I enjoy listening and learning philosophy in these short sessions. They not only concisely encapsulate a particular point but, as is done here, do it with a bit of humor.
> "... I can give you no other answer than that it is a kind of moral purpose."
Surely, you -- and Epictetus -- aren't endorsing and promoting the concept of purpose and teleology? Something that JBS Haldane said was like a mistress to biologists, something they couldn't do without but couldn't afford to be seen in public "consorting" with? 😉🙂
But a durable and useful dichotomy, an important distinction with far-reaching consequences. Though the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy -- a very useful resource -- is a bit more emphatic in their "accidental and essential properties":
Though one might suggest that you may want to weigh-in on some important and topical manifestations of that dichotomy. For example, I've argued that, as clearly seems to be the case, actually producing large or small "reproductive cells" are essential properties of the sex categories, female and male respectively, while various "sexually dimorphic" behavioural and personality traits are more or less accidental properties of the sexes and are subsumed under the distinct category of "gender".
I don’t have a problem with the concept of purpose. Human generated purpose, that is. I don’t believe in cosmic purpose. As for teleology, again, it exists at the human, but not the cosmic level. What does exist in nature is teleonomy, the *appearance* of purpose. As in “the purpose of the eyes is to see…”
No doubt that that "appearance of purpose" is a useful distinction. Spandrels, just-so stories, and all that.
However, I kinda think you're being overly restrictive in your application of "teleological notions" to just humans since "goal-directed behaviour" -- teleology in a nutshell -- is just as ubiquitous in "lower" orders of Animalia, and probably in many other Kingdoms, as it is in humans. For some examples at lower levels, various homeostatic processes -- likewise teleology writ large -- seem rather common over many species, not just humans. Reiterating something from "Behavior, Purpose and Teleology" coauthored by Wiener:
NW: "Active behavior may be subdivided into two classes: purposeless (or random) and purposeful. The term purposeful is meant to denote that the act or behavior may be interpreted as directed to the attainment of a goal — i.e., to a final condition in which the behaving object reaches a definite correlation in time or in space with respect to another object or event. ....
Purposeful active behavior may be subdivided into two classes: feed-back (or teleological) and non-feed-back (or non-teleological). The expression feed-back is used by engineers in two different senses. .... The term feed-back is also employed in a more restricted sense to signify that the behavior of an object is controlled by the margin of error at which the object stands at a given time with reference to a relatively specific goal. The feed-back is then negative, that is, the signals from the goal are used to restrict outputs which would otherwise go beyond the goal. It is this second meaning of the term feed-back that is used here. ....
We have restricted the connotation of teleological behavior by applying this designation only to purposeful reactions which are controlled by the error of the reaction — i.e., by the difference between the state of the behaving object at any time and the final state interpreted as the purpose. Teleological behavior thus becomes synonymous with behavior controlled by negative feedback, and gains therefore in precision by a sufficiently restricted connotation."
In addition to that, I kinda think you're conflating two or more senses of purpose, although one is maybe part of your "appearance of purpose". Maybe an illustrative example from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP]:
SEP: "Historical and recent examples of teleological claims include the following: The Predator Detection hypothesis remains the strongest candidate for the function of stotting [by gazelles]. (Caro 1986: 663)"
Seems possible that some gazelle -- somewhere in the mists of time -- reacted somewhat randomly to the appearance of some predators with that "stotting" behaviour which was then picked up by the rest of the herd, and, as they say, the rest is history. That there was probably no intent, no goal "in mind" hardly obviates or refutes the "thesis", of sorts, that that behaviour serves some adaptive purpose and improves the "fitness" of the species.
Offhand, it seems you have the view that there has to be some intent -- supposedly only possible in humans -- behind the appearance of purposeful, goal-directed behaviour for the term "teleological" to be applicable and justified. Which the many cases of homeostasis would seem to knock into a cocked hat. Likewise with Kauffman's autocatalytic sets.
Not sure how familiar you might be with the rudiments of Boolean logic, but Kauffman also originated the similar "Boolean N-K model" "as random models of genetic regulatory networks":
Something which I'd modelled in a Mathematica program some seven years ago. Bit rough around the edges -- Mathematica has had many versions since I'd written the program, the latest ones of which aren't entirely compatible with it. But what's kind of cool is that it illustrates Kauffman's "order for free":
As someone once said, I think, in your "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis": "self-organization proposes, natural selection disposes" -- analogous to the somewhat Biblical "man proposes, God disposes."
Check out the previous episodes of the podcast! Also, I intend to continue the current series until we finish the whole of book I of the Discourses, one section at a time. Stay tuned…
So, because I'm handsome and strong, philosophy is for me! (I hope I got that right.) Seriously, interesting points--and I suspect they seem obvious only in retrospect.
I think you got it right… 😆 Yes, a lot of this stuff is obvious, but only after we are nudged to think about it. See the current version of it: “He’s rich, therefore he’s capable of running a country…”
I enjoy listening and learning philosophy in these short sessions. They not only concisely encapsulate a particular point but, as is done here, do it with a bit of humor.
Thanks Thomas, appreciated!
> "... I can give you no other answer than that it is a kind of moral purpose."
Surely, you -- and Epictetus -- aren't endorsing and promoting the concept of purpose and teleology? Something that JBS Haldane said was like a mistress to biologists, something they couldn't do without but couldn't afford to be seen in public "consorting" with? 😉🙂
But a durable and useful dichotomy, an important distinction with far-reaching consequences. Though the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy -- a very useful resource -- is a bit more emphatic in their "accidental and essential properties":
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
Though one might suggest that you may want to weigh-in on some important and topical manifestations of that dichotomy. For example, I've argued that, as clearly seems to be the case, actually producing large or small "reproductive cells" are essential properties of the sex categories, female and male respectively, while various "sexually dimorphic" behavioural and personality traits are more or less accidental properties of the sexes and are subsumed under the distinct category of "gender".
My elaborations on those themes:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/accidental-and-essential-properties
I don’t have a problem with the concept of purpose. Human generated purpose, that is. I don’t believe in cosmic purpose. As for teleology, again, it exists at the human, but not the cosmic level. What does exist in nature is teleonomy, the *appearance* of purpose. As in “the purpose of the eyes is to see…”
No doubt that that "appearance of purpose" is a useful distinction. Spandrels, just-so stories, and all that.
However, I kinda think you're being overly restrictive in your application of "teleological notions" to just humans since "goal-directed behaviour" -- teleology in a nutshell -- is just as ubiquitous in "lower" orders of Animalia, and probably in many other Kingdoms, as it is in humans. For some examples at lower levels, various homeostatic processes -- likewise teleology writ large -- seem rather common over many species, not just humans. Reiterating something from "Behavior, Purpose and Teleology" coauthored by Wiener:
NW: "Active behavior may be subdivided into two classes: purposeless (or random) and purposeful. The term purposeful is meant to denote that the act or behavior may be interpreted as directed to the attainment of a goal — i.e., to a final condition in which the behaving object reaches a definite correlation in time or in space with respect to another object or event. ....
Purposeful active behavior may be subdivided into two classes: feed-back (or teleological) and non-feed-back (or non-teleological). The expression feed-back is used by engineers in two different senses. .... The term feed-back is also employed in a more restricted sense to signify that the behavior of an object is controlled by the margin of error at which the object stands at a given time with reference to a relatively specific goal. The feed-back is then negative, that is, the signals from the goal are used to restrict outputs which would otherwise go beyond the goal. It is this second meaning of the term feed-back that is used here. ....
We have restricted the connotation of teleological behavior by applying this designation only to purposeful reactions which are controlled by the error of the reaction — i.e., by the difference between the state of the behaving object at any time and the final state interpreted as the purpose. Teleological behavior thus becomes synonymous with behavior controlled by negative feedback, and gains therefore in precision by a sufficiently restricted connotation."
https://scholar.archive.org/work/ffd56rpwmffhtprfwpstc6m7fi
In addition to that, I kinda think you're conflating two or more senses of purpose, although one is maybe part of your "appearance of purpose". Maybe an illustrative example from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP]:
SEP: "Historical and recent examples of teleological claims include the following: The Predator Detection hypothesis remains the strongest candidate for the function of stotting [by gazelles]. (Caro 1986: 663)"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/
Seems possible that some gazelle -- somewhere in the mists of time -- reacted somewhat randomly to the appearance of some predators with that "stotting" behaviour which was then picked up by the rest of the herd, and, as they say, the rest is history. That there was probably no intent, no goal "in mind" hardly obviates or refutes the "thesis", of sorts, that that behaviour serves some adaptive purpose and improves the "fitness" of the species.
Offhand, it seems you have the view that there has to be some intent -- supposedly only possible in humans -- behind the appearance of purposeful, goal-directed behaviour for the term "teleological" to be applicable and justified. Which the many cases of homeostasis would seem to knock into a cocked hat. Likewise with Kauffman's autocatalytic sets.
Not sure how familiar you might be with the rudiments of Boolean logic, but Kauffman also originated the similar "Boolean N-K model" "as random models of genetic regulatory networks":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_network
Something which I'd modelled in a Mathematica program some seven years ago. Bit rough around the edges -- Mathematica has had many versions since I'd written the program, the latest ones of which aren't entirely compatible with it. But what's kind of cool is that it illustrates Kauffman's "order for free":
https://demonstrations.wolfram.com/BooleanAndGeneRegulatoryNetworks/
As someone once said, I think, in your "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis": "self-organization proposes, natural selection disposes" -- analogous to the somewhat Biblical "man proposes, God disposes."
I want more lol
Check out the previous episodes of the podcast! Also, I intend to continue the current series until we finish the whole of book I of the Discourses, one section at a time. Stay tuned…
Love Epictetus
Makes two of us, at least!
Three.... 😁
So, because I'm handsome and strong, philosophy is for me! (I hope I got that right.) Seriously, interesting points--and I suspect they seem obvious only in retrospect.
I think you got it right… 😆 Yes, a lot of this stuff is obvious, but only after we are nudged to think about it. See the current version of it: “He’s rich, therefore he’s capable of running a country…”
And he may not even be as rich as he claims--but so what anyway?
Thanks, seems like those passages have passed under these old eyelids a time or two before. Truth is still truth.
Indeed, and it’s good to be reminded of it, from time to time!
Thank you!