They never ask why reasoning is more human than emotion, or metabolism.
Yes they do. Nichomachean Ethics I.7, for example. EDIT: but this is also, in part, what the whole of the NE sets out to show: that the best life, and the end of all our activity is a life of the intellect, be it practical or theoretical. So if you're looking for a short argument in the mode of establishing a premise, you're right that there's nothing very satisfying in Aristotle. But the question of what the highest human aim is is hardly a question he ignores. Its the whole subject of his ethical philosophy.
He asks the question of what the human purpose is. He never addresses why a given purpose is the chief purpose, only that some intermediate goals are intended to further other goals. Aristotle doesn't ask why heavier objects want to fall faster than lighter objects, he simply observes that they do and makes the claim that they do so because they are supposed to.
To be honest, every time I try to read Aristotle, I end up drawing a triangular diagram and labeling the three points 'agape', 'hatred', and 'apathy', (in response to every time he uses the concept ...
Today's post, Three Fallacies of Teleology was originally published on 25 August 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):
Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Magical Categories, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.