Dear Benjamin:
thanks for your enlightening quotes from Aquinas and for your clarifying your entelecheian logou. Always a pleasant and learningfull note from you.
Dears Victoria and Gary:
I'm glad I'm not completely out of the subject.

I'll try to get back to the subject in a more decent way soon.
all the best

2006/6/6, Gary Richmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Victoria & Cassiano,

I agree that Cassiano's is a sane, sound, and even
evolutionary way of looking at entelechy. Peirce too saw
that Kant and Bergson were on the right metaphysical track,
process and vitalism, not mechanism and predetermination.
The resultant 'emergent principle' is thus the seeking
of a final and not an efficient cause. Tracing out the
history of the principle further would seem a most valuable
intellectual enterprise.


Victoria N. Alexander wrote:

> Dear Cassino,
> I think that your characterization of Aristotle's (and Pierce's)
> entelechy as a process is correct.  I think an argument can be made
> that this is true of genuine teleology in general. Teleology seeks,
> in  additional to material causes, evidence for an emergent vital
> force  immanent in the process itself.  It seeks internal final causes
> not  external efficient causes. As vitalist Bergson writes in 1907,
> predetermined teleology, based on a definite end, "implies that
> things  and beings merely realize a programme previously arranged … As
> in the  mechanistic hypothesis, here again it is supposed that all is
> given.  Finalism thus understood is only inverted mechanism."
> Kant imagined that limiting principles, inherent in ongoing natural
> processes themselves, guided events. According to Alicia Juarrero,
> "Kant's emphasis on recursive causality, wherein the parts are both
> cause and effect, precludes the existence of a preexisting whole"
> (113).  And as Ernst Cassirer explains, the Kantian whole is
> "contained  in them [the parts] as a guiding principle." In Kant telos
> is emergent,  given in the interactions between parts and the whole.
> Victoria
> Victoria N. Alexander, Ph.D.
> Dactyl Foundation for the Arts & Humanities
> 64 Grand Street
> New York, NY 10013
> 212 219 2344
> Support the arts! Copy and paste the link below to donate to Dactyl
> Foundation using PayPal.
> 4500+Benefactor+%241000&item_number=Various+Levels&no_note=1&tax=0&curre
> ncy_code=USD
> On Jun 4, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Cassiano Terra Rodrigues wrote:
>> Hello list:
>>  It's been a long while I don't write, but the subject interests me.
>>  I run the risk of repeating everything that was said here about
>> entelechy, but a look up at the form of the word seems appropriate:
>>  entelechy in ancient greek is a form of saying (as literally as I
>> can  see) en telos echein, that is, something like "to have the end
>> [aim?]  in", "the obtaining of the end" (since the verb "echein" has
>> a wide  semantic range).
>>  In this sense, it is possible to think of it as a process rather
>> than  the final result of the process itself - if we think in analogy
>> to the  ultimate interpretant, it's perfectly fit: although the
>> interpretant  is called "ultimate", it's nonetheless still an
>> interpretant,  sign-process in sum.
>>  Now, the substantive "entelechia" seems to indicate exactly this,
>> as  I can see, in Aristotle: a process of attaining the end (telos),
>> which  should not as I see be defined as a definite outcome, final
>> and not  capable of being fowarded furthermore - because the idea of
>> telos  carries the notion of possible aim to be reached - the final
>> cause is  of the nature of a general desire, in Peirce's
>> interpretation (which  seems a very plausible way to read Aristotle's
>> theory of the four  causes - the formal cause being in the end the
>> same as the final  cause, the material cause the same as the
>> efficient cause). So,  entelechy would be a process of causation, the
>> finalization of the   process of attainment a telos, or of
>> fulfillment of the end, if I can  say this in English. So, it
>> continues to be a process, as I tend to  read it; not the same as
>> before, but still a process.
>>  I hope I'm understandable in this poor English of mine, and I also
>> hope I'm not completely out of the discussion.
>>  All the best to all,
>>  Cassiano
>>  (from the Center for Studies on Pragmatism, Catholic University of
>> São Paulo (PUC), Brasil).
>>  --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ---
> Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber

Reply via email to