Talk:Purpose (concept)

Shortness of article

Could it be said to be a deficiency of sorts of the current community of philosophers that this article is so still so short, after it's been on the list of philosophical topics for more than 14 months? Michael Hardy 21:59, 20 May 2004 (UTC) In my opinion, it's very strange that this page is focussing on philosophy. I came on this page via some (product) requirement management topics. Products & services in an enterprise (should) have a purpose ! That's why products are created and made, why services exists. So, think that it's the confusion with the philosophy-focus which blocks people to edit these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.3.244.100 (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Too much focus on 'western' philosophical viewpoint

I don't think it warrants specific refence to Aristotle when concept is prior to that split.

If you know any better references, certainly you can add them. Similarly if you know any non-Western or other viewpoints that are relevant here, you can add those too. Michael Hardy 01:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[update] Sorry ripped out western - putting another badly defined term into this article will not help it. Will update when I have researched more

Evolution

April 1, 2005 Dean Gores thinks the following discussion is no longer applicable:

"Modern science has reversed the idea of purpose inherent in nature; an eye is no longer explicable as being 'in order to see"; instead, a lot of cause-and-effect accidents led to the eye organ, which allows us to see."

I think this statement is biased in favor of evolution. Also, the purpose page is a little weak on describing why certain activities make life meaningful. More needs to be done to discuss the need for purpose, etc.

"biased in favor of evolution"??? Modern science indisputably accepts evolution - including the evolution of the eye - as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.43.37 (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Final cause

I was redirected here from "Final Cause"; wouldn't it be more appropriate for that to redirect to Teleology? (DM 8/31/05)

It currently has its own article, though I would prefer to see it combined in an article on Aristotle's four causes - it's only a sentence long and doesn't even describe what the term means. Richard001 00:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Stories

what about the purpose of a story?

Final Cause

I agree with the above poster that "Final Cause" would be better as a redirect to Teleology; however, as I found out about the redirect through a link on that page, maybe it would be better to create a page with a short description of the final as one of the four Aristotelian causes, maybe with a brief example of how they interrelate focusing on the final. (I always liked the one that uses a statue).

Don't look to me, though, as I'm more inclined to agree with Spinoza and Democritus. --Andymussell 04:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The Matrix?

The subsection on popular culture with a large quote from the Matrix does not belong in the general article on purpose. I think having odd popular culture references in general Wikipedia articles undermines Wikipedia's goals of catering to different kinds of people.

As for popular culture, "The Purpose Driven Life", a record selling book read by millions that specifically talks about purpose would be a better popular culture reference, regardless of bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serialized (talk • contribs)

I agree that the quote of The Matrix is much too long. But rather oddly, it seems contemporary philosophers have neglected this topic, so that such a lowbrow source is actually providing us with better quotes than anyone has posted in this article by actual philosophers. I'll do some editing on that section. Michael Hardy 21:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

...done. Michael Hardy 21:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think "The Purpose Driven Life" is a lot less about purpose than its author would claim. You can't just make something about purpose by using the word "purpose". I find that book to be very transparently a book promoting one particular interpretation of Christianity and it's more an evangelical tract than anything else, in my opinion. Cazort (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Essay removal

I have (twice) removed an inappropriate essay section contributed by User:Stevenson-Perez (diff). Please see my comments at User_Talk:Stevenson-Perez for further comments on related edits by this user. - David Oberst 19:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

FDCVBJCGBFK.GHJDFGHTGYHFUID TBHDTOE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.148.1 (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Overly narrow definition

The current definition in the intro reads "Purpose is the cognitive awareness in cause and effect linking for achieving a goal in a given system,". Yet, in evolution, one can talk of the purpose of a given adaptation--and there is clearly no cognitive awareness here. Thus, the definition is too narrow! The dictionary gives us a few better places to start:

• Dictionary.com: purpose

Some of these definitions are cognitive in nature (i.e. intention, or resolution) whereas others ("the reason for which something exists") are not necessarily cognitive--they could be but they could also be evolutionary. Cazort (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can agree. It is true that conscious goal direction and the sort of non-conscious goal-directedness of which you write are both instances of a common phenomenon. But "purpose" may mean different things in different contexts, and the question would be which one is the right one here? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to either write the initial definition in general enough terms that it encompasses different uses of the word, OR if deviations from the main definition are in a small-enough minority view, to discuss different uses/definitions in perhaps a later sentence or two. (?) And if one or more deviant definitions is specialized enough or overlaps little with the other, perhaps a disambiguation page is warranted. I'm not sure any of this is needed here though. Maybe we should look for more reliable sources on the definition of purpose before we go any farther in this discussion. Part of the reason that I object to the definition as it stands is that it is unsourced and seems somewhat specialized, and honestly, smells a little bit like original research. I'd rather start with dictionary definitions because we can be certain that those are widely accepted. I also think it would be useful to examine how some philosophers define purpose. Cazort (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

With respect, where you say "clearly no cognitive awareness here" is unverified and doesn't seem to justify a narrow definition. The strength in this definition is that it describes a process, wherein the observer's cogitative awareness must be considered. It may be sourced to eastern philosophies like karma. In my opinion, to rule out the observer in the evolution process, as the scientific method may enforce, is too narrow a view. For it is the observer who then goes on to adapt further in the process. Where I see confusion is between purpose and function. Where function may be purpose with no cognitive intention. So where to draw the line ... it must be drawn where cognition begins. The article may benefit from a redirect like function. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this argument you are making is very compelling and I actually would agree wholeheartedly. But I think we're already getting in much "deeper" than is appropriate for the introductory paragraph. To me, discussing cognitive awareness in the first sentence makes the article less accessible, and also still smells like WP:OR: by saying "Purpose is the cognitive awareness" its almost like the article is making a bold ontological claim--and I tend to think any ontological claim for which there is less than a total and pervasive consensus ought to be kept out of the introductions of articles, especially when it's unsourced. I would strongly prefer starting with as basic, general, (and common-usage) a definition as possible, preferably with sources. I think it's hard to continue the discussion much further without having sources of various philosophers' definitions of purpose, but in the absence of that I would really rather stick with something closer to the dictionary definition. Then, perhaps discuss cognition and the perspective of an observer later? Cazort (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

removed

I just removed the initial paragraph and replaced it with a very simple dictionary definition. The old material was unsourced and as I described above, I believe it was original research, and no one had thoroughly addressed my concerns here or provided sources. But I would like to see this page expanded beyond a simple dictionary definition--I think a good "moving-forward" point would be to find some sources discussing how various philosophers define purpose. Cazort (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

i was hoping you would tell me what purpose is because i was just wondering and i dont wonna fill this test please help me anyone out there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.130.253 (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

'Assigned purpose' an oxymoron?

This article begins, reasonably, by stating that "Purpose is a result, end, aim, or goal of an action intentionally undertaken" but then states that "Some people hold that God, as the force that created life, assigns purposes to people and that it is their mission to fulfill them". The concept of "assigning a purpose" appears to be an oxymoron and to be incompatible with the logical opening sentence. For example, if an individual had intentionally undertaken to alleviate the suffering of others and made that the purpose of their life it would make no difference to that fact whether or not deities existed that wished that people had different purposes. If a god or gods existed that wanted us to torture one another the purpose of the life of our benevolent individual would remain unchanged because one conscious being cannot "assign purpose" to another or alter or remove the purpose that they have found in life. This is the basis of the view of many philosophers, from Epicurus to the Buddha, that whether or not gods exist they can have nothing to do with the purpose of our lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.43.37 (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Pun for fun

Will to pleasure... Will to power... Will to meaning... William Damon. :D