ABSTRACT
In an article in The Journal of Philosopry, (vol. XXI, No. 25), Dr. E. R. Guthrie considered Purpose and Mechanism as categories of explanation in psychology, his general conclusion being that teleological explanation is not so intrinsically despicable, after all, as it is often thought to be. The present writer is in thorough agreement with that conclusion, but it seems to him that Guthrie's distinction between mechanism and teleology is much too loose to be satisfactory, and that he classes as explanations many things which have no title to that name. It is obviously highly desirable to define explanation, purposiveness, and explanation in terms of purpose with precision, for otherwise clear and firm conclusions cannot possibly be reached. The present paper attempts such definitions briefly.
