So where's the purpose in all this discussion of philosophy (a subject I tend to disdain, after enroling in a 101 course and being allowed to consider such weighty matters as "free will" and "life after death". I dropped the course after a few weeks - what a waste of brain-space that was). I personally find much of Western Philosophy fairly impenetrable. I still have the text from the 101 course - a book by one Anthony Flew, and I still don't understand much of it, or what the subject actually is.
I hate to jump into the tangent you and Enmos are on but...... Both of you seem to be assuming that there is such a thing as "cause". Now, there's no questioning an agent's ability to affect something, but at best, all we can say is that. Hume effectively destroyed the notion of causality in A Treatise of Human Nature: the appearance of cause is nothing but a mental habit of constant conjunction applied over and over again inductively. Essentially, the typical notion of causality is nothing more than post hoc ergo propter hoc, which, as we know, is fallacious. If I'm mis-interpreting how the two of you are making use of "cause", I do apologize.
No need for any apologising here at sciforums. What would people think? I am still curious about what anyone thinks of the toe-stubbing scenario. When does a stubbed toe become an unintended act? How does a conscious entity do something "unintentional"? I maintain that this is really just a turn of phrase, that on analysis, is factually incorrect: we simply do not act without intent; we just don't do things "unintentionally". We can't, an action is always intentional. The result of an action isn't the action, is it?
Firstly, we need to recognize that "intentionality" and "causality" are two different concepts. I would fully agree with you: no agent can act "unintentionally"; that is nonsensical. As for "result' goes, I'll fall back to Hume: a result does clearly follow a temporally preceding event, but from there, one cannot logically conclude that the precedent event in any way 'caused' the consequent. In the end, all we can have is results, not causes.
I've (tried to) read a bit of Hume. but the effort was too much (I prefer texts about tangible subjects, like Physics, Biology, Electronics, Astronomy). I'm afraid I can't find much time for the impenetrable writings of "philosophers", and I tend to look at translations of such works into "ordinary" language. Philosophical terminology appears to me to be unnecessarily complex. I just can't see anything tangible when I try to read Hume, it's too confusing. Kant's a bit easier, and I think I maybe got the gist of "Ethics".
Hume writes in what I feel to be quite archaic English. I feel that his writings are much better expressed by those who use a language a little more similar to the one we use today.
Have you stubbed your toe, lately? This (a stubbed toe), could be the argument that demonstrates the purpose(fulness) of living things. However, there is no way to determine when a stubbed toe becomes a "mistake". This is also arguably a matter of convention - no-one with a stubbed toe likes to think they intentionally kicked a rock (using their bare toe).
I've noticed I tend to do things like stubbing my toes when I have built up irritation. I stub my toe. I have a little catharstic outburst and realize that I am angry about a couple of things. I think a case can be made that unconsciously I am reckless with my movements precisely so that I do become conscious of what I have not noticed I'm feelings. It is in fact beneficial to stub my toe on occasion. In one way I think the point I am making is tangential. But in another way I think it points out that it is not easy with humans to know what is intentional and what is not. We are not just the little tips of the iceberg with all its pretty little thinky thoughts.
To find a purpose to this life, we must find a purpose that this life does not serve first. And since there is no such purpose which life does not serve, the purpose of life is every possibility that there is.
My version is: the purpose of life is that living things are purposeful. The meaning of "purpose", is also "use", right? So is life any use? Well, organisms can certainly use things. Some of them use other organisms as agents (the adaption of an external agent). Humans are arguably the most adaptive, in this regard; the list of external agents we put to our use is quite a large, and a growing list. (e.g. farming, agriculture, antibiotics, brewing, timber, marine and fish farms, pets, "natural" chemicals like turpentine) - note the last item is not a living agent, but is derived from them. Arguably all the things we use, are agents of some kind; some of them are alive, and some aren't, or we use bits of dead ones, too. Until we could make "artificial" kinds of materials, all the materials available were "natural" products. We still use these, and we adapt a lot of live animals and plants to our purpose (use).
Here: 1. In the society we come from, it is sometimes considered a valuable activity per se - a good way to spend one's time. Some people play tennis or fancily drink tea or go to a spa, and some others engage philosophically. 2. Philosophical discussion can be a sophisticated playground for interpersonal power games. Some people engage in paintball, wars or archery, and some others engage philosophically. 3. Most people are unhappy in one way or another. Many of them seek a way out of this unhappiness. Some take drugs, some go to counseling, some do reiki, acupuncture and healing with precious stones, and some others engage philosophically. 4. Some people think they have nothing better to do, so they engage philosophically. :itold:
Of course not. Just because things are the way they are, just because actions were performed the way they were and just because actions have the results they have, does not mean that there was intention to make things the way they are, to perform actions the way they were performed, or for actions to have the results they have. Because things are the way they are, because actions were performed the way they were and because actions have the results they have, can mean that there was intention to make things the way they are, to perform actions the way they were performed, or for actions to have the results they have - but it is not necessarily so. Some people who argue for "responsibility" and "free will" want us to believe it is so: because only if every action is intentional and committed with precisely the intent to produce the result that actually came about, do notions of "responsibility" and "free will" apply, otherwise they do not (the free will defense is sometimes introduced to argue that God is good, or that worldly justice is just). It is often impossible for humans to act in a manner that every action would be intentional and committed with precisely the intent to produce the result that actually came about. I can have the intention to bake a cake - but this does not ensure that when I act on this intention a cake will come out. If out of the oven comes an inedible blob of brownish matter - does this mean that I intended to make an inedible blob of brownish matter? It could mean that, but it could also mean that I simply do not know how to bake a cake. It is because we lack the knowledge or wisdom of how exactly things work in this Universe that there often enough is no overlap between our intentions and the results that come about when we act on these intentions. When a conscious entity does something "unintentionally", this can be said to mean that they lacked the knowledge of how to bring about a result that would be more desirable. And this includes things like stubbing your toe: Just before the moment of stubbing your toe, it could be said that you lacked the knowledge of what it takes to safely walk over the doorstep while you are simultaneously paying attention to something else.
IMO, A good way to look at the issue of cause and effect, is this fourfold formula that applies in every moment: 1. When this is, that is. 2. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. 3. When this isn't, that isn't. 4. From the stopping of this comes the stopping of that. In Buddhism, this is called this/that conditionality:
Nice to see you have a sense of humour. I was beginning to worry that you were a pedant. BTW "factum " is not a fact; it's a deed. Although the Latin is in the singular. factum non verbum would normally be translated as "deeds, not words". Am I right in thinking that an entity of convenience is a lavatory ? Seriously though, I don't think philosophy has much to offer any more. Books and papers continue to be published on the mind/brain/ body problem whereas neuroscience is making steady progress in providing practical answers. Philosophy seldom gets beyond speculation. Do you know of the work of Patricia Churchland ? She is well worth reading if you haven't done so already. It's fun to see the excursion we have made purely becausde I said Plato instead of Socrates. Anyway, time to get back to the thread, although I'm not sure I have anything more to contribute. Cya
Apropos of rain, my understanding of your position is that every event has a purpose; I was merely suppling one. Can I take it that you believe , as I do , that some events just happen ?
I am not using 'cause', but when Vk is talking about 'purpose' I get the strong feeling he really means 'cause'. Btw. even though it might not really exist or whatever it's in the dictionary, and the word can be used as defined. Regardless whether that is correct or not.
An action does not need to be intended. When I kick my toes against the wall on purpose, it's intentional. When I am not paying attention and stub my toes against a rock that I didn't see, it's unintentional. It really is that simple..
