In the introduction it is claimed that chaos theory and its notion of an attractor is an example of teleology being applied in modern science, together with a reference to "the Encyclopedia of artificial intelligence". I can see how some scientists in the field of Artificial Intelligence could have used chaos theory in a teleological way. However, this is an extremely specific application of chaos theory. To claim that chaos theory and (strange) attractors are teleological is simply very very wrong. Chaos theory is a mathematical field of study and it makes absolutely no claims whatsoever on "why things are the way they are". As any field in mathematics, you have a bunch of assumptions, you define things and through logic you then make all sorts of conclusions. Naturally, not every mathematician or scientist using mathematics is a non-teleogical person and thus some might then end up trying to apply there thing in a teleological way. One example of a mathematical finding that has been widely (mis)-used in teleological way is the "Golden ratio". Yet, there is no mathematical field that can only be applied teleological way. One of the most well-known things about Chaotic systems, is the sensitivity to initial conditions. In general (or at least to my knowledge in ecology) it is NOT claimed that systems are structured in a certain way because this allows them to show chaotic behavior. Maybe some 'teleological' scientist in the field of artificial intelligence claim that brains are organized in a certain way with the purpose of showing a chaotic unpredictable (because of sensitivity to initial conditions) behavior. More teleological even, they might claim chaotic systems are mathematically possible, because it allows our brains to show unpredictability and complex behavior. However, such a view does not exist in other scientific fields using chaos theory. Instead, chaos theory is simply used as a handy way to get a better understanding of natural systems; as a lot of natural systems appear not to be stable and chaos theory is very useful in describing those unstable systems. Just as people might say: "There is air so we can breath", they might say: "There are chaotic systems with (strange) attractors so our brain can show complex behavior". However neither air nor chaos theory and (strange) attractors are in any way teleological, it is merely the way people use it that might be teleological. Furthermore, attractors are way more general thing than chaos theory. The notion specific to chaos is that of 'strange attractors' not attractors in general. This is another sign to me that the editors of this part were no experts on the subject. I will remove this example by next week, unless someone comes up with a better suggestion. : Laurensjean ( talk) 21:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
2A00:F41:5849:2EE2:0:3D:6E4F:4701 ( talk) 18:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I would say everything from there on in the intro should be removed. Thomas Nagel is not a biologist. The side debate about using teleology to teach is a different subject, and very debateable obviously, but anyway not something to shove in here.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 19:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I want to take up the points about Hegel and dialectical materialism:
How is Marxism considered to be at odds with Darwinism? In some Fascistic sense maybe? Marxism is supposed to be about an economic-social science; Darwin about biological science. Marxist teleology is as much political stance as it is analytic, if it even is analytic at all. In fact Marx's precise invocation of Hegel was in order to expunge the latter's idealist teleology and his focus on 'identity' (hence Marx's book 'the Poverty of Philosophy), and then to take synthetic (dialectical) method and apply it to material history. This current article is not only incomplete and limited in its discussion of teleology, but misleading about other topics as well. There is a debate to be had about Marxism and teleology, but this has not been written here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.24.251.240 ( talk) 10:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The author has learned to use some buzzwords correctly, but has no sense of what final cause and teleology are about. If, as Aristotle says on the subject, "what comes before is for the sake of what comes after," then perhaps this confusing article will be a stepping stone towards a more nuanced approach which would address, among other things (in no logical order): randomness; the problems of knowing the future; the distinctions (developmentally) between living and non-living things; the exclusive prominence of efficient causality in naturalism (especially in theory of biology, and as contradicted by:); the teleological or normative aspects of the idea of law (social or natural); the teleological nature of the theory of evolution (the end being the development of the unit of evolution); and therefore, the absolute inability to describe nature without using teleological language. janaka 14:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-- 174.7.56.10 ( talk) 15:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Markbassett ( talk) 19:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I Hope I don't cause offence by putting up the "cleanup-confusing" tag in, but after reading this article, I still don't know what teleology actually is/means/is the study of (while the opener obviously defines it, it doesn't really give much context for understand what it ACTUALLY means). Indeed, I found more clear definitions/context from reading the talk page, e.g. "Rather, teleology is about meaning or purpose being behind a PROCESS. Thus, a philosopher like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who argues that consciousness and God drive evolution, is making a teleological argument." I have no education in philosophy so I don't feel confident to try and edit this myself, but there are too many examples of the application of teleology, things pointing out how teleology differs from other philosophical thought processes and sub-divisions of teleology. I still don't really get what it is! Bilz0r 09:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It is flawed to use the word sight to debate final cause in the example of eye and sight (chickens and eggs). It confuses the definition of final cause. Final cause is the '...ness' of something.
What is it that makes a table a table what is tableness - what makes a pen a pen - what is pen-ness? Many say "pens write - and that's pen-ness" - "just like eye-ness is sight, eyes see".
Pens do not write and eyes do not see, pens dribble ink in a controlled fashion when brought into contact with a surface that they were designed to or coincidently can dribble on - and thus in combinatioon with other forms they can do something called write - the pens final cause (pen-ness) is to work with other causes to write - which in turn has it's own formal cause - communication. We would't say pens communicate.
Eyes do not see - eyes detect light - better eyes detect light better and focus it better / faster / clearer etc. Eyes in combination with brains 'see'. Primitive eyes in combination with primitive brains sense and induce reaction without thought - is that sight? Eye-ness is not sight. Final Cause of a thing is not end-cause it is a composite of other other forms of causein a heirarchy of abstractions.
Apply the suffix 'ness' to things and you begin to understand final cause.
62.25.109.196 11:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed my contribution on "American philosophy" because of possible copyright issues. It's part of a larger piece on teleology in American philosophy, and I have become aware that it may be protected by copyright. Rats 03:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
These two sentences conflict:
Well, at least I think they do. I don't understand the article at all anyway and I have an exam on epistemology in a few hours. Anyone up for a Simple English translation? 218.102.218.7
I've added a section which those socialised in the analytic tradition in philosophy tend to overlook: that there is also a specifically 'middle european' angle to the teleology debate - namely Kant, Hegel and the 'dialectical' tradition. It's a big debate, mine is a short addition, but it does at least emphasise this one point: the notion of the 'present as history'. ( Brianshapiro raised this point a while back - perhaps this is a start.) best, ifs-ffm
Dear Wiki -
Thanks for moving closer to the center on this term. It is can be quiet alarming to see words being high jacked or whose meanings are diminished by the 'world view' filter of a few --- and then passed on to others as definitive…. Although (in my opinion) there are some tinges of post modernism I do applaued you in your efforts...
Can someone help me with this...
I wanted to include some very recent, interesting comments by one of the more note worthy philosophers of modern time… Antony Flew is the David Hume of our day….And he recently (December 2004) stated, "What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together," he said. "The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of
intelligence."….. I mean this stuff is hot off the press, and Flew is note worthy….
Wiki-P has noted some philosophers who are not in the middle of the teleology debate today... I hope Wiki-P is "cool" as they want us to believe…. If you're going to have links to these other philosophers, include Flew and let the chips fall where they may, vice framing definition of teleology in a 'preferred' world view….
Don't filter knowledge through your singular world view - to the exclusion of the conclusion of the observations of some of the best minds known within the last 50 years… fear
HELP
I'm removing this, because I find it particularly troublesome:
I think something like this would be a better formulation:
I don't like this formulation either, because I think it does violence to human psychology. (I may explain this later.) But I think it may be an improvement.
-- Ryguasu
If we applied pseudo giraffe teleological explanation to horses, shouldn't they already have developed 8' legs in order to jump over 10' fences? Could nuke bombs have been developed to curb overpopulation? Could preemptive war ben devised for similat noble purposes?
The articles for teleology and teleological argument are confused as to what "teleology" means, or at least what it has meant in the philosophical sense. Stating that God creates life spontaneously is not "teleological". Rather, teleology is about meaning or purpose being behind a PROCESS. Thus, a philosopher like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who argues that consciousness and God drive evolution, is making a teleological argument. Other philosophers and thinkers who have made "teleological arguments" are Aristotle, who phrases it in terms of "final cause", Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who talks about reality driving towards perfection in the Absolute, and Karl Marx, who offers a historicist teleology which describes a final state of human history that we're being driven to. I believe certain religions like Zoroastrianism have teleologies that talk about a process in nature driven towards a meaningful goal. Use of the concept "teleology" in any other way, is either new to me, or misunformed. Please, someone correct these articles! Brianshapiro
I am so delighted to find Wonderful Wikipedia
Ray K
Of the hundreds of Wikipedia articles (thousands?) that I've read, this aricle is the best single answer to the question "what are the shortcomings and limitations of Wikipedia?" Any authority this article might otherwise have is obliterated by its lack of organization and clarity. Teleology is an elementary subject in philosphy (it must be, because I was asked to define the term on my very first test for Intro to Philosophy), so despite the ramblings presented here, there's gotta be some simpler, more cohesive way to define the term. I'm testifying here in the hopes that the "experts" who read this will bear in mind the true purpose of Wikipedia-- mostly, this is a first source, a quick reference for amateurs who need to know something on the fly, or at most, a first step into deeper research. So please, if people consistently tell you that your writing is obtuse or unclear, leave Wikipedia authorship to someone else.
Hi! I don't know if anyone is still editing this page but one question I had was about the claim: "Teleological philosophy stresses essence before existence, form before being"--it is not clear to me that teleological theories necessarily assume essence before existence--Aristotle, maybe. Also, the second claim "form before being" is confused; for the Greeks form was pure being (as an immaterial unity) but it is also true that material objects had being, but it was a lesser or inferior way of being because of its determinate nature. The question was the degree of being a particular substance had.
Great to see the discussion!
Numberthreefourfive ( talk) 06:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Metaphysical naturalism and teleology are mutually exclusive, but aren't opposites. For example, a person can reject teleology by believing that there's no design or purpose in nature, but can also reject metaphysical naturalism by believing in "supernatural" things, like mind/body dualism. For example, I believe that the mind is metaphysically distinct from the brain and can even survive death. However, I also believe that the mind emerges "naturally" from the brain, instead of being designed by God or having some purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.37.31 ( talk) 02:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the following for now:
Far from being a revival of teleology, Brandon Carter's anthropic principle is a very elegant sidestep of the Copernican Principle. To quote from Carter himself, certain observational aspects of apparently exotic behavior could in principle have been predicted by conventional theory (without resort to exotic theories), "However, these predictions do require the use of what may be termed the anthropic principle to the effect that what we can expect to observe must be retricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers (Although our situation is not necessarily central, it is inevitably privileged to some extent)." ("Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology", Brandon Carter, presented 1973 at the IAU Symposium at Krakow).
No teleology there at all. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
"Carter has protested that such teleological readings "are quite different from, and even contradictory with, what I intended"." - the Anthropic principle page states. You were right to take it out. I lately restyled the page, but left the data more or less as found. You (or someone) have also taken issue with the teleology v naturalism contrast. Perhaps the citations need checking... Redheylin ( talk) 23:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The Teleology and science section needs major work. As it is, you could probably replace the whole thing with "Some people think telology may have a place in science - here are some books to read about it in" without losing any information. Wardog ( talk) 10:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
My revisions of this article were prompted by reading a handful of student papers who all plagiarized this site - and all made the very same errors that the article makes. As a consequence, my students came away with an understanding of the topic that was at best impoverished and at worst completely wrong. As many of the discussions imply, this article is in desperate need of revision on the basis of a careful study of the history of teleology and its role in contemporary thought. I had attempted to put a disclaimer in at the start of the article, but it was quickly erased by some "monitor". I have subsequently revised the introduction to give the reader a sense of the different ways that teleology can be used (something effaced in the original article). The original article equated teleology with only one (Christian) version of the theory, and it gave no sense of the broader conceptual framework in which teleological theories are understood. Overall, this article highlights everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. A good scholarly discussion of a complex theoretical subject cannot be a single, monolithic article that attempts to "converge" on the truth. It effaces the complexity and instructive disagreements that are a healthy part of academia. Daphne-3 ( talk) 19:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Daphne-3
While writing the last post, my corrections to the teleology article were deleted; the article reverted back to its impoverished form. It seems the only way to provide a better version is to post it in here (which no one really reads). See below. The main issue that I attempted to correct, which was summarily rejected, was that not all forms of teleology involve "purpose" or "design" (in the sense that requires an Intelligent Designer) and that some teleological theories do not even claim that their final causes are not ontological but only heuristic devices. That was subsequently rejected as an edit despite the fact of the matter.
This is just one more example of the major problems with this mode of conveying scholarship. If someone does not like your version, regardless of the truth, it will be deleted in favour of his. (It's a good thing Darwin didn't try to publish his theory of evolution by natural selection on Wikipedia!)
"Teleology (as the Greek telos suggests) is the study of ends. Some teleological theories hold that ends are part of the causal structure of the world or some part of the world (e.g. living things), while others hold that final causes are useful "heuristic" devices. On the latter view, ends are not really operative in the world; rather, by thinking of things as if they were designed for an end we can better discover the true (efficient) causes of things. Not all teleology implies "purpose" or "design" (in the sense that requires an Intelligent Designer), for example Aristotle believed that ends are present in nature (that natural processes occur "for the sake of" an end) but famously denied that this requires an intelligent planner (see Physics 2.8, 199a20-35, 199b27-9). Moreover, not all teleology implies a global teleological view of the universe where every part is adjusted to some overall purpose. For example, Aristotle (in contrast to Plato) held that bile lacks a function: this is supposed to show that we should not look for ends in all things alike (Parts of Animals 677a12-18). This should be borne in mind in what follows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daphne-3 ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Daphne-3 ( talk) 21:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Daphne-3
In a subsequent exchange, the person "monitoring" this page explained that he deleted my edits because they were based on "personal opinion" and were not "good for Wikipedia". I question the whole process involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daphne-3 ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Should a neo-Aristotelian account (see Veatch's Rational Man) be taken into account here as a modern view of teleology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.16.92 ( talk) 07:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Is this section really needed??????? 59.96.217.51 ( talk) 11:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
What if you claim, as science does, that the inherent purpose and final cause for all energy existing is entropic and ends in heat death of the universe? Sanitycult ( talk) 06:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
It might be a good thing if we could start gathering relevant references on the topic of teleological ontology, which is a branch of philosophy which tends to combine both teleology and ontology. ADM ( talk) 13:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
There is discussion at Four causes relevant to this article. It is being claimed that "Most modern theories of evolution are unabashedly teleological", and it is being argued that the article should remove references to modern science not being teleological and say the opposite. Comments please.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry; not sure about the mode of discussion here--first time posting on a Wikipedia talk page. Between reading higher priority texts for school, I'm very slowly reading Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene, which is filled with such text as this:
I searched through several chapters trying to find that line "there is of course no 'architect'" or something similar. I think that science literature written for other scientists (in the form of actual papers) couldn't afford to use such clumsy and potentially misleading metaphors, since it would be very difficult to have such a paper taken seriously by reviewers. Still, a lot of literature written for the layperson on the topic of evolution is written with a teleological bent, since that seems to make the seemingly self-organizing nature of evolution easier for the nontechnical to understand. Writers such as Dawkins should be more careful, or at least give more than two sentences to explaining this common misunderstanding of the mechanics of evolution.
Incidentally, why is the modern ideological fad of Intelligent Design not mentioned in this article? It seems closely linked. -- tsbertalan ( talk) 03:38, 2 Feb 2011 (UTC)
The previous version of this wiki page claimed the word appeared in http://books.google.com/books?id=awg_AAAAcAAJ&ots=-87UsEHG1l&dq=Philosophia%20rationalis%2C%20sive%20logica&pg=PP5#v=onepage&q&f=false . This work is in Latin so can't really be claimed to be a source for a word in English. The word that appears in the index of the book is teleologia but I have to admit I couldn't find it in the main text in any case. The earliest known English usage is in http://books.google.com/books?id=rYxYAAAAMAAJ&dq=Elements%20of%20the%20critical%20philosophy&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false . See page 113 for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.105.134 ( talk) 15:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
"Just as physical masses obey universal gravitational tendencies, which did not evolve, but are simply a cosmic "given,"This is fucking bullshit, if it's intrinsic it's not given, especially in the mind of the young gullible idiot who thinks that HE HIMSELF will live forever, tired of this Marxist crap, fucking die already -- 92.86.134.203
Hi, I would like to add to this article by setting teleological ethics apart from deontological ethics in a short and compact manner. This is my proposal:
I am hoping for some constructive criticism. -- Faust ( talk) 13:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, There are not many valid points in this remark, the rest is 'fucking bullshit', as the author luckily calls it himself. Regardless I have adapted the above in a way that I think will be more comprehensible to Zaspino.
I think this deals with everything, except for the quotation marks. Quotation marks are used when a word is being used in manner which is not normal to the word. Such as an explanation of that word. Hence they are well placed here both with 'good' (which is the topic of investigation of ethics as a whole) and with 'goal', since this takes the special meaning of cause: endcause. In normal life this is usually meant as aim and not as endcause.
If there are any serious constructive remarks, please let me know. -- Faust ( talk) 07:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: not all references show up here. They will on the project page. -- Faust ( talk) 07:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Your edit was called: this is complete bullshit, so I returned the favor. It is you who should keep it civil. Apart from that I have addressed ALL your points. The ones I didn't mention I made a reference of. So, if there are no constructive criticisms, I will place piece. -- Faust ( talk) 13:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: I do remember editing the wrong pieces at first. I didn't think it important enough to revert again. One can check the history regardless, so I didn't see much point. I would like to clearly state that I had no intention to make things appear other than they are. I would also like to say that I expect you to assume good intentions Zaspino. -- Faust ( talk) 13:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Theobald, I am asking you not to transfer problems from the nl.wiki to the en.wiki. Please do not twist the facts around again. Since Zaspino has stated no valid arguments and I have responded to all his arguments by giving more references. will now await to see if there will be any more arguments and if not I will place my piece. -- Faust ( talk) 07:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, come on. I am not going to type out 6 references. I have cited the truth, I have made proper references to it and most of these references can be found online. Please, if there is something that you think is incorrect, say so. I have refuted all of your previous remarks, so come out with a new one. -- Faust ( talk) 17:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Zaspino, you did call it 'fucking bullshit', as I have proven You can just follow the link. Other than that, we are retracing our steps. I have given sources for my opinion and you haven't. I have answered all your (unfounded) objections and refuted them. If you do not believe my sources, please, go get some sources of your own. This will be the last time that we will retrace our steps. So, which particular wording did you object to? -- Faust ( talk) 10:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Look, do you two really think I am going to fall for this? You and I both know the 'Zaspino' user knows all inns and outs of the wikipedia. If that user would have replied to the header under which the remakr was placed here there would have been no such remark. I do not believe that this was an accident. So, no, I will not apologise. 'Zaspino' should. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Faust (
talk •
contribs)
19:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I have read this proposed addition, and one of my concerns of this addition is one of undue weight. The theory seems marginal at first glance to me (total outsider of the field here). Using references to works other than dictionaries and other reference works, like papers and other scientific analysis or some books might help me (The term is "just defined" vs. the term is "in use in discussions"). I had a lot of trouble understanding the text. Too much "because, therefore, herewith" at the start of the lines is part of the reason for that I think. The bracketed text is also a bit much and making the text harder to understand. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 10:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the feedback. Perhaps I am that. Some words are crucial to statements, the ones you mentioned are not. Would you be willing to rewrite my piece in a more comprehensible language?
You and I both know you have a membership of said dictionary of philosophy Theobald. Further more: You are retracing our steps again and clearly not referring to the changes I made. Why are you always ignoring what is plain to see, apart from painting a false picture? @TheDj: Are you sure you found this piece, since none of the term you mentioned are in there?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I just decided to put this article on my watchlist. I had not seen this discussion before. Faust, may I ask you to state your late proposal after the discussion above?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Below my running through your proposed paragraph:-
Can you tell me if the follow version (which is not a proposal I am making or agreeing with, just a test at re-wording to see if I understand) would mean the same thing...
- A teleological ethics is any ethical system that proposes that behavior should be directed towards what is 'good' - either what is good for people, or "good" in some more general sense [18] In such ethics, what is 'good' is understood as a 'goal', and in some extreme versions of teleological ethics what is a goal is even equated with what is good. [19] Such teleological systems can be contrasted with those which understand that human action should be guided by universal laws which exist apart from humanity [20] which are sometimes held to be a necessary conditions for an ethics to be considered as a morality in the narrow sense [21]. In other words, teleological ethics are the opposite of deontological ethics, which focus on the manner of behavior (or intention) and not just what goals are being aimed at. [22].
I have to say that what I can follow does not seem correct to me. But at least let's first confirm if I've understood.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 17:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I will briefly respond to Andrew here and specifically not to Theobald, since he has declared not to be interested in the objective content of an encyclopedia if that includes my thoughts. I need to run so it will be short Andrew. Be careful of your POV (that all ethics is teleology). Teleology is clearly set out against non-causality in all fields. The reason for this is that causality only has bearing on the workings in the mind. So, what you are talking about is what I am talking about in the sense that some 'duties' can be grasped as 'goals' if improperly wielded. A duty is only that which connects a certain maxim to the will to make it a universal law simultaneously. This leaves the rulebase completely empty, thus being something else (non-causal). A detail of interest might be the term teleology: the logos of telos. This means the reasoning of an endcause; towards that endcause.
Editors here may want to look at Deontological ethics.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 19:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Bdongol has contacted me on my talk page because I have removed attempts to include a sub-section on teleo-reactive programs. I request Bdongol to explain the connection here on this article talk page, between teleo-reactive computer programs and teleology. Just to start with the obvious, these are different words, concerning entirely different areas of discussion. I see no connection apart from the Greek prefix? Should we also include a sub-section on every word beginning with the letters teleo?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 16:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Errm <struggles to be polite> who put all the teleology-and-modern-science stuff in? William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Interesting material can be found in Adaptation#Function and teleonomy.
Biology and cybernetics are full of feedback, homeostasis, regulation, feedback control... If anything, they are 'efficient causes'. They are not teleological in the sense of final causes, and Wiener went out of his way not to use teleological language in the title of his book. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 12:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I think in the article can be interesting the use of papers about the necessity of unreplaceable teleological terms and concepts in life sciences, but without any appeal to supernatural or metaphysics entities. I suggest the following Ernst Mayr's text "The multiple meanings of teleological":
http://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/Mayr3.pdf
"In spite of the long-standing misgivings of physical scientists, philosophers, and logicians, many biologists have continued to insist not only that such teleological statements are objective and free of metaphysical content, but also that they express something important which is lost when teleological language is eliminated from such statements."
It's interesting also that Mayr reports that Aristotle is often misinterpreted in the past as an anti-scientific cosmic teleologist but this interpretation is recently shown as inaccurate:
"Aristotle has been traditionally misinterpreted as a cosmic teleologist. Modern students of Aristotle are in agreement that he was not (Gotthelf 1976; Nussbaum 1978; Sorabji 1980; Balrne 1981). As already understood by Delbruck (1971), Aristotle's concept of the eidos, in the context of ontogenetic development, is in some respects remarkably similar to the modern concept of the genetic program. What the standard histories of philosophy write about Aristotle's teleology is unfortunately largely wrong, and must be ignored. I myself misinterpreted Aristotle before I became acquainted with the modern literature."
I suggest also the following volume:
http://books.google.it/books/about/Purposiveness.html?id=Ased-Na1uy4C&redir_esc=y
"Since the rise of modern thought and natural science, teleological discourses have been banished as explanatory tools in natural investigations. The various contributions to this volume set out whether, and in which form, it is possible to talk of purposes in nature, without resorting to an account requesting some intentional agent. The legitimacy of such a notion as that of internal teleology is addressed, together with the issue of what the term "internal"properly denotes. It is meant to be an alternative both to the position of those who assume that teleology in biology requires a dimension transcending nature itself and find in teleological language an argument for the intelligent designer, and to the stance of those who aim to eliminate teleology from scientific inquiry altogether."
Bye.
80.117.30.221 ( talk) 14:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Is it fair to say, *when it's misapplied*, that teleology is nothing but post hoc ergo propter hoc? I don't pretend to understand the ways teleology may be correctly applied; it just seems to me that common mistakes about it are sometimes made to sound more complex or more interesting than they really are. Maybe I'm missing the point. TooManyFingers ( talk) 19:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
As if this abstract subject weren't difficult enough to understand, the very first sentence of this article is incomprehensible:
Huh??? Captain Quirk ( talk) 16:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. -- Faust ( talk) 17:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
In the introduction it is claimed that chaos theory and its notion of an attractor is an example of teleology being applied in modern science, together with a reference to "the Encyclopedia of artificial intelligence". I can see how some scientists in the field of Artificial Intelligence could have used chaos theory in a teleological way. However, this is an extremely specific application of chaos theory. To claim that chaos theory and (strange) attractors are teleological is simply very very wrong. Chaos theory is a mathematical field of study and it makes absolutely no claims whatsoever on "why things are the way they are". As any field in mathematics, you have a bunch of assumptions, you define things and through logic you then make all sorts of conclusions. Naturally, not every mathematician or scientist using mathematics is a non-teleogical person and thus some might then end up trying to apply there thing in a teleological way. One example of a mathematical finding that has been widely (mis)-used in teleological way is the "Golden ratio". Yet, there is no mathematical field that can only be applied teleological way. One of the most well-known things about Chaotic systems, is the sensitivity to initial conditions. In general (or at least to my knowledge in ecology) it is NOT claimed that systems are structured in a certain way because this allows them to show chaotic behavior. Maybe some 'teleological' scientist in the field of artificial intelligence claim that brains are organized in a certain way with the purpose of showing a chaotic unpredictable (because of sensitivity to initial conditions) behavior. More teleological even, they might claim chaotic systems are mathematically possible, because it allows our brains to show unpredictability and complex behavior. However, such a view does not exist in other scientific fields using chaos theory. Instead, chaos theory is simply used as a handy way to get a better understanding of natural systems; as a lot of natural systems appear not to be stable and chaos theory is very useful in describing those unstable systems. Just as people might say: "There is air so we can breath", they might say: "There are chaotic systems with (strange) attractors so our brain can show complex behavior". However neither air nor chaos theory and (strange) attractors are in any way teleological, it is merely the way people use it that might be teleological. Furthermore, attractors are way more general thing than chaos theory. The notion specific to chaos is that of 'strange attractors' not attractors in general. This is another sign to me that the editors of this part were no experts on the subject. I will remove this example by next week, unless someone comes up with a better suggestion. : Laurensjean ( talk) 21:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
2A00:F41:5849:2EE2:0:3D:6E4F:4701 ( talk) 18:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I would say everything from there on in the intro should be removed. Thomas Nagel is not a biologist. The side debate about using teleology to teach is a different subject, and very debateable obviously, but anyway not something to shove in here.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 19:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I want to take up the points about Hegel and dialectical materialism:
How is Marxism considered to be at odds with Darwinism? In some Fascistic sense maybe? Marxism is supposed to be about an economic-social science; Darwin about biological science. Marxist teleology is as much political stance as it is analytic, if it even is analytic at all. In fact Marx's precise invocation of Hegel was in order to expunge the latter's idealist teleology and his focus on 'identity' (hence Marx's book 'the Poverty of Philosophy), and then to take synthetic (dialectical) method and apply it to material history. This current article is not only incomplete and limited in its discussion of teleology, but misleading about other topics as well. There is a debate to be had about Marxism and teleology, but this has not been written here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.24.251.240 ( talk) 10:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The author has learned to use some buzzwords correctly, but has no sense of what final cause and teleology are about. If, as Aristotle says on the subject, "what comes before is for the sake of what comes after," then perhaps this confusing article will be a stepping stone towards a more nuanced approach which would address, among other things (in no logical order): randomness; the problems of knowing the future; the distinctions (developmentally) between living and non-living things; the exclusive prominence of efficient causality in naturalism (especially in theory of biology, and as contradicted by:); the teleological or normative aspects of the idea of law (social or natural); the teleological nature of the theory of evolution (the end being the development of the unit of evolution); and therefore, the absolute inability to describe nature without using teleological language. janaka 14:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-- 174.7.56.10 ( talk) 15:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Markbassett ( talk) 19:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I Hope I don't cause offence by putting up the "cleanup-confusing" tag in, but after reading this article, I still don't know what teleology actually is/means/is the study of (while the opener obviously defines it, it doesn't really give much context for understand what it ACTUALLY means). Indeed, I found more clear definitions/context from reading the talk page, e.g. "Rather, teleology is about meaning or purpose being behind a PROCESS. Thus, a philosopher like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who argues that consciousness and God drive evolution, is making a teleological argument." I have no education in philosophy so I don't feel confident to try and edit this myself, but there are too many examples of the application of teleology, things pointing out how teleology differs from other philosophical thought processes and sub-divisions of teleology. I still don't really get what it is! Bilz0r 09:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It is flawed to use the word sight to debate final cause in the example of eye and sight (chickens and eggs). It confuses the definition of final cause. Final cause is the '...ness' of something.
What is it that makes a table a table what is tableness - what makes a pen a pen - what is pen-ness? Many say "pens write - and that's pen-ness" - "just like eye-ness is sight, eyes see".
Pens do not write and eyes do not see, pens dribble ink in a controlled fashion when brought into contact with a surface that they were designed to or coincidently can dribble on - and thus in combinatioon with other forms they can do something called write - the pens final cause (pen-ness) is to work with other causes to write - which in turn has it's own formal cause - communication. We would't say pens communicate.
Eyes do not see - eyes detect light - better eyes detect light better and focus it better / faster / clearer etc. Eyes in combination with brains 'see'. Primitive eyes in combination with primitive brains sense and induce reaction without thought - is that sight? Eye-ness is not sight. Final Cause of a thing is not end-cause it is a composite of other other forms of causein a heirarchy of abstractions.
Apply the suffix 'ness' to things and you begin to understand final cause.
62.25.109.196 11:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed my contribution on "American philosophy" because of possible copyright issues. It's part of a larger piece on teleology in American philosophy, and I have become aware that it may be protected by copyright. Rats 03:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
These two sentences conflict:
Well, at least I think they do. I don't understand the article at all anyway and I have an exam on epistemology in a few hours. Anyone up for a Simple English translation? 218.102.218.7
I've added a section which those socialised in the analytic tradition in philosophy tend to overlook: that there is also a specifically 'middle european' angle to the teleology debate - namely Kant, Hegel and the 'dialectical' tradition. It's a big debate, mine is a short addition, but it does at least emphasise this one point: the notion of the 'present as history'. ( Brianshapiro raised this point a while back - perhaps this is a start.) best, ifs-ffm
Dear Wiki -
Thanks for moving closer to the center on this term. It is can be quiet alarming to see words being high jacked or whose meanings are diminished by the 'world view' filter of a few --- and then passed on to others as definitive…. Although (in my opinion) there are some tinges of post modernism I do applaued you in your efforts...
Can someone help me with this...
I wanted to include some very recent, interesting comments by one of the more note worthy philosophers of modern time… Antony Flew is the David Hume of our day….And he recently (December 2004) stated, "What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together," he said. "The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of
intelligence."….. I mean this stuff is hot off the press, and Flew is note worthy….
Wiki-P has noted some philosophers who are not in the middle of the teleology debate today... I hope Wiki-P is "cool" as they want us to believe…. If you're going to have links to these other philosophers, include Flew and let the chips fall where they may, vice framing definition of teleology in a 'preferred' world view….
Don't filter knowledge through your singular world view - to the exclusion of the conclusion of the observations of some of the best minds known within the last 50 years… fear
HELP
I'm removing this, because I find it particularly troublesome:
I think something like this would be a better formulation:
I don't like this formulation either, because I think it does violence to human psychology. (I may explain this later.) But I think it may be an improvement.
-- Ryguasu
If we applied pseudo giraffe teleological explanation to horses, shouldn't they already have developed 8' legs in order to jump over 10' fences? Could nuke bombs have been developed to curb overpopulation? Could preemptive war ben devised for similat noble purposes?
The articles for teleology and teleological argument are confused as to what "teleology" means, or at least what it has meant in the philosophical sense. Stating that God creates life spontaneously is not "teleological". Rather, teleology is about meaning or purpose being behind a PROCESS. Thus, a philosopher like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who argues that consciousness and God drive evolution, is making a teleological argument. Other philosophers and thinkers who have made "teleological arguments" are Aristotle, who phrases it in terms of "final cause", Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who talks about reality driving towards perfection in the Absolute, and Karl Marx, who offers a historicist teleology which describes a final state of human history that we're being driven to. I believe certain religions like Zoroastrianism have teleologies that talk about a process in nature driven towards a meaningful goal. Use of the concept "teleology" in any other way, is either new to me, or misunformed. Please, someone correct these articles! Brianshapiro
I am so delighted to find Wonderful Wikipedia
Ray K
Of the hundreds of Wikipedia articles (thousands?) that I've read, this aricle is the best single answer to the question "what are the shortcomings and limitations of Wikipedia?" Any authority this article might otherwise have is obliterated by its lack of organization and clarity. Teleology is an elementary subject in philosphy (it must be, because I was asked to define the term on my very first test for Intro to Philosophy), so despite the ramblings presented here, there's gotta be some simpler, more cohesive way to define the term. I'm testifying here in the hopes that the "experts" who read this will bear in mind the true purpose of Wikipedia-- mostly, this is a first source, a quick reference for amateurs who need to know something on the fly, or at most, a first step into deeper research. So please, if people consistently tell you that your writing is obtuse or unclear, leave Wikipedia authorship to someone else.
Hi! I don't know if anyone is still editing this page but one question I had was about the claim: "Teleological philosophy stresses essence before existence, form before being"--it is not clear to me that teleological theories necessarily assume essence before existence--Aristotle, maybe. Also, the second claim "form before being" is confused; for the Greeks form was pure being (as an immaterial unity) but it is also true that material objects had being, but it was a lesser or inferior way of being because of its determinate nature. The question was the degree of being a particular substance had.
Great to see the discussion!
Numberthreefourfive ( talk) 06:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Metaphysical naturalism and teleology are mutually exclusive, but aren't opposites. For example, a person can reject teleology by believing that there's no design or purpose in nature, but can also reject metaphysical naturalism by believing in "supernatural" things, like mind/body dualism. For example, I believe that the mind is metaphysically distinct from the brain and can even survive death. However, I also believe that the mind emerges "naturally" from the brain, instead of being designed by God or having some purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.37.31 ( talk) 02:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the following for now:
Far from being a revival of teleology, Brandon Carter's anthropic principle is a very elegant sidestep of the Copernican Principle. To quote from Carter himself, certain observational aspects of apparently exotic behavior could in principle have been predicted by conventional theory (without resort to exotic theories), "However, these predictions do require the use of what may be termed the anthropic principle to the effect that what we can expect to observe must be retricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers (Although our situation is not necessarily central, it is inevitably privileged to some extent)." ("Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology", Brandon Carter, presented 1973 at the IAU Symposium at Krakow).
No teleology there at all. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
"Carter has protested that such teleological readings "are quite different from, and even contradictory with, what I intended"." - the Anthropic principle page states. You were right to take it out. I lately restyled the page, but left the data more or less as found. You (or someone) have also taken issue with the teleology v naturalism contrast. Perhaps the citations need checking... Redheylin ( talk) 23:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The Teleology and science section needs major work. As it is, you could probably replace the whole thing with "Some people think telology may have a place in science - here are some books to read about it in" without losing any information. Wardog ( talk) 10:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
My revisions of this article were prompted by reading a handful of student papers who all plagiarized this site - and all made the very same errors that the article makes. As a consequence, my students came away with an understanding of the topic that was at best impoverished and at worst completely wrong. As many of the discussions imply, this article is in desperate need of revision on the basis of a careful study of the history of teleology and its role in contemporary thought. I had attempted to put a disclaimer in at the start of the article, but it was quickly erased by some "monitor". I have subsequently revised the introduction to give the reader a sense of the different ways that teleology can be used (something effaced in the original article). The original article equated teleology with only one (Christian) version of the theory, and it gave no sense of the broader conceptual framework in which teleological theories are understood. Overall, this article highlights everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. A good scholarly discussion of a complex theoretical subject cannot be a single, monolithic article that attempts to "converge" on the truth. It effaces the complexity and instructive disagreements that are a healthy part of academia. Daphne-3 ( talk) 19:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Daphne-3
While writing the last post, my corrections to the teleology article were deleted; the article reverted back to its impoverished form. It seems the only way to provide a better version is to post it in here (which no one really reads). See below. The main issue that I attempted to correct, which was summarily rejected, was that not all forms of teleology involve "purpose" or "design" (in the sense that requires an Intelligent Designer) and that some teleological theories do not even claim that their final causes are not ontological but only heuristic devices. That was subsequently rejected as an edit despite the fact of the matter.
This is just one more example of the major problems with this mode of conveying scholarship. If someone does not like your version, regardless of the truth, it will be deleted in favour of his. (It's a good thing Darwin didn't try to publish his theory of evolution by natural selection on Wikipedia!)
"Teleology (as the Greek telos suggests) is the study of ends. Some teleological theories hold that ends are part of the causal structure of the world or some part of the world (e.g. living things), while others hold that final causes are useful "heuristic" devices. On the latter view, ends are not really operative in the world; rather, by thinking of things as if they were designed for an end we can better discover the true (efficient) causes of things. Not all teleology implies "purpose" or "design" (in the sense that requires an Intelligent Designer), for example Aristotle believed that ends are present in nature (that natural processes occur "for the sake of" an end) but famously denied that this requires an intelligent planner (see Physics 2.8, 199a20-35, 199b27-9). Moreover, not all teleology implies a global teleological view of the universe where every part is adjusted to some overall purpose. For example, Aristotle (in contrast to Plato) held that bile lacks a function: this is supposed to show that we should not look for ends in all things alike (Parts of Animals 677a12-18). This should be borne in mind in what follows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daphne-3 ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Daphne-3 ( talk) 21:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Daphne-3
In a subsequent exchange, the person "monitoring" this page explained that he deleted my edits because they were based on "personal opinion" and were not "good for Wikipedia". I question the whole process involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daphne-3 ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Should a neo-Aristotelian account (see Veatch's Rational Man) be taken into account here as a modern view of teleology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.16.92 ( talk) 07:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Is this section really needed??????? 59.96.217.51 ( talk) 11:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
What if you claim, as science does, that the inherent purpose and final cause for all energy existing is entropic and ends in heat death of the universe? Sanitycult ( talk) 06:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
It might be a good thing if we could start gathering relevant references on the topic of teleological ontology, which is a branch of philosophy which tends to combine both teleology and ontology. ADM ( talk) 13:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
There is discussion at Four causes relevant to this article. It is being claimed that "Most modern theories of evolution are unabashedly teleological", and it is being argued that the article should remove references to modern science not being teleological and say the opposite. Comments please.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry; not sure about the mode of discussion here--first time posting on a Wikipedia talk page. Between reading higher priority texts for school, I'm very slowly reading Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene, which is filled with such text as this:
I searched through several chapters trying to find that line "there is of course no 'architect'" or something similar. I think that science literature written for other scientists (in the form of actual papers) couldn't afford to use such clumsy and potentially misleading metaphors, since it would be very difficult to have such a paper taken seriously by reviewers. Still, a lot of literature written for the layperson on the topic of evolution is written with a teleological bent, since that seems to make the seemingly self-organizing nature of evolution easier for the nontechnical to understand. Writers such as Dawkins should be more careful, or at least give more than two sentences to explaining this common misunderstanding of the mechanics of evolution.
Incidentally, why is the modern ideological fad of Intelligent Design not mentioned in this article? It seems closely linked. -- tsbertalan ( talk) 03:38, 2 Feb 2011 (UTC)
The previous version of this wiki page claimed the word appeared in http://books.google.com/books?id=awg_AAAAcAAJ&ots=-87UsEHG1l&dq=Philosophia%20rationalis%2C%20sive%20logica&pg=PP5#v=onepage&q&f=false . This work is in Latin so can't really be claimed to be a source for a word in English. The word that appears in the index of the book is teleologia but I have to admit I couldn't find it in the main text in any case. The earliest known English usage is in http://books.google.com/books?id=rYxYAAAAMAAJ&dq=Elements%20of%20the%20critical%20philosophy&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false . See page 113 for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.105.134 ( talk) 15:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
"Just as physical masses obey universal gravitational tendencies, which did not evolve, but are simply a cosmic "given,"This is fucking bullshit, if it's intrinsic it's not given, especially in the mind of the young gullible idiot who thinks that HE HIMSELF will live forever, tired of this Marxist crap, fucking die already -- 92.86.134.203
Hi, I would like to add to this article by setting teleological ethics apart from deontological ethics in a short and compact manner. This is my proposal:
I am hoping for some constructive criticism. -- Faust ( talk) 13:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, There are not many valid points in this remark, the rest is 'fucking bullshit', as the author luckily calls it himself. Regardless I have adapted the above in a way that I think will be more comprehensible to Zaspino.
I think this deals with everything, except for the quotation marks. Quotation marks are used when a word is being used in manner which is not normal to the word. Such as an explanation of that word. Hence they are well placed here both with 'good' (which is the topic of investigation of ethics as a whole) and with 'goal', since this takes the special meaning of cause: endcause. In normal life this is usually meant as aim and not as endcause.
If there are any serious constructive remarks, please let me know. -- Faust ( talk) 07:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: not all references show up here. They will on the project page. -- Faust ( talk) 07:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Your edit was called: this is complete bullshit, so I returned the favor. It is you who should keep it civil. Apart from that I have addressed ALL your points. The ones I didn't mention I made a reference of. So, if there are no constructive criticisms, I will place piece. -- Faust ( talk) 13:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: I do remember editing the wrong pieces at first. I didn't think it important enough to revert again. One can check the history regardless, so I didn't see much point. I would like to clearly state that I had no intention to make things appear other than they are. I would also like to say that I expect you to assume good intentions Zaspino. -- Faust ( talk) 13:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Theobald, I am asking you not to transfer problems from the nl.wiki to the en.wiki. Please do not twist the facts around again. Since Zaspino has stated no valid arguments and I have responded to all his arguments by giving more references. will now await to see if there will be any more arguments and if not I will place my piece. -- Faust ( talk) 07:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, come on. I am not going to type out 6 references. I have cited the truth, I have made proper references to it and most of these references can be found online. Please, if there is something that you think is incorrect, say so. I have refuted all of your previous remarks, so come out with a new one. -- Faust ( talk) 17:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Zaspino, you did call it 'fucking bullshit', as I have proven You can just follow the link. Other than that, we are retracing our steps. I have given sources for my opinion and you haven't. I have answered all your (unfounded) objections and refuted them. If you do not believe my sources, please, go get some sources of your own. This will be the last time that we will retrace our steps. So, which particular wording did you object to? -- Faust ( talk) 10:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Look, do you two really think I am going to fall for this? You and I both know the 'Zaspino' user knows all inns and outs of the wikipedia. If that user would have replied to the header under which the remakr was placed here there would have been no such remark. I do not believe that this was an accident. So, no, I will not apologise. 'Zaspino' should. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Faust (
talk •
contribs)
19:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I have read this proposed addition, and one of my concerns of this addition is one of undue weight. The theory seems marginal at first glance to me (total outsider of the field here). Using references to works other than dictionaries and other reference works, like papers and other scientific analysis or some books might help me (The term is "just defined" vs. the term is "in use in discussions"). I had a lot of trouble understanding the text. Too much "because, therefore, herewith" at the start of the lines is part of the reason for that I think. The bracketed text is also a bit much and making the text harder to understand. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 10:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the feedback. Perhaps I am that. Some words are crucial to statements, the ones you mentioned are not. Would you be willing to rewrite my piece in a more comprehensible language?
You and I both know you have a membership of said dictionary of philosophy Theobald. Further more: You are retracing our steps again and clearly not referring to the changes I made. Why are you always ignoring what is plain to see, apart from painting a false picture? @TheDj: Are you sure you found this piece, since none of the term you mentioned are in there?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I just decided to put this article on my watchlist. I had not seen this discussion before. Faust, may I ask you to state your late proposal after the discussion above?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Below my running through your proposed paragraph:-
Can you tell me if the follow version (which is not a proposal I am making or agreeing with, just a test at re-wording to see if I understand) would mean the same thing...
- A teleological ethics is any ethical system that proposes that behavior should be directed towards what is 'good' - either what is good for people, or "good" in some more general sense [18] In such ethics, what is 'good' is understood as a 'goal', and in some extreme versions of teleological ethics what is a goal is even equated with what is good. [19] Such teleological systems can be contrasted with those which understand that human action should be guided by universal laws which exist apart from humanity [20] which are sometimes held to be a necessary conditions for an ethics to be considered as a morality in the narrow sense [21]. In other words, teleological ethics are the opposite of deontological ethics, which focus on the manner of behavior (or intention) and not just what goals are being aimed at. [22].
I have to say that what I can follow does not seem correct to me. But at least let's first confirm if I've understood.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 17:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I will briefly respond to Andrew here and specifically not to Theobald, since he has declared not to be interested in the objective content of an encyclopedia if that includes my thoughts. I need to run so it will be short Andrew. Be careful of your POV (that all ethics is teleology). Teleology is clearly set out against non-causality in all fields. The reason for this is that causality only has bearing on the workings in the mind. So, what you are talking about is what I am talking about in the sense that some 'duties' can be grasped as 'goals' if improperly wielded. A duty is only that which connects a certain maxim to the will to make it a universal law simultaneously. This leaves the rulebase completely empty, thus being something else (non-causal). A detail of interest might be the term teleology: the logos of telos. This means the reasoning of an endcause; towards that endcause.
Editors here may want to look at Deontological ethics.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 19:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Bdongol has contacted me on my talk page because I have removed attempts to include a sub-section on teleo-reactive programs. I request Bdongol to explain the connection here on this article talk page, between teleo-reactive computer programs and teleology. Just to start with the obvious, these are different words, concerning entirely different areas of discussion. I see no connection apart from the Greek prefix? Should we also include a sub-section on every word beginning with the letters teleo?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 16:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Errm <struggles to be polite> who put all the teleology-and-modern-science stuff in? William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Interesting material can be found in Adaptation#Function and teleonomy.
Biology and cybernetics are full of feedback, homeostasis, regulation, feedback control... If anything, they are 'efficient causes'. They are not teleological in the sense of final causes, and Wiener went out of his way not to use teleological language in the title of his book. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 12:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I think in the article can be interesting the use of papers about the necessity of unreplaceable teleological terms and concepts in life sciences, but without any appeal to supernatural or metaphysics entities. I suggest the following Ernst Mayr's text "The multiple meanings of teleological":
http://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/Mayr3.pdf
"In spite of the long-standing misgivings of physical scientists, philosophers, and logicians, many biologists have continued to insist not only that such teleological statements are objective and free of metaphysical content, but also that they express something important which is lost when teleological language is eliminated from such statements."
It's interesting also that Mayr reports that Aristotle is often misinterpreted in the past as an anti-scientific cosmic teleologist but this interpretation is recently shown as inaccurate:
"Aristotle has been traditionally misinterpreted as a cosmic teleologist. Modern students of Aristotle are in agreement that he was not (Gotthelf 1976; Nussbaum 1978; Sorabji 1980; Balrne 1981). As already understood by Delbruck (1971), Aristotle's concept of the eidos, in the context of ontogenetic development, is in some respects remarkably similar to the modern concept of the genetic program. What the standard histories of philosophy write about Aristotle's teleology is unfortunately largely wrong, and must be ignored. I myself misinterpreted Aristotle before I became acquainted with the modern literature."
I suggest also the following volume:
http://books.google.it/books/about/Purposiveness.html?id=Ased-Na1uy4C&redir_esc=y
"Since the rise of modern thought and natural science, teleological discourses have been banished as explanatory tools in natural investigations. The various contributions to this volume set out whether, and in which form, it is possible to talk of purposes in nature, without resorting to an account requesting some intentional agent. The legitimacy of such a notion as that of internal teleology is addressed, together with the issue of what the term "internal"properly denotes. It is meant to be an alternative both to the position of those who assume that teleology in biology requires a dimension transcending nature itself and find in teleological language an argument for the intelligent designer, and to the stance of those who aim to eliminate teleology from scientific inquiry altogether."
Bye.
80.117.30.221 ( talk) 14:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Is it fair to say, *when it's misapplied*, that teleology is nothing but post hoc ergo propter hoc? I don't pretend to understand the ways teleology may be correctly applied; it just seems to me that common mistakes about it are sometimes made to sound more complex or more interesting than they really are. Maybe I'm missing the point. TooManyFingers ( talk) 19:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
As if this abstract subject weren't difficult enough to understand, the very first sentence of this article is incomprehensible:
Huh??? Captain Quirk ( talk) 16:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. -- Faust ( talk) 17:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)