Related materials: goal, resource, goal, and result, retrospectivization, the result erases its own origin, function, reification, anthropomorphism, homuncular fallacy.
Introduction
A description of a process may record its conditions, changes, and result. But another relation is sometimes added to this sequence: the result is declared to be what the process occurred for. What emerged after the events is given the status of a goal that was already directing them as they unfolded.
Teleologization allows us to distinguish precisely the introduction of a goal. It concerns neither every instance of directedness, nor the mere use of purposive language, nor every reconstruction of the past, but the transformation of a result into the basis for the form “occurs for the sake of.”
Definition
Teleologization is the transformation of an actual or anticipated result into the goal of a process without establishing a subject or another organization that retained this result as an orienting point and directed what happened in relation to it.
Brief formula:
process P → result R
is replaced by:
goal R → process P occurring for the sake of R
Here, the result changes its ontological status. Initially, it is a state that occurs or may occur following a sequence of events. Then it is placed before the process as a goal and the grounds of its directedness.
result of a process
→ goal of the process
→ cause of the process's organization
But a subsequent state does not become a goal merely because it occurred.
Goal and Result Belong to Different Levels
A goal exists before the result not as a future event, but as the form of a possible state retained by a subject.
goal = a distinguished possible result retained as an orientation for action
result = a state that actually emerged
A goal can participate in the causal organization of action through a subject:
a subject distinguishes a possible result
→ retains it as a goal
→ chooses actions in relation to it
→ an actual result emerges
The actual result may coincide with the goal, differ from it, or have been entirely unforeseen. Thus, an observed coincidence between a result and some useful form does not yet establish that the form was the goal of the process.
Teleologization reverses the sequence:
a result emerged
→ the result was projected backward as a goal
→ what preceded it acquired the meaning of movement toward that goal
The effect thus begins to explain the conditions of its own emergence.
Teleologization and Retrospectivization
Teleologization is not identical to reconstructing the past from the position of a known result.
Retrospectivization turns the result into the organizing principle of a narrative about the past:
X occurred
→ preceding events were selected in relation to X
→ they formed a trajectory leading to X
A goal is not required in this construction. A company went bankrupt, and its previous decisions came to look like a consistent path toward bankruptcy. But such a narrative does not imply that the participants wanted bankruptcy or that the process occurred for its sake.
Teleologization adds precisely a goal:
X emerged from a process
→ the process occurred for the sake of X
The distinction can be demonstrated with a single biography.
Retrospectivization:
After a person became CEO, their previous work as a developer, team lead, and manager looks like one career trajectory toward that position.
Teleologization:
Throughout those years, he was gaining experience in order to become CEO.
The second sentence asserts a goal. The first merely organizes the past around a known endpoint.
The two operations often form a sequence:
a result occurred
→ the past was described through the result
→ the past was declared a movement toward the result
→ the result was declared the goal of what occurred
The first two transitions belong to retrospectivization. The final transition to the relation “for the sake of” is teleological. Teleologization can also occur without retrospectivization if a result that has not yet occurred is attributed in advance to a process as its goal without identifying the bearer of goal-setting.
Example of a Tree and Light
The sentence
the tree grows upward in order to obtain light
may be used as convenient shorthand for an observed dependency. Its grammar, however, already contains a goal: obtaining light is presented as a possible result in relation to which the tree directs its growth.
At the level of observation, other relations may be established:
- growth of different parts depends on illumination and internal processes;
- a change in the direction of light is connected to a change in the direction of growth;
- some growth forms increase leaves’ access to light;
- organisms with particular forms survive and reproduce under given conditions.
None of these statements alone establishes that the tree distinguished obtaining light in advance, retained it as a goal, and chose the direction of growth in relation to that goal.
It is therefore necessary to distinguish:
growth leads to increased illumination;
growth is regulated by changes associated with illumination;
the tree grows for the sake of obtaining light.
These are three different assertions. The first describes a result, the second a causal or regulatory dependency, and the third a purposive organization.
The Cause Is Not Located in the Future
The phrase “X occurs so that Y will arise” grammatically places Y after X but explanatorily makes Y the grounds of X.
In the action of a subject, this is possible without backward causation:
the future result does not yet exist
→ but its form exists now as the subject's goal
→ this form influences present choice
A person walks to the station to catch a train. Boarding the train has not yet happened and does not exert an influence from the future. The action is influenced by the goal retained in the present.
If no subject or other bearer of purposive organization has been established, the construction “in order to” leaves it unexplained where the form of the future result existed and through what it could direct the current process.
A teleological assertion must therefore answer not only “what result emerged?” but also:
- where the result was represented before it occurred;
- who or what retained it as an orienting point;
- how the current state was compared with the goal;
- how this comparison changed the action.
Without these links, a future state has merely been placed in the position of a cause by grammar.
Directedness Is Not the Same as a Goal
A process can have a stable direction without a goal.
- A stone moves downward under given conditions.
- Heat spreads when there is a temperature difference.
- A system transitions toward a more stable state.
- A reaction more often produces one class of products.
- Feedback maintains a quantity within a range.
In each case, one can describe asymmetry, stability, constraints on possible states, or regulation. But a goal presupposes an additional structure:
a possible result is distinguished
→ it is retained as an orienting point
→ the current state is compared with it
→ action changes in response to the discrepancy
Outwardly, regulation may resemble goal-directed action. But similarity of trajectories does not establish identity of their organization.
Thus, rejecting teleologization does not require denying directedness. It requires not adding an undemonstrated goal to the direction observed.
Function Is Not Identical to Goal
A function connects an action or property with a change within a particular form:
the heart contracts
→ blood moves
→ this action occupies a particular place within the organism
The fact that moving blood is a function of the heart within the organism does not automatically entail:
the heart exists for the sake of pumping blood.
The first construction establishes a relationship between an action and the whole. The second turns the selected result of an action into the goal of the bearer’s existence.
This transition is especially easily made through the phrase “designed for.” In a created artifact, its intended use may be linked to the goal of its creator or user. But when an object emerged without demonstrated goal-setting, its purpose requires separate grounds.
X produces change Y
→ Y is a function of X within form Z
≠
X emerged and exists for the sake of Y
Teleologization begins where a part’s relationship to a selected whole is turned into the goal of the part itself or of the process through which it emerged.
Artifact and Borrowed Goal
An artifact’s intended purpose can be discussed if its form was organized by a subject in relation to a goal.
a subject wants result R
→ creates an object with particular properties
→ the object is used to obtain R
The goal does not belong to the object in itself. It was retained by the creator, user, or organization of activity. A hammer does not distinguish driving a nail as its own future state. It is incorporated by a subject into an action directed toward that result.
When someone says “a hammer is designed to drive nails,” the connection to a subject may legitimately be condensed. But if this condensation is forgotten, the intended purpose begins to be perceived as an internal property of the object.
Consequently, purposive language about artifacts does not refute the dependence of a goal on a subject. It often merely conceals the subject whose goal is embodied in the form and use of a thing.
Teleologization in Descriptions of Evolution
After a stable trait has emerged, it is easy to present preceding changes as a process of developing that trait:
wings emerged for flight;
the eye developed so that an organism could see;
evolution created a mechanism for the survival of the species.
These phrases may condense complex descriptions, but read literally they transfer the function of an existing trait into the goal of its emergence.
At least three assertions must be distinguished:
the trait currently participates in result R;
the presence of the trait was associated with the survival and reproduction of its bearers;
the trait emerged for the sake of result R.
The first concerns present function, the second historical causal dependency, and the third a goal. The function of a result and the persistence of consequences do not create a subject who retained the future form of the trait in advance.
At the same time, criticizing teleologization does not require accepting in advance any external doctrine about which forms of subjectivity are possible in living beings. If actual purposive organization is asserted, it must be demonstrated: the bearer of the goal, the way a possible result is retained, and its participation in changing action must be established.
Teleologization of Historical Processes
A known present creates the temptation to present history not merely as a path toward it, but as a process that occurred for its sake:
early investigations existed to prepare modern science;
society developed for the sake of achieving the current form of the state;
the meaning of preceding forms was to create the existing order.
Selecting from the past the lines that survived into a result is retrospectivization in itself. The teleological step occurs when the selected trajectory receives its final state as a goal.
one possibility was realized
→ it became the criterion for selecting the past
→ the selected past began to look like a path
→ the path acquired the realized result as its goal
Even if some historical participants pursued similar goals, it does not follow that the entire process had one goal or that the result coincided with what those participants envisioned.
Teleological history takes a further step after retrospective substitution: the route that became visible from the endpoint is declared a movement for the sake of that endpoint.
Teleologization and Reification
In reification, an introduced category becomes a property or acting entity. In teleologization, an emerged result becomes the goal of a preceding process.
The two operations can combine:
the preservation of particular forms is observed
→ it is called selection
→ selection becomes an independent actor
→ this actor is attributed a goal of creating the observed result
Here, “selection” is first reified and then receives a teleological structure. But the errors are not identical. A category can be reified without attributing a goal, and a process can be described teleologically without creating a separate entity.
Teleologization and Anthropomorphism
Purposive action is known to humans from their own experience: a subject distinguishes a possible state, desires or chooses it, and organizes action in relation to it. Therefore, attributing a goal to a nonsubjective process is often simultaneously anthropomorphism.
For example:
nature strives to preserve equilibrium.
The assertion is teleological if equilibrium has been turned into the goal of a natural process. It is anthropomorphic if nature is assigned the human form of striving.
Nevertheless, the concepts are not identical. A goal may be attributed to a system in a nonhuman form; a system can also be anthropomorphized through fear, resentment, or understanding without relating action to a future result.
Teleologization and the Homuncular Fallacy
The homuncular fallacy transfers the capacity being explained into an internal mechanism. It combines with teleologization when the directedness of the whole is explained by goal-setting in its part:
the organism acts for the sake of survival because the brain strives to preserve the organism.
The result “the organism survived” is first transformed into a goal of behavior. Then that goal is placed inside the brain as a ready-made striving. Directedness is not explained but given an internal bearer already capable of retaining it.
Teleologization can, however, occur without a homunculus: a process can be declared directed toward a result in general, without specifying an internal mechanism.
Not All Purposive Language Is Erroneous
The expression “in order to” may denote different relationships:
- an actual goal of a subject;
- an intended use established by a creator or user;
- a function within an organization;
- a persistent causal consequence;
- convenient shorthand for a model;
- a teleological interpretation added after a result occurred.
An expression alone does not determine which relationship is meant. Its structure must be unpacked.
For example:
the valve closes to prevent backflow.
This might mean:
a designer created the valve for this result;
closing the valve causally prevents backflow;
the system measures flow, compares it with a set state, and controls the valve;
the valve itself retains prevention of backflow as its own goal.
The first three assertions can be justified independently. The fourth introduces the valve’s subjectivity and requires different grounds.
How to Recognize Teleologization
To test an explanation, the following questions are useful:
- What result was observed or is anticipated?
- On what grounds is it called a goal rather than a consequence?
- Where did the form of this result exist before its occurrence?
- Who or what retained it as an orienting point?
- How was the current state compared with the goal?
- How did a discrepancy change the action?
- Is the goal inferred solely from the fact that the result occurred or proved useful?
- Have the current function and present criterion been transferred into the conditions of origin?
- What alternative outcomes were possible before one was realized?
The shortest test is:
If the result had not occurred, on what grounds could it still be asserted that the process was directed precisely toward it?
If the only ground is the result that occurred, the presence of a goal has not been established. A retrospective reconstruction may have prepared a teleological conclusion, but did not justify it.
How to Restore Causal Description
Eliminating teleologization does not require banning purposive phrases. It is enough to unpack them into relationships that have actually been established.
Instead of:
the system changes in order to achieve stability,
we can write:
under the given interactions, unstable states persist for less time, while the system more often remains in states of this class.
Instead of:
the trait emerged to perform function X,
we can distinguish:
the trait currently participates in X; its bearers survived and reproduced differently under particular conditions; the historical path by which the trait emerged requires a separate description.
Instead of:
the earlier form prepared the modern one,
we can write:
the modern form emerged from the earlier one through the events that occurred; other possible continuations existed but did not become the result.
Thus, the result returns to the end of a causal description, and a goal is retained only where goal-setting has been demonstrated.
Boundary of the Critique
Criticism of teleologization does not assert that goals do not exist. A subject can distinguish a possible state, retain it before its occurrence, and change their action in relation to it. In organized activity, goals are real conditions in a causal sequence precisely through the actions of subjects retaining them.
Nor does the criticism deny functions, feedback, self-regulation, persistent directedness, or differences between the probabilities of outcomes. It only forbids moving from these relations to a goal without additional grounds.
The distinctions must be maintained:
Y occurred after X;
X causally participated in the emergence of Y;
Y is a function of X within form Z;
a subject directed X toward Y;
X existed for the sake of Y.
These assertions may overlap, but none follows automatically from another.
Brief Formula
Teleologization occurs when an outcome that has occurred is moved to the beginning of a process and begins to function as the goal for which that process supposedly took place.
Its complete structure:
process
→ possible or actual result
→ the result is declared the goal of the process
→ the process is described as occurring for the sake of the result
Overcoming teleologization consists in maintaining the distinction between consequence, function, directedness, retrospective trajectory, and goal, and in identifying a subject or another real organization through which a possible result could have influenced action before it occurred.
