I like very much your reflection but I ask myself if purpose means something teleological. And if it is so, why Nature can be so beautiful and at the same time, as it is believed, no teleological aims, or purposes, besides survival and reproduction are there. Or even worse, in the case of non-living entities, these two consuetudinary simple mandates (more that purposeful endeavors) are absent.
In the restricted context of philosophy and natural sciences, I would challenge that nature is beautiful. Nature is many things. It is also cruel, and ugly, and beyond our understanding... and teleological too. Our understanding of whatever (nature among many other things) should not be teleological because then we ourselves are reasoning in circles. But things in themselves might, or might not be, teleological.
That being said, I think that is in the Phaedrus that Plato takes the issue of beauty, and ends up with something alike (in my restricted understanding) that nobody can tell us what is beautiful. That goes more in the direction of Chucho's comment here.
Purpose is teleological. Maybe the beauty of Nature is indeed its purpose. Or maybe beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, which will turn into the creator of purpose. But at the very end... who cares about the purpose when beauty overwhelms everything?
Aja! Chucho y el Moises on purpose, super cool señores! a ver que puedo decir:
Para empezar, sin entrar mucho en la verdadera parte filosófica del asunto, mi intención en la columna es un poco mas humilde. No quería hablar mucho del purpose en si mismo, sino mas bien de como muchos de nuestros congéneres, en estos años, parecen careces de sentido, de objetivos, de iniciativa... y eso es una lastima, un pecado, una tristeza. On the reverse of that coin, I wanted to say that people with purpose, with intention, with a goal, looks better, is like if they would be more alive.
But it doesn't mean I agree. I'd say it depends on the kind of purposes and intentions. My purpose here isn't trolling your writing, I'm kind of reacting to what you say, but at the same time I don't see my reactions as a purpose in itself because I don't look for anything in particular. Purposeless chats are one the things I enjoy very much... but would that joy-seeking be a kind or purpose? It would be if joy will be somehow guaranteed and that is not that deterministic. It could happen or not. Anyhow... keep writing please!
To have a purpose does not imply that it will be accomplished. So no need of guarantees in this discussion.
There are many things that are purposeless and they are also pretty. Yet let's not forget that prettiness is a social construct, ok? Besides that... You seem to want to argue my statement given it some sort of universal category and applicability, which is really not my... purpose...
In principle, as I mentioned to Moises here above, I agree. Who cares to define what beauty is? why should we?
But that question has answers too, after the first emotional response. It is possible to think that understanding the mechanism of beauty, we can be better persons, or at least, more beautiful... and then, very much a la western way of understanding, if that is our purpose (hehe) then we need a definition of beauty, don't we? And we need to accept (or reject) the hypothesis that purpose and beauty are related things...
And given that we have touched teleology here, some recent and fresh thoughts by people -slightly- more informed than us on the matter: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2022.0282
Pichón de Pirsig!! Pirsig's pigeon!
I like very much your reflection but I ask myself if purpose means something teleological. And if it is so, why Nature can be so beautiful and at the same time, as it is believed, no teleological aims, or purposes, besides survival and reproduction are there. Or even worse, in the case of non-living entities, these two consuetudinary simple mandates (more that purposeful endeavors) are absent.
In the restricted context of philosophy and natural sciences, I would challenge that nature is beautiful. Nature is many things. It is also cruel, and ugly, and beyond our understanding... and teleological too. Our understanding of whatever (nature among many other things) should not be teleological because then we ourselves are reasoning in circles. But things in themselves might, or might not be, teleological.
That being said, I think that is in the Phaedrus that Plato takes the issue of beauty, and ends up with something alike (in my restricted understanding) that nobody can tell us what is beautiful. That goes more in the direction of Chucho's comment here.
Purpose is teleological. Maybe the beauty of Nature is indeed its purpose. Or maybe beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, which will turn into the creator of purpose. But at the very end... who cares about the purpose when beauty overwhelms everything?
Aja! Chucho y el Moises on purpose, super cool señores! a ver que puedo decir:
Para empezar, sin entrar mucho en la verdadera parte filosófica del asunto, mi intención en la columna es un poco mas humilde. No quería hablar mucho del purpose en si mismo, sino mas bien de como muchos de nuestros congéneres, en estos años, parecen careces de sentido, de objetivos, de iniciativa... y eso es una lastima, un pecado, una tristeza. On the reverse of that coin, I wanted to say that people with purpose, with intention, with a goal, looks better, is like if they would be more alive.
So far so good, that was my intention only.
Got it!
But it doesn't mean I agree. I'd say it depends on the kind of purposes and intentions. My purpose here isn't trolling your writing, I'm kind of reacting to what you say, but at the same time I don't see my reactions as a purpose in itself because I don't look for anything in particular. Purposeless chats are one the things I enjoy very much... but would that joy-seeking be a kind or purpose? It would be if joy will be somehow guaranteed and that is not that deterministic. It could happen or not. Anyhow... keep writing please!
To have a purpose does not imply that it will be accomplished. So no need of guarantees in this discussion.
There are many things that are purposeless and they are also pretty. Yet let's not forget that prettiness is a social construct, ok? Besides that... You seem to want to argue my statement given it some sort of universal category and applicability, which is really not my... purpose...
Yeah... my fault, my Kantian fault! Hehehehe
In principle, as I mentioned to Moises here above, I agree. Who cares to define what beauty is? why should we?
But that question has answers too, after the first emotional response. It is possible to think that understanding the mechanism of beauty, we can be better persons, or at least, more beautiful... and then, very much a la western way of understanding, if that is our purpose (hehe) then we need a definition of beauty, don't we? And we need to accept (or reject) the hypothesis that purpose and beauty are related things...