teleology

teleology, (from Greek telos, “end,” and logos, “reason”), explanation by reference to some purpose, end, goal, or function. Traditionally, it was also described as final causality, in contrast with explanation solely in terms of efficient causes (the origin of a change or a state of rest in something). Human conduct, insofar as it is rational, is generally explained with reference to ends or goals pursued or alleged to be pursued, and humans have often understood the behaviour of other things in nature on the basis of that analogy, either as of themselves pursuing ends or goals or as designed to fulfill a purpose devised by a mind that transcends nature. The most-celebrated account of teleology was that given by Aristotle when he declared that a full explanation of anything must consider its final cause as well as its efficient, material, and formal causes (the latter two being the stuff out of which a thing is made and the form or pattern of a thing, respectively).

With the rise of modern science in the 16th and 17th centuries, interest was directed to mechanistic explanations of natural phenomena, which appeal only to efficient causes; if teleological explanations were used, they took the form not of saying (as in Aristotelian teleology) that things develop toward the realization of ends internal to their own natures but of viewing biological organisms and their parts as complex machines in which each smaller part is minutely adapted to others and each performs a specific function that contributes (e.g., in the case of the eye) to the function or purpose of the whole (e.g., that of seeing). For the 18th-century Protestant Apologist William Paley and his followers, the machinelike nature of biological organisms could be explained only by positing a divine designer of all life. Paley’s teleology thus became the basis of the modern version of the teleological argument for the existence of God, also called the argument from design.

Immanuel Kant’s Kritik der Urtheilskraft (1790; Critique of Judgment) dealt at length with teleology. While acknowledging—and indeed exulting in—the wondrous appointments of nature, Kant cautioned that teleology can be, for human knowledge, only a regulative, or heuristic, principle and not a constitutive one—i.e., a guide to the conduct of inquiry rather than to the nature of reality. Accordingly, teleological language in the biological sciences is not to be taken literally; it is essentially a set of useful metaphors.

More From Britannica

philosophy of biology: Teleology from Aristotle to Kant

Paley’s teleology was undermined in the 19th century by the emergence of evolutionary theory, which was able to explain the machinelike nature of biological organisms as having come about entirely through efficient causation in a long process of natural selection. Despite apparently having made teleology conceptually unnecessary to biology, however, evolutionary theory did not result in the elimination of teleological language from the biological sciences. Darwinists as much as believers in divine design continued to speak of the function or purpose of the eye, for example. Was that fact an indication that some notion of function or purpose (or end or goal), one that could not be captured in Darwinian terms, remained essential to biology? Or was it merely a reflection of the usefulness of teleological language as a shorthand for referring to processes and relations that were greatly more complex?

Those who took the latter position, which was essentially that of Kant, attempted from the early 20th century to systematically eliminate teleological language from the biological sciences, with mixed success. One such approach advocated simply defining the notion of function in terms of Darwinian natural selection. Those who held the former view recognized that some notion of function or teleology generally was uniquely suitable to biology and not eliminable from it. Some theorists within this group argued that biological teleology could not be explained entirely in terms of natural selection because the former essentially involved references to normative concepts such as the “good” (of an organism or its parts), “benefit” (to an organism or its parts), or “harmony” (of a biological system).