Notes on Causality, Aesthetics, and Teleology Part I
Here is part one of a discussion on the subjects of Causality, Aesthetics, and Teleology. It isn't meant to be exhaustive--just some observations I've made on the subjects. So one might find a couple of small errors, nothing to be frightened of. For more in-depth (and exhaustive) discussion on Teleology, I would refer you to Dr Binswanger's book, The Biological Basis for Teleological Concepts.
Teleology
Aristotle makes four major divisions of causal explanation in Physics. Aristotle notes that of all existents none contain all four causes except in relation to living entities. Telos is the cause that exists only in relation to living entities—telos is the final cause; that purpose which the object can and does fulfill.
Aristotle later comments on the fact that all parts of a living entity's body serves a purpose. In the context of modern biology, this is partly true—but the fact remains that the bodies of living organisms serve some ultimate purpose, whatever it may be. The functions of the human hand, for example, developed from our need of them and thus the hand contains purpose. Purpose means a designed and deliberate intent to complete a goal. Not only bodies but actions too can be purposeful. We observe living organisms to be “goal-directed” or oriented purposefully toward a goal or value. The cause of these goal-directed actions is that the form of a living organism—that is, its life and “formal” existence—depend on the attaining of goals.
A tiger has legs to chase game—sharp teeth to consume its quarry—and does so in order to sustain its life. Humans, however, rely on the power of the mind to accomplish such purpose.
Volition
We have established that purpose is inherent in life. Let us now turn to human nature and the role of determined action.
Volition is the ability to choose among two or more alternatives. There are two important facts to take note with regard to volition: 1. Volition is an axiomatic concept—it cannot be denied without assuming a contradiction, and 2. Volition is within the causality of teleology.
1. Ayn Rand points out the axiomatic nature of volition—she explains it best. Instead, I will focus on the contradiction contained within a major denial of volition: Determinism. Several psychologists and philosophers have noted that it is impossible for one to declare that determinism were true—the best one could claim is that one has been “determined” to believe its truth. As Ayn Rand notes, only volition allows concepts such as truth, validity, and proof to exist—all such epistemic concepts presuppose that a mind is not automatic. Determinism maintains that the mind is automatically driven by material causes—and so to claim determinism is true is to presuppose that the mind is not automatic; a direct contradiction. Determinism is an invalid concept.
2. The mind is not automatic—this is true axiomatically. But this immediately raises more questions: But how can something that is not automatic function and still obey “every event has cause [popular definition of causality]”? The brief answer to that is that “every event has a cause” is invalid—if we are to take causality as a true corollary to identity, the proper definition (to paraphrase Ayn Rand and Dr Peikoff) is: All entities act in accordance with their respective natures.
From this aspect, it is entities which act. From this aspect, determinism—where one action is followed by another, followed by another, and another, and another—is an invalid chain. The reason is that one is not establishing causal explanation by recording patterns—one establishes causal explanation by apprehending the identities of all entities involved to determine. Thus to say that all human actions can be explained through a “machine” analogy—either through biological “mechanisms” or through neural algorithms—is invalid and inadequate to causally explain human action.
Human action can be causally explained—but only by taking volition as an attribute of human consciousness, as part of human identity. How, then, do we causally explain volition?
To Be Continued....
Teleology
Aristotle makes four major divisions of causal explanation in Physics. Aristotle notes that of all existents none contain all four causes except in relation to living entities. Telos is the cause that exists only in relation to living entities—telos is the final cause; that purpose which the object can and does fulfill.
Aristotle later comments on the fact that all parts of a living entity's body serves a purpose. In the context of modern biology, this is partly true—but the fact remains that the bodies of living organisms serve some ultimate purpose, whatever it may be. The functions of the human hand, for example, developed from our need of them and thus the hand contains purpose. Purpose means a designed and deliberate intent to complete a goal. Not only bodies but actions too can be purposeful. We observe living organisms to be “goal-directed” or oriented purposefully toward a goal or value. The cause of these goal-directed actions is that the form of a living organism—that is, its life and “formal” existence—depend on the attaining of goals.
A tiger has legs to chase game—sharp teeth to consume its quarry—and does so in order to sustain its life. Humans, however, rely on the power of the mind to accomplish such purpose.
Volition
We have established that purpose is inherent in life. Let us now turn to human nature and the role of determined action.
Volition is the ability to choose among two or more alternatives. There are two important facts to take note with regard to volition: 1. Volition is an axiomatic concept—it cannot be denied without assuming a contradiction, and 2. Volition is within the causality of teleology.
1. Ayn Rand points out the axiomatic nature of volition—she explains it best. Instead, I will focus on the contradiction contained within a major denial of volition: Determinism. Several psychologists and philosophers have noted that it is impossible for one to declare that determinism were true—the best one could claim is that one has been “determined” to believe its truth. As Ayn Rand notes, only volition allows concepts such as truth, validity, and proof to exist—all such epistemic concepts presuppose that a mind is not automatic. Determinism maintains that the mind is automatically driven by material causes—and so to claim determinism is true is to presuppose that the mind is not automatic; a direct contradiction. Determinism is an invalid concept.
2. The mind is not automatic—this is true axiomatically. But this immediately raises more questions: But how can something that is not automatic function and still obey “every event has cause [popular definition of causality]”? The brief answer to that is that “every event has a cause” is invalid—if we are to take causality as a true corollary to identity, the proper definition (to paraphrase Ayn Rand and Dr Peikoff) is: All entities act in accordance with their respective natures.
From this aspect, it is entities which act. From this aspect, determinism—where one action is followed by another, followed by another, and another, and another—is an invalid chain. The reason is that one is not establishing causal explanation by recording patterns—one establishes causal explanation by apprehending the identities of all entities involved to determine. Thus to say that all human actions can be explained through a “machine” analogy—either through biological “mechanisms” or through neural algorithms—is invalid and inadequate to causally explain human action.
Human action can be causally explained—but only by taking volition as an attribute of human consciousness, as part of human identity. How, then, do we causally explain volition?
To Be Continued....
posted by Tom J at 8:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home