I’ve got a question about Aristotle’s concept of final cause. He says that everything in the universe has a final cause - that for which the thing exist. From what I understand, Aristotle thought of this as a telos. But did he mean this as if there was some kind of divine being that had a purpose in creating the universe? I mean, I can’t imagine there being a purpose without a conscious agent to have that purpose. Why would he assume this?
I don’t know the answer to your question, but I do remember Spinoza making a claim similar to yours about final causes. He saw them as inseperable from the desires (ie, the “purpose” of something is to fullfill the needs or wishes of the one with the desire, for example the purpose of a house is to fulfill the wish of its owner for shelter). He didn’t believe there was some kind of concious agent that had desires for the universe (like the Judeo-Christian God), and thus he didn’t believe there was an ultimate purpose to the universe.
no, there was not a divine being necessary for final cause
faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/4causes.htm
-Imp
Thanks Imp
The last paragraph refers to the use of biological function as purpose in biological explanation.
Almost true. In a Darwinian sense, organs that help the organism to survive will tend to persist. But this relationship is not causal, but statistical. Otherwise, besides eyes we might also have wings or aqualungs to give us access to food under or beyond the oceans. Or perhaps we would have fur.