Final causality

Touching with the gaze: von Uexküll's impossible science Three expressions used by von Uexküll in his Streifzüge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen shape this study, the aim of which is to gauge the role of his legacy in the context of scientific relativism. As von Bertalanffy states, his contribution might be a strategic blow against anthropocentric bias, although the gnoseological relativism implied in his texts results in the impossibility of any trace of objectivity. In order to find out where he betrays the Kantian path, an exploration of von Uexküll's looting of the first Kritik must be carried out. Just like a «street bandit», as he defined the tick which made him famous, he extended transcendental analysis to the animal world, breaking down the «front door» by denying the idea of an objective space of representation. Finally, he uses «the compass» to draw a world full of soap bubbles, which science has something to learn from.

A distinctive feature of many Jewish approaches to evolutionary theory has been a panentheistic understanding of the cosmos. Among the earliest Hebrew translations of Darwin are those found in Toldot Adam or The Origin of Man (1874) by the Polish Jewish Naphtali Levy (1840-1894). Often regarded as a traditionalist who sought to harmonize science and Torah, Levy was in fact much more radical and was prepared to prioritise evolutionary science over tradition. Remarkably, God was portrayed as an impersonal natural force, morality was conceived as the result of the "struggle for existence," and the bestial origins of humanity were privileged over special creation in the image of God.

Hegel et Aristote sur la cause finale

ABSTRACT (Résumé en français)

Durant l’ensemble de sa spéculation Hegel reprend différentes thèses aristotéliciennes en les réadaptant à sa propre philosophie. En particulier, le thème du finalisme; emprunté à Aristote, mais réinterprété par Hegel, celui-ci est utilisé, ici ou là, pour exprimer différentes argumentations. Il faut se référer à trois textes de Hegel au moins : la Science de la logique, les Leçons sur l’histoire de la philosophie, et surtout les Leçons sur la philosophie de la religion. Hegel expose les quatre causes (aitiai) ; toutefois il privilégie le thème de la cause formelle et de la cause finale. Dans un contexte téléologique particulier, la théorie des causes aristotélicienne réinterprétée par Hegel, s’enrichit aussi, comme chez le Stagirite, d’une nouvelle cause : la cause motrice ou efficiente. Cette dernière semble, ainsi, fusionner avec  la cause formelle et la cause finale. Hegel fonde son interprétation sur l’analyse de la façon dont se déploie, grâce à sa finalité interne, l’ “organisme vivant”. Pour cette raison il étudie dans les Leçons sur la philosophie de la religion le raisonnement logique de la preuve téléologique de l’existence de Dieu, où il utilise nombre de notions aristotéliciennes comme celle de la “vie”. Hegel partage en effet avec Aristote la thèse générale selon laquelle toutes les transformations de la nature sont soumises à une sorte de fin ordonnatrice et se produisent en vue de quelque chose. Hegel approuve en outre chez Aristote la thèse selon laquelle dans la nature  une chose devient ce qu’elle était en elle-même dès le commencement. Le résultat théorique auquel Hegel parvient avec la preuve téléologique de l’existence de Dieu, est, à notre avis, une sorte de preuve ontologique « déguisée ».

Keywords (English):
Hegel & his proofs of God existence (teleological and ontological), Aristotelian causes (formal, final and efficient), internal finalism and life, references to Kant.

This study draws attention to the ordering of matter and form argued for in Aristotle’s Physics II, 8 (199a30–32). This argument for hylomorphic teleology relies on the presentation of nature earlier in Physics II, 1. In this way, it highlights the connections between chapter one’s account of nature as matter and form and chapter eight’s defense of final causality. Grounding final causality in the principles of nature reveals its central importance for Aristotle’s view of nature. To clarify the meaning of hylomorphic teleology I contrast my interpretation of Aristotle with that of Wolfgang Wieland regarding the scope and foundation of the final cause, countering his claim that chance and universal final causality are mutually exclusive. I contend that the presentation of teleology in chapter eight supports a diverse interpretation of the final cause, one that admits chance events while not sacrificing the intrinsic ordering of matter to form.

While the 17th century witnessed the beginning of modern mathematical science of nature, its protagonists were for the most part staunch theists. In fact, their theism allowed them to explore the intelligibility of nature and motivated their search. And while they largely rejected earlier Aristotelian and scholastic notions such as final and formal causality, in the thought of Leibniz even these notions find a fundamentally important place. This rather different beginning of modern science is still an important alternative to contemporary thought.

This is currently under review in an Academic Journal.
Evolution, Emergence and Final Causality: A Proposed Pneumatico-Theological Synthesis

Abstract: It has been said that creation and evolution exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. However, this paper proffers a pneumatological interpretation of emergence, “reading” emergence through theological lens. The reasoning set forth herein is in support of the overall thrust of Neo-Darwinian theory. In order to argue for the coherency of a triangulation between evolution, emergence, and final causality, I herein dialog with proponents of emergence theory, and then I suggest what may be the uniting factor between evolution and emergence: kenosis, understood theologically as a pouring of the Spirit into primal matter.
Keywords: Pneumatology; Final causality; Evolution; Emergence; Kenosis