Four false dichotomies in the study of teleology.
The study of teleology is challenging in many ways, but there is a particular challenge that makes matters worse, distorting the conceptual space that has set the terms of debate. And that is the tendency to think about teleology in terms of certain long‐established dichotomies. In this paper, we ex...
| Published in: | Ratio Vol. 37; no. 4; pp. 358 - 373 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Dec2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=180899806&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 180899806 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00340006 D8S jtl: Ratio issn: 00340006 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Dec2024 vid: 37 iid: 4 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell artinfo: ui: 180899806 10.1111/rati.12422 ppf: 358 ppct: 15 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: C – @attributes: type: P size: 736KB tig: atl: Four false dichotomies in the study of teleology. aug: au: McShea, Daniel W. Babcock, Gunnar affil: Biology Department, Duke University, Durham North Carolina,, USA Department of Microbiology, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca New York,, USA su: Teleology Hazards Intention Explanation sug: subj: Teleology Hazards Intention Explanation keyword: field theory goal directed intentions life mechanism purpose teleology ab: The study of teleology is challenging in many ways, but there is a particular challenge that makes matters worse, distorting the conceptual space that has set the terms of debate. And that is the tendency to think about teleology in terms of certain long‐established dichotomies. In this paper, we examine four such dichotomies prevalent in the literature on teleology, the notions that: 1) Teleological explanations are opposed to mechanistic explanations; 2) teleology must arise from processes operating either internal to an organism or external to it; 3) systems are either alive and teleological, or nonliving and not teleological; 4) humans are teleological, on account of our ability to intend, seek, prefer, etc., while other systems without these capacities are not. Here, we use our own view of goal directedness, field theory, to show for each dichotomy that there is an alternative, a view of teleology that either violates these dichotomies or demands revision of them. What this reveals is not only the dangers of dichotomous thinking, but a widespread lack of clarity about what teleology is. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Ratio is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Ratio holder: Wiley-Blackwell dt: @attributes: year: 2024 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|