towards, and seeks to orient actions so as to attain this goal. A non-teleological world view, by contrast, rejects the ability to form these universal, overarching goals. It takes a scientific, rationalist view of the world: orienting action through observing reality and *building up* to some framework for action from the bottom up. One example of this would be judging actions on a moral basis by whether or not they align with Christ's teachings (teleological - the purpose of life is to be as much like Christ as possible), while a non-teleological morality would judge actions conditionally on situations, cultures, etc., without a universal orientation. While a non-teleological world view works well for raw data collection and inferential science, it falls short for any meaningful projects such as rearing a family, building a company, creating art, or designing a paradigm-breaking breakthrough in science. One needs to begin, continue, and end with a driving purpose in mind, otherwise there is no way to slog through the difficult parts of these journeys. The higher purpose is what gives the energy and the drive to raise children, for example. Otherwise we are simply left with a list of pros and cons, and the cons list is almost certainly longer. Classical: Man’s *purpose* demands *laws* which bind *man’s present state*. Liberal: *Man’s present state* allows us to induce *laws*. --- # References https://becomingnoble.substack.com/p/liberal-societies-dont-have-children?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1215941&post_id=149442807&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=day7j&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email