Teleology part 2. 

“Ontology concerns what the situation can imply for being.

Teleology concerns how it is possible that we may have come to that situation. “. 

         In a way we can see this situation in the context of what two philosophers have said; Kierkegaard has been noted to comment on how philosophy tends to be too much concerned with the past, and Badiou, Who mentions how the philosopher is really concerned with one thing. 
Now I don’t know if these are exact quotes are the exact terms that they said but I don’t think that really matters except for people who want to argue. But is not difficult between these two views to see it’s coincidence with my definitions above. For if there was any sort of end of philosophy, and this is to say that if anyone even considered the possibility that there may be an end of philosophy or an end of history as we may have been talking about for the past 10 or so years, then we might be able to see where this indeed has occured. For those who still might be pondering whether they’re really was an end of philosophy or what that actually meant or the mistake about some end of philosophy or the end of history, it would be probably most correct the place them in a theater of agency, an arena where there is a central thinker that considers things and develops definitions of terms to perpetually displace or institute that central thinker. 
Let’s just take it as an actual event, that at some point in time the end of philosophy and the end of history actually meant something and continues to mean something; that’s all we need. In this case then that moment becomes signifier, A station, A marker whereby ontology is set itself as the chief goal of philosophy itself, such that philosophy becomes the justification of being, to thereby allow for the precipitation of itself from itself. The ontology whereby such a precipitation maybe noticed has there for diversified, such that no longer Are we residing within a single arena, no longer can we refer to a unitary reality of the common human potential. In fact we can no longer even refer to such precipitative ontology as ontology; in order for there to be a difference it cannot mean the same thing nor reduce just some third ontology; even Kierkegaard notices this of the reflection of the reflection of the reflection , albeit he was speaking of a different sort: We must be speaking of a teleology. We must be speaking of two orientations upon the object. A Teleology that’s become how it is possible that we arrived at the situation of ontology. But again see that this is not epistemological, but it is exactly logistical. 

Advertisements

One thought on “Teleology part 2. 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s