# 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:** 3
### Author:  [@Xunzian](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Xunzian)
#### Post date: [October 13, 2006, 5:21pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/41 "2006-10-13T17:21:58Z")
Well, I think that ‘purpose’ has a very different context in biology than it does in philosophy.
If a protein plays a pivitol role in say, fruit fly neurogenesis, and it is present in mammal hematopoiesis (but not fruit fly hematopoiesis) one has to ask 1) what is this protein doing in both cases, as well as how it go there. Are other aspect of the fruit fly neurogenic pathway involved in mammal hematopoiesis? How so?
Now, in medical fields this does tend to take on a teleological feel because the scientists 1) tend to mistakenly view humans as the pinnacle of evolution with all creatures more-or-less leading up to us (this mistake is not limited to the scientific field either) and 2) the end goal is, of course, to get this research from the bench to the bedside.
---
### Author:  [@Phil27of79](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Phil27of79)
#### Post date: [October 13, 2006, 9:18pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/42 "2006-10-13T21:18:25Z")
> [@Ierrellus](#):
>
> Can human evolution be seen as devoid of purpose without negating the human need for purpose?
No,… you can just choose not to define purpose as imporant. We all contribute to each other. We all have demand of us in order to live. What demands do they find that they can not live up to?
---
### Author:  [@heavenly\_demonic](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/heavenly_demonic)
#### Post date: [October 14, 2006, 2:46pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/43 "2006-10-14T14:46:22Z")
Hey Faust I have a question specifically for you…
what would you tell me if I asked you what my purpose was?.
explain it in a comprehensible, simple and straightforward way please. 😲😛
---
### Author:  [@Ierrellus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ierrellus)
#### Post date: [October 14, 2006, 2:57pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/44 "2006-10-14T14:57:28Z")
Xunzian,
Two separate views of evolution may come to the same conclusions. Every organism experiences development from a single cell into a complex cellular structure. Some would say that this development can be described without any need for references to what occurred in the cell’s prehistory. Others contend that this individual development mirrors the prehistoric development. The common consensus is that certain complex proteins are active information, goal oriented. Living organisms rely, for their construction and maintenance on information as activity, a programmed change. Non-living entities change because of random environmental circumstances. Couldn’t an active developmental program be seen as purposeful?
---
### Author:  [@heavenly\_demonic](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/heavenly_demonic)
#### Post date: [October 14, 2006, 3:23pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/45 "2006-10-14T15:23:24Z")
Hey sawelios, (I like your display picture, who is it?).
I think the same way as you, I believe the purpose is to increase power, always, even if most deny it.
but how do you fit ‘ethics’ into this, (if at all…just curious, not that I condem u if u have no ethics lol).
and… what do u think is the telos of power itself…I mean, power for what? for the sake of what?
or is it just a ‘metaphysical irrational impulse’?
let’s say we all agree on the truth of the will 2 power… are we all to pursue it consciously?.
like are we to be like ‘’ the pursuit of power is such a fundamental and obvious truth that to deny it is plain hipocresy’’ ?
---
### Author:  [@Ierrellus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ierrellus)
#### Post date: [October 14, 2006, 3:54pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/46 "2006-10-14T15:54:38Z")
h.d.,
Good questions. I’m not speaking for S.; but allow my take on these questions. First, ethics and esthetics are found in the minds of mammals with brains that have developed prefrontal cortexes (see Pinker). These are not abstractions. They are experences we have from our plateau of increasing physical complexity. They move and evolve in direct correspondence with our moving and evolving structural complexifications. Yes, it is all about power if by power you see the ability of organisms to interact with environments and to survive by extending their own potential into realms of the unknown and the other.
---
### Author:  [@Sauwelios](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Sauwelios)
#### Post date: [October 14, 2006, 3:57pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/47 "2006-10-14T15:57:19Z")
> [@heavenly\_demonic](#):
>
> Hey sawelios, (I like your display picture, who is it?).
> I think the same way as you, I believe the purpose is to increase power, always, even if most deny it.
>
> but how do you fit ‘ethics’ into this, (if at all…just curious, not that I condem u if u have no ethics lol).
> and… what do u think is the telos of power itself…I mean, power for what? for the sake of what?
>
> or is it just a ‘metaphysical irrational impulse’?
>
> let’s say we all agree on the truth of the will 2 power… are we all to pursue it consciously?.
> like are we to be like ‘’ the pursuit of power is such a fundamental and obvious truth that to deny it is plain hipocresy’’ ?
The hypocrisy of denying it is itself a means to power. Presenting oneself as ethical may get one the support of (i.e., power over) those who believe in morality. And believing in it, i.e., unconsciously lying about it (to oneself and others), is a consequence of the will to power: as Nietzsche says, when something has a greater effect if unconscious, it will become unconscious. So those who believe in morality do so only to increase or consolidate their own power.
The telos of power - that is a good one. Why acquire power? What is one to do with power? I think all power is the power to will. So the will to power is really will to power to will to power etc. But will is a pathos, i.e., something passive - a passion. But this passion can be enjoyed or suffered. A human being is really like a conscious stone. The stone is rolling downhill, and can do nothing about it, but it may think, and feel, that it is in control. It is this feeling which is pleasurable. The stone may say, “Yes! I’m rolling downhill! That is precisely what I want to do!”, or it may say, “Oh no! I’m rolling downhill! I don’t want to! Help!” The former is self-affirmation; the latter is self-denial. And there is no free choice between them. But the denier also denies his own denial; whereas the affirmer affirms his own affirmation. A double negative is a positive, but a double positive is not a negative. So all existence is positive, even though it may seem negative from a negative perspective.
My avatar is a picture of me from about two years ago.
---
### Author:  [@Ierrellus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ierrellus)
#### Post date: [October 15, 2006, 2:50pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/48 "2006-10-15T14:50:20Z")
The major objections I get to any consensus on the meaning of purpose are 1. that information cannot be described as activity and 2. that the mind’s narratives of how so and why so descriptions of a human sense of reality are polar opposites or are at least uncomplementary. These objections are irrelevant in the experience of human possibility as necessity.
---
### Author:  [@Xunzian](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Xunzian)
#### Post date: [October 15, 2006, 4:43pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/49 "2006-10-15T16:43:38Z")
But see, within biology that isn’t really a teleology, it is just problem:solution, problem:solution and they form layers upon each other, so having more solutions leaves on ready to solve more problems.
I mean, look at bacteria. Those guys have so many solutions to so many potential problems present in their genomes that they can do astounding things! For example, while disposing of biological weapons that involved a chemical bond seen nowhere in nature (a P-C bond) but. . . there was something growing in a few of the vats!
Now, it would be silly to think that the bacteria were ever evolving _towards_ being able to use biological weapons as a carbon, phosphorous, and energy source yet when placed in a situation where such a trait would be useful some bacteria had that magic mix of mutations that allowed it to happen.
From this random event though, a certain teleology does take over since the enzyme, once purified from the bacteria, was operating at nearly the optimal speed. So, it changed from an initial, accidental property that probably couldn’t perform the task very well to a highly efficient enzyme!
I don’t see why life couldn’t more-or-less be the same. We may randomly fall into certain situations, but once there we ought strive to maximize our potential within those situations. A teleology of sorts because the ‘end’ you are shooting towards is an optimization.
---
### Author:  [@Ierrellus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ierrellus)
#### Post date: [October 15, 2006, 4:59pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/50 "2006-10-15T16:59:14Z")
Xunzian,
Very well said, especially your consideration of optimization. Can you admit then that at least some biological experiences translate into human psychology since we share with other struggling organisms an essential genetic drive?
---
### Author:  [@Xunzian](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Xunzian)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2006, 4:44pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/51 "2006-10-16T16:44:21Z")
I think human psychology is a biological experience.
We are our genes, in a very literal sense. They set the boundaries of our existence and define what we are.
---
### Author:  [@heavenly\_demonic](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/heavenly_demonic)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2006, 2:27am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/52 "2006-10-17T02:27:43Z")
> [@Sauwelios](#):
>
> So all existence is positive, even though it may seem negative from a negative perspective.
>
> My avatar is a picture of me from about two years ago.
all existence is positive meaning that all existence is ‘affirming’ of something, right? not all existence is positive in the ‘’ everything is pink and unicorns and everything is ok if you would only be a vegan , dress in loose white clothes hang crystals all over your house and attend seminars about indigo children ‘’ sense i suppose …lol. 😛
I love your avatar, you look like a monk or like rasputin! lol 😛
it’s a very cool picture, i like your beard.
---
### Author:  [@Ierrellus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ierrellus)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2006, 2:24pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/53 "2006-10-17T14:24:42Z")
Xunzian. Thanks for that admission. This from a biologist/philosopher.
---
### Author:  [@Xunzian](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Xunzian)
#### Post date: [October 17, 2006, 5:06pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/54 "2006-10-17T17:06:53Z")
It’s actually a bit of a pickle for me . . .
since I really don’t much care for neuro-determinism – but I also fail to see how it isn’t true.
---
### Author:  [@Ierrellus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ierrellus)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2006, 4:38pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/55 "2006-10-18T16:38:03Z")
Xunzian,
Thanks. There is room in the genetic continuum for free will; it does not require determinism for optimizations of potential. The organism casts its lots and sees what comes of it.
Now, my friend, we must determine that, if psychology is biology, whether or not philosophy is an extension of psychology.
---
### Author:  [@Dan1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Dan1)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2006, 4:40pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/56 "2006-10-18T16:40:31Z")
> [@Ierrellus](#):
>
> Xunzian,
> Thanks. There is room in the genetic continuum for free will; it does not require determinism for optimizations of potential. The organism casts its lots and sees what comes of it.
> Now, my friend, we must determine that, if psychology is biology, whether or not philosophy is an extension of psychology.
ex: If you take a bio-altering substance into your body, it will effect your psychology.
I think psychology is part of biology.
---
### Author:  [@Ierrellus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ierrellus)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2006, 4:52pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/57 "2006-10-18T16:52:22Z")
Thanks, Dan,
But does psychology engender philosophy?
---
### Author:  [@Xunzian](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Xunzian)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2006, 4:56pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/58 "2006-10-18T16:56:29Z")
I don’t see how you can seperate determinism from an absence of free will.
Let’s suppose a bacterium is sitting happily in a nutrient rich environment – it doesn’t really need to bother making any amino acids, since they can be obtained more easily from the environment.
But then one day, this bacterium (and its now numerous brethern) have used up all the, say, tryptophan – the ribosome pauses for a brief moment at the leading sequence of the trp operon and before you know it, the bacterium is making its own tryptophan.
There was no choice, no ‘will’ on the part of the bacterium to activate its trp operon.
So, how is it any different from when I ‘decide’ to eat? True, given other environmental pressures you can put the need to eat on the back burner, but how is this all mediated? By ion-channels present in my brain which I have no more volitional control over than the bacterium does over its trp operon.
Without some sort of ‘emergent’ property (the idea of which I am very suspicious of) it is impossible for any sort of free will to exist.
As for philosophy being an extension of psychology, I tend to think so. If you look at the earliest philosophers, their major stueck was how one ought act, how to be a good person, how to get along. Mastarbatory concepts such as whether or not free will exists, epistomology, and the rest all came much later, partially as a response to the earlier ideologies on how to be the good person.
---
### Author:  [@Dan1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Dan1)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2006, 5:03pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/59 "2006-10-18T17:03:43Z")
> [@Ierrellus](#):
>
> Thanks, Dan,
> But does psychology engender philosophy?
I think so.
Philosophy could be considered the science of living consciousness, whilst physiology is the science of the unconscious living parts.
---
### Author:  [@Sauwelios](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Sauwelios)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2006, 5:45pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755/60 "2006-10-18T17:45:35Z")
> [@heavenly\_demonic](#):
>
> > [@Sauwelios](#):
> >
> > So all existence is positive, even though it may seem negative from a negative perspective.
> >
> > My avatar is a picture of me from about two years ago.
>
> all existence is positive meaning that all existence is ‘affirming’ of something, right? not all existence is positive in the ‘’ everything is pink and unicorns and everything is ok if you would only be a vegan , dress in loose white clothes hang crystals all over your house and attend seminars about indigo children ‘’ sense i suppose …lol. 😛
Exactly. 😉
> [@heavenly\_demonic](#):
>
> I love your avatar, you look like a monk or like rasputin! lol 😛
> it’s a very cool picture, i like your beard.
Thanks, though I don’t exactly like Rasputin. I don’t have that beard anymore, by the way.
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755.md?page=2)
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/problem-of-teleology/12755.md?page=4)