Could someone explain teleology to me? I mean, how does one tell

There isn't a telos of a rotten tooth, a tooth rotting is the failing of a tooth to fulfill its telos.

>>8758442
Does the rotten tooth lack a telos, or is it merely failing to fulfil its telos?

>>8758495
it cant very well fail if it doesnt have one, can it

just read the definition online it's very clear

>>8758502
Relax, I was just trying to get anon to clarify his misstatement.
do you not know how to be Socratic?

>>8758495
But I just answered that in the very thing you are quoting.

>>8758512
I think I see now- you were saying that a rotten tooth has no telos as a 'rotten tooth' per se, but only as a 'tooth', right?

>>8758526
Yes.

>>8758272
A telos is a thing's ends. A rotten tooth's ends is food for disgusting microorganisms, and to cause extreme pain and spread to nearby teeth in the worst case and fall out in the best case.

A rotten tooth has no concrete telos like a regular tooth does, because it is a tooth that has been rendered fairly useless in its end (to chew, and in other animals to defend and attack though humans can still do this.)

>>8758555
>>8758564
You two seem to disagree.

>>8758571
A rotten tooth does not have a real telos, because it is inherently a thing that failed its possessor. To other things it has a telos though.

An oak seed's personal telos is to grow and then reproduce, but if the tree were grown for future lumber harvesting then once it is harvested it has failed its telos (kind of, this isn't the best example) and has been given a telos by another.

>>8758580
Or a male chick: it's telos was to grow and reproduce as well, but since it is given a telos by another its existence is a failure.

>>8758272

I agree OP

Someone please explain teleology like I'm a retard

>implying I'm not

>>8758580
>A rotten tooth does not have a real telos, because it is inherently a thing that failed its possessor. To other things it has a telos though.
What makes its telos towards its possessor nobler than its teloi towards other things? What are some examples of these teloi towards other things? A telos towards its bacteria, to serve as food?

>>8758591
Just possession, that's all. I don't really care.

You could go Lockean and just argue that the person that's body created the tooth ought to have full say to do what they will with the tooth, which generally means keeping it to chew. Of course, this argument is garbage because it is the mother that allowed for the 'baby teeth' to grow by producing it and feeding it (hopefully). Then those teeth were used to produce a person's rooted teeth. So, the teeth belong to the person's mother (ad infinitum).

Teleology is pretty bad just because it is always reductionist and rarely has any actual philosophical value. It also makes the 'is-ought' fallacy in presuming just because it belongs to somebody or itself then it should be dictated by them. So it's masturbatory, but it's not the kinky kind. It's moderate-paced dead-fish stroking of the shaft and head at a constant pace.

>>8758616
>It also makes the 'is-ought' fallacy
Many terms are value laden. To call something a watch is already to judge it because it necessarily comes with ideas of what is and not a good watch, and what the purpose of a watch is. If you decide to make a watch and it's shit, you could say something like
>just because there is an idea of a good watch does not mean I ought to make one when making a watch
This is true, but it doesn't make your watch any less shit. In the same way with being a human, you could decide to go against your telos because of the is-ought distinction but it doesn't matter because you are still a failed human being.

File: Blind_Men_Appraising.jpg (487KB, 1536x1217px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 1536x1217px

>>8758272
Seems like not much more than one's customs projected onto a thing

You could say fire's purpose is to warm one's home in the winter, and another person would say it's to light one's way in the dark. Seems pretty pointless to argue about