When you talk about “the illusion of teleology in nature”, that’s exactly what I was getting at (or so it seems to me). That is, teleology in nature is merely illusory, but the kind of teleology needed to make sense of rationality is not—it’s real. Can you live with this?
The usual trick is to just call it teleonomy. Teleonomy is teleology with smart pants on.
Similar is the Dawkins distinction between designed and designoid objects.
Personally I was OK with “teleonomy” and “designed”. Biologists get pushed into this sort of thing by the literal-minded nit-pickers.
The usual trick is to just call it teleonomy. Teleonomy is teleology with smart pants on.
Thanks for this—I hadn’t encountered this concept. Looks very useful.
Similar is the Dawkins distinction between designed and designoid objects. Personally I was OK with “teleonomy” and “designed”. Biologists get pushed into this sort of thing by the literal-minded nit-pickers.