Teleological Explanations: An Etiological Analysis of Goals and Functions by Larry Wright (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 337 of Asti's colophon, in this writer's opinion it would have been more faithful and accurate historically to entitle the present text of St. Thomas simply Postilla super Isaiam. If the editors had chosen the other term used by Jacobino, namely Sententia, that would have been better, but still inaccurate and misleading. Consequently, the title of this work as given, Expositio super Isaiam ad litteram, has nothing in common, in any technical and historical sense, with the more important Expositio super Job ad litteram. In the writer's opinion the choice of title is unfortunate, but at this stage nothing can be done about it. These historical observations and minor differences of view, however, in no way detract from the critical excellence of textual reconstruction manifested so clearly in this volume, both in its preface and in its definitive text. This addition to the Leonine Opera Omnia of St. Thomas must rank as one of the finest, most exquisite, thorough and superb examples of what a critical edition should be in our day. Here textual criticism and technical proficiency join in a happy marriage that should produce much fruit for future scholars, both biblical and theological. This particular volume will be indispensable for serious students of the Bible in the Middle Ages. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies Toronto, Canada JAMES A. WEISHEIPL, O.P. Teleological Explanations: An Etiological Analysis of Goals and Functions. By LARRY WRIGHT. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1976. Pp. 153. $10.00. The venerable debate over final causes has been revived in the last score of years in the form of a debate over the place of teleological explanation in science. Although most philosophers of science writing today believe that teleological explanations are appropriate in at least certain areas of science, there is little agreement on how teleological statements are to be analyzed so as to justify that inclusion. Each of our authors gives a comprehensive account of teleology and contributes significantly to the ancient debate. Larry Wright, having authored many recent articles on the subject, is the most prolific writer today on teleology. His book, however, contains little new material, borrowing heavily from his articles not only in content but also verbatim in some sections, and without inforn1ing the reader. Perhaps the most critical issue in the d.ebate is whether teleological statements presuppose mind. Wright claims they do not, arguing that teleological descriptions of nonhuman subject matter are metaphorical ex- 338 BOOK REVIEWS tensions of teleological descriptions of human behavior. Metaphors need not be capable of literal paraphrase. Rather, some are indispensable precisely because they can express things for which there are no literal paraphrases . The extended meanings may become so thoroughly accepted, as in the case of " guinea pig " and " Pollyanna," that the original comparisons are forgotten and the metaphors become dead. "It will be the central contention of this essay that teleological expressions in most nonhuman applications represent dead anthropomorphic metaphors" (p. QI). In metaphors, something is retained and something is dropped. The part that is dropped is any reference to or implication of mind. " In general, I will argue that the feature of human teleology which transfers to nonhuman cases is that when we say ' A in order that B,' the relationship between A and B plays a role in bringing about A. It is this which is being pointed out, rather than intelligence and conscious purpose" (p. QI). Wright staunchly defends the objectivity of teleological judgments. Evidence for them is as good as is evidence for other judgments, and intersubjective agreement and reliability are as high: " goal-directedness is often obvious on its face. . . . Occasionally there simply is no question about it: the rabbit is fleeing, the cat stalking, the squirrel building a nest. Certain complex behavior patterns seem to demand teleological characterization " (p. Q3). It is common to all teleological statements, whether about goal direction or functions, that they are explanations. " For it is the central logical property of teleological characterizations that they explain what they characterize. When we say 'A in order that B,' or 'A for the sake of B,' we ipso facto answer a question of the form...