/lit/ - Literature

>>20572224
>Not 'economic' per se, but certainly material, anthropological, sociological etc. You absolutely can. And it HAS been done

All of these still miss the point, the final cause is in man. There are no cathedrals on Mars. The Cathedral didn't have to be in a specific form, it didn't even have to be a "cathedral". A silver ceremonial goblet can't be explained that way.
So we can say that silver is causa materialis, that it has a certain shape of the cup causa formalis, that it was made by a certain silversmith or craftsman causa efficiens, and that this cup will be used for church ceremonies causa finalis. But none of these causes tell us why specifically a silver goblet as a sacred object? We can come to this answer only when we combine all four causes, and when we realize that there must have been a man who devised the ultimate cause of the cup, according to formal and material causes, where the idea of the cup as something that could potentially be, as something that can potentially be “introduced into being.
This is where your idea fails, this is what I also said by you not understanding free will and consciousness

>>12130709
He was right about a lot of stuff,

Heidegger got there first though, and provided a much deeper analysis of what was going on with Tech. Also, if one doesn't buy H's claim that a god can save us, Heidegger's analysis was ultimately much more pessimistic.

>>12111593
You all didn't listen.