ABSTRACT
The purpose was to make clearer what is meant by explanation in terms of purpose, which, as the people saw, involves a teleological type of explanation. Explanations in terms of desire, therefore, introduce the type of asymmetry into the people account of behaviour which the people noticed above, for they assume a press or tendency in the behaviour of the being which desires towards a certain consummation. The end of self-preservation is thought of as inherently desirable, as something that men 'naturally' desire, so that no further explanation can be offered. Now it is perfectly true that the distinction between these two types of laws was not framed to fit this case, that, indeed, as the people hope to show, it presupposes that this case does not arise. The stronger would win out; but the people could say that one ‘tendency’ or ‘disposition’ was inhibited, the weaker one, and therefore that the mechanism acted against desire.
