Philosophy : How can people believe "purpose" is real?

How can people believe "purpose" is real?

Like a carpenter makes a chair intending to sit on it but as soon as it's finished I smash him over the head with it and make a campfire out of it. So what was the "purpose" of the chair and where in it was it located?

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

Obviously you used it for a purpose it wasn't intended for (by the carpenter). The purpose in both cases is in the head of the person taking the action. If you are asking where is it in the item itself, I don't think an inanimate object contains a purpose in itself. But that's an interesting question.


CC:https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/28/b3/81/28b3814d7598e079965170c781cf7dc8.jpg

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

But doesn't that mean "purpose" is a fiction, a concept with no basis in reality?

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

No man, it's as if you are saying a wave in the ocean is a fiction because it changes. Waves have reality, they just don't stay the same all the time.


CC:https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/28/b3/81/28b3814d7598e079965170c781cf7dc8.jpg

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

The key differences are that 1. a wave affects reality, not just the mind and is therefore non-fictional and 2. "purpose" didn't change inside the chair or in anyone's mind, the person hitting someone with it can easily keep "both purposes" in mind OR fumble for an item to hit someone with without knowing it's a chair beforehand.

Also, this: http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000130/nest/263626706

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

Purpose implies ends. While the carpenter made the chair intending to sit on it, you intended to use it as a injuring mechanism and then as firewood. Human purpose or intentionality is a more specific form of teleology. The latter term is derived from Aristotelian metaphysics in the notion of his "final" cause, one of his four causes, the other three being material, formal, and efficient. Aquinas said "every agent acts towards an end" and that the "final" cause is "the cause of causes". This is not only for conscious, willing agents like ourselves, but anything that exists in Nature, even unconscious ones. It is in this sense that "purpose" exists. If causality as such did not exist in Reality, then "one thing would not follow another except by chance" (Aquinas). It would be inexplicable why cause A would produce effect B instead of effect C, i.e., this effect instead of that effect, unless there was something intrinsic to A that pointed towards producing effect B. It is these regularities in Nature that science models via empirical observation at the level of physics via mathematics for rigorous prediction and technological application.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

Seems like a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing to me. (EDIT: Which is actually not true since I disagree with Macbeth, everything means something but my point is it seems like a smoke screen to me.)

If a species of aliens created all life on Earth intending it for one thing but something happened and a virus killed them, what does that say about Aquinas and science models?

If a god created the Sun with some intent but then tripped on a banana peel and broke his neck while on vacation as a mortal, how does his intent become "purpose" while the carpenter's intent for the chair is no different from the next person's intent for putting one foot in front of the other to move forward?

Causality is not in question. The concept of "purpose" is.

Let's say I tie myself to a big rock and jump into a deep river with it. Am I magically endowing the rock, the rope and the river with "purpose" or am I simply an agent choosing to affect my environment in a predictable way (based on experience) in an attempt to end my agency (in terms of being a living organism in an environment)?

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

Wow. It's like you didn't even comprehend what I wrote.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?


While the carpenter made the chair intending to sit on it, you intended to use it as a injuring mechanism and then as firewood.
Duh.


Human purpose or intentionality is a more specific form of teleology.
Who cares what term we made up for it? "Unicorn" is a term, doesn't make it real.


The latter term is derived from Aristotelian metaphysics in the notion of his "final" cause, one of his four causes, the other three being material, formal, and efficient.
So what?


Aquinas said "every agent acts towards an end" and that the "final" cause is "the cause of causes". This is not only for conscious, willing agents like ourselves, but anything that exists in Nature, even unconscious ones.

So what if somebody said something if you can't apply the thinking on the simple examples instead of just quoting somebody making assertions?


It is in this sense that "purpose" exists.

You're not explaining, you're quoting somebody waxing philosophically.


If causality as such did not exist in Reality, then "one thing would not follow another except by chance" (Aquinas).
Causality is not "purpose".


It would be inexplicable why cause A would produce effect B instead of effect C, i.e., this effect instead of that effect, unless there was something intrinsic to A that pointed towards producing effect B.

Did you give an example? No, just an assertion. "Purpose exists because the world's not a void of chaotic chaos."


It is these regularities in Nature that science models via empirical observation at the level of physics via mathematics for rigorous prediction and technological application.

I don't buy it. It reads like smokescreen to me.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?


It reads like smokescreen to me.

Well, that's because you can't read.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

Right, that's it. Not the fact that you're just parroting philosophy lectures rather than testing out the concepts if they hold any water.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

Yeah, I'm just "parroting" philosophy lectures in a forum about philosophy.

How dare I?


"...those who devote themselves to the purpose of proving that there is no purpose constitute an interesting subject for study." ~ Alfred North Whitehead

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

Not a question of daring.

See, a forum is for interaction, discussion of something. Me copying and pasting quotes from Einstein and Hawking and nothing more is not me discussing physics.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

If you think I just copied and pasted quotes as if they were insignificant to what was discussed, then you're even more clueless than I realized.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

I didn't say you did but parroting amounts to the same thing.

EDIT: And I didn't say Aristotle's or Aquinas' thinking was irrelevant to the issue but it amounts to "Duuude, Aristotle and Aquinas disagrees with you, maaan!"

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

The quotes make up less than 5% of what was said, so this idea that I'm just "parroting" what they said by quoting them is baseless. The quotes are made in the context of what is being discussed. Did you even go to college?

Causality is "purpose" in the generic sense, because in the latter sense it implies teleology as Aristotle knew it, which means there are final causes to things - what the ends of a certain causes are - even unconscious ones. This is different from "purpose" in the specific sense of human intentionality. If this wasn't the case, then there would be no such thing as regularity in Nature (that we encapsulate under the phrase "The Laws of Nature"). When you generate friction against a match head, it always burns unless it is impeded, i.e., it was soaked in water, or something within its structure made it defective. That is because the nature of phosphorus is such that that when an efficient cause is applied to it in such a way, it has a natural end to burn, not create flowers, or smell like roses, or do nothing, i.e. cause A produces effect B instead of effect C, it produces this effect instead that effect. If this was not the case then "one thing would only follow another only by chance", because there would be no guarantee that every time gasoline was lit it would burn, or that when a match head was struck it would too, and as a result the scientific method that relies on rigorous prediction in order to facilitate technological application would not be possible.

Stop being intentionally obtuse and try to understand what someone has said.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

Now who can't read? Parroting is not quoting verbatim but amounts to the same thing.


Causality is "purpose" in the generic sense, because in the latter sense it implies teleology as Aristotle knew it, which means there are final causes to things - what the ends of a certain causes are - even unconscious ones. This is different from "purpose" in the specific sense of human intentionality.

And there you go parroting again. Are you applying Aristotle's thinking to any of my questions? No, you're just repeating the Cliff's Notes or the summary of a last page of an essay I did not ask about.


If this wasn't the case, then there would be no such thing as regularity in Nature (that we encapsulate under the phrase "The Laws of Nature").
Not only are you parroting, you're repeating yourself with "Purpose exists because the world is not a void of chaotic chaos." without giving any reason for how that even could be a fact.


When you generate friction against a match head, it always burns unless it is impeded, i.e., it was soaked in water, or something within its structure made it defective. That is because the nature of phosphorus is such that that when an efficient cause is applied to it in such a way, it has a natural end to burn, not create flowers, or smell like roses, or do nothing, i.e. cause A produces effect B instead of effect C, it produces this effect instead that effect. If this was not the case then "one thing would only follow another only by chance", because there would be no guarantee that every time gasoline was lit it would burn, or that when a match head was struck it would too, and as a result the scientific method that relies on rigorous prediction in order to facilitate technological application would not be possible.
There IS no guarantee that things won't suddenly act against all logic, they just DON'T as far as we can determine scientifically (though the religions would have us believe miracles evade science daily like Road Runner does Wiley Coyote).
But that is actually beside the point of how I find your parroting sigh-inducing.
The point is simple: I am not impressed by "This famous philosopher said it must exist so who cares about answering your silly questions when this famous philosopher said it with more impressive words?" You might as well be a Jehova's Witness or Scientologist to me with that approach.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

If we have no guarantee that it won't go against all logic, then anything you say means nothing. You might as well say there is no such thing as writing.

You're an idiot.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

Yes, and we're on the Planet of The Idiots.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

Your emo nihilism is just too hip and cool for me.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

Nihilism is saying the world is meaningless. I'm not saying that.
And misanthropy is not always emo.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

PHILOSOPHY
extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Nihilism&oq=Nihilism&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

And that's how you perceive me?

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?


If we have no guarantee that it won't go against all logic, then anything you say means nothing. You might as well say there is no such thing as writing.
What does language and semiotics have to do with the fact that none of us can honestly guarantee physics won't simply go totally haywire in the next five minutes?

I'm beginning to think you're just trolling me.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

What does "our guarantees" have to do with the fact that the rules of logic and regularities in Nature exist?

I came to the conclusion a while ago that you're just a moron who thinks his faux "philosophical" skepticism is "too cool for school".

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

1+1=2. We observe this. Can you guarantee that in a few hours 1+1 will not equal 42 or cucumber? No, you can't.

You're saying that Aristotle felt that 1+1=2 proves "purpose" exists. I'm saying I don't care what he felt.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

Again, what do "my guarantees" have to do with anything in the context of this discussion. We're not talking about what I or you or anyone else can control. What ifs are not what is. Regardless, if you think 1+1 could equal anything greater than two, you haven't thought about the issue even remotely. Asserting 1+1 could equal a cucumber is nothing other than inanity since one is math, and the other is a real world object, i.e., a category error.

No, I'm not just saying Aristotle said this or said that, you clueless buffoon. If I did, I would have responded to this thread with because Aristotle said so, or because Aquinas said so. But anyone who can clearly read knows I said much more than this.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?


Again, what do "my guarantees" have to do with anything in the context of this discussion.

I've explained it already. Science is noting the patterns of reality based on the ASSUMPTION that reality sticks to those patterns.


We're not talking about what I or you or anyone else can control.

What does control have to do with this?


What ifs are not what is.

What does 'what if' have to do with this?


Regardless, if you think 1+1 could equal anything greater than two, you haven't thought about the issue even remotely. Asserting 1+1 could equal a cucumber is nothing other than inanity since one is math, and the other is a real world object, i.e., a category error.

Entirely missing the point.


No, I'm not just saying Aristotle said this or said that, you clueless buffoon. If I did, I would have responded to this thread with because Aristotle said so, or because Aquinas said so. But anyone who can clearly read knows I said much more than this.

No, I don't think that you did. You jumped right into "final causes" and whatnot without even trying to apply that thinking to the issues raised in this thread. Which amounts to parroting which (no offense) any lazy idiot can do.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?


I've explained it already. Science is noting the patterns of reality based on the ASSUMPTION that reality sticks to those patterns.

Irony. You claim that others just name drop, yet you haven't explained a single thing.

The Universe could collapse in on itself and the causal regularity could disappear along with its existence. Yeah, so what? What does that have to do with what I already explained about the idea of purpose/end/aim in the generic sense existing right now. My guarantees, your guarantees, anyone else's guarantees, Universal guarantees (whatever that means), etc., are irrelevant to this question. The Universe doesn't have to behave this way forever and ever for it to exist right now.

What does control have to do with this?

What does 'what if' have to do with this?

. You're the one who brought these things up.

People make guarantees based on things things they can control, or can reliably predict the outcome of, or have certain knowledge about. No one but fools guarantee outcomes concerning things that they can't control or answers to questions they don't already know the answer to or are able to accurately figure out.

You're the one who brought up guarantees (because I mentioned the word doesn't make it relevant to the discussion) as if it was an issue, and what if scenarios like causality not existing tomorrow or a billion years down the road as if it was related to the notion of purpose/aim/end right now.

Entirely missing the point.

Yeah, right. If I entirely miss the point, it's because you have none.

No, I don't think that you did. You jumped right into "final causes" and whatnot without even trying to apply that thinking to the issues raised in this thread. Which amounts to parroting which (no offense) any lazy idiot can do.

Repeating a lie that I just name dropped without actually explaining what I said just because you saw familiar names within the content doesn't make it true.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?


Irony. You claim that others just name drop, yet you haven't explained a single thing.

Not name dropping. And I have explained several things you keep ignoring.


The Universe could collapse in on itself and the causal regularity could disappear along with its existence. Yeah, so what? What does that have to do with what I already explained about the idea of purpose/end/aim in the generic sense existing right now.
They don't exist right now. So that has everything to do with it.


My guarantees, your guarantees, anyone else's guarantees, Universal guarantees (whatever that means), etc., are irrelevant to this question.
Wrong. You said:
"because there would be no guarantee that every time gasoline was lit it would burn, or that when a match head was struck it would too, and as a result the scientific method that relies on rigorous prediction in order to facilitate technological application would not be possible."
I am (as I've already explained) simply saying science is prediction based on observing patterns and assuming these patterns will continue, not guaranteeing or getting guarantees that they will continue.


The Universe doesn't have to behave this way forever and ever for it to exist right now.

It continuing to exist forever or not is beside the point. The point was predicting the patterns of it today. We can't guarantee gravity won't simply cease in the next hour for example, we are still studying it.


You're the one who brought these things up.

Please quote where I bring up control. If by 'what if' you mean my examples like jumping in the river tied to a rock that is not a suggested alternative to reality but a hypothetical scenario.


People make guarantees based on things things they can control, or can reliably predict the outcome of, or have certain knowledge about. No one but fools guarantee outcomes concerning things that they can't control or answers to questions they don't already know the answer to or are able to accurately figure out. You're the one who brought up guarantees (because I mentioned the word doesn't make it relevant to the discussion) as if it was an issue

It is an issue and you used it as an argument and I countered it so your little shell game is a failure.


and what if scenarios like causality not existing tomorrow or a billion years down the road as if it was related to the notion of purpose/aim/end right now. 
It is related. You can't guarantee your match or gasoline will ignite or that 1+1 will equal 2 later tomorrow. That's not a what if, that is reality. Deny it all you want, the scientific method is observing reality and making predictions ASSUMING reality is predictable.


Yeah, right. If I entirely miss the point, it's because you have none.
That's a logical self-contradiction.


Repeating a lie that I just name dropped without actually explaining what I said just because you saw familiar names within the content doesn't make it true.
No, name dropping would be the even lazier method. That still doesn't mean you explained anything, such as how "final causes" are not a figment of someone's imagination.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?


They don't exist right now.

Yes, they do you moron. You're the one who brought up their possible temporality as if it was some cogent counter to their non-existence now.

Man, you're obtuse.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

No, I did not bring up their temporality, I was addressing the patterns of reality which you say we could not perceive if not for the existence of purpose/end/aim.

The patterns exist, the world is not a void of chaotic chaos. Your parroting Aristotle or Aquinas or whoever claiming that this proves purpose/end/aim also exists is just that, parroting a claim at the end of an essay.

You're not applying it to a single one of the questions I've posed. Your argument boils down to "No purpose = universe of chaos. No universe of chaos = purpose exists!" which is not a stupid argument but you haven't given it any legs to stand ion in this discussion, you just dumped it in like "Your questions are stupid. Explain away Aristotle and Aquinas instead."

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?

Wow. You're an idiot. You're the one who brought up the notion that we can't guarantee (when I used the term) that the patterns of regularity would persist tomorrow, a year from now, or ten billion years from now like they do today. What do you think that is except for temporality, you moron?

And no, I didn't say that we could not "perceive" the patterns of reality if not for the existence of purpose/end/aim. Do you even know how to read or follow a train of thought? I said that there wouldn't be regularities in Nature if not for purpose/end/aim that was intrinsic to substances within Nature. Holy moly, you are obtuse.

The only person who is parroting anything here is you in parroting the lie that all I did was parrot Aristotle and Aquinas.

What does chaos have to do with anything? I didn't even mention it at all. You did. Your just chock full of straw-men.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?


You're the one who brought up the notion that we can't guarantee (when I used the term) that the patterns of regularity would persist tomorrow, a year from now, or ten billion years from now like they do today.
No, you brought up "because there would be no guarantee that every time gasoline was lit it would burn", my counter was simply that there IS no such guarantee (and I even said that is actually beside the point).

The patterns can continue forever for all it matters to my point. Read on.


What do you think that is except for temporality, you moron?

Saying we can't guarantee whether or not our souls are immortal is not the same as saying souls are not immortal. The temporality of souls is irrelevant to the point; we can't predict how souls work, too little data. Does that put that to bed or you going to keep playing dumb and go "What do souls have to do with anything?" or the like?


And no, I didn't say that we could not "perceive" the patterns of reality if not for the existence of purpose/end/aim.
You're confusing yourself. There wouldn't be patterns to perceive.

What you're saying with A and B and C and match and gasoline etc. is that we can predict based on patterns. You're then parroting that our ability to predict proves the existence of purpose/end/aim.


I said that there wouldn't be regularities in Nature if not for purpose/end/aim that was intrinsic to substances within Nature.
Regularities = patterns. What are your working definitions of reality and Nature?


What does chaos have to do with anything? I didn't even mention it at all. You did.
Yes, since chaos is the basis of the argument you are parroting; that being able to predict effects means purpose/end/aim is real. We can't predict chaos, that is the definition, hence you are saying there would be nothing but chaos. A human mind (magically existing for the sake of argument in that chaos) couldn't predict A turning out B or C or Ö.


Your just chock full of straw-men.

Quote me what a straw man argument is and I think you'll find it does not apply.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?


No, you brought up "because there would be no guarantee that every time gasoline was lit it would burn", my counter was simply that there IS no such guarantee (and I even said that is actually beside the point).

The patterns can continue forever for all it matters to my point. Read on.

Do you even read what someone writes? Me saying a word doesn't make it relevant to the point at hand. You took that word out of its context and started talking about temporality as if it was relevant to the matter at hand when it has nothing to do with the existence of ends/aims/purposes in the here and now. You're the one who asked the question on why people believe "purpose" is real. The latter word doesn't imply forever and ever and ever.

Saying we can't guarantee whether or not our souls are immortal is not the same as saying souls are not immortal.

What does this have to do with anything?

You're confusing yourself. There wouldn't be patterns to perceive.

What you're saying with A and B and C and match and gasoline etc. is that we can predict based on patterns. You're then parroting that our ability to predict proves the existence of purpose/end/aim.

Of course we predict based on regularities. If there weren't regularities, then "one thing would not follow another except by chance" and prediction simply wouldn't be possible. The argument is that if such ends/aims/purposes weren't intrinsic to the substances themselves - if there were no final causes - such patterns or regularities could not even exist. In other words, regularities are a consequence of the ends/aims/purposes being inherent in the natural substances themselves. Their existence is not dependent upon our perception of them.

If you're trying to make some silly argument that we can't know for certain, or that it is only because we perceive regularities that they exist, then why are you even discussing anything? All metaphysics and philosophy is axiomatically rooted upon the assumption of the adequation of the human intelligence to accurately know and comprehend an intelligible Reality.

Regularities = patterns.

Thanks for the synonym.

Yes, since chaos is the basis of the argument you are parroting; that being able to predict effects means purpose/end/aim is real. We can't predict chaos, that is the definition, hence you are saying there would be nothing but chaos. A human mind (magically existing for the sake of argument in that chaos) couldn't predict A turning out B or C or Ö.


The only person who mentioned chaos is you. The only way the argument at hand depends upon chaos is indirectly due to it being an antonym of order. Yes, it is certainly true that the non-existence of regularities would imply unpredictability, which would result in chaos, and hence an unintelligible reality. The absence of causality as such - which is what allows for predictability - in the Universe would be a lack of order where nothing could ever form and sustain itself in existence, let a lone a human brain and mind that could comprehend it. Chance is nothing but the accidental convergence of causal regularity.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Re: Why do people believe "purpose" is real?


Me saying a word doesn't make it relevant to the point at hand. You took that word out of its context

No, I did not. If you really believe that, kindly explain how I did so.


and started talking about temporality as if it was relevant to the matter at hand when it has nothing to do with the existence of ends/aims/purposes in the here and now.

No, as I've explained already I did not start talking about temporality. You said "There'd be no guarantee", I said "There isn't" and then I elaborated on "There isn't". Saying that for all our guaranteeing gravity and fruit flies could go poof as we speak is not the temporality of gravity or fruit flies.


You're the one who asked the question on why people believe purpose is "real". The latter word doesn't have to imply forever and ever and ever.

Quote me where I say "purpose" would be something lasting forever or I would disqualify it. The carpenter's chair or "the final causes", take your pick, find me where I say that.

I'm beginning to think you accusing me of setting up straw men was you projecting.


"Saying we can't guarantee whether or not our souls are immortal is not the same as saying souls are not immortal."
What does this have to do with anything?

Well, you clearly think they are the same. That's what it has to do with this.


Of course we predict based on regularities.

I never said otherwise.


If there weren't regularities, then "one thing would not follow another except by chance" and prediction simply wouldn't be possible.

And that's a world of chaos. Welcome to the point from way way back.


The argument is that if such ends/aims/purposes weren't intrinsic to the substances themselves - if there were no final causes - such patterns or regularities could not even exist.

Which is the assertion I understand but you don't explain anymore than someone asserting "If God didn't exist the universe wouldn't exist."


In other words, regularities are a consequence of the ends/aims/purposes being inherent in the natural substances themselves.

What makes you think that is true?

What is the end(s)/aim(s)/purpose(s) of gasoline, for example?

I know there are regularities/patterns to gasoline.


Their existence is not dependent upon our perception of them.

Sure but how is that relevant?


If you're trying to make some silly argument that we can't know for certain, or that it is only because we perceive regularities that they exist, then why are you even discussing anything?

Nonono, that's not what I mean at all.


All metaphysics/philosophy is axiomatically rooted upon the assumption of the adequation of the human intelligence to accurately know and comprehend an intelligible Reality.

Yes, although (as I've already said before) that is an assumption.

But it being an assumption is beside the point. That I can't right now guarantee a certain weather occurring tomorrow doesn't mean I couldn't potentially have the ability to predict weather patterns.

Mankind may in the distant future be able to guarantee reality could never suddenly blink out of existence against all logic but none of us have that ability today. All we can do is determine that reality doesn't and go "Huh. Maybe it can't."


The only person who mentioned chaos is you.

I mentioned it by that term, yes, but to summarize your argument.


The only way the argument at hand depends upon chaos is indirectly due to it being an antonym of order.

Unless you were speaking of a purpose-less world having a different kind of order that humans were literally unable to comprehend (which would go directly against what you say above about metaphysics/philosophy) I don't see how chaos is an inapproriate term for what your argument was describing.


Yes, it is certainly true that the non-existence of regularities would imply unpredictability, which would result in chaos, and hence an unintelligible reality.

How does an entirely unpredictable universe result in chaos rather than in itself be "a void of chaotic chaos" (as I put it)?


The absence of causality as such - which is what allows for predictability - in the Universe would be a lack of order where nothing could ever form and sustain itself in existence, let a lone a human brain and mind that could comprehend it.
I believe I did specify that a human mind would only exist in that chaos due to for-the-sake-of-argument-magic.


Chance is nothing but the accidental convergence of causal regularity.
Isn't that kind of like saying an apple is nothing but the apple version of a fruit from a tree?

Causality is one of the main patterns of reality, that much is certain. I still don't see how "final causes" enter into the universe anymore than it does the carpenter's chair.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Re: How can people believe "purpose" is real?

matt_shade said...

Me saying a word doesn't make it relevant to the point at hand. You took that word out of its context

No, I did not. If you really believe that, kindly explain how I did so.


and started talking about temporality as if it was relevant to the matter at hand when it has nothing to do with the existence of ends/aims/purposes in the here and now.

No, as I've explained already I did not start talking about temporality. You said "There'd be no guarantee", I said "There isn't" and then I elaborated on "There isn't". Saying that for all our guaranteeing gravity and fruit flies could go poof as we speak is not the temporality of gravity or fruit flies.


You're the one who asked the question on why people believe purpose is "real". The latter word doesn't have to imply forever and ever and ever.

Quote me where I say "purpose" would be something lasting forever or I would disqualify it. The carpenter's chair or "the final causes", take your pick, find me where I say that.

I'm beginning to think you accusing me of setting up straw men was you projecting.


"Saying we can't guarantee whether or not our souls are immortal is not the same as saying souls are not immortal."
What does this have to do with anything?

Well, you clearly think they are the same. That's what it has to do with this.


Of course we predict based on regularities.

I never said otherwise.


If there weren't regularities, then "one thing would not follow another except by chance" and prediction simply wouldn't be possible.

And that's a world of chaos. Welcome to the point from way way back.


The argument is that if such ends/aims/purposes weren't intrinsic to the substances themselves - if there were no final causes - such patterns or regularities could not even exist.

Which is the assertion I understand but you don't explain anymore than someone asserting "If God didn't exist the universe wouldn't exist."


In other words, regularities are a consequence of the ends/aims/purposes being inherent in the natural substances themselves.

What makes you think that is true?

What is the end(s)/aim(s)/purpose(s) of gasoline, for example?

I know there are regularities/patterns to gasoline.


Their existence is not dependent upon our perception of them.

Sure but how is that relevant?


If you're trying to make some silly argument that we can't know for certain, or that it is only because we perceive regularities that they exist, then why are you even discussing anything?

Nonono, that's not what I mean at all.


All metaphysics/philosophy is axiomatically rooted upon the assumption of the adequation of the human intelligence to accurately know and comprehend an intelligible Reality.

Yes, although (as I've already said before) that is an assumption.

But it being an assumption is beside the point. That I can't right now guarantee a certain weather occurring tomorrow doesn't mean I couldn't potentially have the ability to predict weather patterns.

Mankind may in the distant future be able to guarantee reality could never suddenly blink out of existence against all logic but none of us have that ability today. All we can do is determine that reality doesn't and go "Huh. Maybe it can't."


The only person who mentioned chaos is you.

I mentioned it by that term, yes, but to summarize your argument.


The only way the argument at hand depends upon chaos is indirectly due to it being an antonym of order.

Unless you were speaking of a purpose-less world having a different kind of order that humans were literally unable to comprehend (which would go directly against what you say above about metaphysics/philosophy) I don't see how chaos is an inapproriate term for what your argument was describing.


Yes, it is certainly true that the non-existence of regularities would imply unpredictability, which would result in chaos, and hence an unintelligible reality.

How does an entirely unpredictable universe result in chaos rather than in itself be "a void of chaotic chaos" (as I put it)?


The absence of causality as such - which is what allows for predictability - in the Universe would be a lack of order where nothing could ever form and sustain itself in existence, let a lone a human brain and mind that could comprehend it.
I believe I did specify that a human mind would only exist in that chaos due to for-the-sake-of-argument-magic.


Chance is nothing but the accidental convergence of causal regularity.
Isn't that kind of like saying an apple is nothing but the apple version of a fruit from a tree?

Causality is one of the main patterns of reality, that much is certain. I still don't see how "final causes" enter into the universe anymore than it does the carpenter's chair.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".
expand
Anyone else feel DramatisPersona was trolling me?

'(sigh) We humans are stupid egotistical self-deluded beings'

'(sigh) We humans are stupid egotistical self-deluded beings'

Re: How can people believe "purpose" is real?

matt_shade said... Anyone else feel DramatisPersona was trolling me?

'(sigh) We humans are stupid egotistical self-deluded beings'
expand
I thought you might be trolling each other.

Re: How can people believe "purpose" is real?

A chair's purpose is for being sat upon. And a chair's purpose is for killing someone with. And a (wooden) chair's purpose is for building a fire. And a little chair is for little people to sit on, or for killing little people with, or making little fires. Need demands purpose.

Re: How can people believe "purpose" is real?

Bull[bleep]. Buuuull[bleeeeeep].

Also, this: http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000130/nest/263626706

Re: How can people believe "purpose" is real?

Whatever.

Re: How can people believe "purpose" is real?

No, not "whatever", that's bull[bleep].

Also, this: http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000130/nest/263626706

Re: How can people believe "purpose" is real?

The purpose of the chair, from the carpenter's point of view, was for sitting on. The purpose was located in the carpenter's mind.

The purpose of the chair, from your point of view, was for smashing a carpenter, and then making a campfire out of it. Those purposes were in your mind.

Re: How can people believe "purpose" is real?

That's self-delusion. Reality is that "purpose" affects nothing but the mind and something that affects nothing but the mind is a figment, a fiction.

Also, this: http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000130/nest/263626706

Re: How can people believe "purpose" is real?

Your problem is that you assume the chair itself has only a single purpose, and that purpose is embedded in the chair.

The purpose lies with each user of the chair. They can each have their own purpose for the chair.
1. Sitting
2. Bashing
3. Firewood
4. Talking to like an old school chum
There are an infinite number of purposes for the chair.

Purpose doesn't "affect" the mind, it comes from the mind.

Re: How can people believe "purpose" is real?


Your problem is that you assume the chair itself has only a single purpose, and that purpose is embedded in the chair.

No, I am not assuming it is embedded. I am saying it isn't.


The purpose lies with each user of the chair. They can each have their own purpose for the chair.
1. Sitting
2. Bashing
3. Firewood
4. Talking to like an old school chum
There are an infinite number of purposes for the chair.

No, there isn't. The mind can have countless ideas about the chair having "purpose" but reality is the chair has none, it never goes beyond ideas.


Purpose doesn't "affect" the mind, it comes from the mind.

Because it is a figment, a fiction. It never leaves the mind.

Also, this: http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000130/nest/263626706

Re: How can people believe "purpose" is real?

These topics are just getting annoying now

Re: How can people believe "purpose" is real?

Sorry. It's the truth though. My misanthropy may be off-putting but I mean every word.

'(sigh) We humans are stupid egotistical self-deluded beings'

'(sigh) We humans are stupid egotistical self-deluded beings'

Re: How can people believe "purpose" is real?

Also, please don't mistake my misanthropy or rejection of "purpose" for nihilism.

Nihilists are idiots who think the distance between the Earth and the Sun is "meaningless" i.e. "of no consequence".
Meaning is omnipresent.

'(sigh) We humans are stupid egotistical self-deluded beings'

'(sigh) We humans are stupid egotistical self-deluded beings'

Re: How can people believe "purpose" is real?

Ok. Well Im sorry for you. It must be exhausting to be bothered with these ideas.
Top