You say that as if it's a fact. It's not. I don't believe any of those things have purpose. Purpose requires intention; intention requires creation, and I don't believe in a creator. There is no blueprint to humanity.
What IS this purpose you speak of anyway? How is it defined? Is the flower's purpose to provide nectar for the bee? Is the bee's purpose to spread the pollen of the flower? As if the universe understood that one day the flower would reach its goal? I see it the opposite way. The things that came after adapted to what it saw. The bee learned the taste of nectar. The flower developed more adhesive pollen. Culture works in much the same way and it's happening constantly, but difficult to see because it isn't in retrospect.
Like I said, the question of how something "keeps on existing" doesn't really make sense to me. Is it possible for something to exist and NOT keep on existing? Even a momentary existence counts as existence. You're asking why some things exist for longer periods than others. There is no single answer to that, which is the only reason you can dismiss everyone else's answers. All of those things come in to play. Even the plant.
So you agree that all of nature and the metaphysical exists to serve something outside itself (purpose) but then say there is no purpose since purpose hinges upon intent?
So which is it? Either you said at first was a falsehood or the latter was.
I hear you say, "It has purpose now in the retrospective but didn't then"
How can that be possible? You've already said that purpose requires intent. So what, are you saying the universe evolved with intent? Is the universe one with us?
And I have another true thing to tell you, flutterhigh.
My purpose is to learn, not to be hounded by the insecure. If you have nothing to add, go elsewhere or risk your comments becoming non-entities in my thread.
I'm not sure what part of my comment angered you, but it seems as though you misread everything I said. That's probably my fault. I was trying to establish a dialectic - is that not how people learn? I'll try to rephrase.
I'm trying to differentiate between manufactured purpose and retroactive purpose. A hammer has a purpose because it was instilled with it by its creator. A historical movement has a purpose when we look back on its context and consequences. We don't look back on the life of a hammer to understand what purpose it served - we understood its purpose by its blueprints. Culture and humanity are not scripted. So its only purpose arises when we try to discuss it after the fact. Hopefully that makes more sense.
And as for the threats and slights, I'll chalk that up to the heat of the moment.
Purpose is perceived through the lens of man's own mind but purpose is native in something whether it's seen or not.
A painting has no perceivable meaning until you see it retroactively but all the same there was a design and a purpose all long in the mind of the painter. (universe, God, granola bars; whatever)
Just because you didn't see it until after the fact doesn't mean it wasn't inherent in its origins.
But what you say doesn't make sense to me even from a logical point of view.
You're saying all is chance and there is no reason for existence when there are laws (science)and reasons (philosophy/psychology) all around us. How can purpose stem from mindless energy? How can light flow from darkness?
No, if the river's channels are clear then so is the source. If there is discernible purpose in all aspects of life then the origins too had purpose.
It's so absurd believing in the realms of psychology and science and at the same time saying "Yes there's reasons for 99.9999% of all things in existence, but this one thing I cannot come up with answer for...has no answer!"
Again, I'm not saying purpose isn't discernible until after the fact, I'm saying that it is created retroactively. The river was not created to carry our boats, and the wood was not created to build them. We chopped the trees, we built the boats, and in so doing we instilled the river and wood with purpose. There's nothing innate about it.
Now, if I believed in a creator, then maybe I could relate to your idea that the universe and humanity have some sort of purpose. But I don't, so I can't.
And even in things that man gave no purpose, still purpose is inherent.
Trees serve to give man what he needs and man serves to give the tree what it needs. The land grows then dies to rest and if a forest becomes too wild, the purging fire comes and restores the balance.
In all things there is reason and symbiosis yet none of these things were perceived or retroactively created man.
Call it God if you want; Shrewdness; Crunchy Garonala. But there are laws in both the physical and metaphysical that exist outside of man's purpose to create.
Or keep believing as you like. It doesn't matter to me.
You've diverted me enough from the original topic.
The Virtue of Existence
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
You say that as if it's a fact. It's not. I don't believe any of those things have purpose. Purpose requires intention; intention requires creation, and I don't believe in a creator. There is no blueprint to humanity.
What IS this purpose you speak of anyway? How is it defined? Is the flower's purpose to provide nectar for the bee? Is the bee's purpose to spread the pollen of the flower? As if the universe understood that one day the flower would reach its goal? I see it the opposite way. The things that came after adapted to what it saw. The bee learned the taste of nectar. The flower developed more adhesive pollen. Culture works in much the same way and it's happening constantly, but difficult to see because it isn't in retrospect.
Like I said, the question of how something "keeps on existing" doesn't really make sense to me. Is it possible for something to exist and NOT keep on existing? Even a momentary existence counts as existence. You're asking why some things exist for longer periods than others. There is no single answer to that, which is the only reason you can dismiss everyone else's answers. All of those things come in to play. Even the plant.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
So you agree that all of nature and the metaphysical exists to serve something outside itself (purpose) but then say there is no purpose since purpose hinges upon intent?
So which is it? Either you said at first was a falsehood or the latter was.
I hear you say, "It has purpose now in the retrospective but didn't then"
How can that be possible? You've already said that purpose requires intent. So what, are you saying the universe evolved with intent? Is the universe one with us?
And I have another true thing to tell you, flutterhigh.
My purpose is to learn, not to be hounded by the insecure. If you have nothing to add, go elsewhere or risk your comments becoming non-entities in my thread.
--
taciturn
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm not sure what part of my comment angered you, but it seems as though you misread everything I said. That's probably my fault. I was trying to establish a dialectic - is that not how people learn? I'll try to rephrase.
I'm trying to differentiate between manufactured purpose and retroactive purpose. A hammer has a purpose because it was instilled with it by its creator. A historical movement has a purpose when we look back on its context and consequences. We don't look back on the life of a hammer to understand what purpose it served - we understood its purpose by its blueprints. Culture and humanity are not scripted. So its only purpose arises when we try to discuss it after the fact. Hopefully that makes more sense.
And as for the threats and slights, I'll chalk that up to the heat of the moment.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Purpose is perceived through the lens of man's own mind but purpose is native in something whether it's seen or not.
A painting has no perceivable meaning until you see it retroactively but all the same there was a design and a purpose all long in the mind of the painter. (universe, God, granola bars; whatever)
Just because you didn't see it until after the fact doesn't mean it wasn't inherent in its origins.
But what you say doesn't make sense to me even from a logical point of view.
You're saying all is chance and there is no reason for existence when there are laws (science)and reasons (philosophy/psychology) all around us. How can purpose stem from mindless energy? How can light flow from darkness?
No, if the river's channels are clear then so is the source. If there is discernible purpose in all aspects of life then the origins too had purpose.
It's so absurd believing in the realms of psychology and science and at the same time saying "Yes there's reasons for 99.9999% of all things in existence, but this one thing I cannot come up with answer for...has no answer!"
--
taciturn
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Again, I'm not saying purpose isn't discernible until after the fact, I'm saying that it is created retroactively. The river was not created to carry our boats, and the wood was not created to build them. We chopped the trees, we built the boats, and in so doing we instilled the river and wood with purpose. There's nothing innate about it.
Now, if I believed in a creator, then maybe I could relate to your idea that the universe and humanity have some sort of purpose. But I don't, so I can't.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
And even in things that man gave no purpose, still purpose is inherent.
Trees serve to give man what he needs and man serves to give the tree what it needs. The land grows then dies to rest and if a forest becomes too wild, the purging fire comes and restores the balance.
In all things there is reason and symbiosis yet none of these things were perceived or retroactively created man.
Call it God if you want; Shrewdness; Crunchy Garonala. But there are laws in both the physical and metaphysical that exist outside of man's purpose to create.
Or keep believing as you like. It doesn't matter to me.
You've diverted me enough from the original topic.
--
taciturn
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well I still disagree that function denotes purpose, but we can get back to the topic.