Final End of Man

[gatchalianexequiel]

Salvete omnes!
I am a current philosophy student in the Philippines and I will take up thesis writing. So we have to submit three perspective topics for our thesis. I have come up with two. Which are 1) Stoicism and its implications in modern depression and 2) Man's Final End. I need help in thinking for a third one concerning ethics. And mainly, I need help in finding a contemporary philosopher who philosophizes on Man's Final End. Can you give me names?

[Peter Kropotkin]

Salvete omnes!
I am a current philosophy student in the Philippines and I will take up thesis writing. So we have to submit three perspective topics for our thesis. I have come up with two. Which are 1) Stoicism and its implications in modern depression and 2) Man's Final End. I need help in thinking for a third one concerning ethics. And mainly, I need help in finding a contemporary philosopher who philosophizes on Man's Final End. Can you give me names?

K: perhaps, Francis Fukuyama.....

Kropotkin

[iambiguous]

Just out of curiosoity, how do you suppose the person who chose the topic "Man's Final End" might differentiate this from "the end of mankind"?

Why are the words capitalized? What is the philosophical significance of that?

And how might God fit into it? Given the prospect for immortality and salvation among the religious faithful, there would appear to be no end.

For either Man or Woman.

[Karpel Tunnel]

The End of Man...

hm, Andrea Dworkin.

[Fixed Cross]

Salvete omnes!
I am a current philosophy student in the Philippines and I will take up thesis writing. So we have to submit three perspective topics for our thesis. I have come up with two. Which are 1) Stoicism and its implications in modern depression and 2)

That could be interesting, and useful.

Man's Final End. I need help in thinking for a third one concerning ethics. And mainly, I need help in finding a contemporary philosopher who philosophizes on Man's Final End. Can you give me names?

Nietzsche and Kierkegaard set the conditions for this subject beyond religion. I don't think it is sensible to posit a final end though, not for a race of mortals. We're just here, existing, building lives that either satisfy us or don't; why and how they do satisfy is the question of teleology, but there isn't anything final about it, or if there hd tone Id suggest the end must be honour, if it is to finalize anything. We can reify ourselves, finalizing our own natures, but this isn't Man as denoting the entire species. I don't even think there is a single species of man - it seems we are rather a soil for different types of species, where a species I defined rather in terms of inclinations than of physical characteristics - I could hyperbolically argue that most four footed mammals are somewhat alike in shape, but their inclinations determine what species they are. Their temperaments, to use an ancient term.

-Name the animal. It has four legs and a tail.
-could be any beast.
-It is a regal beast.
-Ah, a lion.

Now of course there are also many physical characteristics by which you can single out an animal. E.g. It has tusks, it has stripes of such and such colours, it has horns, etc - but often enough it is the "human quality" by which we recognize an animal most instinctively.

If there is a final end to be set for man it must be to unite with his fellow animals, to succeed in unifying the ecosystem, integrating himself into it.

[iambiguous]

Salvete omnes!
I am a current philosophy student in the Philippines and I will take up thesis writing. So we have to submit three perspective topics for our thesis. I have come up with two. Which are 1) Stoicism and its implications in modern depression and 2)

That could be interesting, and useful.

Man's Final End. I need help in thinking for a third one concerning ethics. And mainly, I need help in finding a contemporary philosopher who philosophizes on Man's Final End. Can you give me names?

Nietzsche and Kierkegaard set the conditions for this subject beyond religion. I don't think it is sensible to posit a final end though, not for a race of mortals. We're just here, existing, building lives that either satisfy us or don't; why and how they do satisfy is the question of teleology, but there isn't anything final about it, or if there hd tone Id suggest the end must be honour, if it is to finalize anything. We can reify ourselves, finalizing our own natures, but this isn't Man as denoting the entire species. I don't even think there is a single species of man - it seems we are rather a soil for different types of species, where a species I defined rather in terms of inclinations than of physical characteristics - I could hyperbolically argue that most four footed mammals are somewhat alike in shape, but their inclinations determine what species they are. Their temperaments, to use an ancient term.

-Name the animal. It has four legs and a tail.
-could be any beast.
-It is a regal beast.
-Ah, a lion.

Now of course there are also many physical characteristics by which you can single out an animal. E.g. It has tusks, it has stripes of such and such colours, it has horns, etc - but often enough it is the "human quality" by which we recognize an animal most instinctively.

If there is a final end to be set for man it must be to unite with his fellow animals, to succeed in unifying the ecosystem, integrating himself into it.

Possibly.

The irony here though is that the next Big One -- asteroid, comet, super nova, massive CME, gamma ray burst etc. -- could render extinct not only all philosophers but everyone else too.

This sort of thing seems to be built right into whatever is responsible for the existence of existence itself.

And what on earth is the significance of "Man" in a context as gigantic as, say, the multiverse?

Isn't that why we invent the Gods?

In fact, as some suspect, one of them might bring about the Final End of Man.

Down here anyway.