Lunchtime conversation in the Murphy household, led largely by my sons, both of whom happen to be around for the first time in ages, focused on deontology and teleology. But it descended to this, almost inevitably.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Wonderful, I saw them as a young man live in Liverpool – probably more or less at the same time.
Reminds me of an old joke.
Rene Descartes walks into a fish and chip shop and asks for cod and chips. He is, naturally, asked ‘would you like salt and vinegar on that?’ He rubs his chin while thinking about it then says ‘I think not’.
And vanishes.
🙂
Familiar with teleology but not the other (deontology).
But my conclusion from past studies is that you cannot rely on any one theory or ‘lens’ to explain the world (this is just my reflection, prompted by your post, not a comment on a discussion I was not party to).
You have to pull in the concept of idiography (the uniqueness of things) as well as considering the nomothetic (overarching laws). I think that life is a mixture of these – and others. The key is to accept this and manage the tensions – which I think we fail to do most of the time.
It’s about context and situation, a place in time. It’s about variety – not just uniformity. I always thought that the noble aim of politics was to manage these phenomena.
Silly me. Apparently not it seems.
I think there was agreement with you here.
I hope they watched the football first: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i21OJ8SkBMQ
Very good….
Both videos are essential viewing for all students of philosophy.
Both are, in fairness, really clever