Aristotle on Teleology
The following is a short assignment I turned in for my class. Footnotes are omitted.
Aristotle’s argument for teleology is a disjunctive syllogism. Things are either a result of a coincidence or an end. Things are not the result of coincidences. Therefore, they are a result of an end. Aristotle considers a problem of explaining why things happen. Rain happens but it does so not for the sake of the crops, which do benefit from the rainfall. If it can be said that it happens out of necessity, that is for material causes devoid of final causes, why should it not be said for all else that we think would have an end, like teeth? According to this view, the reason these things are observed is because those with those incidental features happened to survive. Aristotle’s argument against this is to say that it cannot explain why these things, if they are accidents, why they happen regularly. Coincidental causes, as they are causes without an end for the sake of which they strive, cannot be regular as their results are potentially infinite and indeterminate. And materialism, causes without an end to strive for, are coincidental causes. But regularities happen, such as teeth coming up in such a way and rain coming down regularly in some seasons. And the regularities of these occurrences is explained by their striving towards an end. Rain in seasons where they do not regularly occur can be counted as coincidences, and heat in the winter can also be counted as a coincidence, but that is only so against the backdrop of regularity of rain in the winter and heat in the summer, which presumes ends and had to be assumed by the proponents of the materialist theory. So teleology exists.
Comments
Post a Comment