Sunday, October 15, 2006
Do individuals have a telos?
Have humans been created with a specific purpose? The more I think about the issue of the human in the posthuman world, the larger this question looms for me. One of the ways to begin to think about the question would be to make a distinction between Aristotelian telos and a Christian one. As far as I know (and I'm no philosopher), Aristotle believed that each species of creature has within in it certain potentialities, and the goal of an individual's life would be to reach the highest potential for your species. For humanity, it would be measured by the attainment of virtues. Christians (as St. Thomas pointed out) would agree a great deal with Aristotle, but it does change things to begin with a personal God. I believe that being created by such a God would mean a few things for certain: we are not the creator; we are, therefore, limited; and our relationship to God constitutes who we are fundamentally. But what does that mean exactly when it comes to the issue of purpose? Is it right to speak of God's specific purpose for my individual life? Or are his purposes general, with a wide range of possible outcomes? The reason why it matters is that if I were born with mental deficiencies, would my purpose be different? Is our telos so general (the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever) that any human person could fit it? I think it is essential for us to make room in our definition of the human for every person, from the child with Down's syndrome to smallest embryo. Clearly, God allows suffering; he also allows a wide range of abilities and disabilities in humanity. Do all of these exist for a purpose?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
How about clones? Would a clone have a telos? :)
Well, I am a philosopher and I think you are asking exactly the right questions, my dear!
You may be right to detct a significant difference between the Aristotlean and Christian variations on teleology, but I think it depends in large measure on how you conceive of Thomistic 'contemplation': is it something cognitive, an experience for which one must be 'naturally well-endowed'? Or is it something given to you, a grace received and not so much a faculty exercised? Thomas no doubt drew this idea from Aristotle, and I am inclined to think that Thomas was a very perceptive interpreter of The Philosopher. But my sadly inadequate grasp of Aristotle's anthropology on these points does lead me to believe that the eternal vision of contemplation is not as cognitive as our modern forms of rationalism lead us to think.
However you construe contemplation, I am inclined to think that glorifying God and enjoying Him forever is so general a goal that any person could fulfill it. But probably you need to stipulate that it is, again, God who gifts us His presence and that enjoyment as a free gift. And so there is little in the Christian account that could provide a grounds for human merit. Not any mental faculty. Not anything really, except that God created us for Himself and Himself alone.
Does any of this help you?
Post a Comment