David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 39 (4):379-390 (2008)
Aristotle’s biological teleology is rooted in an epigenetic account of reproduction. As such, it is best interpreted by consequence etiology. I support this claim by citing the capacity of consequence etiology’s key distinctions to explain Aristotle’s opposition to Empedocles. There are implications for the relation between ancient and modern biology. The analysis reveals that in an important respect Darwin’s account of adaptation is closer to Aristotle’s than to Empedocles’s. They both rely on consequence etiological considerations to evade attributing the purposiveness of organisms to chance. Two implications follow: Darwinian explanations of adaptation are as teleological as Aristotle’s, albeit differently; and these differences show how deeply resistant Aristotle’s version of biological teleology is to descent from a common ancestor
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
James Dominic Rooney (2013). Evolutionary Biology and Classical Teleological Arguments for God's Existence. Heythrop Journal 54 (4):617-630.
David J. Depew & Bruce H. Weber (2011). The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis. Biological Theory 6 (1):89-102.
David J. Depew (2011). Adaptation as Process: The Future of Darwinism and the Legacy of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 42 (1):89-98.
Similar books and articles
Robert Friedman (1986). Necessitarianism and Teleology in Aristotle's Biology. Biology and Philosophy 1 (3):355-365.
Michael T. Ghiselin (1994). Darwin's Language May Seem Teleological, but His Thinking is Another Matter. Biology and Philosophy 9 (4):489-492.
Rich Cameron (2004). How to Be a Realist About Sui Generis Teleology Yet Feel at Home in the 21st Century. The Monist 87 (1):72-95.
Hannah Ginsborg (2006). Kant's Biological Teleology and Its Philosophical Significance. In A Companion to Kant. Blackwell Publishing.
Alexander Rosenberg, Fitness. Journal of Philosophy.
Alexander Rosenberg (1983). Fitness. Journal of Philosophy 80 (8):457-473.
Monte Ransome Johnson (2005). Aristotle on Teleology. Oxford University Press.
James G. Lennox (1993). Darwin Was a Teleologist. Biology and Philosophy 8 (4):409-421.
Rich Cameron (2010). Aristotle's Teleology. Philosophy Compass 5 (12):1096-1106.
T. L. Short (2002). Darwin's Concept of Final Cause: Neither New nor Trivial. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 17 (3):323-340.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads49 ( #46,818 of 1,696,170 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #239,005 of 1,696,170 )
How can I increase my downloads?