All nature acts for an end, but some for the good of another

There are two parts to the idea of nature acting for an end: the first concludes that nature acts for the sake of something at all, and the second sees the something as a good. The first can be established of any nature in itself: it suffices to say that the natural action is determinite- i.e. to say that a thing or an action has a nature at all suffices to show that it is determinite.

But there is no necessity that there should be an clear good for the thing that acts for an end, in itself. The motion in act might be cyclic, like the hydrological cycle (rain, pools, evaporation, rain…). The hydrolic cycle doesn’t seem to be for the good of water that evaporates, but it seems pretty clear how it does help in a larger order or the world-the “ecosystem”. It makes sense that these actions have no clear good for the thing itself that undersgoes the change, for the very thing seems to have very little self at all. Is a particular water droplet or a particular quantum of heat energy even the sort of thing that can have a good for itself? In this case, even though the action of any water droplet has its own natural order to a term, the good that it is ordered to (at least clearly so) is the good of the ecosystem.

%d bloggers like this: