Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T18:28:35.082Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Teleology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2009

Ernst Mayr
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Massachusetts
Get access

Summary

Perhaps no other ideology has influenced biology more profoundly than teleological thinking (Mayr 1974, 1988, 1992). In one form or another it was a prevailing world view before Darwin. Appropriately, the discussion of teleology occupies considerable space (10–14%) in several recent philosophies of biology (Beckner 1959, Rosenberg 1985, Ruse 1973, Sattler 1986). This finalistic world view had many roots. It is reflected by the millenarian beliefs of many Christians, by the enthusiasm for progress promoted by the Enlightenment, by transformationist evolutionism, and by everybody's hope for a better future. Such a finalistic world view, however, was only one of several widely adopted Weltanschauungen.

Three concepts of the world

Grossly simplifying a far more complex picture, one could perhaps distinguish, in the period before Darwin, three ways of looking at the world:

  1. A recently created and constant world. This was the orthodox Christian dogma, which, however, by 1859 had lost much of its credibility, at least among philosophers and scientists (Mayr 1982). This view has been revived in recent years by some fundamentalist Protestant sects.

  2. An eternal and either constant or cycling world, exhibiting no constant direction or goal. Everything in such a world, as asserted by Democritus and his followers, is due to chance or necessity, with chance by far the more important factor. There is no room for teleology in this world view, everything being due to chance or causal mechanisms. It allows for change, but such change is not directional; it is not an evolution. This view gained some support during the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment, but it remained very much a minority view until the nineteenth century. A rather pronounced polarization developed from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries, between the strict mechanists, who explained everything purely in terms of movements and forces and who denied any validity whatsoever of the use of teleological language, and their opponents – deists, natural theologians, and vitalists – who all believed in teleology to a lesser or greater extent.

  3. […]

Type
Chapter
Information
What Makes Biology Unique?
Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline
, pp. 39 - 66
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ayala, F. J. 1970. Teleological explanation in evolutionary biology. Philosophy of Science, 37:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, K. E. von. 1876. Studien aus der Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften. St. Petersburg: H. Schmitzdorf
Beckner, M. 1959. The Biological Way of Thought. New York: Columbia University Press
Berg, L. S. 1926. Nomogenesis, or Evolution determined by Law. London: Constable
Bergson, H. 1911. Creative Evolution. Paris: Alcan
Bock, W. J., and Wahlert, G.. 1969 Adaptation and the form-function complex. Evolution, 19:269–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, P. J. 1983. The Eclipse of Darwinism. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press
Bowler, P. J. 1987. The Non-Darwinian Revolution. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press
Brandon, R. N. 1981. Biological teleology: Questions and explanation. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 12:91–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. 1985. An organizational interpretation of evolution. In Evolution at a Crossroads, D. Depew and B. H. Weber (eds.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 133–167
Collingwood, R. G. 1945. The Idea of Nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Craig, W. 1916. Appetites and aversions as constituents of instincts. Biological Bulletin, 34:91–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, R. 1975. Functional analysis. Journal of Philosophy, 72:741–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curio, E. 1973. Towards a methodology of teleonomy. Experientia, 29:1045–1058CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, B. D. 1961. The teleonomic significance of biosynthetic control mechanisms. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia, 26:1–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. London: W. W. Norton
Delbrück, M. 1971. Aristotle-totle-totle. In Of Microbes and Life, J. Monod and E. Borek (eds.). New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 50–55
Dupré, J., ed. 1987. The Latest on the Best: Essays on Evolution and Optimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Engels, E.-M. 1982. Die Teleologie des Lebendigen. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot
Gillispie, C. C. 1951. Genesis and Geology. New York: Harper & Bros
Glacken, C. J. 1967. Traces on the Rhodian Shore. Nature and Culture in Western Thought from Ancient Times to the End of the Eighteenth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press
Gotthelf, A. 1976. Aristotle's conception of final causality. Review of Metaphysics, 30:226–254Google Scholar
Goudge, T. A. 1961. The Ascent of Life. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
Grene, M. 1972. Aristotle and modern biology. Journal of Historical Ideas, 33:395–424CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartmann, E. v. 1872. Das Unbewusste vom Standpunkt der Physiologie und Deszendenzlehre. Berlin: C. Duncker
Hempel, C. G. 1965. Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Free Press
Hull, D. L. 1973. Darwin and His Critics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Hull, D. L. 1982. Philosophy and biology. Contemporary Philosophy, 2:298–316Google Scholar
Huxley, J. 1942. Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. London: Allen & Unwin
Huxley, T. H. 1870. Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews. London
Jacob, F. 1970. La Logique du Vivant. Paris: Gallimard
Kellogg, V. L. 1907. Darwinism Today. New York: Henry Holt
Kleinenberg, N. 1886. Über die Entwicklung durch Substitution von Organen. Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Zoölogie, pp. 212–224
Kohn, D. 1989. Darwin's ambiguity: The secularization of biological meaning. British Journal for the History of Science, 22:215–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolb, D. 1992. Kant, teleology, and evolution. Synthese, 91:9–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krafft, F. 1982. Die Idee der Zweckmässigkeit in der Geschichte der Wissenschaften. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 5:1–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kullmann, W. 1979. Die Teleologie in der aristotelischen Biologie. Heidelberg: C. Winter
Lenoir, T. 1982a. The Strategy of Life. Dordrecht: D. Reidel
Lenoir, T. 1982b. Teleology without regrets. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 12:293–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovejoy, A. O. 1936. The Great Chain of Being. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Mayr, E. 1964. The evolution of living systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 51:934–941CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayr, E. 1974. Teleological and teleonomic. A new analysis. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 14:91–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Mayr, E. 1988. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Mayr, E. 1991. The ideological resistance to Darwin's theory of natural selection. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 135:123–139Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1992. The idea of teleology. Journal of Historical Ideas, 53:117–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. 1998. The multiple meanings of teleological. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 20:35–40Google Scholar
Monod, J. 1970. Le Hasard et la Necessité. Paris: Seuil
Munson, R. 1971. Biological adaptation. Philosophy of Science, 38:200–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, E. 1961. The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World
Nagel, E. 1977. Teleology revisited: goal directed processes in biology. Journal of Philosophy, 74:261–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Grady, R. T. 1984. Evolutionary theory and teleology. Journal of Philosophy, 74:261–301Google Scholar
Osborn, H. F. 1934. Aristogenesis, the creative principle in the Origin of Species. American Naturalist, 68:193–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, C. S. 1958. Collected Papers, A. W. Burks (ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Vol. VII, pp. 298–316
Pittendrigh, C. S. 1958. Adaptation, natural selection and behavior. In Behavior and Evolution, A. Roe and G. G. Simpson (eds.). New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 390–416
Rensch, B. 1947. Neuere Probleme der Abstammungslehre. Stuttgart: Enke
Roger, J. 1989. Buffon. Paris: A. Fayard
Rosenberg, A. 1985. The Structure of Biological Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Ruse, M. 1973. The Philosophy of Biology. London: Hutchinson
Ruse, M. 1981. The last word on teleology, or optimality modes vindicated. In Is Science Sexist?, M. Ruse (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 85–101
Sattler, R. 1986. Biophilosophy. Berlin: Springer-Verlag
Sherrington, C. S. 1906. The Integrative Action of the Nervous System. New Haven: Yale University Press
Short, T. L. 1984. Teleology in nature. American Philosophical Quarterly, pp. 311–320Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1944. Tempo and Mode in Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press
Simpson, G. G. 1949. The Meaning of Evolution. New Haven: Yale University Press
Simpson, G. G. 1958. Behavior and evolution. In Behavior and Evolution, A. Roe and G. G. Simpson (eds.). New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 507–535
Sterelny, K., and P. E. Griffith. 1999. Sex and Death. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Waddington, C. H. 1957. The Strategy of the Genes. London: Allen & Unwin
Wilson, E. B. 1925. The Cell in Development and Heredity, 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan, p. 1005
Wimsatt, W. 1972. Teleology and the logical status of function statements. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 3:1–80Google Scholar
Woodger, J. H. 1929. Biological Principles. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Teleology
  • Ernst Mayr, Harvard University, Massachusetts
  • Book: What Makes Biology Unique?
  • Online publication: 10 December 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617188.005
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Teleology
  • Ernst Mayr, Harvard University, Massachusetts
  • Book: What Makes Biology Unique?
  • Online publication: 10 December 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617188.005
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Teleology
  • Ernst Mayr, Harvard University, Massachusetts
  • Book: What Makes Biology Unique?
  • Online publication: 10 December 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617188.005
Available formats
×