structure for 'Natural Theory'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

26. Natural Theory / A. Speculations on Nature / 3. Natural Function

[what components of nature are meant to do]

8 ideas
Each thing's function is its end [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: Each thing's function is its end.
     From: Aristotle (Eudemian Ethics [c.333 BCE], 1219a08)
     A reaction: Function and end are not the same, but this confirms how closely related they are for Aristotle. Can an inanimate object have an end, without having any apparent function? Could I construct a set of cogwheels which each had a function, but no end?
Is ceasing-to-be unnatural if it happens by force, and natural otherwise? [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: If what happens by force is unnatural, then forced ceasing-to-be is unnatural, and is opposed to natural ceasing to be.
     From: Aristotle (Physics [c.337 BCE], 230a29)
     A reaction: This is an important matter for Aristotle, who needs a concept of 'unnatural' behaviour for his ethics. Our law enshrines the idea of 'death by natural causes'. But 'force' needs discussion. Why is a hitman unnatural, and lightning natural?
Some words, such as 'knife', have a meaning which involves its function [Foot]
     Full Idea: The word 'knife' names an object in respect of its function. That is not to say (simply) that it names an object which has a function, but also that the function is involved in the meaning of the word.
     From: Philippa Foot (Goodness and Choice [1961], p.134)
     A reaction: It seems faintly possible that someone (a child, perhaps) could know the word and recognise the object, but not know what the object is for. Ditto with other things which have functional names.
Things are thought to have a function, even when they can't perform them [Sainsbury]
     Full Idea: On one common use of the notion of a function, something can possess a function which it does not, or even cannot, perform. A malformed heart is to pump blood, even if such a heart cannot in fact pump blood.
     From: Mark Sainsbury (The Essence of Reference [2006], 18.2)
     A reaction: One might say that the heart in a dead body had the function of pumping blood, but does it still have that function? Do I have the function of breaking the world 100 metres record, even though I can't quite manage it? Not that simple.
Essence is the source of a thing's characteristic behaviour [Oderberg]
     Full Idea: In the traditional terminology, function follows essence. Essence just is the principle from which flows the characteristic behaviour of a thing.
     From: David S. Oderberg (Real Essentialism [2007], 2.1)
     A reaction: Hence essence must be identified if the behaviour is to be explained, and a successful identification of essence is the terminus of our explanations. But the essences must go down to the micro-level. Explain non-characteristic behaviour?
A mummified heart has the teleological function of circulating blood [Polger]
     Full Idea: A preserved heart in a jar of formaldehyde has the teleological function of circulating blood.
     From: Thomas W. Polger (Natural Minds [2004], §5.4)
     A reaction: A nice illustration.
Teleological notions of function say what a thing is supposed to do [Polger]
     Full Idea: Teleological notions of function specify not just what a thing happens to do, but what it is supposed to do.
     From: Thomas W. Polger (Natural Minds [2004], Ch.5.3)
     A reaction: This is the basis of a distinct theory of the mind. It seems to be akin to the 'dispositions' of behaviourism, so that the mind becomes once more a theoretical and abstract entity, rather than a thing of occurrent events and processes.
Rather than dispositions, functions may be the element that brought a thing into existence [Leuridan]
     Full Idea: The dispositional theory of biological functions is not unquestioned. The main alternative is the etiological theory: a component's effect is a function of that component if it has played an essential role in the causal history of its existence.
     From: Bert Leuridan (Can Mechanisms Replace Laws of Nature? [2010], §3)
     A reaction: [He cites S.D. Mitchell 2003] Presumably this account is meant to fit into a theory of evolution in biology. The obvious problem is where something comes into existence for one reason, and then acquires a new function (such as piano-playing).