One of the most enjoyable moments in life is having a conversation with your loved ones and getting to know each other on a subject. Apart from being able to produce something, it is one of the rare occasions when we can live in the moment. So do we make friends to be able to have these conversations and discussions, or do all these things become more attractive because we make friends? What is the cause? What is the purpose?
You are in a rich, deep conversation, questioning life. You have decided to philosophise a bit and you have realised that you are diving into questions that mankind has been asking since the very beginning. Yes, it is time to question the meaning of life. Are you one of those who ask, “Why does life exist?” or are you one of those who ask, “What is the purpose of life?”
The difference seems to be that one emphasises the beginning and the other the possible end or desire. Two different questions, exploring “purpose” in terms of the goals people seek to achieve in their lives, as opposed to the more general question of “why”, which is usually concerned with the origin and nature of existence.
While the former is a general discussion about the universe, the latter is an open-ended discussion that is very open to diversity in accordance with the values, beliefs and life views of individuals.
Photo by Joshua Earle on Unsplash
Yesterday, when I was a guest of friends who had invited me to their home, we felt the need to discuss a similar topic. After some bad news they had received, the atmosphere suddenly turned into a conversation about death, people, life and related topics.
This morning I was doing some research on the subject and came across two concepts that I had heard before but had ignored. The two key words are “causality” as a philosophical view that deals with why, and “teleology” as a philosophical view that deals with purpose.
For the sake of clarity, “theology” means the science of religion, the study of God and His relationship to humanity, whereas here it is “teleology”.
Whereas causality seeks to understand the reasons for the occurrence of an event or phenomenon, teleology examines how an event or situation moves towards a particular purpose and how it serves that purpose. In this context, it is clear that we are really talking about two opposing ideas.
Photo by Alex Kondratiev on Unsplash
If we look at the subject from a scientific point of view, we see that there may be points where teleology (which may vary from subject to subject) is not tangible. This is because science deals with the beginning in order to question the existence of something or the cause of its existence. The question of why must be asked in order to achieve the purpose (or a meaningful goal).
While science seeks to explain natural phenomena in a way that is consistent with causality, teleology is seen more as an approach to understanding the behaviour of organisms or the overall purpose of the universe.
Furthermore, teleology offers a strict approach to the subject, emphasising that everything has a purpose rather than a cause. So much so, in fact, that even if we assume that something has a cause, it is assumed that it was designed to serve a purpose.
At this point we can see that teleology is different from science. Science develops dynamically with periodic consciousness, knowledge, technology and reason. The ideas put forward are constantly re-examined, and progress is made in the search for truth, or the truth that evolves with what the period brings. In other words, science is a process that starts from the beginning, develops with questions and seeks results.
On the other hand, while causality is subordinate to science as a point of view, teleology is slowly breaking its bonds. But the interesting thing is that we cannot say that causality is also a purely scientific point of view. After all, according to science, the causes are ultimately to achieve the purpose. In this context, asking different questions instead of a single pattern of questions saves humanity from monotony and leads to development.
Photo by Denny Müller on Unsplash
It is time to be a little more concrete. What is an example of the teleological view as a theme that Plato and Aristotle thought about? According to Aristotle, the inner purpose (telos) of an acorn growing into a full-grown oak is an example of this concept. To be honest, it reminded me a little of the concept of instinctuality.
Following Plato in seeing purpose in both human and non-human nature, Aristotle proposed a way of thinking he called “four causes”. He thought that four basic types of answers to the question “what” were appropriate for analysing the change and origin of events and situations in nature. These are: material, formal, efficient and final causes.
The following question may immediately come to mind: “If teleology is a purposive concept rather than a question of why, what is the reason for the term ‘four causes’?”
In fact, there is no contradiction in this situation, and Aristotle’s four causes are the tools he used to understand the subject from different angles. Causality is about explaining why something happens or exists; teleology is about understanding how something happens or exists. So both of these types can be used together to fully understand a subject, and they are often complementary rather than contradictory.
Moreover, it seems that Aristotle thought it appropriate to divide them into two, as intrinsic and extrinsic causes. He considered matter and form to be intrinsic, because they are directly related to the object, and efficient and final causes to be extrinsic, because they are related to external factors. We will not analyse the distinction, but I am sure that you will not hesitate to make sense of it when you consider the example given.
Material Cause: The materials used in the construction of a house, such as stone, brick, wood, cement, etc. These materials play a fundamental role in creating the physical structure of the house.
Formal Cause: The design, architectural plan and structural features of a house enable it to be defined as a house. That is, the formal cause of a house is how it looks and how it functions.
Efficient Cause: Factors, work and labour that make it possible to build a house fall into this category.
Final Cause: The result or purpose to be achieved by building the house, in other words, the use and benefit of the house. The final purpose of building a house is to provide shelter and a comfortable life for people.
So let us try to understand by asking questions:
Material Cause: “What is this object made of?”
Formal Cause: “What is the form or design of this object?”
Efficient Cause: “What makes this object or event happen?”
Final Cause: “What is the purpose of this object or event?”
In conclusion, teleology, as opposed to causality, is a view that is now less accepted in the scientific literature because it is likely to contradict our scientific methods and knowledge, which are considered modern compared to the past. Instead, philosophical, theological or metaphysical approaches such as existentialism or nihilism seem to be preferred. Nevertheless, teleological arguments may be used among philosophers when dealing with issues such as the purpose of the universe or the purpose of life. It is important to remember that any philosophical view must be considered and evaluated within the scientific and intellectual conditions of the time.
Articles that might interest you:
コメント