unconditional necessity, and I consider this 

 direction absolutely correct .... The 

 physics and chemistry of our time reap their 

 fruits. With the help of these sciences they 

 sought to interpret the vital phenomena of 

 plants and animals also as a physico-chemical 

 process which arises for each organic form by 

 special means? by these ways many things 

 already can be explained, and it can be hoped ,_ 

 that present problems with time will be solved. 



However, Baer considered that success in the knowledge 

 of nature's processes, appearing as a necessary activity, 

 must not lead to denying direction and purpose (ZIELE 

 UND ZWECKE) in nature. Baer did not agree with the 

 opinion of those who considered that teleological opinion 

 in the study of nature is absolutely unsuitable and that 

 in nature there is neither direction nor purpose (WEDER 

 ZIELE NOCH ZWECKE). "Teleology," Baer stated, "is 

 the study of direction (ZIEL), 58 and thus purpose (ZWECK) 

 and the final end (ZIEL) are also present; then teleology 

 is a study of the objective relations in natural phenomena. 

 I can never be sure of the absence of all direction, or 

 consider the question as ridiculous or shameful. "39 



Baer discussed Haeckel's opinion from his GENERAL 

 MORPHOLOGY that chance and purpose are absent in nature 

 and only absolute necessity predominates (compulsion). 

 Baer considered it erroneous to contrast necessity and 

 purpose, because in his opinion purpose is reached by means 

 of necessity. 



The marble statue, it is known, is built by 

 mechanical means. Absolute necessity consists 

 in that the marble block is beaten by hammer and 



37. Baer, "Uber den Zweck," pp. 64-65. 



38. In a footnote Baer explained that "the Greek word TeAos 

 (end, outcome, result — L.B.) is in German designated ZIEL 



39. Baer, "Uber den Zweck," p. 65. From this extract it 

 will be seen that Baer has confused his differentiations 

 between ZIEL and ZWECK. 



505 



