If you don't know that, you don't know the very basics of Greek. — Lionino

I know that if I look at my Greek textbooks they will contain different pronunciations for some of the Greek letters. And apparently modern Greek usage doesn't apply. Which means that in terms of the question, you also don't know the basics. The difference between us being that I know I don't know, and you think you do. But again, I asked you straight up for an English equivalent, and you dodged. Not a good look for you!

My quote is aimed at whoever is trying to claim things that don't belong to them, — Lionino

And how, exactly - or on what grounds - do you establish what it is that is so exclusively owned? It seems to me that culture is the actual out of the possible that settles on some group, but that in the settling at the same time manifests its capacity to have settled on anyone. Thus undercutting any claim to any exclusivity except for the accident of the historical.

Reading something exactly does make it part of my culture
— tim wood
No it doesn't.
— Lionino
You will, then, be good enough to make clear exactly what does happen when I - or anyone - reads a book. — tim wood

"I read a book therefore that book is part of my culture".
Just... what? — Lionino

Here, let me help you. I don't know how to make brownies. I read a cookbook and learn how to make brownies. Now I know how to make brownies. Get the drift?

Harry Potter — a book widely read in Hungary — is not part of Hungarian culture. — Lionino

It is now. Is it part of ancient and historical Hungarian culture? Of course not. It is instead a small accretion to it - and maybe for the children who read it, not so small. You would seem to understand "culture" as a kind of fixed artifact, and no doubt there are aspects and parts of culture that are generally accepted as such - this granted although itself being not-so-simple. But that is not the limit or boundary of culture and never was.

But maybe simpler if you just state your point(s) in simple language, then we might see if we agree or disagree on some matter of substance.
— tim wood
My message is stated the way it needs to be stated, — Lionino

And here again the spoor of the troll: when asked a question, or to clarify a point, they evade, avoid, attack.

I confess, however, to a share in this: I should have asked you what you meant by "culture." Now I am pretty sure that at the least we intend different meanings here. What I mean, most briefly, is that which is not me, that informs and instructs me as to what I may do/think, can do/think, should do/think, while leaving me room to do/think none of it.

What do you mean by "culture"?

By the way, the transliteration is mine; I made it up. As for the letter η, if you have an English equivalent I should be glad to use it.

I can avoid the word and re-state my position. I was simply discussing ancient Jewish and biblical perspectives towards.... — BitconnectCarlos

Quite so. I'm not on against you - both you're correct, and they're not your words - but more holding up something for a close mutual look. Whatever the word or words, "value," "purity," whatever, the female is commodified and judged as such. And it is here that is one of the places that imo great evil is built into the bible. And it is easy enough to reverse-engineer some seeming sense into it all. But in my accounting, the evils are intrinsic and far outweigh any good, and the much more so today.

you can start learning... (or greek with the NT) — BitconnectCarlos

Began a while ago with the Septuagint and NT. In personal terms very much a work-in-progress. But here are two quick examples of what I call problems. "The Lord is my shepherd I shall not want"; familiar enough.

Here it is in the Greek:
Κυριος ποιμαίνει με καὶ ούδεν με ὑστερήσει
kurios poimainei me kai ouden me usterasei

Translation:
(The) Lord shepherds me and nothing me shall fail/come short/be deficient/be too late.
The last word being not-so-simple. In English, shepherd is a noun; in the Greek, a verb. And the last word in English is a matter of my wants, in the Greek what God won't do. I'm told in Hebrew, the word for shepherd, here, is a noun also used as a verb - or something like. And so even this miniscule bit of the corpus becomes a rabbit-hole of meaning.

Or, from the same psalm,
ὴ ράβδος σου καὶ ὴ βακτήρια σου, αὖταὶ με παρακέλεσαν
hay rabdos sou kai hay baktaria sou. autai me parakelesan

Translation:
The rod of you and the staff of you, they me....
They me what? The usual translation is "comfort." And where in many other places the word appears, it is again translated "comfort." But that is not what it means. The root verb is kaleo, meaning (to) call, summon(s), invite. The prefix para- is added, parakaleo, and this (to) call to one, invite, encourage, exhort, demand. cheer on, excite. And as well the Holy Ghost is the "paraclete," the one called out to, the helper, advocate, also comforter, but also encourager. And to the degree the reader can distinguish between being comforted and all of those other things - if only he knew they were there - he or she might begin to have a real problem with his text.

None of this a problem with a ready solution, like a maths problem. But instead a cautionary tale for anyone who thinks he or she knows what their Bible is saying or means.

You may like this series of lectures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo-YL-lv3RY&list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWi

Deut 22 deals with a woman maintaining purity before marriage. — BitconnectCarlos

I have no argument with you, nor am looking for one. Maybe we can look at some of this stuff together. Anyway. I invite you to weigh that word "purity," what it means and what it implies, as far out through all the ripples it causes as you can follow. And perhaps how and why it is used, by whom, and what for. Imho, it ought to occur to you that a whole great lot is packed into that word, that at the least is questionable. And yet as one little word it is easy - too easy - to swallow whole. And who so insensitive to the graceful flow of the whole to suggest that maybe, just maybe, purity not only has absolutely nothing to do with anything relevant, but becomes an excuse for and cornerstone of great evil, that most folks aren't even aware of, taking it all as "gospel."

And I find this in much of the Bible, the pill easy to swallow, that is a poison.

I recommend Alter's translation. Word for word. With commentary. — BitconnectCarlos

Thank you for this! At Amazon I read most of his almost unreadably long intro., and his commentary defending some of his word choices. Very interesting stuff - and I pretty much buy it. He may not be exactly right all the time, that judgment beyond me, but he does seem to me to be on exactly the right road. There is also the new (1985) Jewish Publishing Service (JPS) Tanakh which claims to be an entirely new translation.

I certainly don't fully understand fully Paul. — BitconnectCarlos

Anyone who can say this already understands more than do most folks. A digression: in about the eighth grade (early 60s), our Hungarian history teacher asked us who we thought the most influential person of the 20th century was. I think all of us answered Winston Churchill. He considered it, and then submitted Lenin as the creator of the Soviet Russia - a lesson provoking thinking even long after the lesson. And of all time to date may well just be Paul.

Hi. More likely, the person who has done at least some of the work to understand Paul will be modest in his claims, like Richard Feynman who said that no one understood quantum mechanics. And Leviticus indeed: if you're going to rape and get caught, then do it in the city. Then maybe you can marry your way out of it. And yes, biblical, just not the modern word or sense of the modern word.

Whatever the virtues of the Bible - and I would not know even how to approach that; maybe a topic for a thread - too often it is a trap and those caught in it preyed upon by people who know better. And translations that are off, or in some cases just plain wrong, part of the problem.

Best advice I had about the Bible was to keep in mind that it was not written to me, for me, or about me, and that anyone who claims that it is telling me what to do is taking several leaps that are not in the Bible. Not to say that I cannot or should not try to benefit from reading it, just that I am not the audience.



.

And,

Fornication was frowned upon but surely occurred. — BitconnectCarlos

A quick rule for most: if you think you understand Paul, then you don't. As to fornication, that word does not appear in the Bible. The word in question is πορνεία, porneia, and is translated either as fornication, a grotesque misappropriation, or as sexual immorality, which is maybe closer but leaves open the question, for those who ask, who decides. The word itself refers to the activities of male and female prostitutes, but not in any modern sense, but more towards temple prostitution. And Herodotus tells us that in many places sex-work was considered a reasonable way for a woman to make her fortune.

The so-called Christian attitude towards human sexuality being mainly one of denial and vilifying what's left, without, apparently, acknowledging it is a part of human being, which, like a lot of things Christian, along with the good it claims to have done, has also done real harm.

I see his point. Your saying by [you are] allowing the written words and stories of those much like yourself to enrich your lifeand instill the values they were meant to instill and have instilled unto those who were presently involved in the story,you yourself are now effectively part of that story, or at least able to gleam a sufficient amount of experience and culture from said tales to a comparable degree of those who lived in/during said times and to place yourself within the story as if you yourself were there. — Outlander

He is saying that's still more living vicariously, a lesser depth or dimension than that of those who the story was literally about or involved chiefly due to the fact such tales despite any level of detail and depth of perspective will always fall short to that of a person who was born and raised in such a time as that was literally their reality and all they've ever known from birth til death, a reality that cannot be "visited" and "unvisited" the way we can choose to read or not read a book and so remains more of a cultural enrichment or immersion activity similar to a trip to another country as opposed to full on cultural transcendence and ultimate understanding. — Outlander

Which is in sum to say almost nothing at all. Let's take his example of Yukio Mishima. According to him, not being Japanese, I won't "get" Mishima. In a trivial sense, some truth. But let's look a little deeper. What does it mean to be Japanese, in this sense? Obviously to be a person born in Japan of Japanese parents - if there is any other definition, I am unaware of it. Does that mean the Japanese person will get Mishima in ways that others cannot? This implies that being Japanese is implicitly something shared by Japanese people apart from the mere fact of their being Japanese. And while many share many things, nothing is universal; Japan is multi-layered every-which-way, from Ainu in the North to Okinawans in the South. To say they're all alike in ways different from other people, that allows them a special appreciation of their own literature withheld from others, while containing a grain of truth, is mainly nonsense. Just as, beyond the mere fact of being American, nothing is universal about Americans, although many of us will share many things.

But all of us, differences notwithstanding, are also alike in that we share many things. And literature is one place where we can share them. That is, by the practice of the right reading skills, we can "get it." Does that make me Japanese, or an ancient Greek, or anyone else I read about? Of course not. But at the same time the literature is a door I can go through, and experience and learn from.

A couple of points: books more than a hundred years old are about people who are dead, and about places and things that either no longer exist or no longer exist as they did. And, if you think vicarious experience is not part of reading literature, then you do not know how to read or what reading is. If you never "try on" Madam LaFarge or the Vengeance or Sydney Carton, or attempt a dialogue with them or to encounter them, then A Tale of Two Cities must seem and be a great waste of time to you. And the same for every other work of literature.

Um, no. A grain of truth, maybe, but don't confuse a grain with a pile of grains. Not the same thing. I suggest suspending judgment in favour of some reading, and let your reading range. Soon enough you will soak up enough to have a beginning understanding and be able to more closely direct your efforts. And no K in Lincoln - for a number of reasons.

Reading something exactly does make it part of my culture
— tim wood
No it doesn't. — Lionino

You will, then, be good enough to make clear exactly what does happen when I - or anyone - reads a book.

Greeks cannot read the Iliad in original Greek, any more than English speakers Beowulf
— tim wood
Not comparable. Beowulf is in a different language than modern English. — Lionino

I had occasion to place my copy of the Iliad before a Greek, because (at that time) I thought he could help me with a bit of translation/understanding. And he graciously explained that he could not, because he couldn't read it, making clear that he could not read any of it. But what's the point? What is your point, exactly? As it happened, I could read more of it than he could.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Example:
"Scholastics" with a capital "S"? What do you mean by that?
— tim wood
As if the capitalisation of a word that may be capitalised somehow undermines the understanding of something. — Lionino

The fact is that it's two different words depending on capitalization. I simply wanted clarification as to what you were referring to. And the attempt to reconcile Pagan and Christian beliefs/dogma/thought was already underway with Constantine, c., 330 AD.

it does not make any sense
— tim wood
It doesn't make sense to those who.... — Lionino

I wasn't referring to any quality of your thought, but to my being unable to discern whatever that thought might have been. You referred to the Great Wall, and then, it seemed, suggested that either the Great Wall had nothing to do with thieving hordes, or something else didn't, either way I couldn't make sense of it.

And so forth. But maybe simpler if you just state your point(s) in simple language, then we might see if we agree or disagree on some matter of substance.

Then, if we are still using analogies, maybe it can be said that the civil war was just a war? — Linkey

Meaning?

I heard that the American Civil War was in some sense the second American Revolution, please clarify this. — Linkey

The idea is encapsulated in, and can be found therein with a careful reading of, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. - And btw, all of Lincoln's published speeches and letters worth reading, including his Cooper Union Address, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and his House Divided speech.

The idea is that before the Civil War, it was the United States are, and after, the United States is.

The Constitution, c. 1792, was held by many to be about and concerning the powers of the new Federal government, and not (at all) the states. That is, the several states were still sovereign. This resulted in a tension that still exists today - arguably necessarily. Slavery was a major source of tension, and having boiled for about 65 years, it exploded into the Civil War. Among the results were the Civil War amendments, 13, 14, 15 (if memory serves), which established federal control over some things, and laid the groundwork for more control over more things.

And it might be argued that as the revolution of 1775 established the separation from England, it did not altogether establish a nation, and that the Civil War finally did.

Short answer, but you can do a lot of research into the history of the thing. Even much material on Youtube. Caveat, starting almost with the end of the Civil War in 1865, a lot of people tried, have tried, and are trying to whitewash the role of the Southern states before and during the war, and after the war.

Reading something doesn't make it part of your culture, you are not Japanese because you read Mishima. — Lionino

Reading something exactly does make it part of my culture - and maybe that is the source of your confusion. Of course it does not make me Japanese, but no one ever claimed it would or could.

And ditto with the classics. But with this qualification: they are all long dead and long gone. Admittedly translations are not the original, but, being itself only a trivial observation, that is very far from the end of the discussion. You mention the Iliad and the apparent need to read it in Greek. News flash: Greeks cannot read the Iliad in original Greek, any more than English speakers Beowulf.

I'm pretty sure you know how to read, but like the driver who knows how to operate a motor vehicle but does not know how to drive, perhaps there are aspects of reading literature you're not well-informed about or were never taught. In briefest terms, if you wait for a story to come to you, it will never arrive: you will never get it. Instead you have to go out and meet it half-way and more than half-way. The older or more remote in any way the story is the further you have to go. The first stop being suspension of disbelief, and then you go on from there, interacting, being there, until you enter the story yourself. And with luck, application, and practice you arrive at not so much agreement or disagreement, but what underlies, a presence, however alien, and understanding. Njal's Saga an excellent example of such a journey: a text that is at first alien and remote, that with reading becomes vividly alive.

But it's also work, and if you don't do it, you won't get it.

It is beyond you just like it is beyond all of us to really understand the Great Wall of China — it is not our story. The prime difference in the latter case is that there aren't hordes trying to steal that heritage because they have no ancient history. — Lionino

I thought to comment on this but then recognized it does not make any sense that I can find. Try again?

Greek and Roman classics are not part of anybody's culture except the people who speak their languages — that doesn't apply to most here —, and the reason for that is exactly Scholastics. When it comes to the Bible, it is true, our morality is heavily Christianised whether we want it or not, whether we are atheist or evangelical. — Lionino

"Scholastics" with a capital "S"? What do you mean by that? And as to the Bible, clearly you're babbling. On your own account the Bible is not/cannot be read today, and thus any "Christianization" of ethics cannot be biblical. And anyway, I prefer the term "civilizing." As in the civilizing of ethics. Which, on consideration, less than half the world is concerned with.

In sum, your claims, perhaps having a grain of truth, are disqualified by the extravagance of them. Better, I think, to have been more parsimonious in your remarks, justified by the strength and reach of your resources.

Anyone who entertains nostalgia for Collingwood...(I don't) — BirdInitials

Perhaps wrongly I infer criticism of RGC's ideas or at least some of them. If you have any criticism, please share - I'm not smart enough to figure out any on my own, and having read a small bunch of his books, would appreciate correction where needed. The author of the article you referenced seems to have thought highly of RGC.

You will find comprehensive answers here:
The Theological Origins of Modernity, Michael Gillespie

And you don't even have to read the whole thing.

https://www.amazon.com/Theological-Origins-Modernity-Michael-Gillespie/dp/0226293467/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2W2DQ8DXXV8C0&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.G5iRyE9Wgb6mk6RP_S0uCt9RcZdxPmXw1qJw3WOuHEAmq5QU0qX7u7_8N_FKT6JtULdBVuCTIymlheuzkZoql3SiQBnUpQ8cm1r1kenATO19A2D4BcwW1b_ZxEF1ZbFXclZqM-QpJ84Kbacm9_kxlYPuEB9UMmV-vUOhR-ufB09Thv66GfImc8CLLRpzOjl9AoNEjdTs7gTyjHYbzRVaCzdD_P_oqyhizYONfEfUS8k.1hAKMATODsRXIHEP06_vuvR9b87bDJMLtoJJGRAtY4o&dib_tag=se&keywords=The+Theological+Origins+of+Modernity&qid=1715787555&sprefix=the+theological+origins+of+modernity%2Caps%2C108&sr=8-1

Or if you're lucky, your local library.

Thank you. I read it. I commend the same to you and anyone else interested for its educational and probative value.

So far everyone appears to know what a war crime is except me. Anyone care to fill me in? Anyone?

Such a commitment, that's beyond our reach to go back on it, is what you're reaching for with "purpose". Is that close? — Srap Tasmaner

Once choice is gone, then not really a commitment any more, it seems to me, but instead a having been committed. I confess my original OP thoughts about "purpose" have been thoroughly poked with forks. I thought I had it nailed down, but very apparently not. I see purpose (now) as a settled state of mind beyond ordinary questioning about something significant, that serves to inform action or other beliefs, though flexible, if need be. I may have a rule about clean clothes, but if on a day lacking them, I won't go naked.

If that's the right analysis, that might explain why people are inclined to say that purpose comes from outside (from God, Nature, Aristotle, Darwin, whatever): either way you experience it as not up to you. — Srap Tasmaner

My own view is that the "outside" is often a convenient fiction, even excuse; that it comes from within and that the active agent is simply the individual himself.

But it does raise a question: what is this capacity to remove the steering wheel? How is this kind of commitment different from other choices we make and why do we do it? To what end? — Srap Tasmaner

In as much as removing the steering doesn't make sense (to me), there can be only speculation. And that as to what might make sense, given the lack of it. Edit: added: That is, removing the steering wheel not only means the car is no longer under control, but that it may be instantly out of control. One or other might make sense, but it's hard to see how they both together do.

God has to be real, — Metaphysician Undercover

Thank you.
A constrained God is not one I'm accustomed to hearing about. The usual claim is omnipotence - God can do anything and everything, which if the author and creator of the universe we live in, he would pretty much have to be. But to be in reality is to have predicates, meaning that he is what he is and is not what he isn't. Which means there are things he cannot do or be, contradicting the claim. Or if infinite, then all things all the time, including what he isn't. So the claim of omnipotence, if he's real, leads to nonsense. And if constrained, then not God. But as an idea he is not, so far as I know, subject to those constraints.

As to any necessity for his reality - yours sounding like Anselm's - that is only a "proof" for those who already take that real existence as axiomatic. Reality is the realm of nature, and recall we put that to the question.

As to hearts, I have to own up to my ideas about "purpose" being pretty clearly not as clear as I thought they were, or would have liked them to be. However, I think I can distinguish between purpose and function. And so I would say that a heart has a function, and if you want to overlap the words in meaning so that in this case purpose means function, then it's too late for me to object. But so far as they differ in meaning, I do not think a heart (itself) has a purpose.

My reasons for always playing the king's gambit may have nothing to do with why you always choose vanilla. Would you ask if what I sometimes do is related to what you sometimes do? — Fooloso4

It's not the gambit or the vanilla, it's the always. And that's not reified in the finding; it's already there. And being there, subject to account. Whether the account itself interesting or worth the trouble a separate question.

The underlying necessity is the same: to keep living. The layer on top of that is: to live well. — Vera Mont

You seem to have covered this comprehensively. I'll add a top layer, to live ethically and morally - I think the two words mean the same thing, but both in case someone thinks they mean different things. A distinction that while the "lower" levels might be described as transactional, this top layer is not.

An example: charitable giving is imo a good thing, and certainly a sign of living well. One has the means to give, and enters the community of persons that do give. It arises to the next level by being anonymous giving.

Of course the charge against this is that it is still transactional, in that one is satisfied with and rewarded by oneself. And if true then true. But selfless giving is possible, and that is imo one expression of moral/ethical living above living well. This not against living well, because living well is a good in itself, but still the possibility for a higher good..

This is reductive reification. — Fooloso4

I understand the criticism. My effort here is not any sort of creation, but rather a looking to see what is there - on the working assumption that there is something there to see. The structure of the inquiry being, is-it, what-is-it, what-kind-of-a-thing-is-it, genus/species, quiddities; and the tools being the simple "why" and "what."

Thus if you always play the king's gambit, and I always chose vanilla, we can ask if in any way these are related, the "always" being the clue. And if related, presumably in some way by the "always," then there is a subject that might be pursued without any reification risked.

I think "purpose (in itself)" corresponds to Spinoza's conatus: everything necessarily persists in its being.
"It comes from" nature naturing.
"Its ground" is reality. — 180 Proof

Given, to be sure. But isn't there some aspect of yourself not merely given, but chosen and self-legislated? Maybe this way, that rules and principles are adopted by us - for our purpose here those by reason - and being themselves more magisterial than instrumental, arouse purpose which orders and directs action?

Cavil alert: maybe should be, "everything that (apparently) persists in its being necessarily persists in its being"? Or did Spinoza cover and account for that?

But let's try these: is God constrained in any way? Is He real? My point being that in belief in an idea, you can have what you want. But not in any reality.
— tim wood

How is this relevant? In reality, sometimes you get what you want, sometimes you do not. In what way do you believe that the constraints placed on human beings are related to the constraints placed on God, if there are any? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because you brought it up, and now refuse to answer simple questions. I'll try one more time: is God constrained in any way? Is He real? My point being that in belief in an idea, you can have what you want. But not in any reality.

We have duties and obligations, responsibilities and debts - all different, each resulting from a set of circumstances that are partly given (of the environment and a condition of survival) — Vera Mont

Agreed.

and partly undertaken by the subject for his or her own reasons. — Vera Mont

And to me, this the interesting part. In the first, one is driven, but in the second is one also the driver? That is, choosing for oneself how, when, why, and by what to be driven? And some of these no doubt rules and principles, but these seem passive/reactive, whereas purpose seems more active. And these also seeming to have a permanent or at least enduring quality, in that they don't apply particularly, but are instead general and give rise to particular self-direction.

About ol’ Sydney’s last act: where/how does he fit into your notions of purpose with it? — Mww

On a good day, if I do something, it is for a reason. If my effort is successful, it might be said I had achieved my purpose in doing it. In this sense purpose like a work order or chore or task, a thing to be done. So I may need to do my laundry and in accordance, set about getting my wife to do it. And to be sure, most of this done without any great reflection on my part.

If I do think about it, I recognize I have a standing purpose of never being in a position of not having clean clothes. Call it rule. And as a rule, interesting because like an officer in the military, it doesn't do anything itself, but gets others to do the doing. Or if not a rule, a principle. "Standing" implies already being in existence, but it doesn't have to be. Principles/rules/purpose can be adopted on the spot, effective immediately, and as "standing" available whenever needed.

Sydney, then, had chosen as a purpose that he should do a "far better thing...". And acted in accordance with that purpose. You and I might not have done as he did. But in terms of the story he would seem to have elevated and redeemed himself by action under a principle - with purpose, instead of perhaps if he had just lost a bet.

We are social animals. We crave... being valued. To that end, we take.... responsibility... for others as well as themselves. That requires no supernatural intervention. — Vera Mont

I buy it; I get it. But I doubt you would say that it's just a quid pro quo of doing and in return getting. I "hear" duty, and not as a consequence of accepting responsibility, but as ground for that acceptance. If so, that would be duty for duty's sake, being both a good example of what I call boot-strapping, and also entirely and deeply admirable. Maybe call it self-ownership of both halves.

Are you serious? Is it not the case that the purpose of an animal's heart is to circulate blood, and the purpose of sense organs is to sense, etc..? — Metaphysician Undercover

If you'd read the OP, you could not have failed to observe that this, your sense of purpose here, is not the topic, and so without relevance. And in passing since you claimed earlier that there could be no propose before purpose, I assume you also would hold that there can be no hearts until there was a heart. Which makes hearts hard to account for. But let's try these: is God constrained in any way? Is He real? My point being that in belief in an idea, you can have what you want. But not in any reality.

However purpose is understood, it follows from judgement alone, and for whatever a purpose is supposed to be follows from the kind/content of the judgement from which it is given. — Mww

Ok, but this would seem to cover everything from Sydney Carton's last purpose, to scratching an itch. I.e., imho, not at all to be dismissed, but also not over-valued.

Can we do purpose without first doing teleology on the one hand, or aesthetics on the other? — Mww

Will you share a laugh with me if I read this as,
"Can we do purpose without first doing purposiveness on the one hand and purposefulness on the other?"?

Invented or discovered? Neither: they follow implicitly and necessarily from that which is the condition for them, that being….a-hem…..predisposition in accordance with subjective moral law. — Mww

Hmm. There is in this a question of governance. No doubt inevitably I shall never exceed the limits of what I can or should be, but within, do I not have some choice, even free choice, to both discover what may be and to try to invent what is not yet? And if any at all, then all? And if I'm lucky, comporting with the imperatives, themselves creatures of reason?

Purpose is like the concept of cause and effect. It doesn't exist in the empirical world. It comes from the human mind i.e. imagination, desire, motives or will. It is psychological in nature. — Corvus

I agree, pretty much. By will and motive I infer you include reason, and I'd have preferred you left out "psychological" because I do not know what that means.

These are responsibilities I assume freely, of choice — Vera Mont

I should not have responded. If all the meanings of 'purpose' are eliminated from discussion, there's nothing left to discuss but God. — Vera Mont

I think with these you have landed both feet in the center ring. If it's God, then I hold that to be a matter of faith, which I hold to be personal, from the self and not from God but from an idea. That leaves the question as to why assume responsibilities. Not asking, but glad to read if you respond.

One of those Greeks advised us: "Know thyself.".... And that's why it makes more sense to say this sort of purpose is discovered rather than invented. — Srap Tasmaner

I think Socrates had more in mind, not so much to know himself so as to become who and what he is, but rather instead who and what he ought to be. And this the same as the navigator's admonition to know where you are, so that you can properly get about going where you're going.

I'll say one more little thing: I've always been attracted to Keats's.... the world is "a vale of soul-making". Through suffering we grow a soul, and thus become more fully human, more than we were when we were born. I think that's the idea, and it's interesting to cast that Greek idea in these terms -- it's the growth not of your body but of your soul, that matters. — Srap Tasmaner

A tasty notion! Mix a pound of Greek Paganism, philosophy, and science with a pound of Christian redemption through suffering, mix well, bake, and voila, a sweet and seductive confection - sorry, I'm just having some fun. But yours an admixture of things maybe better and more properly understood unmixed.

The Greek ψυχή*, psyche, is itself not so simple, and it becomes the Christian soul only after an extended time in the forge and on the anvil of Christian appropriation. In particular, I think the Greek sought and found improvement through both mental and physical development, absent suffering, while for the Christian, seeking out suffering,
"Truly it were an excusable covetousness if we did; for affliction is a treasure, and scarce any man hath enough of it. No man hath affliction enough, that is not matured and ripened by it, and made fit for God by that affliction." Donne, Med. 17. And this merely one of a series of echoes through Job, through Paul, et al, etc.

*From a hefty lexicon of the New Testament: "...but apart from other data, the fact that ψυχή is also a dog's name suggests the the primary component is not metaphysical."

Would you agree with me that teleology is an ancient attempt to make sense and that it is not of any great use today, nor since, say, Christians persuaded the world that God made nature? Or at least since Galileo?
— tim wood

Nope. — Wayfarer

You can look up τελός in a lexicon as easily as I can. And what I find there is unhelpful. 2300+ years ago it appears to have meant the presence of an assigned capacity to achieve an end, and with respect to that end, the end itself - but as a generalization, an abstract concept. Thus the τελός of a kitten to become a cat, a colt a horse, acorns oak trees. And I can see the value of this as an insight into the workings of nature, an assurance that your spring calf will become in time a cow and not a goat. And not so much an assurance, but a naming of what appears to be a universal process, growth, under the universal constraint of becoming what it is supposed to become and not something else.

Since most of us no longer need this explicit assurance, I conclude that telos today means something other than what τελός meant long ago, if it is to have any current utility. Can you say what that meaning is? .

Quite simply, God is the source of purpose.... When we come to apprehend the reality of God then all that purpose makes sense. — Metaphysician Undercover

I understand reality as being the world we all live in, and also a set of constraints which things not of or in reality are not subject to. I don't object to beliefs, except when, as concerning things not of or in reality, the believer tries to place them into reality. And as God is supposed to be unconstrained, he cannot be in reality nor rationally supposed to be there. So the question to you, then, do you think God real, in the sense of being in reality?

And in terms of purpose - of any kind - can you point to or articulate any that do not come into being through a man's or a woman's speech or writing? Or, if God is the source of purpose, which come from Him?

But they will not find it, because purpose is given to things, not found in them....
So, in answer to your title, purpose is the use to which something is put, and comes from our intent. It is grounded in our intentional explanations for our actions, and has worth only in terms of those intentions and actions. — Banno

To things, I agree. But the purpose one gives to oneself, or accepts for oneself, that, it seems to me, must come from within, found or made - though maybe advised from without, thus perhaps correct to say self-given. And from us, for us, by us, for our own purposes as we value them. Fair enough? And may we say as well, boot-strapped? By which I mean valued because they are valued, any other value being derivative and incidental.

but something nearer the convergence of dharma and logos - that by discovering and being true to your purpose, you are doing your part in the grand scheme. — Wayfarer

We may be in agreement. This dharma/logos, whence?

As to telos, maybe that a separate discussion.

Quite simply, God is the source of purpose. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right! And may I ask what God, and how you know? Because yours does appear to be a claim of knowledge. Or, if God simply a regulating idea - a creation of mind - then we may differ on details but not on substance.

What I would say, though, is that if you talk to anyone who is reputed to know about purpose, and how to help people find purpose, they will not follow your lead of "bootstrapping" or conjuring up purpose ex nihilo. The phrase itself is informative, "I am having trouble finding purpose," not, "I am having trouble making purpose." — Leontiskos

Good point, well said! But if not boot-strapped, then from what? Religion? Faith? Belief? Knowledge? Hope? Reason? That is, I disagree, and "finding" one of the great deceptions, often from those selling something. Purpose, then, has to be made, but no easy way to figure out how, or exactly what. . Ex nihilo because there is no other possible source - or do you know of such a source?

Not that I recall. — Tom Storm

You would recall it. But maybe you have it misfiled. I was a not-very-good hockey player, but I remember very well a quick basic play, a pass off the boards, I made that no NHL all-star could have done better: two seconds if that, almost half a century ago. So I invite you to think again.

Life provides these moments as opportunities, but I think in each is also a lesson.

My understanding of a tree has no influence on the universe or the existence of trees. Does thing-in-itself-as-it-is-in-itself mean anything? — Vera Mont

I think we're at cross purposes due to having different ideas of "purpose." And that would be again my bad. Maybe something more simple seeming. If not yourself, likely you can imagine someone wondering what the meaning and purpose of his or her life is, or life in general. To the degree they ask, they're asking for something, and when they stop asking, a reasonable conjecture is that they stopped because they no longer had a need to ask. What do you suppose they were asking for, and having stopped, what do you suppose they got?

As to the existence of trees, I claim there is no such thing as a tree, although there are plenty of things that appear to correspond to our categorical ideas as to trees, that we call trees, and those ideas efficacious (and deceptive) in terms of getting the world's work done. As to the universe, however, what is the tree but an temporary agglutination of a small amount of matter and a good deal of energy.