Skip to main content

To What Extent does Formal Teleology Still Make Sense?

  • Chapter
Hermeneutics and Science

Part of the book series: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science ((BSPS,volume 206))

Abstract

Whether teleological analysis is at all useful seems to hinge upon the topic considered. Nobody doubts that human actions can be described teleologically because human agents want to achieve goals. In biology, however, the issue was thought to be so tightly connected to the reductionism-vitalism debate that a new terminology was introduced to describe the fact that DNA is a program for natural processes. Within physics, there even exists a rather general agreement that teleological notions are fruitless if not noxious. This is deeply rooted in the exaggerated debates on physicotheology during the first half of the 18th century. The battles waged then seem quite ridiculous to us today. Nevertheless, those few discussing teleology in physics today do not refrain from emphasizing its possible theological implications [BT].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Richard Bentley: A Confutation of Atheism (II), London 1693. Reprinted in: Isaac Newton’s Papers and Letters on Natural Philosophy. Ed. by I. Bernard Cohen, Cambridge: CUP, 1958

    Google Scholar 

  2. John D. Barrow & Frank J. Tipler: The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford: Clarendon, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  3. Manfred Eigen & Peter Schuster: The Hypercycle—A Principle of Natural Self-Organization, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 1979

    Google Scholar 

  4. Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands: The Feynman Lectures on Physics,Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1964. vol. 1 and 2

    Google Scholar 

  5. Otto Hansmann: “Unterscheidung und Zusammenhang von äußerer und innerer Zweckmäßigkeit bei Kant”, in [Pleines], p. 78–112

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hermann v. Helmholtz: “Ueber die physikalische Bedeutung des Princips der kleinsten Wirkung”, in: Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen,Leipzig. 1895, vol. III.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Immanuel Kant: The Critique of Judgement. Translated by James Creed Meredith, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bernd-Olaf Köppers: Der Ursprung biologischer Information. Zur Naturphilosophie der Lebensentstehung, München: Piper, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Philosophical Papers and Letters. A selection translated and edited with an introduction by Leroy E. Loemker, Dordrecht: Reidel, 1969

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jacques Monod: Zufall und Notwendigkeit, München: Piper, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ernest Nagel: The Structure of Science—Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation, Indianapolis, Cambridge: Hackett, 1979

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ernest Nagel: “Teleology Revisited”, in: Teleology Revisited and Other Essays, New York: Columbia University Press, 1979

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jürgen-Eckardt Pleines (ed.): Zum teleologischen Argument in der Philosophie. Aristoteles—Kant—Hegel, Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  14. Colin S. Pittendrigh: “Adaptation, Natural Selection and Behavior”, in: Behavior and Evolution, ed. by Anne Roe and George Gaylord Simpson, New Haven: Yale UP, 1958, p. 390–416

    Google Scholar 

  15. Max Planck: “Das Prinzip der kleinsten Wirkung”, in: Wege zur physikalischen Erkenntnis, München, 1944

    Google Scholar 

  16. Matthias Schramm. Natur ohne Sinn ?—Das Ende des teleologischen Weltbildes,Graz, Wien, Köln: Styria, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  17. Michael Stöltzner: “Action Principles and Teleology”, in: Harald Atmanspacher & Gerhard J. Dalenoort (eds.): Inside Versus Outside, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 1994, p. 33–62

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Michael Stöltzner: “Levels of Physical Theories”, in: W. DePauli-Schimanovich, E. Köhler, F. Stadler (eds.): The Foundational Debate. Vienna Circle Yearbook 3, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  19. Renate Wahsner: “Mechanism—Technizism—Organism: Der epistemologische Status der Physik als Gegenstand von Kants Kritik der Urteilskraft”, in: Karen Gloy & Paul Burger (eds.): Die Naturphilosophie im Deutschen Idealismus, Stuttgart: Frommann—Holzboog, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  20. Georg Henrik von Wright: Erklären und Verstehen, Frankfurt am Main: Hain, 1991

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Stöltzner, M. (1999). To What Extent does Formal Teleology Still Make Sense?. In: Fehér, M., Kiss, O., Ropolyi, L. (eds) Hermeneutics and Science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 206. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9293-2_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9293-2_18

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5257-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9293-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics