Abstract
Against the background of the current discussion about self-organization theories and
complexity theories and their application within biology and ecology, the question of
teleology gains a new significance. Some scholars insist on the total elimination of any
reference to teleology from the realm of the natural sciences. However, it seems especially
hard to eradicate teleological expressions from scientific language when the issue of
understanding living beings is at stake. For this reason, other scholars opt for a middle path
that allows for some teleological language. Yet, it is an open question whether teleological
expressions are to be considered as playing a merely metaphorical or a necessary heuristic
role in the sciences. Moreover, the ontological presuppositions, which underpin different
positions in the debate, need to be depicted and analyzed.
This paper aims at addressing the question of teleology within the life sciences by taking
into account both Kant’s critical philosophy and Whitehead’s ontology. My analysis starts
with Georg Toepfer’s distinction among different concepts of teleology and then focuses on
the role of “internal purposiveness” (innere Zweckmäßigkeit) for biology today. I show how
purposiveness (Zweckmäßigkeit; hereafter: ZM) corresponds to a very complex form of
reciprocal causation (Wechselwirkung) rather than to any model of final causation. Drawing
on Kant’s analysis of “natural purposes” in the Critique of Judgment as well as selforganization
theory, I claim that reciprocal causation – however complex it might well be – is
not sufficient to describe living beings adequately. However, since the natural sciences are
still caught up in the presuppositions of modern scientistic and materialistic ontology, a step
beyond mere efficient causation seems to be impossible within their methodological
framework. And yet, as I will show, a genuine teleology of nature implies the idea of
anticipation of totality. This kind of teleological consideration is presented at first in its role as
a regulative concept in Kantian terms.
Finally, I follow the path of Whitehead’s ‘philosophy of organism’ and claim for natural
teleology the state of a necessary ontological presupposition. Whitehead’s ontology offers an
ontological underpinning for teleological issues that, by avoiding any recourse to supernatural
forces, invites life and natural sciences to a fruitful dialogue at the limit of their
methodological boundaries, pressing them beyond their unreflected presuppositions.