Hi Erin, Rog, Glenn, Platt, Jonathan and all intelligent designers,
from the Free On Line Dictionary of Philosophy (FOLDOP) :
=======================
TELOS
Greek term for the end, completion, purpose, or goal of any thing or
activity. According to Aristotle, this is the final cause which accounts for
the existence and nature of a thing. Following Wolff, modern philosophers
(often pejoratively) designate as teleological any explanation, theory, or
argument that emphasizes purpose.
TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
an attempt to prove the existence of god based upon an observation of the
regularity or beauty of the universe. As employed by Cicero, Aquinas, and
Paley, the argument maintains that many aspects of the natural world exhibit
an orderly and purposive character that would be most naturally explained by
reference to the intentional design of an intelligent creator. Hume pointed
out that since we have no experience of universe-formation generally,
supposed inferences to its cause are unwarranted. Moreover, Darwin's theory
of natural selection offered an alternative, non-teleological account of
biological adaptations. In addition, anyone who accepts this line of
argument but acknowledges the presence of imperfection in the natural order
is faced with the problem of evil. Nevertheless, reasoning of this sort
remains a popular pastime among
convinced theists.
=======================
Given the above "official" statements, is Pirsig a teleologist? Or, is the
MOQ a teleological argument?
ROG:
« I don't think whether or not the goal is defined is critical either.
...
Seriously. I don't understand how Marco can say that Pirsig
rejects Teleology, though. I thought he explicitly embraces it
as defined in the evolution chapter. Marco? »
GLENN:
« I don't
understand why he thinks Pirsig doesn't support teleology, unless Marco
narrowly defines teleology as the goals and purposes of a supernatural
God, excluding, in particular, teleology as the goal of indefinable
betterness of a supernatural DQ. »
Glenn is more correct than Rog: I actually have written he does not support
teleology, not that he rejects it (see later). I don't know if it's me
narrowing the definition of teleology, I have the impression that it's
Pirsig who is enlarging it.
(by the way, Glenn, I refuse DQ is supernatural, IMO its natural as nature
is just another name for Quality. This is important here.)
Here is the sentence where he claims he can reconcile teleology and
Darwinism:
PIRSIG:
«There is no quarrel whatsoever between the MOQ and the Darwinian Theory of
Evolution. Neither there is a quarrel between the MOQ and the "teleological"
theories which insist that life has some purpose. What the MOQ has done is
unite these opposed doctrines within a larger metaphysical structure that
accommodate both of them without contradiction».
Our man is foxy, indeed. In many classical quarrels he claims the MOQ is the
larger metaphysical structure. If he is right, the MOQ should be acceptable
by Darwinists and by teleologists as well. OK with Darwinists, but I have
doubts about teleologists. The point is that teleology is more than a
"theory which insists that life has some purpose". Who actually says that
life has no purpose?
Teleology was classically invented to prove the existence of God. An
intelligent and intentional God. For what I know, with scarce results. IMO
Pirsig is just offering to teleologists a way out (so he does not really
rejects them): the MOQ as a sort of "milder" teleology, a chance to abandon
elegantly their classical purpose (that he does not support).
In conclusion, I agree with JONATHAN:
«Darwinism is essentially based on a belief that life is always heading AWAY
from its current state (by mutation), and the population then drifts in
whichever direction the selective pressure dictates. Pirsig's question thus
appears to be directly opposed to teleological evolution, but he fails to
recognise that it is pro-Darwinism. Thus, Pirsig himself isn't much help at
accomodating "teleological evolution" within the MoQ. IMO, there is no place
for the classical version of teleogical evolution as espoused by Lemarck.»
Yes. Pirsig fails to recognize that there's no need to adjust Darwinism to
accommodate it into the MOQ. At the contrary, as said, an orthodox
teleologist should abandon key points such "the intentional design" of a
supernatural "intelligent creator" to fit into the MOQ. The MOQ's "telos",
in fact, is freedom. And freedom is the *opposite* of a predetermined
designed future.
Ciao,
Marco
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:18 BST