3 ms·
What's your definition? I would argue that's a false dichotomy. In your terms, there can be no purpose of me without purpose of action. And purpose of action r
by ethbro 7y ago
What's your definition?
I would argue that's a false dichotomy. In your terms, there can be no purpose of me without purpose of action. And purpose of action requires selection from multiple viable options.
- Cogito 7y agoThose two usages are not mutually exclusive, I just don't know which one you are using (or if it is some other usage). I'm not sure that there is any intrinsic purpose to anything, only ever purpose imbued. I understand the word gets used that way, to describe some intrinsic meaning to a life, but the word being used that way doesn't mean the thing it describes exists. To try and be a bit clearer let me write out the three usages I am aware of and you can say which you are talking about. 1. I picked up the apple with the purpose of eating it. 2. My purpose in life is to enjoy it and leave the world a better place than when I found it. 3. The purpose of humans is to colonise the universe. 1 is purpose of an action (the action is done for a reason), 2 is purpose I give myself (I choose what gives me meaning), 3 is intrinsic purpose (regardless of what anyone wants or thinks). It is 3 which I think we have no evidence for.