This article examines the purpose of natural phenomena based on Aristotle’s teleology and discusses the perspectives, criticisms, and ecological reappraisal of modern and contemporary science.
Is everything that happens in nature purposeful? Ants that scramble to carry tree branches and leaves larger than their bodies certainly seem to have a purpose. Through these actions, ants help themselves survive and reproduce, and contribute to the life of the colony. They have a clear purpose, such as gathering food, repairing nests, and caring for larvae. But do fallen leaves in the fall or hail in the middle of the night have a purpose? Fallen leaves are shed by trees to conserve energy for winter survival and to prepare for a new growth cycle. Hail is a natural phenomenon that forms depending on weather conditions, and it may not seem to have a specific purpose, but it is part of the great cycle of nature.
Aristotle argues that all natural objects are born with a nature that pursues a purpose, and that they move according to their intrinsic nature rather than external causes. He believes that natural objects are not only born with a purpose, but also have the ability to realize that purpose. Aristotle believes that the purpose will be realized unless it is hindered, and that the realization of the intrinsic purpose always brings desirable results to the subject of the movement. “Aristotle” summarizes his view by saying, “Nature does not do vain things. From this perspective, all phenomena in nature ultimately have a purpose that can be understood in the order and harmony of nature.
Aristotle’s teleology applies not only to the growth and development of living things, but also to the changes in inanimate objects. For example, the phenomenon of a river flowing from a higher to a lower place can be explained by the simple action of gravity, but Aristotle saw it as the intrinsic purpose of nature, that is, the tendency of everything to find a suitable place for itself. As such, his theory is an attempt to interpret natural phenomena as more than simple physical laws.
In modern times, the view that all things are machines without life force has been emphasized, and Aristotle’s teleological argument has been much criticized as unscientific. Galileo Galilei argues that teleological explanations cannot be used as scientific explanations, Francis Bacon evaluates the search for purpose as useless for science, and Spinoza criticizes teleology for distorting the understanding of nature. Their criticism is that teleology anthropomorphizes natural objects other than human beings as having reason. However, contrary to this criticism, Aristotle divided natural objects into living and non-living, and living things into plants, animals, and humans, and thought that only humans were rational.
Nevertheless, the modern reevaluation of teleology is gaining more and more attention. Some modern scholars criticize that modern thinkers merely relied on a kind of dogmatic belief that a mechanistic model based on science was more convincing at the time, and that they did not provide sufficient reasons to reject Aristotle’s teleological view. In this regard, David Bolotin points out that modern science has not shown, or even attempted to show, that nature is purposeless. Woodfield also points out that although teleological explanations are not scientific explanations, teleology cannot be said to be false because the rightness or wrongness of teleology cannot be verified.
In recent years, the development of environmental philosophy and ecology has provided an opportunity to re-examine Aristotle’s teleology. There are also claims that the teleological perspective can be useful in understanding the complex interactions and balances of ecosystems. For example, each creature in an ecosystem has a complex relationship with other creatures for its own survival and reproduction, and these relationships can be interpreted as more than simple mechanical interactions. This provides a new perspective for understanding the purpose of nature and provides important lessons for humans to live in harmony with nature.
The science of the 17th century demanded that scientific explanations be verified by experiment. This trend led to materialism, which holds that everything in the world, including living organisms, is composed only of matter, and some forms of materialism, such as reductionism, which holds that all biological processes can be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry. This reductionism implies that living organisms are no different from dead matter. However, Aristotle refuted Empedocles’ view that the nature of a natural object can be explained by knowing its material components. This refutation implies that natural objects are not simply composed of matter, and that their nature cannot be reduced to physics and chemistry alone.
Despite the development of advanced science, the task of precisely identifying the principles and reasons for the existence of living organisms is still ongoing. Aristotle’s exploration of the components of natural objects was intended to reveal the principles and reasons for the existence and movement of natural objects, and his teleology can be said to be the starting point of such an exploration that continues to this day. Aristotle’s teleology, while not a complete explanation in itself, has helped to enrich our understanding of natural phenomena and to clarify the boundary between living and non-living things. His philosophy is still at the center of much discussion today and remains an important ideological asset in the exploration of the purposefulness of nature.
In addition, modern scientific discoveries and technological advances provide opportunities to interpret and apply Aristotle’s theory of purpose in new ways. For example, the evolutionary perspective in biology suggests that living organisms may exhibit purposeful behavior as they adapt to their environment. This is a part that can be linked to the purposefulness of nature that Aristotle argued for. As human technology and science have advanced, we have been given the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the complexity of nature and the purpose hidden within it.
In conclusion, Aristotle’s teleology is not just a philosophical legacy of the past, but a way of understanding nature that is still valid in the modern age. His theory provides an important framework for explaining natural phenomena and the behavior of living organisms, and offers deep insights into how we can live in harmony with nature. This teleological perspective can also play an important role in solving today’s environmental problems and ecological crises. By rethinking the purpose of nature and human responsibility, we can move toward a more sustainable future.
