You can accurately predict a person’s future if you know his goals and the intensity of his motivation. Aristotle, one of the three most influential philosophers in history, introduced the concept of teleology, a framework that examines the objectives of human action.
“Teleology” is derived from the Greek word “telos,” which means end, purpose, motivation or intent. Aristotle’s teleology postulates that every action in nature has a specific purpose. In Aristotle’s words, such a purpose is called “final cause.”
Aristotle believed that teleological considerations apply to living creatures and, to a lesser extent, to natural phenomena. It is a concept that applies to human development, animal actions and natural events such as storms, rain or floods.
According to Aristotle, all entities strive to fulfill their goals and inherent purposes. For animals, those goals will be simple desires such as food, sex and shelter. For human beings, there are many different ranges of objectives and motivation levels.
The concept of purpose in Aristotle’s teleology
In the pursuit of purpose, Aristotle sees the seeds for growth and development. His perspective of the final cause has vastly influenced philosophy, science, biology, and psychology.
When it comes to living beings, Aristotle’s teleological view can be most notably applied to biology. He argued that each organism has a distinct “telos” or purpose which guides its life.
For instance, the telos of a tree is to grow, reproduce, and maintain its existence. In contrast, the telos of humans, said Aristotle, is to attain happiness (“eudaimonia” in Greek). The achievement of happiness requires human flourishing, virtue, and sustained motivation. It does not happen by chance.
Aristotle’s teleological perspective applies to ethics, politics, and to all fields of human endeavor. Since he considered happiness as the primary goal of humans, he defined the path as living a meaningful, fulfilling life.
For Aristotle, ethics and morality consist of practical advice for attaining happiness in this world. He favoured the pursuit of virtue and moral excellence as the only means to achieve eudaimonia.
In politics, Aristotle argued that the “telos” or purpose of the state was to promote the well-being and happiness of its citizens. I must say that, in this case, the Aristotelian definition is so vague that it is worthless for taking political decisions.
Aristotle’s idea of teleology has shaped how people think about the purpose of their life. Have you identified objectives that you intend to pursue for the rest of your life? Are you sure that your ethics and morality lead to happiness on this earth?
Aristotle’s teleology and Sigmund Freud
The Aristotelian idea of teleology can be best understood by comparing to the views of major psychologists, sociologists, and economists, especially those who have worked in the field of self-actualization and motivation.
I’m speaking in particular of psychiatrists and psychologists such as the great Sigmund Freud, William James, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow; sociologists such as Herbert Marcuse; and economists such as Ludwig from Mises.
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), the founder of psychoanalysis, introduced a motivational analysis that dramatically contrasts with Aristotle’s concept of teleology.
Freud’s work focused on understanding the complexities of the human mind, in particular unconscious desires, conflicts, and revolt.
His psychoanalytic theory revolves around into the idea that human behaviour is frequently driven by unconscious forces. Those may or may not align with the person’s conscious goals.
According to Freud, individuals will often be controlled by hidden desires and conflicts. Those can influence our actions, decisions, and thoughts without our being aware of such force.
Freud’s best-known concept is the split of the human psyche in three parts, namely, the subconscious (“id”), the conscious (“ego”), and the superego.
The “id” represents primal desires or instincts such as eating and having sex. Ego is the conscious mind, to which we have access all the time. The superego embodies societal norms and moral values imposed from the outside on the individual.
Freud sustained that the three components will often come into conflict. While the id pushes for immediate gratification, the superego calls for following society’s rules, and the ego tries to mediate between them, suffering considerable stress.
Aristotle’s teleology had emphasized conscious purpose and the practice of virtue to achieve self-actualization, success, and happiness. Aristotle was not ignorant of the dark side of human nature, but regarded it as worthless for attaining happiness.
He saw the primary role of ethics as guiding people towards happiness, not as dealing with psychopathy, stress, depression, anxiety, and murderous intentions.
Freud’s psychoanalysis revealed the complexity of human behavior, but did little to promote happiness. He recognized that people will be sometimes driven by unconscious desires or conflicts, but failed to emphasize the need to adhere to virtuous motivation.
Indeed, Freud was right that people will be sometimes lost and forget to pursue happiness (“eudaimonia”), but what good does it do to concentrate on the study of aberrant motivation. If your goal is to attain happiness, you will be much better off if you ignore Freud and follow Aristotle’s recommendations.
For Freud, the resolution of unconscious conflicts is the key to personal growth and psychological well-being. His opinion seems profitable for psychoanalysts, but too vague for most of the population. I still have to meet a person driven by impulses so secretive that he does not even know about them.
In Freud’s opinion, the unconscious mind plays the driving role in shaping human behaviour, but neither Aristotle nor I share Freud’s opinion. Curiously enough, Freud never provided any hard data to support his views.
Like Aristotle, I believe that all humans must consciously choose their objectives or “final cause.” If they fail to make a conscious choice, then will pick up some goals floating in the culture, whether those are conductive to happiness or not.
Aristotle’s teleology and Abraham Maslow
In contrast to Freud, Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) adopted views closer to Aristotle’s. Maslow, a prominent psychologist, introduced a theory that shares commonalities with Aristotle’s concept of teleology.
Maslow’s theory is generally-known as “the hierarchy of needs” or “the pyramid of needs.” It’s called a pyramid because Maslow illustrated his ideas with a sliced pyramid, where each slice corresponds to a level in human motivation.
In Maslow’s pyramid of human needs, basic physiological needs such as food and shelter occupy the bottom slice. Self-actualization occupies the slice at the pyramid pinnacle.
Maslow postulated that humans are driven by a hierarchy of needs. At the most basic level, individuals will seek to satisfy simple physiological needs such as food, water, and shelter.
Once those needs have been met, individuals will strive to fulfill their safety needs, social needs and self-esteem needs. It is only at the end of the process that they will strive for self-actualization, which matches Aristotle’s formula for happiness (“eudaimonia”).
Both Aristotle and Maslow underline the benefits of seeking fulfillment and self-actualization. I regard Aristotle’s definition as superior because his “self-actualization” is linked to turning one’s potential into actual achievements. Abraham Maslow was rather poetic in this respect.
Just as Aristotle had done, Maslow stated that individuals set goals to guide their actions, but there are major distinctions between Maslow’s and Aristotle’s conceptions.
Aristotle view the pursuit of one’s goals and eudaimonia as inherent to human nature. He regarded as self-evident that each human wants to be happy, even he does not know exactly what to do.
In contrast, Maslow’s pyramid shows changes in a person’s needs and motivations across time. Maslow recognized that not everyone will aim at the pyramid top slice (self-actualization), and that many individuals will remain at the lower echelons, even if those cannot deliver intense happiness.
While Maslow’s ideas are interesting, they fail to delineate a clear path to happiness. If you are not aiming at the top slice of the pyramid from the start, chances are that you’ll get stuck at the bottom or in the middle.
Aristotle’s teleology and William James
In the field of psychology, William James (1842-1910) took positions that strongly contradicted Aristotle’s. He argued that the human mind does not operate as a static, fixed entity that pursues single goals, but as a stream constantly influenced by various ideas, emotions, and sensations.
Aristotle had defined the path to happiness as the attainment of precise objectives through the practice of specific virtues. In contrast, James talked about the fluidity and subjectivity of purpose. He said that people can construct their own meanings and goals, and that those can vary from moment to moment.
James considered Aristotle’s teleology as too simplistic. He doubted that people can sustain long-term motivation to pursue major goals because, most of the time, they are driven by the impulses and emotions of the moment.
No wonder that, when it comes to making decisions, James favor “practicality” or “pragmatism,” that is, the assessment of the options available in the short term.
I find James’ recommendations as exceedingly impractical. His so-called pragmatism almost guarantees that you’ll shoot yourself in the foot by failing to think long term, I mean taking the perspective of decades, not just days or months.
In this respect, Aristotle’s pursue of self-actualization, virtue and happiness are immensely superior to James’ “pragmatism.” You cannot achieve anything important by taking a short-term view, and without major achievements, happiness will remain elusive.
Aristotle’s teleology and Carl Rogers
Psychologist Carl Rogers (1902-1987) created the so-called person-centered that shows important commonalities with ideas put forward by Aristotle twenty-four centuries earlier.
Rogers is a central figure in humanistic psychology, which promotes self-actualization just as Aristotle have done. Yet, the primary goal of Rogers was to help his patients achieve mental health, not happiness as such.
Like Aristotle, Rogers believed that humans can improve their well-being by pursuing self-actualization. Their preferred term for this process is “personal growth,” a term that I view as inferior to Aristotle’s self-actualization.
You know where you are going when you pursue Aristotle’s self-actualization, but do you know what Rogers meant exactly when he talked of “personal growth.” The term is exceedingly vague and subjective. It can mean anything. Maybe attending cooking class and getting a driver’s licence.
Rogers endorsed the idea that individuals have a tendency to seek self-actualization, but that they often get lost along the way or crash against obstacles they cannot surmount. Rogers defined the role of therapy as enabling patients to surmount the obstacles that are preventing their growth.
In contrast to Aristotle’s optimism about achievement, virtue and happiness, Rogers regarded the process of personal growth as hard. The path to growth, he argued, can be often thwarted by other people and societal conditions.
As a therapist, Rogers nurtured his patients and gave them empathetic feedback. He wanted to help them grow, develop their potential, and increase their resilience.
In his therapy sessions, he provided “unconditional positive feedback,” where patients felt accepted and valued even if they had made dire mistakes. According to Rogers, a supportive and non-judgmental environment can help patients discover their goals and pursue self-actualization.
Does Rogers’ approach sound realistic to you? Do you think that people become stronger and more motivated if you avoid talking about their errors and bad habits. I very much doubt it.
I find Aristotle’s teleology far more realistic than Roger’s client-centered therapy. It is a fact that you are going to face lots of obstacles, criticism and setbacks when you pursue ambitious goals, but the solution is to keep going, day after day. Life will render you more resilient. Do you really need a psychologist to tell you that everything is fine when it is not?
For my taste, Rogers focuses too much on problems and too little on motivation. He talks endlessly about personal growth, but seems to imply that it should be easy, fast, free-of-charge, and automatic. I’d rather accept Aristotle’s realism and expect a hard ride from the start.
Aristotle’s teleology and Herbert Marcuse
Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) is a sociologist belonging to the so-called Frankfurt School. He is known for his critical social theory that sharply contrasts with Aristotle’s teleology.
Marcuse’s work revolves around the critique of capitalism and consumer culture. He opposed capitalist societies because they promote materialism, conformity, and the satisfaction of artificial needs that hinder true happiness.
According to Marcuse, our societal structure and ideology are stifling human potential. He believed that true happiness can only be achieved through social and political change, but his prescriptions for change remain vague and unrealistic.
If people are unhappy because they possess houses, cars and television sets, will they be happier if they possessed nothing? If today’s movies and TV shows fail to meet Aristotelian standards, should they be forbidden and replaced by Sophocles’ works?
In his attacks against consumerism and capitalism, Marcuse points to their deficiencies, but he is comparing them with a world that does not exist. He is comparing them with nirvana, with a perfect society inhabited by perfect people.
I can forecast that you will never be happy if you require a perfect world without obstacles, errors, setbacks, and accidents of all sorts. Marcuse is promoting a concept of happiness that finds no equivalent in reality. I wouldn’t waste my limited time and energy pursuing Marcuse’s impossible dreams.
Aristotle’s path to happiness depends on individual action. It doesn’t demand that you change society as a whole. I must say that Marcuse’s perspective may provide excuses for discontent, but fails to delineate a clear path to happiness.
Aristotle’s teleology and Ludwig von Mises
Finally, I want to compare Aristotle’s teleology concept with the views of economist Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973). In his books and lectures, Mises promoted capitalism as the optimal system for self-actualization and happiness. His views are the opposite of Herbert Marcuse’s.
Mises economic prescription emphasizes individual liberty and economic freedom as essential to human well-being. He promoted a free-market economy because it leaves individuals free to make their own decisions and allocate their resources efficiently.
According to Mises, each person knows best how to pursue his own self-interest, even if he makes mistakes from time to time. Those mistakes will enable him to do better next time.
Mises favored capitalism because it fits Aristotle’s concept of teleology. Capitalism allows each person to set objectives and pursue them as he sees fit. It leaves people free to define their path to happiness (“eudaimonia”) and doesn’t impose any opinions on anyone.
If you consider that purchasing a home, a car, and a TV set will make you happier, go ahead. On the contrary, if you share Marcuse’s ideas and regard those items as detrimental, you can stay away from them. Nobody is forcing you to buy them.
Mises highlights that a capitalist society provides economic incentives for practising Aristotelian virtues. Self-discipline, constancy, reliability and honesty possess a high market value.
Capitalism also encourages rational decision-making. If you want to achieve your goals, you will have to weight various options, choose the most promising, and rectify your mistakes when the become apparent.
Mises recognizes that capitalism doesn’t guarantee that you will attain self-actualization and happiness, but it does provide the best possible environment. It leaves you to choose the path and correct course as you advance. It simply offers everybody the best chances to pursue virtue and happiness.
If you are interested in how to apply Aristotelian teleology and concepts in daily life, I recommend you my book titled “The 10 principles of rational living.”
Related articles
Aristotle’s views on ethics, virtue and happiness
Happiness and Aristotle’s theory of the soul
Aristotle’s theory of the soul
Aristotle’s theory of the four causes