53. Natural Teleology: Arguments For and Against Final Causality

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Central Question: Does Nature Act for an End? #

Berquist emphasizes that whether nature acts for a purpose (final causality) is foundational to all subsequent philosophical inquiry, directly impacting ethics, medicine, and theology. The lecture presents both the case for and against natural teleology.

Arguments FOR Nature Acting for an End #

Aristotle’s Six Arguments:

1. The Spider Web Argument

   • Spider makes circular threads sticky, but radial spokes non-sticky
   • Allows spider to move quickly to trapped prey without impediment
   • Shows purposive design without conscious intelligence
   • Demonstrates that action for an end does not require the agent to have a mind

2. The Wasp Argument

   • Wasp squeezes victim’s head with precise force: enough to paralyze, not to kill
   • Digs hole, drags victim by antenna, deposits eggs on living food source
   • If pressure too great: victim dies and rots (unsuitable for larvae)
   • If pressure too light: victim escapes
   • Naturalist Fabre could not replicate this precision, even with conscious effort
   • Shows calculation of exact means to end without explicit deliberation

3. The Bee Navigation Argument

   • Bee finds flowers and returns to hive
   • Performs dance communicating direction to other bees
   • Uses angle from sun to hive to determine direction to flowers
   • When sun covered for two hours, bees fly wrong direction (because sun has moved)
   • Shows sophisticated mathematical calculation without conscious reasoning

4. The Inductive Argument from Living Bodies

   • Word “organic” (from Greek organon = tool) means body composed of tools
   • Every bodily part is a tool for something: eyes for seeing, teeth for biting, heart for pumping blood, legs for walking, claws for grasping
   • Inductively, one cannot think of living body without thinking of purpose and end
   • Contrast: stones are not bodies composed of tools

5. The Arts That Help Nature Argument

   • Medicine, farming, and gardening help nature achieve what it is already trying to do
   • Cannot help another achieve an end unless that other is trying to achieve something
   • Therefore, nature must be acting for an end

6. The Matter for Form Argument

   • Matter is for the sake of form; ability is for the sake of act
   • Form is the end of matter
   • Nature’s operation is fundamentally to form matter
   • Even in digestion, breaking down is ultimately for reforming into new matter

Arguments AGAINST Nature Acting for an End #

Objection 1: Action for End Requires Mind

• The end (e.g., sitting, which doesn’t exist until after the chair is made) cannot cause the chair to come into existence
• How can a non-existent thing be a cause of what exists?
• Seems to require a mind to have the end in view
• Nature has no mind; therefore cannot act for an end

Objection 2: Nature Produces Bad Things

• End and good are the same (by Aristotle’s definition)
• Nature produces defective babies, earthquakes, diseases—things that are bad
• Therefore, nature is not acting for an end

Objection 3: Three Causes Suffice (Occam’s Razor)

• Matter, form, and mover are sufficient to explain the apparent good in nature
• Mathematical chance explains apparent purposiveness: mindless forces bring things together randomly; eventually a good combination occurs
• Good combinations survive; bad ones perish
• Principle of fewness: fewer causes are better if sufficient
• This view traces back to Empedocles

Key Arguments: Berquist’s Replies #

Reply to Objection 1: Action for End Does Not Require Mind in the Agent #

Refined Distinction: Action for an end requires mind either in the thing that acts for the end OR in its cause (mover).

The Thermostat Example:

• Thermostat acts for an end (maintaining temperature) without having a mind
• But the thermostat is a product of mind
• Therefore, action for an end can occur without the agent having a mind, provided the agent is produced by something with a mind

The Arrow Example:

• Arrow is directed toward the target not by the arrow’s own mind but by the archer’s mind
• The arrow acts for an end (hitting the target) through being moved by something with a mind

The Habit (Second Nature) Example:

• When a child runs in front of a car, the driver brakes without thinking
• This action is for an end (avoiding hitting the child) without conscious deliberation
• Habit is called “second nature” because it acts for ends without thinking
• The habit itself may be a product of mind (the driving instructor who taught braking), but the execution is not
• Therefore, nature (as habit or as product of divine mind) can act for an end without conscious thought

Reply to Objection 2: Nature Produces Good Almost Always #

• Defective babies are rare exceptions, not the rule
• Nature produces good almost always in animals and plants
• Even human artists fail sometimes (cook burns meat, pianist hits wrong note) without ceasing to act for an end
• That nature sometimes fails to achieve its end is a sign that it IS acting for an end, not against it
• Failure presupposes something being aimed at

Reply to Objection 3: Mathematical Chance Insufficient #

• Mathematical chance as a means to achieving an end (like a hunter using shotgun pellets) is acceptable
• But pure chance wholly undirected cannot explain the observed order
• Under pure mathematical chance, the odds of achieving a good state are approximately 1 to infinity
• Example: replacing a broken chair leg with a random length—only one correct length, infinity of wrong ones
• The eye requires all parts to be correct simultaneously; odds are infinitesimal
• Second Law of Thermodynamics: organized states naturally move toward disorder; pure chance would produce disorder, not order
• The principle of fewness (fewer causes are better) was originally based on nature acting for an end (Newton: “more are in vain when less will serve”)
• Modern thinkers ironically use a principle based on teleology to deny teleology

Important Definitions #

End (τέλος / telos): That for the sake of which something is done; the purpose or goal toward which action is directed; the final cause.

Final Cause: The end or purpose; one of four kinds of causes (material, formal, efficient, final).

Organic Body: A body composed of organon (tools); a living body where each part exists for the sake of something (seeing, biting, pumping, etc.).

Action for an End: Acting with an end in view; activity directed toward a purpose. This can occur without the agent consciously thinking about the end (as in habit).

Second Nature: Habit; acting for an end without conscious thought. Though the execution is not conscious, the habit may itself be a product of mind.

Principle of Fewness (or Parsimony): Fewer causes are better if they are sufficient to explain phenomena. However, this principle only applies if the fewer causes are indeed sufficient; insufficiency requires additional causes.

Mathematical Chance: Probability or ratio; different from Aristotelian chance (which is the accidental cause of what happens rarely as a byproduct of action done for an end).

Examples & Illustrations #

Spider Web: Sticky and Non-Sticky Threads #

The spider constructs its web with circular threads that have sticky substance and radial spokes that do not. This allows the spider to move quickly along the non-sticky spokes to reach a fly trapped on the sticky threads. If all threads were sticky, the spider would be impeded. The purposive design—selecting which threads to make sticky—occurs without the spider consciously reasoning about it.

Wasp: Precise Paralysis #

A wasp finds an insect, squeezes its head to paralyze it (but not kill it), then digs a hole and drags the victim by the antenna into the hole. It deposits its eggs on the living victim, providing a ready food supply for the larvae. The key insight: if squeezed too hard, the victim dies and rots (unsuitable for larvae); if not squeezed hard enough, it escapes. Fabre, the naturalist, attempted to imitate this behavior and could not replicate the exact pressure needed, despite his conscious effort and intelligence.

Bee Navigation: Sun Angle Calculation #

Bees find flowers while foraging, return to the hive, and perform a dance that communicates direction to other bees. Scientists discovered that bees use the angle between the sun, the hive, and the flowers to determine direction. When the hive was covered with cloth for two hours (before bees departed), they flew in the wrong direction—because the sun had moved in the sky. This shows sophisticated mathematical calculation (adjusting for time and sun position) without conscious deliberation.

Braking a Car: Habit Without Thought #

When a child runs in front of a car, the driver brakes without conscious deliberation. The driver is acting for an end (avoiding hitting the child) without thinking. Yet the braking habit itself was acquired through instruction—a product of the teacher’s mind. This illustrates that action for an end can occur without the agent thinking, as long as the habit originates from mind.

Questions Addressed #

Q: How can a non-existent end (like “sitting”) cause the chair to come into existence? A: Through mind. The carpenter has the end (sitting) in mind before making the chair. This mental image directs his actions. Alternatively, an end that doesn’t exist as a future reality can exist in the mind as present intention. Or, the end may exist through being a product of mind (as thermostat is product of engineer’s mind).

Q: If nature has no mind, how can it act for an end? A: Action for an end requires mind either in the agent or in its cause. Nature may act for an end because it is a product of divine mind. Also, habit (second nature) demonstrates that action for an end can occur without conscious thinking in the agent.

Q: Doesn’t nature produce bad things, contradicting that it acts for an end? A: No. Nature produces good almost always; defects are rare. Even conscious human agents fail sometimes (burning food, playing wrong note) without this negating that they act for ends. Failure presupposes trying to achieve something. The fact that nature sometimes fails actually supports that it is acting for an end.

Q: Can mathematical chance alone explain apparent purposiveness without invoking final causality? A: No. Mathematical chance as a means to achieving an end is acceptable, but pure undirected chance has odds of 1 to infinity for producing order. Observed organization is infinitesimal under pure chance. Second Law of Thermodynamics shows organized states naturally tend toward disorder. Therefore, pure chance is insufficient.

Q: Doesn’t Occam’s Razor favor the view requiring fewer causes (no final causality)? A: Only if those fewer causes are sufficient. The principle of fewness requires that fewer causes actually explain the phenomena. If three causes (matter, form, mover) are insufficient to explain the order observed in nature, then a fourth cause (final causality) becomes necessary. The principle itself was formulated by thinkers who believed nature acts for an end.

Notable Quotes #

“So much does action for an end strike us in these that some people wonder whether they have a mind… But the fact that they wonder whether they have a mind is a sign that they see action for an end.” — Berquist, on observing insect behavior

“If it had a mind to figure out that you didn’t want to kill the victim, but just paralyze it… then surely it could figure out that some other part of the body could drag the victim by.” — Berquist, on why the wasp’s precision suggests lack of conscious mind but presence of purposive action

“More are in vain when less will serve.” — Newton, on the principle of fewness (originally based on nature acting for an end)

“Nothing great can be accomplished in science without the elementary wonder of the philosopher.” — Max Born, cited by Berquist on the importance of wonder in natural philosophy

“A mathematical net is not designed to catch an end or purpose. Even if there’s one out there, the fact that end never showed up in a mathematical net is no reason to say there’s no such thing out there.” — Berquist, on why mathematical science cannot disprove final causality