So I invite you to think again. — tim wood

I've done creative things which others appreciated and made changes, but no feelings of perfection or moments of reverie, I'm afraid.

Good point, well said! But if not boot-strapped, then from what? Religion? Faith? Belief? Knowledge? Hope? Reason? That is, I disagree, and "finding" one of the great deceptions, often from those selling something. Purpose, then, has to be made, but no easy way to figure out how, or exactly what. . Ex nihilo because there is no other possible source - or do you know of such a source? — tim wood

Quite simply, God is the source of purpose. Those who do not believe in God have a big hole in their capacity for understanding, because the purpose we know and observe, seems to have no purpose when we do not recognize God. When we come to apprehend the reality of God then all that purpose makes sense. And the atheists think the theists are being unreasonable, but it's really the other way around because the atheists are denying themselves the capacity to understand, and that is being unreasonable.

And the atheists think the theists are being unreasonable, but it's really the other way around because the atheists are denying themselves the capacity to understand, and that is being unreasonable. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am an atheist but I don't think theists are being unreasonable.

Quite simply, God is the source of purpose. — Metaphysician Undercover

How do we demonstrate such a statement? Which god, by the way?

Would you agree with me that teleology is an ancient attempt to make sense and that it is not of any great use today, nor since, say, Christians persuaded the world that God made nature? Or at least since Galileo? — tim wood

Nope.

However, you also ought to consider that purpose or intentional action also comes into existence with the very most primitive organisms, which act with purpose to preserve their existence.
— Wayfarer
And if I call this an anthropomorphic attribution? — tim wood

Not at all. It's the signal difference between any living and non-living thing. A crystal does nothing itself to maintain itself or to grow, even if it persists and grows. A cell must continuously act in order to do the same.

It all generally coalesces around the idea: "Oh, isn't the modern period hideously ugly and consumerist.' — Tom Storm

That is a caricature, and also not very perceptive. The modern world, and modern culture, offer more opportunities for growth, exploration, fulfilment, and individuation than any previous era. It is an incredible time to be alive. But it has it's shadow side, the things it doesn't see, or has lost, without really recalling what. (Although there is also no doubt that a great deal of modern consumer culture, like the Pacific Ocean's great Garbage Patch, *is* hideously ugly.)

Above I tried to say that my purpose is to be good (and not bad) and to be as perfect as chance will allow. But even with that, I have the question as to why that would become either a purpose, or even my purpose, thus strongly implying something primordial even to that. Suggestions? — tim wood

One can live a satisfactory life without a sense of over-arching purpose. Stoic philosophy for example didn't generally envisage an after-life, but still had a conception of eudomonia, right conduct leading to impeturbability. But again, very different to the hedonistic ethos native to liberalism (and maybe the reason why stoicism is attracting an audience.)

But I've always been drawn to cosmic philosophies, which are somewhat religious in nature. Not necessarily theistic, and in the sense of a cosmic-director God not at all, but something nearer the convergence of dharma and logos - that by discovering and being true to your purpose, you are doing your part in the grand scheme, and also discovering the reason of existence in a sense greater than the instrumental.

But I've always been drawn to cosmic philosophies, which are somewhat religious in nature. Not necessarily theistic, and in the sense of a cosmic-director God not at all, but something nearer the convergence of dharma and logos - that by discovering and being true to your purpose, you are doing your part in the grand scheme. — Wayfarer

Well I can't find anything much to criticize in this. Certain things attract us. But it does seem to be the expression of a preference - one predicated on emotional or aesthetic satisfaction perhaps - just as mine is - I've never been drawn to cosmic philosophy or religions, they don't assist my sense making process. However, I do appreciate a dialogue between the different worldviews and I'd much rather discuss matters of meaning with a spiritually inclined person that the average atheist.

Quite simply, God is the source of purpose. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right! And may I ask what God, and how you know? Because yours does appear to be a claim of knowledge. Or, if God simply a regulating idea - a creation of mind - then we may differ on details but not on substance.

How do we demonstrate such a statement? Which god, by the way? — Tom Storm

It is demonstrated this way. Purpose is prior to any display of purpose. Therefore there must be a purpose which is prior to all things which display purpose. That purpose cannot be attributed to anything which displays purpose, being prior to all such things. So it is attributed to God, as the source of purpose.

The other question doesn't make sense. If we're talking about God as the source of purpose, then obviously that's the God we're talking about.

And may I ask what God, and how you know? — tim wood

See above

Thank you for your kind words. I will only (gently) observe my view that philosophy proper ought to be concerned with such deep questions, even if out of keeping with the zeitgeist.

that the lights come on when mind is. No mind no world. And purpose comes with – or is invented by – mind. — tim wood

I also want to circle back to this remark in the OP. As I will continue to say to anyone on this forum, a recent book by mathematics professor emeritus (now deceased) Charles Pinter, Mind and the Cosmic Order throws this expression into much greater depth. But it also dispels the anthropocentric illusion that the mind of rational sentient beings alone generates this order. There’s a fascinating discussion of cognition in fruit-flies, showing how they are believed to perceive in gestalts, comprising the aspects of their world that are meaningful to them.

“The meaning of a sensation is something primary and biologically given. There is no need to interpret the feelings of hunger and thirst, for example. The meaning of a sensation is embedded in the sensation itself. It may be said that a sensation is its meaning. Primary feelings are genetically given, and constructed in the course of gestation just as organs are. They are “standard equipment” in every animal body.”

— Mind and the Cosmic Order: How the Mind Creates the Features & Structure of All Things, and Why this Insight Transforms Physics by Charles Pinter

He elaborates in detail how this is generally true for all organisms, h sapiens included. So the philosophical point I want to make is that this process is much more than a matter of the individual’s mind ‘creating’ or ‘inventing’ meaning or purpose. We are embedded in a psychosomatic process which stretches back to the origins of evolution itself. Of course nowadays, many biologists and philosophers of science realise this, but I still think it’s an under-appreciated point. The structure of the mind - yours, mine, anyone’s - comprises these layers of awareness and sensation, from the most basic organic functionality up to conscious thought (and beyond)! So while it’s true that mind is inexorably involved with this process, it’s simplistic to say that the mind simply invents it or devises it. There are ‘thoughts we can’t get outside of’, to allude to an essay by Thomas Nagel. As is well-known, I believe this line of thought leads inevitably to a kind of phenomenological idealism. And I see the shortcoming of the strictly naturalist attitude as not recognising our embeddedness in the process of living, of imagining that we’re standing apart from it and judging it as object to us, when in fact our minds have a fundamental role in creating that order.

...that there exists an X such that 1) X provides purpose in the world, and 2) if there be no X, then there is no purpose, that the world is without purpose. — tim wood

Nice.

i think you are right that this is a sort of "default" analysis of purpose. The trouble is that it encourages hypostatization by treating "x" as an individual, a thing that might be located in the world, and so folk go off in search of it.

But they will not find it, because purpose is given to things, not found in them. The purpose of a knife - the ubiquitous example - is not found in a physical description, but in the way it is used. "Ultimate underlying meaning and significance" is found in use.

So yes, purpose is invented by mind, in setting forth the use.

Or, to put the same point in a somewhat different way, purpose comes from our intent. In a way, it is for our intentional descriptions what causation is for our physical descriptions. purpose, then, is dependent on the descriptions we have at hand - He flicked the switch, turning on the light and alerting the burglar, but the purpose of turning on the light was not to alert the burglar.

So, in answer to your title, purpose is the use to which something is put, and comes from our intent. It is grounded in our intentional explanations for our actions, and has worth only in terms of those intentions and actions.

Edit: That is, no big grand universal purpose, just small wantings and doings.

but something nearer the convergence of dharma and logos - that by discovering and being true to your purpose, you are doing your part in the grand scheme. — Wayfarer

We may be in agreement. This dharma/logos, whence?

As to telos, maybe that a separate discussion.

This dharma/logos, whence? — tim wood

It’s axial age philosophy, going back to the origins of historical cultures, and their attempt to discern reason, in the larger sense. Of course we can’t re-adopt or go back to that period, we’re separated from it by millenia, but I think in relation to the question posed in the OP, that it’s important to grasp what the question meant then, and what has changed. Which I tried to articulate in my first post, from the perrspective of the history of ideas, although I was rather disappointed by the initial response.

So, in answer to your title, purpose is the use to which something is put, and comes from our intent. It is grounded in our intentional explanations for our actions, and has worth only in terms of those intentions and actions. — Banno

"Proper function for which something exists" (EtymOnline). Linguistically 'purpose' does not imply something that is human-intention-derived. The purpose of a knife is to cut because humans made knives, and they made them to cut. It doesn't follow that the purpose of a human life "has worth only in terms of [human] intentions and actions." Your linguistic analysis is off and your logical inferences are faulty, and of course your conclusion is unsound.

"Ultimate underlying meaning and significance" is found in use. — Banno

Only for the anthropocentric.

But they will not find it, because purpose is given to things, not found in them....
So, in answer to your title, purpose is the use to which something is put, and comes from our intent. It is grounded in our intentional explanations for our actions, and has worth only in terms of those intentions and actions. — Banno

To things, I agree. But the purpose one gives to oneself, or accepts for oneself, that, it seems to me, must come from within, found or made - though maybe advised from without, thus perhaps correct to say self-given. And from us, for us, by us, for our own purposes as we value them. Fair enough? And may we say as well, boot-strapped? By which I mean valued because they are valued, any other value being derivative and incidental.

"Proper function for which something exists" (EtymOnline). — Leontiskos

V. late 14c., purposen, "to intend (to do or be something); put forth for consideration, propose," from Anglo-French purposer "to design," Old French purposer, porposer "to intend, propose," variant of proposer "propose, advance, suggest" (see propose).

Generally with an infinitive. Intransitive sense of "to have intention or design" is by mid-15c. According to Century Dictionary, "The verb should prop. be accented on the last syllable (as in propose, compose, etc.), but it has conformed to the noun," which is wholly from Latin while the verb is partly of different origin (see pose (n.2)).

N. c. 1300, purpus, "intention, aim, goal; object to be kept in view; proper function for which something exists," from Anglo-French purpos, Old French porpos "an aim, intention" (12c.), from porposer "to put forth," from por- "forth" (from a variant of Latin pro- "forth;" see pur-) + Old French poser "to put, place" (see pose (v.1)).
Etymologically it is equivalent to Latin propositum "a thing proposed or intended," but evidently formed in French from the same elements. From mid-14c. as "theme of a discourse, subject matter of a narrative (as opposed to digressions), hence to the purpose "appropriate" (late 14c.). On purpose "by design, intentionally" is attested from 1580s; earlier of purpose (early 15c.). — Enynonline

Fuck off.

- Ah, so you don't know the difference between a noun and a verb. It's fun watching Wittgenstenians flub linguistics. Apparently the tired claim has now morphed into, "Purpose is use."

I marked them for you.

I do notice the unquestioned adoption of subjectivism in much of the above. Purpose is OK, but only if it’s mine.

Linguistically 'purpose' does not imply something that is human-intention-derived. The purpose of a knife is to cut because humans made knives, and they made them to cut. It doesn't follow that the purpose of a human life "has worth only in terms of [human] intentions and actions." — Leontiskos

If it's not human intentions, then a supernatural will is required to give humans purpose. A god has to make them his tools.
I reject the idea of being someone's tool, no matter how powerful they are. I'd rather be a wild thing with no ultimate significance. If the gods hunt me down and eat me, so be it, but I will not have accepted "food-source" as my purpose in life.

And the atheists think the theists are being unreasonable, — Metaphysician Undercover

And some theists think their faith makes them clairvoyant.

- The proper human purpose is a relation to God, but there are other stepping stones for those who cannot countenance such a thing. If you get married and have kids you will tend to find purpose, because this is bound up with the human end. If you develop deep friendships or find a stewardship role in creation you will tend to find purpose, etc.

Or cold, mean and indifferent. It doesn't matter which, unless and until the universe reveals its preference and purpose in action - and we probably wouldn't recognize its intent even then. — Vera Mont

Well, yes, but you had already more or less said or implied the possibility that if the universe had a mind it was more likely to be "cold, mean and indifferent", and I was merely presenting the other possibility. But as you suggest the question is pointless anyway as we cannot know, and I would add that we could not even calculate the probability of it being one or the other.

We might care about the Earth ones. I did say Centaurian termites: we don't know whether there is any such thing. — Vera Mont

Ah, I wasn't paying attention, I just assumed it was a species of Earth termite that I had not heard of before.

I think the first thing is to distinguish the sort of "purpose" you're talking about from any sort of goal, the sort that instrumental rationality is good with.

That makes the issue of "being alive" a little tricky, because it's easy to say that this is the primary and overarching goal of a living organism, but it's also set apart, as that which enables any other goal. Is there something else set apart from such goals, perhaps also set apart from maintaining yourself as a living organism? I think there sort of is.

@unenlightened gives you the first bit: this kind of purposiveness is something that inheres in living, in acting, in being, not something outside it. Getting your ducks in a row is a row-ly way of behaving with ducks.

I also think @Wayfarer and perhaps @Leontiskos are on the right track -- though they might be surprised to hear me of all people say this.

Here's how I get there. Goals we understand: the wolf on the hunt behaves in a goal-advancing way. But what about the wolf dozing a little, keeping an eye out, waiting, passing the time. I want to say that this wolf may not be pursuing a goal at the moment, but is still 100% being a wolf, behaving with perfect and complete wolfishness.

And this calls to mind the way the Greeks talked about the essence of things, of plants, of animals, and of human beings as well, that biocentric vision they had of a thing growing into the most complete expression of its own nature, whatever that is. I don't think that requires mind, although for some things being minded is part of it. It is for us, and it is for a wolf.

That's not an answer so much as an idea about how to think about or look for an answer. Some people seem to live purposefully, in the sense I mean, to have a kind of presence, a genuineness -- it isn't necessarily always certainty about what's right, but an engagement with the very idea of there being rightness. Some people don't. It can be hard for us, harder than it is for a tree or a wolf or a knife.

One of those Greeks advised us: "Know thyself." Maybe that suggests that in our case there's no avoiding self-awareness and therefore, if we are to approach the sort of pure expression of essence that a tree or a wolf or a river has, we must first understand, must know something about what we are, not just be it. And that's why it makes more sense to say this sort of purpose is discovered rather than invented.

I'll say one more little thing: I've always been attracted to Keats's -- what? observation? suggestion? -- that the world is "a vale of soul-making". Through suffering we grow a soul, and thus become more fully human, more than we were when we were born. I think that's the idea, and it's interesting to cast that Greek idea in these terms -- it's the growth not of your body but of your soul, that matters.

The proper human purpose is a relation to God, — Leontiskos

Only for those who believe in a god.

If you get married and have kids you will tend to find purpose, — Leontiskos

From day to day and year to year until the kids are grown. Had I considered procreation my purpose in life - as some (mostly female) people do (and fall to pieces if they fail to achieve it), I would have tried to procreate, instead of taking care to prevent it. Though they gave me cause to make plans and set goals that centered solely on them, the children I did raise were not the purpose of life, any more than taking care of stray cats is. These are responsibilities I assume freely, of choice, and that choice then entails purposeful actions directed toward its fulfillment.

Well, yes, but you had already more or less said or implied the possibility that if the universe had a mind it was more likely to be "cold, mean and indifferent" — Janus

That wasn't my intention. It's simply a matter of scale. If the universe is sentient, whether we would judge it from our perspective benevolent, hostile or indifferent, it's so much bigger than us that our perspective could not possibly take in the scope of its intelligence or intent. From its perspective on that scale, even supposing it was aware of our existence, I surmise that it would be unlikely to differentiate between humans and bats or any other sentient species in any of the trillion or so galaxies it surveys.

I just assumed it was a species of Earth termite that I had not heard of before — Janus

Probably because I misspelled it the first time.

- Good post. :up:

:up:

But the purpose one gives to oneself, or accepts for oneself, that, it seems to me, must come from within, found or made - though maybe advised from without, thus perhaps correct to say self-given. — tim wood

Well, yes, I think that is what I said. There might be a need to guard against having a private purpose; one not apparent in any action.

"Boot strapped"? not sure of the sense there. An explanation in terms of purpose may be sufficient - My purpose in drinking was to quench my thirst, no further explanation is needed.

I marked them for you. — Banno

Do you think that the meaning of the word "purpose" entails that all purpose is bestowed by human intention? Yes or no?

I do not here mean any sort of instrumental purpose, either as a cause or any kind of interim goal. — tim wood

Folk appear to have missed this constraint you placed on the topic.

There's also some overgeneralisation. "Being alive" isn't the purpose of a worker bee. They are there only to serve the hive, even at the expense of being alive.

But I've always been drawn to cosmic philosophies, which are somewhat religious in nature. Not necessarily theistic, and in the sense of a cosmic-director God not at all, but something nearer the convergence of dharma and logos - that by discovering and being true to your purpose, you are doing your part in the grand scheme, and also discovering the reason of existence in a sense greater than the instrumental. — Wayfarer

I think it's easy enough to make sense of Aristotle's notion of the way in which beings when flourishing do so by actualizing their specific potentials. And that idea can be aligned with, for example, the notions of dharma or dao, when those are understood as naturally immanent to the beings themselves, as opposed to something "given from above", that is, when understood as natural as opposed to supernatural.

So, I can understand the idea that "by discovering and being true to (actualizing) your" potential (instead of "purpose") you will be living your best possible life. Whether this somehow benefits the universe in any way other than it possibly leading to you directly benefiting other proximal beings and/ or your environment, remains obscure to me. Would even benefiting the whole Earth make any appreciable difference to the Cosmos as a whole? I can't see any way to coherently understand how it could. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

The other thing that puzzles me in what you say is that, although, you don't (apparently) believe in a grand schemer, you believe in a "grand scheme". I can make no sense of a grand scheme without positing a grand schemer, a grand designer without a grand designer or a grand purpose without a grand purposer. Care to unravel it for me?

I do not here mean any sort of instrumental purpose, either as a cause or any kind of interim goal. — tim wood

Folk appear to have missed this constraint you placed on the topic. — Banno

You're right, I did miss it. I should not have responded. If all the meanings of 'purpose' are eliminated from discussion, there's nothing left to discuss but God.