Monte Johnson examines the most controversial aspects of Aristiotle’snatural philosophy: his teleology. Is teleology about causation or explanation?Does it exclude or obviate mechanism, determinism, or materialism? Is it focusedon the good of individual organisms, or is god or man the ultimate end of allprocesses and entities? Is teleology restricted to living things, or does itapply to the cosmos as a whole? Does it identify objectively existent causes inthe world, or is it merely a heuristic for our understanding of other causalprocesses? Johnson argues that Aristotle’s aporetic approach drives a middlecourse between these traditional oppositions, and avoids the dilemma, frequentlyurged against teleology, between backwards causation and anthropomorphism.Although these issues have been debated with extraordinary depth by Aristotlescholars, and touched upon by many in the wider philosophical and scientificcommunity as well, there is no comprehensive historical treatment of the issue. Aristotle is commonly considered the inventor of teleology, although the preciseterm originated in the eighteenth century. If teleology means the use of endsand goals in natural science, then Aristotle was rather a critical innovator ofteleological explanation. Teleological notions were widespread among hispredecessors, but Aristotle rejected their conception of extrinsic causes suchas mind or god as the primary causes for natural things. Aristotle’s radicalalternative was to assert nature itself as an internal principle of change andan end, and his teleological explanations focus on the intrinsic ends of naturalsubstances – those ends that benefit the natural thing itself. Aristotle’s use of ends was subsequently conflated with incompatible’teleological’ notions, including proofs for the existence of a providential ordesigner god, vitalism and animism, opposition to mechanism and non-teleologicalcausation, and anthropocentrism. Johnson addresses these misconceptions throughan elaboration of Aristotle’s methodological statements, as well as anexamination of the explanations actually offered in the scientific works.
ARISTOTLE ON TELEOLOGY
Monte Johnson examines the most controversial aspects of Aristiotle’snatural philosophy: his teleology. Is teleology about causation or explanation?Does it exclude or obviate mechanism, determinism, or materialism? Is it focusedon the good of individual organisms, or is god or man the ultimate end of allprocesses and entities? Is teleology restricted to living things, or does itapply to the cosmos as a whole? Does it identify objectively existent causes inthe world, or is it merely a heuristic for our understanding of other causalprocesses? Johnson argues that Aristotle’s aporetic approach drives a middlecourse between these traditional oppositions, and avoids the dilemma, frequentlyurged against teleology, between backwards causation and anthropomorphism.Although these issues have been debated with extraordinary depth by Aristotlescholars, and touched upon by many in the wider philosophical and scientificcommunity as well, there is no comprehensive historical treatment of the issue. Aristotle is commonly considered the inventor of teleology, although the preciseterm originated in the eighteenth century. If teleology means the use of endsand goals in natural science, then Aristotle was rather a critical innovator ofteleological explanation. Teleological notions were widespread among hispredecessors, but Aristotle rejected their conception of extrinsic causes suchas mind or god as the primary causes for natural things. Aristotle’s radicalalternative was to assert nature itself as an internal principle of change andan end, and his teleological explanations focus on the intrinsic ends of naturalsubstances – those ends that benefit the natural thing itself. Aristotle’s use of ends was subsequently conflated with incompatible’teleological’ notions, including proofs for the existence of a providential ordesigner god, vitalism and animism, opposition to mechanism and non-teleologicalcausation, and anthropocentrism. Johnson addresses these misconceptions throughan elaboration of Aristotle’s methodological statements, as well as anexamination of the explanations actually offered in the scientific works.