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".
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
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".
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
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".
Wow. It's like you didn't even comprehend what I wrote.
--
I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU
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".
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
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