I think this is it. I vaguely remember reading something in a book by either Richard Dawkins or Steven Pinker that explained that the mind has evolved to analyse objects from three distinct perspectives: 1) purpose, 2) design and 3) structure.
-
We can analyse objects as having a purpose. This works very well for humans, and it also works for animals. When a saber tooth tiger is running towards you, a quick analysis is required. The analysis is: ‘that tiger intends to eat me’. We think of the tiger as having intent. There is no time to analysis the design or structure of the tiger. In theory, there is no reason that we can’t view plants or rocks as having a purpose, except that it is not useful for us to do so.
-
We can analyse objects as having a design. This can be useful, for example, when trying to understand a leaf. We analyse it as the part of a plant designed to capture light. We think of the leaf as having a function. We can understand a leaf better by taking the design perspective than any other. It is not useful to think of a leaf as “wanting” or “intending” to capture light. We also analyse human-produced objects from the design perspective, thinking of them in terms of their function.
-
We can analyse the structure, the physical properties of all objects. In some cases, where the above two perspectives are not useful at all, it is our only way of getting an understanding of the object. To understand a rock means to understand its structure; there is no additional usefulness from thinking of the rock from either the design perspective or the purpose perspective.
I see no reason why we can’t analyse animals from the purpose perspective. That is, apply praxeology to animals. It may be useful.