Talk:Purpose
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Could it be said to be a deficiency of sorts of the current community of philosophers that this article is so still so short, after it's been on the list of philosophical topics for more than 14 months? Michael Hardy 21:59, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
April 1, 2005 Dean Gores thinks the following discussion is no longer applicable:
"Modern science has reversed the idea of purpose inherent in nature; an eye is no longer explicable as being 'in order to see"; instead, a lot of cause-and-effect accidents led to the eye organ, which allows us to see."
I think this statement is biased in favor of evolution. Also, the purpose page is a little weak on describing why certain activities make life meaningful. More needs to be done to discuss the need for purpose, etc.
I was redirected here from "Final Cause"; wouldn't it be more appropriate for that to redirect to Teleology? (DM 8/31/05)
what about the purpose of a story?
Contents |
[edit] Purpose
A word that is losing its meaning in a world that believes in evolution. Evolution is a psychological sickness, a religion of men meant to take away such words like: purpose, meaning, hope, principle, value; our dictinaries will be in the near future shorter by a few pages and our lives robbed of any meaning.
--193.217.102.101 10:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Emil Szakacs
So, does it then follow that the process of 'evolution,'- and everything does evolves or else it would die - holds no purpose, no meaning, no hope, no principle and is without value? These words and their meaning are all inherent in the process of evolving. I am troubled by the term 'psychological sickness' as a reference to growth and development, which is what evolving is. Please elaborate on this 'religion of men' that would take away such words.
[edit] Final Cause
I agree with the above poster that "Final Cause" would be better as a redirect to Teleology; however, as I found out about the redirect through a link on that page, maybe it would be better to create a page with a short description of the final as one of the four Aristotelian causes, maybe with a brief example of how they interrelate focusing on the final. (I always liked the one that uses a statue).
Don't look to me, though, as I'm more inclined to agree with Spinoza and Democritus. --Andymussell 04:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Matrix?
The subsection on popular culture with a large quote from the Matrix does not belong in the general article on purpose. I think having odd popular culture references in general Wikipedia articles undermines Wikipedia's goals of catering to different kinds of people.
As for popular culture, "The Purpose Driven Life", a record selling book read by millions that specifically talks about purpose would be a better popular culture reference, regardless of bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Serialized (talk • contribs).
- I agree that the quote of The Matrix is much too long. But rather oddly, it seems contemporary philosophers have neglected this topic, so that such a lowbrow source is actually providing us with better quotes than anyone has posted in this article by actual philosophers. I'll do some editing on that section. Michael Hardy 21:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- ...done. Michael Hardy 21:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Essay removal
I have (twice) removed an inappropriate essay section contributed by User:Stevenson-Perez (diff). Please see my comments at User_Talk:Stevenson-Perez for further comments on related edits by this user. - David Oberst 19:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
