5 ms·

yah I closed this article as soon as the author implied that the "atelic" activities described have "no end goal" (ie making love has "no goal"? what kind of r

yah I closed this article as soon as the author implied that the "atelic" activities described have "no end goal" (ie making love has "no goal"? what kind of relationship does this describe?? end goal for sex for some people is orgasm, for others it's to make their partner happy, for even others, it's to bond and have a closer, more intimate relationship, for others, it's to work out physically and have fun) I'd do a puzzle with my toddler since my goal is to make my baby interested and happy. I'd play a piece of music to entertain the idea that my goal is to be able to read sheet music. There is nothing without goals. The goals this person has needs to be reconsidered.

pfortuny 6y ago
Surprisingly enough, one of the most important ethics works of the century (“Intention”, by Anscombe) tries to address that problem and one of her insights is that yes, there are actions without a clear answer to “what for?” but they are nevertheless human actions. There is no wrong in doing things “just because I want to”.
danaliv 6y ago
> There is nothing without goals. What a dreadful way to live.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- munk-a 6y ago
  I think it's just a difference of perspective and certainly not a dreadful way to live - whatever way you choose to live is fine by me as long as you give others the freedom to choose for themselves. I personally think that the philosophy of action comes down to desires in every case - any act you take is taken because a tally board in your brain weighed a number of alternatives and came out with that act as the winner. That tally board isn't observable and may contain a lot of factors that you would never consciously place there (see, for instance, physical ticks) but at the end of the day the machine known as you decided that that action was the best to execute.
jmfldn 6y ago
I think the author means activities which have intrinsic reward and don't necessarily further some project ie the "being" state of mind. This is contrasted with "doing" activities motivated by a desire to be different, to change oneself, to get somewhere, to produce in some way. Work vs play essentially. One is carried out in the mood of time, the other is more aimless in the best possible way. An activity carried out in the mood of timelessness.

pfortuny 6y ago

Surprisingly enough, one of the most important ethics works of the century (“Intention”, by Anscombe) tries to address that problem and one of her insights is that yes, there are actions without a clear answer to “what for?” but they are nevertheless human actions. There is no wrong in doing things “just because I want to”.

danaliv 6y ago

> There is nothing without goals. What a dreadful way to live.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
munk-a 6y ago
I think it's just a difference of perspective and certainly not a dreadful way to live - whatever way you choose to live is fine by me as long as you give others the freedom to choose for themselves. I personally think that the philosophy of action comes down to desires in every case - any act you take is taken because a tally board in your brain weighed a number of alternatives and came out with that act as the winner. That tally board isn't observable and may contain a lot of factors that you would never consciously place there (see, for instance, physical ticks) but at the end of the day the machine known as you decided that that action was the best to execute.

jmfldn 6y ago

I think the author means activities which have intrinsic reward and don't necessarily further some project ie the "being" state of mind. This is contrasted with "doing" activities motivated by a desire to be different, to change oneself, to get somewhere, to produce in some way. Work vs play essentially. One is carried out in the mood of time, the other is more aimless in the best possible way. An activity carried out in the mood of timelessness.