Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T01:06:26.650Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do Functions Explain? Hegel and the Organizational View

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2020

Andrew Cooper
Andrew Cooper*
Affiliation:
University of Warwick, UKAndrew.J.Cooper@warwick.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

In this paper I return to Hegel's dispute with Kant over the conceptual ordering of external and internal purposiveness to distinguish between two conceptions of teleology at play in the contemporary function debate. I begin by outlining the three main views in the debate (the etiological, causal role and organizational views). I argue that only the organizational view can maintain the capacity of function ascriptions both to explain the presence of a trait and to identify its contribution to a current system, for it is the only view that considers teleology as a natural cause. To establish how teleology can be considered as a natural cause, advocates of the organizational view return to Kant's analysis of internal purposiveness. However, while Kant identifies the requirements that an object must meet to satisfy the demands of teleological judgment, I suggest that he denies that we can know whether they are truly met. I argue that Hegel's philosophy of nature is better equipped to determine how internal purposiveness can be considered as a natural cause, for it grounds organization in a form of purposiveness that is more fundamental than a designer's intention.

Type
Articles
Information
Hegel Bulletin , Volume 41 , Special Issue 3: Hegel and the Philosophy of Biology , December 2020 , pp. 389 - 406
Copyright
Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blumenbach, J. F. (1789), Über den Bildungstrieb, 2nd ed. Göttingen: Johann Dieterich.Google Scholar
Boorse, C. (1976), ‘Wright on Functions’, Philosophical Review 85: 70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breitenbach, A. (2009), ‘Teleology in Biology: A Kantian Perspective’, Kant Yearbook 1: 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buddenbrock, W. (1919), ‘Die vermutliche Lösung der Halterenfrage’, Pflüger's Archiv für die gesamte Physiologie des Menschen und der Tiere 175: 125–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, W. and Bickhard, M. (2002), ‘The Process Dynamics of Normative Function’, The Monist 85: 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craver, C. (2001), ‘Role Functions, Mechanisms, and Hierarchy’, Philosophy of Science 68: 53–74.10.1086/392866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, R. (1975), ‘Functional Analysis’, The Journal of Philosophy 72: 741–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cusimano, S. and Sterner, B. (2020), ‘The Objectivity of Organizational Functions’, Acta Biotheoretica 68: 253–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, R. (1978), ‘Replicator Selection and the Extended Phenotype’, Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 47: 61–76.10.1111/j.1439-0310.1978.tb01823.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Derham, W. (1714), Physico-Theology: or, a Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God, from His Works of Creation. Being the Substance of XVI Sermons Preached in St. Mary Le Bow-Church, London, at the Honourable Mr. Boyle's Lectures, in the Years 1711 and 1712. London: W. Innys.Google Scholar
Ferrini, C. (2011), ‘The Transition to Organics: Hegel's Idea of Life’, in Houlgate, S. and Baur, M. (eds.), A Companion to Hegel. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fraenkel, G. (1939), ‘The Function of the Halteres of Flies (Diptera)’, Journal of Zoology 109: 69–78.Google Scholar
Garson, J. (2017), ‘Against Organisational Functions’, Philosophy of Science 84: 1093–103.10.1086/694009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, P. (1996), ‘The Historical Turn in the Study of Adaptation’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47: 511–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illetterati, L. (2007), ‘Being-for. Purposes and Functions in Artefacts and Living Beings’, in Illetterati, L. and Michelini, F. (eds.), Purposiveness: Teleology between nature and mind. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kreines, J. (2005), ‘The Inexplicability of Kant's Naturzweck: Kant on Teleology, Explanation and Biology’, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 87: 270–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreines, J. (2015), Reason in the World: Hegel's Metaphysics and its Philosophical Appeal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewens, T. (2000), ‘Function Talk and the Artefact Model’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 31: 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewens, T. (2004), Organisms and Artifacts: Design in Nature and Elsewhere. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelini, F. (2012), ‘Hegel's Notion of Natural Purpose’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43: 133–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Millikan, R. (1984), Thought, Language, and Other Biological Categories: New foundations for realism. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Montévil, M. and Mossio, M. (2015), ‘Biological Organisation as Closure of Constraints’, Journal of Theoretical Biology 372: 179–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, A. and Mossio, M. (2015), Biological Autonomy: A Philosophical and Theoretical Enquiry. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossio, M. et al. (2009), ‘An organizational account of biological functions’, British Journal of Philosophy of Science 60: 813–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossio, M. and Bich, L. (2017), ‘What Makes Biological Causation Teleological?’ Synthese 194: 1089–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossio, M. and Saborido, C. (2016), ‘Functions, Organization, and Etiology. A Reply to Artiga and Martinez’, Acta Biotheoretica 64: 263–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pringle, J. W. S. (1948), ‘The Gyroscopic Mechanism of the Halteres of Diptera’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 233: 347–84.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. (1982), ‘Teleology Redux’, in Agassi, J. and Cohen, R. (eds.), Scientific Philosophy Today: Essays in Honor of Mario Bunge. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1984), The Nature of Selection. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (2000), Philosophy of Biology. Boulder CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Walsh, D. (2006), ‘Organisms as Natural Purposes: The Contemporary Evolutionary Perspective’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37: 771–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weber, A. and Varela, F. (2002), ‘Life after Kant: Natural Purposes and the Autopoietic Foundations of Biological Individuality’, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 1: 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, C. F. (1764), Die Theorie der Generationen in zwo Abhandlungen erklärt und bewiesen. Berlin: F. W. Birnstiel; reprinted in C. F. Wolff, Die Theorie der Generationen in zwei Abhandlungen erklärt und bewiesen (Hildesheim: Olms, 1966).Google Scholar
Wright, L. (1973), ‘Functions’, The Philosophical Review 82:2: 139–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yarger, A. and Fox, J. (2016), ‘Dipteran Halteres: Perspectives on Function and Integration for a Unique Sensory Organ’, Integrative and Comparative Biology 56:5: 865–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed