questions: regarding the presence, origin, reason of being, nature and finality of every constituent object and finally the Universe itself, perceptible and intelligible, separately and in unison, as well as the empiric links between
cause and effect, where the ‘enigma’ seizes to be.
However, due to its subjectivity the finality perspective remains open to personal interpretations.
For example, if the paper-cutter for Sartre and the statue for Aristotle are fabricated with the intention of a precise function in the mind of its maker, then why stop limiting the logic underlies the concept of existentialism calling for impose itself on man: a point of departure for process to a human maker and not apply it to a natural phenomenon, such as a tree or the sun or even the universe, to a cause-maker? The basis of such a perspective is that we can verify the existence of the human maker but cannot verify the existence of a universe-maker. The universe, can well be argued, is an auto-productive system of auto-dynamism, but the question of what generates such a production and dynamism rests to be validated.
The incapacity of science, at the moment, to provide with such evidence does not annul the probability of a hypothesis of such maker proclaimed by the vitalist-finalist model.
Meanwhile, the tree and the sun, galaxies and the universe are food for knowledge and thought.
Examples of value judgments
We refer to the paper-knife in the example of Sartre’s logic of existentialism. This is an example of reflection, between man and the universe and what a philosopher can conclude in his concept to justify his atheism. The notion of
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24