Duty, Nature, Right: Kant's Response to Mendelssohn in Theory and Practice III

This paper offers an imminent interpretation of Kant's political teleology in the context of his response to Moses Mendelssohn in Theory and Practice III concerning prospects of humankind's moral progress. The paper assesses the nature of Kant's response against his mature political philosophy in the Doctrine of Right. In `Theory and Practice III' Kant's response to Mendelssohn remains incomplete: whilst insisting that individuals have a duty to contribute towards humankind's moral progress, Kant has no conclusive answer as to how individuals might act on that duty. `Theory and Practice III' lacks a clear conception of the distinctness of political morality from the domain of virtue; Kant's resort to teleological argumentation is indicative of his lack of an account of instituting Right. The latter can be found in the Doctrine of Right—yet Kant's earlier teleological arguments contribute crucially to the development of his mature morality of Right.

Averroes and the teleological argument

The proofs for God's existence advanced in the most prominent theological work of Averroes (d. 1198), the Kitaˆb al-kashf, have been neglected, largely because the book has commonly – and correctly – been viewed as being meant for popular consumption. This article argues that although Averroes' arguments are non-technical, the Commentator nevertheless takes pains not to speak against his philosophical beliefs. Averroes distinguishes between inductive and deductive arguments, with conventional arguments from design falling into the former camp. Averroes also assigns a place for teleological argumentation when assigning a special role for the prime mover within the hierarchy of unmoved movers.

Cosmic Teleology and the Crisis of the Sciences

This paper analyzes recent work from within the physical sciences which argue for the emergence of a new paradigm capable of unifying the sciences and demonstrating the ultimate meaningfulness of the universe. I argue that while there is powerful evidence for cosmic teleology, the works in question do not represent a new paradigm and neither unify science nor adequately accommodate the evidence in question, but rather attempt to "put new wine in old skins." As Aristotle demonstrated, only teleological argumentation offers a complete scientific explanation, and authentic teleology is effectively ruled out by the hegemonic scientific paradigm which gives first place to mathematical formalism-something which makes possible rigorous description but not authentic explanation. This does not mean returning to Aristotelian science, but rather exploring the "road not taken" when Aristotelian science entered a crisis at the end of the medieval period: generalizing the concept of teleology so that it can accommodate both the physical (especially astronomical) evidence which created problems for Aristotelian science long before Galileo and Kepler, and account teleologically for such phenomena as chaos and disintegration. The work of scientists like Gal-Or, Bohm, and Prigogine provides important resources for moving in this direction, but a more explicit option for teleology is necessary if the evidence is to be accommodated and the internal contradictions of the existing paradigm to be resolved.