Consequence etiology and biological teleology in Aristotle and Darwin

  • Depew D
  • 32


    Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
  • 8


    Citations of this article.


Aristotle's biological teleology is rooted in an epigenetic account of reproduction. As such, it is best interpreted by consequence etiology. I support this claim by citing the capacity of consequence etiology's key distinctions to explain Aristotle's opposition to Empedocles. There are implications for the relation between ancient and modern biology. The analysis reveals that in an important respect Darwin's account of adaptation is closer to Aristotle's than to Empedocles's. They both rely on consequence etiological considerations to evade attributing the purposiveness of organisms to chance. Two implications follow: (l) Darwinian explanations of adaptation are as teleological as Aristotle's, albeit differently; and (2) these differences show how deeply resistant Aristotle's version of biological teleology is to descent from a common ancestor. © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Author-supplied keywords

  • Adaptation
  • Aristotle
  • Charles Darwin
  • Consequence etiology
  • Empedocles
  • Epigenesis
  • Teleology

Get free article suggestions today

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research

Sign up here
Already have an account ?Sign in

Find this document


  • David J. Depew

Cite this document

Choose a citation style from the tabs below

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free