# Problem of Teleology
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755
**Category:** Philosophy
**Created:** [September 5, 2006, 4:22pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755 "2006-09-05T16:22:54Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Ierrellus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ierrellus)
#### Post date: [September 9, 2006, 2:24pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/21 "2006-09-09T14:24:11Z")
Xunzian,
While I agree with your take on random selection giving rise to complex forms (Dawkins, et. al.), it does not address the fact that humans seem to need, on an existential level at least, some sense of purpose. It is difficult for me to simply dismiss this need on the basis of most rationalistic objections.
---
### Author:  [@Harbinger](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Harbinger)
#### Post date: [September 9, 2006, 4:06pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/22 "2006-09-09T16:06:44Z")
Data
> [@Xunzian](#):
>
> …And what’s the need for teleology anyway?
Data
It is irrational to wish for something to not exist.
Data
Teleological thought is the prime mode of human thinking.
Portent
The desire to edit the realities of life is rooted in hate.
---
### Author:  [@Ierrellus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ierrellus)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2006, 2:18pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/23 "2006-09-10T14:18:59Z")
Harbinger,
Yes! Teleology is a mode of human thinking. And your "portent’ suggestion is accurate, IMHO. So how do we address our need for purpose in a world in which most intellectuals deny the existence of purpose? Is this denial the reason why most people see no value in philosophy and turn to religion instead?
---
### Author:  [@Xunzian](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Xunzian)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2006, 4:29pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/24 "2006-09-10T16:29:35Z")
I’m not convinced that teleology needs be the primary mode of human thinking.
In greek philosophy, you had a cyclical view of history. Indeed, the only evidence I can find of any sort of teleological thinking is in the creation of man myth were we see that every generation is worse than the last.
Then you’ve got much of medieval philosophy (Boetheius and his idea of the unchanging present) presenting a similar idea. While I admit that when coupled with the ecclesiatical views of the time, there is an undeniable amount of teleology present, it certainly doesn’t have to be that way.
Zhuangzi’s thought could also be represented in that way, as it is futile to dwell on the future since it cannot be known.
While teleological thinking is common in the modern world, I am not convinced, at all, that it need be that way.
---
### Author:  [@monad](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/monad)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2006, 6:37am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/25 "2006-09-11T06:37:20Z")
Consciousness given a ‘critical mass’ is a force in momentum. It must feed on values implying purpose beyond what it is immediately aware of. As an entity that can project itself it seeks a-something-greater-than-itself to reflect itself from; call that a kind of ‘Grail’ experience. When received teleology has invoked a reply that becomes inherent in it’s recipient and likely cancel any further ‘teleological striving’.
We equate death with lack of meaning which also means without purpose. A consciousness so constituted cannot accept itself as another citizen of the void and teleology in whatever shape or form - and there are many - creates the structures which at least allow a provisional fulfillment because it is the mind itself which decides what it is.
If God existed to supply a mandate or if we were considerably less aware, teleology would be an alien concept.
---
### Author:  [@Ierrellus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ierrellus)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2006, 2:38pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/26 "2006-09-11T14:38:06Z")
Monad,
Beautiful ideas!!! To the point.
Xunzian,
Thanks for reminding me of Boethius. I do like his concepts of time; however, we must deal with time as motion and change. No one experiences an eternal present. Our experience of time is riddled with baggage of the past and projections of future.
The Greek philosophers simply advanced mythological interpretations of How So stories, how things came into being, what things are made of, etc. This is part of a continuum of mindsets based on brain evolution. The big human questions have always been how and why, an existential need to affirm purpose.
---
### Author:  [@Xunzian](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Xunzian)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2006, 4:58pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/27 "2006-09-11T16:58:54Z")
See, I’m not so sure that the need for purpose is as deeply imbedded in people as you claim.
In Norse mythology, people were created for, well, no reason at all.
And while certain aspects of the Shun story (? I read that somewhere) are considered to be remnants of a possible Chinese creation-myth, as it stands there has not been a creation myth in Chinese thought for at least the last 3,000 years. (I suppose the idea of the Taijitu could be considered a 'creation myth – but that is pretty paltry, wouldn’t you agree?)
While these are just glorified ‘How So’ stories, I think that when applied to tought they do show a certain lack of teleological thinking.
Indeed, I would ask for a clear example of teleological thinking that has been expressed outside of a culture that was either influenced by or served as a crucible for Ahambric religion.
While, as individuals, we are always planning for tomorrow to a certain extent, that doesn’t mean that we necessarily expect tomorrow to be different from today. I mean, look at the agrarian lifecycle. While certain tragedies occur, droughts and floods are seemingly random but without such tragedies each year would look almost exatically the same.
---
### Author:  [@Ierrellus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ierrellus)
#### Post date: [September 12, 2006, 3:30pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/28 "2006-09-12T15:30:02Z")
Xunzian,
How can any mythology cosider how and why without describing purpose? For my American Native friends the white buffalo story is as satisfying for explaining the meaning of human existence as is the Jesus story for Christain fundamentals or the Mohammed story for Ismamic fundamentalists. The truth is we have evolved past such fundamentalisms without giving them up, simply because they address, on some level, what it means to be human. Abrahamic religions represent only a few instances of global how so stories. India reeks of them. The Norse would not have taken the time to write their sagas had they not been convinced that, in doing so, they could offer some explanation of how humans act, what humans are and what relationships humans have with what is other than themselves (the gods, the devils, etc.), all of which implies purpose. We must see mythology as the first human take on how to survive given the Other, the environment that does not always have to fulfill or needs. Only then can we understand the big WHY that demands teleological explanations.
---
### Author:  [@Xunzian](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Xunzian)
#### Post date: [September 12, 2006, 4:34pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/29 "2006-09-12T16:34:10Z")
But what about when how/why aren’t discussed, such as in the Chinese example?
While I agree with what you are saying, that we all feel we have a need for purpose, I am not so sure that we need to view purpose in a teleological way.
My thumb isn’t becoming my leg, yet both have purpose. I would argue that the how/why stories I mentioned show a similar style of thinking.
---
### Author:  [@Ierrellus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ierrellus)
#### Post date: [September 13, 2006, 2:54pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/30 "2006-09-13T14:54:36Z")
Xunian,
The how and why in the Chinese example are taken for granted. Your ideas, however, deserve attention. I think Chinese pictorial written expressions are much more comprehensive of experiential reality than are Western subject/object/verb sentences. Yet all such expressions reflect what it is like to be human. We are verbs, not nouns. (Szaasz, Nietzsche).
I’m wondering if persons living in climates that have no extreme seasonal changes have mythologies of dying and resurrecting gods, which represent Earth’s climactic periods of fertility and infertility as humanly seen with hope or despair, hence prompting festivals at the winter and spring soltices.
Are the Chinese exempt from existential angst? I still cannot see anything in oral or written mythological traditions that does not deal with teleology. Please elaborate on mythologies that are not “how so”, “why so” or “What’s it all about, Alfie?”
---
### Author:  [@Xunzian](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Xunzian)
#### Post date: [September 13, 2006, 4:42pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/31 "2006-09-13T16:42:02Z")
But see, that’s just it.
If how/why are taken for granted and all that becomes important is the discussion of being vs. becoming but recognizing that all one can do is endlessly cycle between these states, I would argue that such a system of thought is free of teleology.
In the Chinese example:
How are we here: Not addressed. I suppose you could go to the Taijitu for this, but that is hardly a firm answer.
Why are we here: Not addressed. To be a good parent/son? To serve the Son of Heaven? To know our place?
Where are we going: We aren’t. We are essentially spinning our wheels between being and becoming.
(Yes, it is more complicated than that, but I’d argue that teleology doesn’t really enter the picture until contact with Buddhist philosophy occurs).
Then in the Norse example:
How are we here: Made for shits-and-giggles from a yew tree. No reason.
Why are we here: I suppose the Goetterdammerung is a possible explanation. At least you have an afterlife in Norse mythology, so there is something of a teleology.
Where are we going: Goetterdammerung (?)
So in this example, we might be going somewhere, but we didn’t start somewhere.
* * *
While I think that there is always going to be a certain amount of existential angst, the view on the individual is so radically different that the existential angst appears very, very different.
---
### Author:  [@Ierrellus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ierrellus)
#### Post date: [September 14, 2006, 2:14pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/32 "2006-09-14T14:14:33Z")
Xunzian,
This may be the point where we simply agree to disagree. I can see no mythological how so stories as independent of why so stories. The big why question is eloquently expressed in DEB’s threads. Contemporary science and philosophy tend to dismiss teleology as not being parsimonious, as being an unnecessary explanatory excursion. I tend to believe that the concept of parsimony has often neglected consideration of the complexity, multiplexity, of human experience. The need for purpose may have been exacerbated by Abrahamic religious beliefs. Yet it is inextricably human.
---
### Author:  [@Sauwelios](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Sauwelios)
#### Post date: [September 14, 2006, 3:53pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/33 "2006-09-14T15:53:00Z")
> [@Ierrellus](#):
>
> If I build a machine for a certain purpose, the purpose is achieved if the structure of the machine allows my pupose to materialize. In like manner the structures of organic and inorganic matter appear to function in ways that can be described as purposeful. Aristotle puzzled over this. Most current materialists balk at the idea of purpose because it seems to indicate a first cause, at least or a “seeing watchmaker”, a diety involved in human evolution. Can human evolution be seen as devoid of purpose without negating the human need for purpose?
I think the purpose is always power, an increase of power.
-
---
### Author:  [@heavenly\_demonic](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/heavenly_demonic)
#### Post date: [September 15, 2006, 3:25am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/34 "2006-09-15T03:25:23Z")
> [@Ierrellus](#):
>
> If I build a machine for a certain purpose, the purpose is achieved if the structure of the machine allows my pupose to materialize. In like manner the structures of organic and inorganic matter appear to function in ways that can be described as purposeful. Aristotle puzzled over this. Most current materialists balk at the idea of purpose because it seems to indicate a first cause, at least or a “seeing watchmaker”, a diety involved in human evolution. Can human evolution be seen as devoid of purpose without negating the human need for purpose?
A diety?.. does God wanna lose weight? LOL… jk!!! 😛
I don’t think it implies a deity…cause purpose might as wll be an illusion.
---
### Author:  [@Ierrellus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ierrellus)
#### Post date: [September 15, 2006, 3:49pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/35 "2006-09-15T15:49:05Z")
h.d,
Thanks for imput. Humor is the best medicine. Try talking to those people who claim to know what god had for breakfast this morning and behind which star he takes a crap.
Xunzian,
Although we disagree on our takes on mythological how and why stories, we still have much to discuss as to whether or not being and becoming is some redundant merry go round or whether there might be clearer perspectives on the human condition that we may be moving into.
Sauwelios,
Is purpose power or empowering?
---
### Author:  [@Xunzian](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Xunzian)
#### Post date: [September 15, 2006, 5:53pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/36 "2006-09-15T17:53:00Z")
Well, for example look at what Tu Weiming has to say about learning to be human:
> [@](#):
>
> The idea of my assuming the role of son in reference to my father and simultaneously assuming the distinct and separate role of father in reference to my son is unnatural, if not distasteful. From my own experience, as far as I can remember, I have always been learning to be a son. Since my own son’s birth, I have also been learning to be a father, and my learning to be a son has taken on new significance as a result of becoming a father myself. Furthermore, my being a son and a father is also informed and enriched by being a student, a teacher, a husband, a colleague, a friend, and an acquaintance. These are ways for me to learn to be human.
I guess that is what I mean by a lack of teleology. There is no direction, no sudden change from son to father, but rather a son will always be a son and so on. I believe this is very significantly different from the Western perspective, where one goes through various life stages transforming themselves from one person to the next.
---
### Author:  [@Jakob](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Jakob)
#### Post date: [September 15, 2006, 6:42pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/37 "2006-09-15T18:42:43Z")
> [@Xunzian](#):
>
> Would you like me to pull out some computer programs that demonstrate how random selection can give rise to complex forms?
Of course a computer program is part of the universe, and therefore subject to the same laws as organisms such as ourselves.
A random-number generator in a computer is no more random than the mechanism behind the electrochemical processes of organic life. A computer is not beyond cosmic law.
---
### Author:  [@Jakob](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Jakob)
#### Post date: [September 15, 2006, 7:05pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/38 "2006-09-15T19:05:25Z")
> [@Ierrellus](#):
>
> Xunzian,
> This may be the point where we simply agree to disagree. I can see no mythological how so stories as independent of why so stories. The big why question is eloquently expressed in DEB’s threads. Contemporary science and philosophy tend to dismiss teleology as not being parsimonious, as being an unnecessary explanatory excursion. I tend to believe that the concept of parsimony has often neglected consideration of the complexity, multiplexity, of human experience. The need for purpose may have been exacerbated by Abrahamic religious beliefs. Yet it is inextricably human.
If I take the perspectivist approach, which is the most honest one, it is clear at once that ‘purpose’ is inherent in life, beause the word has no meaning outside life and I know of no one who doesn’t have some purpose in his life. Yet also, life itself is the purpose of all things that all living beings do (eat, drink, fuck) and in turn, these things often serve as a basic purpose of life.
Purpose has almost the same meaning as life. They are just words, suggesting to be very different but when broken down very much alike.
“All things are rooted in themselves”
About mythologies and hows and why’s; God created this and this and that and he saw that it was good. His purpose was (aparently) to create something good. What is ‘good’? Something which he wants to exist. Which is life. Life=good=purpose.
And, true enough, without purpose it is difficult to keep living.
---
### Author:  [@Ierrellus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ierrellus)
#### Post date: [September 16, 2006, 2:22pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/39 "2006-09-16T14:22:10Z")
Xunzian,
Your responses have prompted me to read more! I just got a copy of Cooper’s “World Philosophies”. It includes Indian and Chinese philosophies along with those of the West. Although Cooper does not believe in an evolutionary brain/mind development that could account for the flourishing of all three philosophies, circa 6th century, BCE, his material provides good reading from which one can decide for himself.
The relationships you mentioned existed before they were considered. We evolve into understanding. That’s enough purpose for me.
Jakob,
thanks for your response. While I do not allign with much of the domatic tenets found in Abrahamic religions, I do believe that their idea of purpose is something of a universal.
---
### Author:  [@Ierrellus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ierrellus)
#### Post date: [October 13, 2006, 4:49pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/40 "2006-10-13T16:49:29Z")
I don’t think this topic is exhausted. I read somewhere that one can scarcely talk biology without considering purpose. Does this mean intelligent design? The anthropic principle? A confusion of purpose and function? Good ideas needed.
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755.md?page=3)