"That for the sake of which", that is to say "the end", is twofold: "that in view of which" and "that in view of whom".[1] For instance, for the builder the end as "that for the sake of which" is to produce a covering preventive of rain and burning heat for us, for he produces such a covering for us. Therefore, we are the builder's end in the sense of "that in view of whom". The same thing can be considered with regard to all the things constituted by nature as well. For example, desire for the divine, the desire in virtue of which each animated thing makes (as it were) another self, is an end in the sense of "that in view of which". For generation is in view of it. But since bodies become instruments for the souls, these are ends in the sense of "that in view of whom".[2] Thus nature is analogous to the builder, who is a craftsman, and the soul becomes a covering for the man giving commands, and the house for the body. But the end not only is twofold ("that in view of which" and "that in view of whom") in the case of animals but also in the case of plants. In fact, in them nature makes the body instrumental, the body referring to the utility of the soul in them. For the parts of plants (root, husk, pith, leaves and things of this sort) are instrumental. As has been said, the end is twofold in animate things; but in the rest of things it is impossible to discover the end as being twofold. For metals, stones and the inanimate things (the things that without qualification and continuously come into being by the agency of cold and heat but ultimately are produced as a whole by craftsmanship) have only one end: "that in view of which", for they are for the sake of the world's making but in them the end is not already "that in view of whom". As a matter of fact, they are not instruments of certain things, nor are they prepared for the utility of certain souls.[3]
The [noun] telos has six meanings.[4]
Aristo(n) of Chios said that the end is to live in a state of indifference in respect of what is intermediate between virtue and vice, admitting no distinction at all in them, but being equally disposed in them. For the wise man is like a good actor.[5] The end and the subordinate end[6] are different. For those who are not wise aim at the latter, whereas only the wise man aims at the former. The things that are between virtue and vice are indifferent. Some people[7] said that to live with knowledge was the end, i.e. making reference to knowledge and not being brought into discredit by ignorance.[8]