Survival and teleology
“For an organism is self-maintaining, self-developing and self-reproducing structure, and that is to be essentially a teleological unit.”
No it isn’t! The excerpt is from a lousy antiquated text I have to read for my metaphysics class. I’m tired of people assuming that from survival follows teleology. The logical conclusion of this kind of reasoning is that there is some kind of teleology to evolution.
I haven’t been very clear. There is nothing intrinsically teleological to an organism, not even a will to survive – no matter what some folks seem to think. It may be the case that some organism have a will to survive, and there could be considerable work done in regards to expanding on and explaining this, but to say species such as squirrels are inherently survival inclined is as foolish as saying that species such as humans are naturally motivated, or not lazy. It is simply the case that most of the squirrels we come into contact with have survived (no kidding), and those that lacked this ‘nature’ just didn’t survive. It’s a conflation of genus and universals otherwise, and then attributing final cause to them. In laymen’s terms, we are circling the shots in the barn door after we fired them, and claiming to be perfect shots. If it follows that there are teleological ends to everyday organisms like squirrels, it is not much of a stretch to claim such ends for other organic entities such as the world, solar system, and universe. Outside of a theological explanation, such an appeal is quite obviously foolish. Which brings me to Darwin and the theory of evolution, and why I think it’s important we stop misinterpreting it. It is controversial because it allows us to deny teleology. This is why those that try and attribute 'whys' to things like being (religious folk mostly) have such a problem with it. Unfortunately it is very rarely read as such, except by those in the field. Survival is based on coincidence, and or circumstance, rather than nature, or teleology.
I'm still not clear I was very clear.
No it isn’t! The excerpt is from a lousy antiquated text I have to read for my metaphysics class. I’m tired of people assuming that from survival follows teleology. The logical conclusion of this kind of reasoning is that there is some kind of teleology to evolution.
I haven’t been very clear. There is nothing intrinsically teleological to an organism, not even a will to survive – no matter what some folks seem to think. It may be the case that some organism have a will to survive, and there could be considerable work done in regards to expanding on and explaining this, but to say species such as squirrels are inherently survival inclined is as foolish as saying that species such as humans are naturally motivated, or not lazy. It is simply the case that most of the squirrels we come into contact with have survived (no kidding), and those that lacked this ‘nature’ just didn’t survive. It’s a conflation of genus and universals otherwise, and then attributing final cause to them. In laymen’s terms, we are circling the shots in the barn door after we fired them, and claiming to be perfect shots. If it follows that there are teleological ends to everyday organisms like squirrels, it is not much of a stretch to claim such ends for other organic entities such as the world, solar system, and universe. Outside of a theological explanation, such an appeal is quite obviously foolish. Which brings me to Darwin and the theory of evolution, and why I think it’s important we stop misinterpreting it. It is controversial because it allows us to deny teleology. This is why those that try and attribute 'whys' to things like being (religious folk mostly) have such a problem with it. Unfortunately it is very rarely read as such, except by those in the field. Survival is based on coincidence, and or circumstance, rather than nature, or teleology.
I'm still not clear I was very clear.
posted by Nicholas @ 20.3.06
1 Comments:
hahahahaha
we just had this conversation
Post a Comment
<< Home