The Problem
Philosophy and science often imagine that “purpose” can be stripped of theology and carried forward as a neutral category. From Aristotle’s final causes to evolutionary biology’s “functions,” the narrative of purpose seems unavoidable. But whenever “teleology” appears, it carries the shadow of destiny — the notion that the universe, life, or humanity is oriented toward some ultimate end.
The Distortion
In this framing, process is treated as if it were always moving toward a predetermined outcome. Beings are imagined as designed for ends, or as naturally fulfilling destinies inscribed in their essence. Even secularised, this logic reproduces theology’s eschatological arc: the world ordered by a higher telos, with each entity playing its part in the unfolding of an ordained story.
The Relational Alternative
From a relational ontology, purpose is not destiny but construal. Ends emerge only as perspectival interpretations within systems of relation — not as intrinsic commands. The flight of a bird has no “purpose” in itself; we construe its dynamics as flight-for-survival, or as beauty, or as aerodynamics, depending on our frame. “Purpose” is a projection onto unfolding relation, not a force that steers it.
Takeaway
Teleology reborn is theology disguised. To unbind meaning from destiny, we must see purpose as relational construal, not as a built-in drive of reality. Ends are interpretive cuts across possibility, not prewritten conclusions.
No comments:
Post a Comment