Obviously human beings act purposively, i.e., with teleology; that is in
question only for extreme behaviourists and structuralists who deny any
subjectivity. The supposed error is to ascribe teleology to processes
without a subject. To ascribe purpose (aim, intention) to biological
evolution, history, etc., is IMHO truly an error. The point is however,
that understanding of processes without subjects as teleological is
frequently effective. It is quite legitimate to ask what the purpose of
peacocks' elaborate mating ritual or the long neck of a giraffe, or why
your hair stands on end when you're afraid. Up to a point! This is the same
issue as understanding molecular chemistry by supposing that positive ions
*like* negative ions, and so on - a sort of anthropomorphism.
What do you mean by your reference to Adam and Eve Mike?
Andy
At 08:01 PM 23/12/2006 -0800, you wrote:
> ...I cannot agree that teleological thinking is always wrong, as I
> interpret the local concensus to be. It is hard to avoid the conclusion
> that all culturally mediated action is teleological, which does not mean
> it is not misguided!!
>
>God may be a blind watchmaker, but neither Adam nor Eve, skilled as they
>were in watch making or making watchers, i am not sure which, was blind.
>mike
Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435, AIM
identity: AndyMarxists mobile 0409 358 651
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 07:06:19 PST