You note in your full paper Setiya's use of the terms "telic" and "atelic" and Hacker and Landau's 'regulatory ends' (I might add Kauppinen's 'telic perfectionism'). You use the terms "completable" and "non-completable". Would you say that "telic" and "completable" are [near-]synonyms? Same for atelic/non-completable? Telic and atelic don't exactly roll off the tongue; nor are they commonly understood. I'm interested in these concepts (in the context of the philosophy of retirement).
I found your paper interesting, as retirement is another angle on "post-work". Thanks.
You note in your full paper Setiya's use of the terms "telic" and "atelic" and Hacker and Landau's 'regulatory ends' (I might add Kauppinen's 'telic perfectionism'). You use the terms "completable" and "non-completable". Would you say that "telic" and "completable" are [near-]synonyms? Same for atelic/non-completable? Telic and atelic don't exactly roll off the tongue; nor are they commonly understood. I'm interested in these concepts (in the context of the philosophy of retirement).
I found your paper interesting, as retirement is another angle on "post-work". Thanks.
Right. good points about how temporality does or doesn't fit. Thank you very much for taking the time to respond. I'll ponder some more.