Recent searches
Search options
The appendix to Part I of #Spinoza's Ethics constitutes one of the most concerted arguments against #teleology in nature that I've found before #Darwin.
The other major one I have looked at is dependent origination in #buddhism which I have written about here https://bit.ly/3glD7bD
Do you know any others in #philosophy or elsewhere?
I'm aware I need to look more into #Hume #Bacon #Lucretius and #Pyrrho and I'm currently deep in #Nietzsche
![[II.] With this I have sufficiently explained what I promised in the first place [viz. why men are so inclined to believe that all things act for an end]. Not many words will be required now to show that Nature has no end set before it, and that all final causes are nothing but [5] human fictions. For I believe I have already sufficiently established it, both by the foundations and causes from which I have shown this prejudice to have had its origin, and also by P16, P32C1 and C2, and all those [propositions] by which I have shown that all things proceed by a certain eternal necessity of nature, and with the greatest perfection.
[10] I shall, however, add this: this doctrine concerning the end turns nature completely upside down. For what is really a cause, it considers as an effect, and conversely [NS: what is an effect it considers as a cause]. What is by nature prior, it makes posterior. And finally, what is supreme and most perfect, it makes imperfect.](https://cdn.masto.host/writing/media_attachments/files/109/381/659/409/944/358/original/c6f7a8cb18aa6836.png "[II.] With this I have sufficiently explained what I promised in the first place [viz. why men are so inclined to believe that all things act for an end]. Not many words will be required now to show that Nature has no end set before it, and that all final causes are nothing but [5] human fictions. For I believe I have already sufficiently established it, both by the foundations and causes from which I have shown this prejudice to have had its origin, and also by P16, P32C1 and C2, and all those [propositions] by which I have shown that all things proceed by a certain eternal necessity of nature, and with the greatest perfection.
[10] I shall, however, add this: this doctrine concerning the end turns nature completely upside down. For what is really a cause, it considers as an effect, and conversely [NS: what is an effect it considers as a cause]. What is by nature prior, it makes posterior. And finally, what is supreme and most perfect, it makes imperfect.")
I suppose another person to look into re: #teleology is #Heraclitus. If fragment 123 is better understood as "The natural companion of Physis is concealment," then this seems related to #Spinoza's insight on nature having no ends. Nature can't be understood with human reasoning, perhaps? https://perceiverations.wordpress.com/heraclitus-fragment-123/
Here's Edwin Curley, "#Spinoza: Issues and Directions" (1990) on #teleology again. Bennett's book seems to contend that Spinoza denies *all* final causes. But Curley thinks (and I agree) that he only denies them to Nature. @philosophy #philosophy
