Aristotles View on the Natural of Teleology - Essay Example

Aristotle’s View on the Natural of Teleology Introduction With regard to Aristotle’s teleological argument, natural things exists to perform certain functions; for instance, the birds have wings for purposes of flying. Aristotle reiterate that the ideal way of developing an understanding of things involves knowing the purpose for which things are created to serve. For Aristotle, everything exist for a reason and for purposes of performing a particular task, Aristotle mainly focus on teleology to offer explanation related to nature. In try to understand why things are the way they are, this often leads to the natural philosophy that is advocated for by philosophers like Aristotle (Asanuma, 2011). Aristotle’s first argument (c. 198b16-199a8) In this first argument, Aristotle draws to the comparison of rainfall and existent of animal parts which seems to be the most disputed contents in Aristotelian Corpus. In his argument, Aristotle tries to develop a final causation with regard to nature. Aristotle discusses the subject of natural teleology as a result of his predecessors trying to trace the final causation. The predecessors believe that things exists the way they as a result of necessity. This necessity includes the material elements that exists on their own natures and potentials. However, according to Aristotle, his predecessors describe natural phenomena with a focus on necessity. For Aristotle, his main focus is to establish the existence of other causes other than the material necessity. Since nature is a source of change, it acts to serve something; therefore, Aristotle is on the view that teleology and necessity tend to be related (Asanuma, 2011). Regarding how Aristotle distinguishes his teleological view concerning nature and the views associated with his opponents, it is clear that Aristotle considers his view and those of his opponents to be incompatible. As such, Aristotle disagrees with the view material necessity operates in nature and does not require operations associated with teleology. On another note, these two forces associated with nature could be compatible; however, operations associated to material necessity may not be sufficient when it comes to producing positive results. The natural phenomena may not come about with the absence of a final cause, as such, explanations related to formal and final causation should not be reduced to explanations focusing on efficiency and material causation. While there is a school of thought that concur necessity and teleology seems compatible with regard to Aristotle’s view, this can only happen with the absence of ontological consequences (Krbalek & Vacek, 2013). Aristotle contrasts his argument on teleology with the views of his predecessors because he refutes the view that plants and animals possess privileged ontological status. According to Aristotle, an animal exists as a natural substance while for materialists; an animal denotes a conglomerate of elements. In his defense, Aristotle argues about the forces and material necessity that are responsible for the natural phenomena. This mainly focuses in the difference with regard to the causality existing in the natural world and an explanation regarding what various natural causes entail. In Ph. II.8 Aristotle tries to raise the issue regarding intrinsic and accidental causation and not necessity and teleology. Aristotle further supports the argument regarding natural teleology as playing a critical role in nature and material necessity through raising an aporia. The raising of aporia depicts an objection that is raised by Aristotle’s predecessors with regard to comparison between rain and the parts of animals. This analogy intends to prove that nothing deters nature from acting to serve a purpose which in this context, can be exemplified by rain (Krbalek & Vacek, 2013). Conversely, those opposing Aristotle’s argument suggest that nature does not perform a purpose for the sake of something, but nature operates by necessity and the beneficial outcomes are incidental. The opponents also view it as absurd the idea that Zeus bring rain so that the crops can grow and on a similar note, suppose also that it rains to ruin the crops. Rain should be viewed as a natural phenomenon, and explanation regarding material necessity and what occurs because of rainfall should be seen as a mere accident. The expression that Zeus rains is an indication that those objecting to Aristotle’s argument are seen as materialist attempting to come up with a materialist explanation for a phenomena viewed to result from a providential god. The materialist view further concur that there is no existence of misunderstanding regarding the causal relationship for an event and the outcome of such event. The examples provided to oppose Aristotle’s view are meant to assert that natural processes do not occur for the purpose of something. The natural process according to opponents of Aristotle’s view, is meant for a beneficial outcome incidentally. In this respect, agreeing with Aristotle’s opponents means that questions will remain regarding other natural processes apart from the explanation provided for rain (Berryman, 2007). Aristotle’s response to the opponents In his response to the objections to his views, Aristotle emphasizes that natural things tend to occur regularly and are not incidental. For instance, Aristotle give example of natural events such as winter rain which he asserts are regular and not incidental. Conversely, the lack of Aristotle’s emphasis on necessity, but a focus on natural teleology is rather unsatisfactory since Aristotle also acknowledges material necessity as a cause of the events that happen on a regular basis. For instance, Aristotle has used examples such as evaporation cycle that create rain to explain the regularity associated with material necessity. In essence, the Aristotle’s view with regard to the four causes highlights on four different types of causal explanations, causes are selected depending on their description. For Aristotle, natural beings have the four causal factors that are needed for purposes of deriving explanations in the philosophy associated with nature (Berryman, 2007). Contrary to his predecessors, Aristotle identifies a particular purpose to ends, and mostly associated with three different types of causes which, he himself distinguishes. However, Aristotle does not provide a conceptual assessment of the end and thus final causes derived from explanations may vary. On another note, there is lack of evidence to completely support Aristotle’s view as being cosmic. The examples provided by Aristotle are limited to individual natures. These limitations have an effect on the explanatory force related to teleology and explanations that extend further cannot result in a conclusive explanation by relying on the final causes. In essence, the teleological view by Aristotle can prove ideal when it comes to individual natures that he describes in the Physica (Berryman, 2007). Conclusion The Physica represents Aristotle’s most important treaties in regard to his study of natural teleology. Through this treatise, Aristotle is able to study the principles and the causes of all the things associated with nature. This allows Aristotle to generate knowledge associated with natural phenomena. References Asanuma, W. (2011). Aristotle's Natural Philosophy: A Contrast with Early Greek and Modern Science. International Journal of Science in Society, Vol. 2(2), 237-245. Berryman, S. (2007). Teleology Without Tears: Aristotle and the Role of Mechanistic Conceptions of Organisms. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 37(3), 351-369. Krbalek, P & Vacek, M. (2013).Teleology: A modern approach for knowledge mapping. International Journal of Knowledge Based Intelligent Engineering Systems, Vol. 17(2), 137-144. Read More