Last updated
Plato and Aristotle, depicted here in The School of Athens, both developed philosophical arguments addressing the universe's apparent order (logos) Sanzio 01 Plato Aristotle.jpg
Plato and Aristotle, depicted here in The School of Athens , both developed philosophical arguments addressing the universe's apparent order ( logos )

Teleology (from τέλος, telos , 'end', 'aim', or 'goal,' and λόγος, logos , 'explanation' or 'reason') [1] or finality [2] [3] is a reason or explanation for something as a function of its end, purpose, or goal, as opposed to as a function of its cause. [4] A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as the purpose of a fork to hold food, is called extrinsic . [3]


Natural teleology, common in classical philosophy, though controversial today, [5] contends that natural entities also have intrinsic purposes, irrespective of human use or opinion. For instance, Aristotle claimed that an acorn's intrinsic telos is to become a fully grown oak tree. [6] Though ancient atomists rejected the notion of natural teleology, teleological accounts of non-personal or non-human nature were explored and often endorsed in ancient and medieval philosophies, but fell into disfavor during the modern era (1600–1900).

In the late 18th century, Immanuel Kant used the concept of telos as a regulative principle in his Critique of Judgment (1790). Teleology was also fundamental to the philosophy of Karl Marx and G. W. F. Hegel. [7] [ specify ]

Contemporary philosophers and scientists are still in debate as to whether teleological axioms are useful or accurate in proposing modern philosophies and scientific theories. An example of the reintroduction of teleology into modern language is the notion of an attractor . [8] Another instance is when Thomas Nagel (2012), though not a biologist, proposed a non-Darwinian account of evolution that incorporates impersonal and natural teleological laws to explain the existence of life, consciousness, rationality, and objective value. [9] Regardless, the accuracy can also be considered independently from the usefulness: it is a common experience in pedagogy that a minimum of apparent teleology can be useful in thinking about and explaining Darwinian evolution even if there is no true teleology driving evolution. Thus it is easier to say that evolution "gave" wolves sharp canine teeth because those teeth "serve the purpose of" predation regardless of whether there is an underlying non-teleologic reality in which evolution is not an actor with intentions. In other words, because human cognition and learning often rely on the narrative structure of stories – with actors, goals, and immediate (proximal) rather than ultimate (distal) causation (see also proximate and ultimate causation) –, some minimal level of teleology might be recognized as useful or at least tolerable for practical purposes even by people who reject its cosmologic accuracy. Its accuracy is upheld by Barrow and Tipler (1986), whose citations of such teleologists as Max Planck and Norbert Wiener are significant for scientific endeavor. [10]


In Western philosophy, the term and concept of teleology originated in the writings of Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle's 'four causes' give special place to the telos or "final cause" of each thing. In this, he followed Plato in seeing purpose in both human and subhuman nature.


The word teleology combines Greek telos ( τέλος , from τελε-, 'end' or 'purpose') [1] and logia ( -λογία , 'speak of', 'study of', or 'a branch of learning"'). German philosopher Christian Wolff would coin the term, as teleologia (Latin), in his work Philosophia rationalis, sive logica (1728). [11]


In Plato’s dialogue Phaedo , Socrates argues that true explanations for any given physical phenomenon must be teleological. He bemoans those who fail to distinguish between a thing's necessary and sufficient causes, which he identifies respectively as material and final causes: [12]

Imagine not being able to distinguish the real cause, from that without which the cause would not be able to act, as a cause. It is what the majority appear to do, like people groping in the dark; they call it a cause, thus giving it a name that does not belong to it. That is why one man surrounds the earth with a vortex to make the heavens keep it in place, another makes the air support it like a wide lid. As for their capacity of being in the best place they could be at this very time, this they do not look for, nor do they believe it to have any divine force, but they believe that they will some time discover a stronger and more immortal Atlas to hold everything together more, and they do not believe that the truly good and 'binding' binds and holds them together.

Plato, Phaedo , 99

Socrates here argues that while the materials that compose a body are necessary conditions for its moving or acting in a certain way, they nevertheless cannot be the sufficient condition for its moving or acting as it does. For example, [12] if Socrates is sitting in an Athenian prison, the elasticity of his tendons is what allows him to be sitting, and so a physical description of his tendons can be listed as necessary conditions or auxiliary causes of his act of sitting. [13] [14] However, these are only necessary conditions of Socrates' sitting. To give a physical description of Socrates' body is to say that Socrates is sitting, but it does not give any idea why it came to be that he was sitting in the first place. To say why he was sitting and not not sitting, it is necessary to explain what it is about his sitting that is good, for all things brought about (i.e., all products of actions) are brought about because the actor saw some good in them. Thus, to give an explanation of something is to determine what about it is good. Its goodness is its actual cause—its purpose, telos or "reason for which." [15]


Aristotle argued that Democritus was wrong to attempt to reduce all things to mere necessity, because doing so neglects the aim, order, and "final cause", which brings about these necessary conditions:

Democritus, however, neglecting the final cause, reduces to necessity all the operations of nature. Now, they are necessary, it is true, but yet they are for a final cause and for the sake of what is best in each case. Thus nothing prevents the teeth from being formed and being shed in this way; but it is not on account of these causes but on account of the end.…

Aristotle, Generation of Animals 5.8, 789a8–b15

In Physics , using the hylomorphic theory, (using eternal forms as his model[ dubious ]), Aristotle rejects Plato's assumption that the universe was created by an intelligent designer. For Aristotle, natural ends are produced by "natures" (principles of change internal to living things), and natures, Aristotle argued, do not deliberate: [16]

It is absurd to suppose that ends are not present [in nature] because we do not see an agent deliberating.

Aristotle, Physics , 2.8, 199b27-9 [lower-roman 1]

These Platonic and Aristotelian arguments ran counter to those presented earlier by Democritus and later by Lucretius, both of whom were supporters of what is now often called accidentalism:

Nothing in the body is made in order that we may use it. What happens to exist is the cause of its use.

Lucretius, De rerum natura [On the Nature of Things] 4, 833 [lower-roman 2]

Modern philosophy


A teleology of human aims played a crucial role in the work of economist Ludwig von Mises, especially in the development of his science of praxeology . Mises believed that an individual’s action is teleological because it is governed by the existence of their chosen ends. [17] In other words, individuals select what they believe to be the most appropriate means to achieve a sought after goal or end. Mises also stressed that, with respect to human action, teleology is not independent of causality: "No action can be devised and ventured upon without definite ideas about the relation of cause and effect, teleology presupposes causality." [17]

Assuming reason and action to be predominantly influenced by ideological credence, Mises derived his portrayal of human motivation from Epicurean teachings, insofar as he assumes "atomistic individualism, teleology, and libertarianism, and defines man as an egoist who seeks a maximum of happiness" (i.e. the ultimate pursuit of pleasure over pain). [18] "Man strives for," Mises remarks, "but never attains the perfect state of happiness described by Epicurus." [18] Moreover, expanding upon the Epicurean groundwork, Mises formalized his conception of pleasure and pain by assigning each specific meaning, allowing him to extrapolate his conception of attainable happiness to a critique of liberal versus socialist ideological societies. It is there, in his application of Epicurean belief to political theory, that Mises flouts Marxist theory, considering labor to be one of many of man's 'pains', a consideration which positioned labor as a violation of his original Epicurean assumption of man's manifest hedonistic pursuit. From here he further postulates a critical distinction between introversive labor and extroversive labor, further divaricating from basic Marxist theory, in which Marx hails labor as man's "species-essence", or his "species-activity". [19]

Postmodern philosophy

Teleological-based "grand narratives" are renounced by the postmodern tradition, [20] where teleology may be viewed as reductive, exclusionary, and harmful to those whose stories are diminished or overlooked. [21]

Against this postmodern position, Alasdair MacIntyre has argued that a narrative understanding of oneself, of one's capacity as an independent reasoner, one's dependence on others and on the social practices and traditions in which one participates, all tend towards an ultimate good of liberation. Social practices may themselves be understood as teleologically oriented to internal goods, for example practices of philosophical and scientific inquiry are teleologically ordered to the elaboration of a true understanding of their objects. MacIntyre's After Virtue (1981) famously dismissed the naturalistic teleology of Aristotle's 'metaphysical biology', but he has cautiously moved from that book's account of a sociological teleology toward an exploration of what remains valid in a more traditional teleological naturalism.


Historically, teleology may be identified with the philosophical tradition of Aristotelianism. The rationale of teleology was explored by Immanuel Kant (1790) in his Critique of Judgement and made central to speculative philosophy by G. W. F. Hegel (as well as various neo-Hegelian schools). Hegel proposed an idealistic history of our species which some consider to be at variance with Darwin. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels repudiated the idealism while maintaining the teleology, in a dialectic of materialism. They employed what is now called analytic philosophy —the point of departure[ dubious ] being not formal logic and scientific fact but 'identity', or "objective spirit" in Hegel's terminology.[ citation needed ]

Individual human consciousness, in the process of reaching for autonomy and freedom, has no choice but to deal with an obvious reality: the collective identities (e.g. the multiplicity of world views, ethnic, cultural, and national identities) that divide the human race and set different groups in violent conflict with each other.[ citation needed ] Hegel conceived of the 'totality' of mutually antagonistic world-views and life-forms in history as being 'goal-driven', i.e. oriented towards an end-point in history.[ citation needed ] The 'objective contradiction' of 'subject' and 'object' would eventually 'sublate' into a form of life that leaves violent conflict behind.[ citation needed ] This goal-oriented, teleological notion of the "historical process as a whole" is present in a variety of 20th-century authors, although its prominence declined drastically after the Second World War.[ citation needed ]


Teleology significantly informs the study of ethics, such as in:


The broad spectrum of consequentialist ethics—of which utilitarianism is a well-known example—focuses on the end result or consequences, with such principles as John Stuart Mill's 'principle of utility': "the greatest good for the greatest number." This principle is thus teleological, though in a broader sense than is elsewhere understood in philosophy.

In the classical notion, teleology is grounded in the inherent nature of things themselves, whereas in consequentialism, teleology is imposed on nature from outside by the human will. Consequentialist theories justify inherently what most people would call evil acts by their desirable outcomes, if the good of the outcome outweighs the bad of the act. So, for example, a consequentialist theory would say it was acceptable to kill one person in order to save two or more other people. These theories may be summarized by the maxim " the end justifies the means ."


Consequentialism stands in contrast to the more classical notions of deontological ethics, of which examples include Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative , and Aristotle's virtue ethics—although formulations of virtue ethics are also often consequentialist in derivation.

In deontological ethics, the goodness or badness of individual acts is primary and a larger, more desirable goal is insufficient to justify bad acts committed on the way to that goal, even if the bad acts are relatively minor and the goal is major (like telling a small lie to prevent a war and save millions of lives). In requiring all constituent acts to be good, deontological ethics is much more rigid than consequentialism, which varies by circumstances.

Practical ethics are usually a mix of the two. For example, Mill also relies on deontic maxims to guide practical behavior, but they must be justifiable by the principle of utility. [24]


In modern science, explanations that rely on teleology are often, but not always, avoided, either because they are unnecessary or because whether they are true or false is thought to be beyond the ability of human perception and understanding to judge. [lower-roman 3] But using teleology as an explanatory style, in particular within evolutionary biology, is still controversial. [25]

Since the Novum Organum of Francis Bacon, teleological explanations in physical science tend to be deliberately avoided in favor of focus on material and efficient explanations, although some recent accounts of quantum phenomena make use of teleology. [26] Final and formal causation came to be viewed as false or too subjective. [lower-roman 3] Nonetheless, some disciplines, in particular within evolutionary biology, continue to use language that appears teleological in describing natural tendencies towards certain end conditions. Some[ who? ] suggest, however, that these arguments ought to be, and practicably can be, rephrased in non-teleological forms; others hold that teleological language cannot always be easily expunged from descriptions in the life sciences, at least within the bounds of practical pedagogy.


Apparent teleology is a recurring issue in evolutionary biology, [27] much to the consternation of some writers. [25]

Statements implying that nature has goals, for example where a species is said to do something "in order to" achieve survival, appear teleological, and therefore invalid. Usually, it is possible to rewrite such sentences to avoid the apparent teleology. Some biology courses have incorporated exercises requiring students to rephrase such sentences so that they do not read teleologically. Nevertheless, biologists still frequently write in a way which can be read as implying teleology even if that is not the intention. John Reiss (2009) argues that evolutionary biology can be purged of such teleology by rejecting the analogy of natural selection as a watchmaker. [28] Other arguments against this analogy have also been promoted by writers such as Richard Dawkins (1987). [29]

Some authors, like James Lennox (1993), have argued that Darwin was a teleologist, [30] while others, such as Michael Ghiselin (1994), describe this claim as a myth promoted by misinterpretations of his discussions and emphasized the distinction between using teleological metaphors and being teleological. [31]

Biologist philosopher Francisco Ayala (1998) has argued that all statements about processes can be trivially translated into teleological statements, and vice versa, but that teleological statements are more explanatory and cannot be disposed of. [32] Karen Neander (1998) has argued that the modern concept of biological 'function' is dependent upon selection. So, for example, it is not possible to say that anything that simply winks into existence without going through a process of selection has functions. We decide whether an appendage has a function by analysing the process of selection that led to it. Therefore, any talk of functions must be posterior to natural selection and function cannot be defined in the manner advocated by Reiss and Dawkins. [33]

Ernst Mayr (1992) states that "adaptedness…is an a posteriori result rather than an a priori goal-seeking." [34] Various commentators view the teleological phrases used in modern evolutionary biology as a type of shorthand. For example, S. H. P. Madrell (1998) writes that "the proper but cumbersome way of describing change by evolutionary adaptation [may be] substituted by shorter overtly teleological statements" for the sake of saving space, but that this "should not be taken to imply that evolution proceeds by anything other than from mutations arising by chance, with those that impart an advantage being retained by natural selection." [35] Likewise, J. B. S. Haldane says, "Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he's unwilling to be seen with her in public." [36] [37]

Selected-effects accounts, such as the one suggested by Neander (1998), face objections due to their reliance on etiological accounts, which some fields lack the resources to accommodate. Many such sciences, which study the same traits and behaviors regarded by evolutionary biology, still correctly attribute teleological functions without appeal to selection history. Corey J. Maley and Gualtiero Piccinini (2018/2017) are proponents of one such account, which focuses instead on goal-contribution. With the objective goals of organisms being survival and inclusive fitness, Piccinini and Maley define teleological functions to be “a stable contribution by a trait (or component, activity, property) of organisms belonging to a biological population to an objective goal of those organisms.” [38]


Cybernetics is the study of the communication and control of regulatory feedback both in living beings and machines, and in combinations of the two.

Arturo Rosenblueth, Norbert Wiener, and Julian Bigelow (1943) had conceived of feedback mechanisms as lending a teleology to machinery. [39] Wiener (1948) coined the term cybernetics to denote the study of "teleological mechanisms." [40] In the cybernetic classification presented by Rosenblueth, Wiener, and Bigelow (1943), teleology is feedback controlled purpose. [39] [41]

The classification system underlying cybernetics has been criticized by Frank Honywill George and Les Johnson (1985), who cite the need for an external observability to the purposeful behavior in order to establish and validate the goal-seeking behavior. [42] In this view, the purpose of observing and observed systems is respectively distinguished by the system's subjective autonomy and objective control. [42]

See also

Related Research Articles

Aristotle Classical Greek philosopher and polymath, founder of the Peripatetic School

Aristotle was a Greek philosopher and polymath during the Classical period in Ancient Greece. Taught by Plato, he was the founder of the Lyceum, the Peripatetic school of philosophy, and the Aristotelian tradition. His writings cover many subjects including physics, biology, zoology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, aesthetics, poetry, theatre, music, rhetoric, psychology, linguistics, economics, politics, meteorology, geology and government. Aristotle provided a complex synthesis of the various philosophies existing prior to him. It was above all from his teachings that the West inherited its intellectual lexicon, as well as problems and methods of inquiry. As a result, his philosophy has exerted a unique influence on almost every form of knowledge in the West and it continues to be a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.

Pre-Socratic philosophy, also known as early Greek philosophy, is ancient Greek philosophy before Socrates. Pre-Socratic philosophers were mostly interested in cosmology, the beginning and the substance of the universe, but the inquiries of these early philosophers spanned the workings of the natural world as well as human society, ethics, and religion. They sought explanations based on natural law rather than the actions of gods. Their work and writing has been almost entirely lost. Knowledge of their views comes from testimonia, i.e. later authors' discussions of the work of pre-Socratics. Philosophy found fertile ground in the ancient Greek world because of the close ties with neighboring civilizations and the rise of autonomous civil entities, poleis.

The teleological argument is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, that complex functionality in the natural world which looks designed is evidence of an intelligent creator.

Reason Capacity for consciously making sense of things

Reason is the capacity of consciously applying logic to seek truth and draw conclusions from new or existing information. It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art, and is normally considered to be a distinguishing ability possessed by humans. Reason is sometimes referred to as rationality.

Aristotelianism Tradition in philosophy

Aristotelianism is a philosophical tradition inspired by the work of Aristotle, usually characterized by deductive logic and an analytic inductive method in the study of nature and natural law. It answers why-questions by a scheme of four causes, including purpose or teleology, and emphasizes virtue ethics. Aristotle and his school wrote tractates on physics, biology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, aesthetics, poetry, theatre, music, rhetoric, psychology, linguistics, economics, politics, and government. Any school of thought that takes one of Aristotle's distinctive positions as its starting point can be considered "Aristotelian" in the widest sense. This means that different Aristotelian theories may not have much in common as far as their actual content is concerned besides their shared reference to Aristotle.

In most contexts, the concept of good denotes the conduct that should be preferred when posed with a choice between possible actions. Good is generally considered to be the opposite of evil, and is of interest in the study of morality, ethics, religion and philosophy. The specific meaning and etymology of the term and its associated translations among ancient and contemporary languages show substantial variation in its inflection and meaning depending on circumstances of place, history, religious or philosophical context.

Natural philosophy Philosophical study of nature and physical universe that was a precursor to science.

Natural philosophy or philosophy of nature was the philosophical study of nature and the physical universe that was dominant before the development of modern science. It is considered to be the precursor of natural science.

Adaptation Trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism maintained and evolved by natural selection

In biology, adaptation has three related meanings. Firstly, it is the dynamic evolutionary process that fits organisms to their environment, enhancing their evolutionary fitness. Secondly, it is a state reached by the population during that process. Thirdly, it is a phenotypic trait or adaptive trait, with a functional role in each individual organism, that is maintained and has evolved through natural selection.

Telos is a term used by philosopher Aristotle to refer to the full potential or inherent purpose or objective of a person or thing, similar to the notion of an 'end goal' or 'raison d'être'. Moreover, it can be understood as the "supreme end of man's endeavour".

Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms brought about by natural processes like natural selection. The term derives from the Greek "τελεονομία", compound of two Greek words, τέλος, from τελε-, and νόμος nomos ("law"). Teleonomy is sometimes contrasted with teleology, where the latter is understood as a purposeful goal-directedness brought about through human or divine intention. Teleonomy is thought to derive from evolutionary history, adaptation for reproductive success, and/or the operation of a program. Teleonomy is related to programmatic or computational aspects of purpose.

The philosophy of biology is a subfield of philosophy of science, which deals with epistemological, metaphysical, and ethical issues in the biological and biomedical sciences. Although philosophers of science and philosophers generally have long been interested in biology, philosophy of biology only emerged as an independent field of philosophy in the 1960s and 1970s. Philosophers of science then began paying increasing attention to biology, from the rise of Neodarwinism in the 1930s and 1940s to the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 to more recent advances in genetic engineering. Other key ideas include the reduction of all life processes to biochemical reactions, and the incorporation of psychology into a broader neuroscience.

Adaptationism, also known as functionalism, is the Darwinian view that many physical and psychological traits of organisms are evolved adaptations. Pan-adaptationism is the strong form of this, deriving from the early 20th century modern synthesis, that all traits are adaptations, a view now shared by few biologists. Adaptationists perform research to try to distinguish adaptations from byproducts or random variation. George Williams' Adaptation and Natural Selection (1966) was highly influential in its development, defining some of the heuristics used to identify adaptations.

The unmoved mover or prime mover is a concept advanced by Aristotle as a primary cause or "mover" of all the motion in the universe. As is implicit in the name, the unmoved mover moves other things, but is not itself moved by any prior action. In Book 12 of his Metaphysics, Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: self-contemplation. He equates this concept also with the active intellect. This Aristotelian concept had its roots in cosmological speculations of the earliest Greek pre-Socratic philosophers and became highly influential and widely drawn upon in medieval philosophy and theology. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, elaborated on the unmoved mover in the Quinque viae.

The philosophy of technology is a sub-field of philosophy that studies the nature of technology and its social effects.

Four causes

The four causes or four explanations are, in Aristotelian thought, four fundamental types of answer to the question "why?", in analysis of change or movement in nature: the material, the formal, the efficient, and the final. Aristotle wrote that "we do not have knowledge of a thing until we have grasped its why, that is to say, its cause." While there are cases in which classifying a "cause" is difficult, or in which "causes" might merge, Aristotle held that his four "causes" provided an analytical scheme of general applicability.

Human nature is a concept that denotes the fundamental dispositions and characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—that humans are said to have naturally. The term is often used to denote the essence of humankind, or what it 'means' to be human. This usage has proven to be controversial in that there is dispute as to whether or not such an essence actually exists.

In evolutionary biology, function is the reason some object or process occurred in a system that evolved through natural selection. That reason is typically that it achieves some result, such as that chlorophyll helps to capture the energy of sunlight in photosynthesis. Hence, the organism that contains it is more likely to survive and reproduce, in other words the function increases the organism's fitness. A characteristic that assists in evolution is called an adaptation; other characteristics may be non-functional spandrels, though these in turn may later be co-opted by evolution to serve new functions.

Ethics is the branch of philosophy that examines right and wrong moral behavior, moral concepts and moral language. Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that "involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior". The field of ethics, along with aesthetics, concerns matters of value, and thus comprises the branch of philosophy called axiology.

Teleology in biology Use of language of goal-directedness in the context of evolutionary adaptation

Teleology in biology is the use of the language of goal-directedness in accounts of evolutionary adaptation, which some biologists and philosophers of science find problematic. The term teleonomy has also been proposed. Before Darwin, organisms were seen as existing because God had designed and created them; their features such as eyes were taken by natural theology to have been made to enable them to carry out their functions, such as seeing. Evolutionary biologists often use similar teleological formulations that invoke purpose, but these imply natural selection rather than actual goals, whether conscious or not. Dissenting biologists and religious thinkers held that evolution itself was somehow goal-directed (orthogenesis), and in vitalist versions, driven by a purposeful life force. Since such views are now discredited, with evolution working by natural selection acting on inherited variation, the use of teleology in biology has attracted criticism, and attempts have been made to teach students to avoid teleological language.

Kants teleology

Teleology is a philosophical idea where natural phenomena are explained in terms of the purpose they serve, rather than the cause by which they arise.



  1. see also Physics, 2.5–6: where "natures" are contrasted with intelligence
  2. cf. Lucretius, De rerum natura, 822–56
  3. 1 2 "The received intellectual tradition has it that, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, revolutionary philosophers began to curtail and reject the teleology of the medieval and scholastic Aristotelians, abandoning final causes in favor of a purely mechanistic model of the Universe." Johnson, Monte Ransom (2008), Aristotle on Teleology, Oxford University Press. pp. 23–24.


  1. 1 2 Partridge, Eric. 1977. Origins: A Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English. London: Routledge, p. 4187.
  2. Mahner, Martin; Bunge, Mario (2013-03-14). Foundations of Biophilosophy. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN   9783662033685.
  3. 1 2 Dubray, Charles. 2020 [1912]. "Teleology." In The Catholic Encyclopedia 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved 3 May 2020. – via New Advent , transcribed by D. J. Potter
  4. Júnior, Paulo Pereira Martins; Vasconcelos, Vitor Vieira (2011-12-09). "A teleologia e a aleatoriedade no estudo das ciências da natureza: sistemas, ontologia e evolução" [Teleology and randomness in the study of the natural sciences: systems, ontology and evolution]. Revista Internacional Interdisciplinar INTERthesis (in Portuguese). 8 (2): 316–334. doi: 10.5007/1807-1384.2011v8n2p316 . ISSN   1807-1384.
  5. Allen, Colin (2003). "Teleological Notions in Biology". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  6. Aristotle, Metaphysics , 1050a9–17
  7. "Telos." Philosophy Terms. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
  8. von Foerster, Heinz. 1992. "Cybernetics." P. 310 in Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence 1, edited by S. C. Shapiro. ISBN   9780471503071.
  9. Nagel, Thomas. 2012. Mind and Cosmos. Oxford University Press.
  10. Barrow, John D., and Frank J. Tipler. 1986. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN   9780198519492.
  11. Wolff, Christian (1732) [1728]. Philosophia Rationalis Sive Logica: Methodo Scientifica Pertractata Et Ad Usum Scientiarum Atque Vitae Aptata. Frankfurt and Leipzig. Retrieved 2014-11-20.
  12. 1 2 Phaedo , Plato, 98–99
  13. Phaedo , Plato, 99b
  14. Timaeus , Plato, 46c9–d4, 69e6.
  15. Timaeus , Plato, 27d8–29a.
  16. Hardie, R. P., and R. K. Gaye, trans. 2007. "Aristotle - Physics." Pp. 602–852 in Aristotle - Works , edited by W. D. Ross. Internet Archive (open source full text). pp.  640–644, 649.
  17. 1 2 von Mises, Ludwig. The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science . Princeton, NJ: David Van Nostrand. – via Mises Institute. Available in other formats.
  18. 1 2 Gonce, R. A. Natural Law and Ludwig von Mises' Praxeology and Economic Science. Chattanooga, TN: Southern Economic Association.
  19. Berki, R. N. On the Nature and Origins of Marx's Concept of Labor. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  20. Lyotard, Jean-François. 1979. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge.
  21. Lochhead, Judy. 2000. Postmodern Music/Postmodern Thought. ISBN   0-8153-3820-1. p. 6.
  22. Brooks, Leonard J., and Paul Dunn. 2009. Brooks, Leonard J.; Dunn, Paul (31 March 2009). Business & Professional Ethics for Directors, Executives & Accountants . ISBN   9780324594553. Cengage Learning. ISBN   978-0-324-59455-3. p. 149.
  23. Sugarman, Jeremy, and Daniel P. Sulmasy (2001). Methods in Medical Ethics . Georgetown University Press. p. 78. ISBN   978-0-87840-873-3.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  24. John Gray, Ed. (1998). John Stuart Mill On Liberty And Other Essays . Oxford University Press. p. ix. ISBN   0-19-283384-7.
  25. 1 2 Hanke, David (2004). "Teleology: The explanation that bedevils biology". In John Cornwell (ed.). Explanations: Styles of explanation in science. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 143–155. ISBN   0-19-860778-4 . Retrieved 18 July 2010.
  26. Simpson, W.M.R (2021). "Cosmic Hylomorphism: a powerist ontology of quantum mechanics". European Journal for Philosophy of Science. 11 (28): 28. doi:10.1007/s13194-020-00342-5. PMC   7831748 . PMID   33520035.
  27. Ruse, M., and J. Travis, eds. 2009. Evolution: The First Four Billion Years. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. p. 364.
  28. Reiss, John O. 2009. Not by Design: Retiring Darwin's Watchmaker. Berkeley: University of California Press. [ page needed ]
  29. Dawkins, Richard. 1987. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. New York: W W Norton & Company.
  30. Lennox, James G. (1993). "Darwin was a Teleologist." Biology & Philosophy 8:409–21.
  31. Ghiselin, Michael T. (1994). "Darwin's language may seem teleological, but his thinking is another matter". Biology & Philosophy . 9 (4): 489–492. doi:10.1007/BF00850377. S2CID   170997321.
  32. Ayala, Francisco (1998). "Teleological explanations in evolutionary biology." Nature's Purposes: Analyses of Function and Design in Biology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  33. Neander, Karen. 1998. "Functions as Selected Effects: The Conceptual Analyst's Defense." Pp. 313–33 in Nature's Purposes: Analyses of Function and Design in Biology, edited by C. Allen, M. Bekoff, and G. Lauder. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  34. Mayr, Ernst W. 1992. "The idea of teleology." Journal of the History of Ideas 53:117–35.
  35. Madrell, S. H. P. 1998. "Why are there no insects in the open sea?" The Journal of Experimental Biology 201:2461–64.
  36. Hull, D. 1973. Philosophy of Biological Science, Foundations of Philosophy Series. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  37. Mayr, Ernst. 1974. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science XIV pp. 91–117.
  38. Maley, Corey J., and Gualtiero Piccinini. 2018 [2017]. "A Unified Mechanistic Account of Teleological Functions for Psychology and Neuroscience." Ch. 11 in Explanation and Integration in Mind and Brain Science, edited by D. M. Kaplan. Oxford Scholarship Online. ISBN   9780199685509. doi : 10.1093/oso/9780199685509.003.0011
  39. 1 2 Rosenblueth, Arturo; Wiener, Norbert; Bigelow, Julian (1943-01-01). "Behavior, Purpose and Teleology". Philosophy of Science. 10 (1): 18–24. doi:10.1086/286788. ISSN   0031-8248. S2CID   16179485.
  40. Wiener, Norbert. 1948. Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine .
  41. Conway, Patrick (1974). Development of volitional competence. MSS Information Corp. p. 60. ISBN   0-8422-0424-5.
  42. 1 2 George, Frank Honywill; Johnson, Les (1985). Purposive behavior and teleological explanations. Gordon and Breach. pp. xII. ISBN   2881241107.

Further reading