/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19354773]

How could one define a subject non-teleologically?

[Anonymous No.19354775]

On a scale of 1 - Nigger

[Anonymous No.19354777]

>>19354775
dasein checkem

[Anonymous No.19354778]

>>19354775
And where do you lie on that scale?

[Anonymous No.19354781]

>>19354778
1

[Anonymous No.19354786]

>>19354778
Nigger++++
In other words, I am a Supernigger.

[Anonymous No.19354834]

>>19354773
Literally look around you OP, we've been defining every subject non-teleologically for at least the past century. As a basic example, take the individualistic democratic citizen and voter - what's the teleology there? He just exists and exercises his right to vote (or not).

[Anonymous No.19354907]

>>19354773
This anime is so autistic

[Anonymous No.19354923]

>>19354907
Yeah, it's my favorite anime.

[Anonymous No.19355004]

>>19354773
Self referentially. It’s the trilemma.

[Anonymous No.19355071]

>>19354773
>How could one define a subject non-teleologically?

Teleology suggests Aristotelianism. From worldly affairs, it appears that God is no Aristotelian - rather than one grand narrative, God appears to be having one big nightmare at worst or a common dream at best.

"The subject is but another form, another spook in God's dream." The only telos there is that subject is just another illusion, akin to the anime girls that pop up in our dreams every now and then. The subject is just another form. There is nothing that guarantees a dream character will somehow flourish like an acorn into an oak tree.

So to the question, "How could one define a subject non-teleologically", the answer is "One defines a subject non-teleologically by denouncing Aristotle as just another spook and by entertaining the possibility, that God's mental forms likewise are just other meaningless spooks - God is a nihilist."

> The answer in summary "God the Object is a nihilist."