The way in which I see this problem is that underlying assumptions are inherent in the way in which ideas for living are constructed. Often, this may not be in terms of formal philosophy as such, but negotiated understanding, often based on theory, which may come down to the constructs of science.

In understanding science, so much comes down to rational explanations. However, these may be limited by the nature of epistemological understanding. This may be where human meaning and understanding comes in as a way of trying to work out ways forward which connect with the pursuit of pleasure and meaning. It could also be asked if there are aspects of pleasure and happiness which are overrides by goals of purpose and meaning.

I find this a bit confusing Jack. What would you summarise as a 'philosophical construct of purpose?' Has there ever been much consensus amongst philosophers as to the nature of meaning, happiness and pleasure? Perhaps its my lack of academic knowledge of philosophy and philosophers that fogs my understanding about what you are asking. Are you looking for discussion on what past and current philosophers have stated regarding 'meaning,' 'happiness,' and 'pleasure,' or are you asking for what these terms mean in the everyday lives of any TPF poster, including philosophy novices such as myself?

Ideas of purpose often arise in the context of worldviews. It is a large topic because sit embraces religious and secular viewpoints. The ends of philosophical understanding and how this comes into play in life may vary so much according to different perspectives or framing.

The most obvious is about spiritual versus more secular or material perspectives. Here, the issue may be about ends as aspects in this life, with spiritual ones often being based on a more universal or timeless dimension. I would argue that ideas of 'happiness' in philosophy often collapse in the dilemmas of life in the question of ideas of immortal or eternal perspectives, and perspectives of life in tje here and now of everyday life.

. It could also be asked if there are aspects of pleasure and happiness which are overrides by goals of purpose and meaning. — Jack Cummins

Heidegger wrote that we always bring a pre-understanding to our engagement with the world. This allows things to show up for us within a certain interpetiveness. He added that this pre-understanding is attuned. That is to say, our understanding includes within itself our affective comportment toward the world, a way in which things matter to us. We are always in a particular disposition of mood, which makes us value things in a certain way. Pleasure, happiness and desire are not separate processes in relation to understanding, rationality, meaning , purpose and values. Mood is not a subjective coloration added to reason. It is its compass and gives it its sense and purpose.

From your description of Heidegger's approach the idea of 'mood' may be important as a compass. Some philosophy perspectives may leave this aside, making the pursuit of life meaning as abstract and beyond the sensory and rational aspects of human understanding.

It may be that the emphasis on the sensory or rational alone may be both distortions. To excude the sensory may involve a step into abstract or disembodied thinking or ideas. Nevertheless, it is possible for thinking to go in the opposite direction, especially in psychological perspectives. Here, what I am considering is cognitive meanings and scripts which are simply based on making life meaningful subjectively. It does come down to the the subjective and objective aspects of existence and how these come into play psychologically and philosophically.

Here, what I am considering is cognitive meanings and scripts which are simply based on making life meaningful subjectively. — Jack Cummins

Do we ever actually think entities like cognitive scripts as neutral meanings abstracted away from affective valence and contextual significance? Or do we only perform such empirical objectivizations as an artificial act that conceals from itself its underlying structure?

Are you looking for discussion on what past and current philosophers have stated regarding 'meaning,' 'happiness,' and 'pleasure,' or are you asking for what these terms mean in the everyday lives of any TPF poster, including philosophy novices such as myself? — universeness

@Jack Cummins it's also not clear to me (Epicurean-Spinozist by day & absurdist bluesman by night ... mostly) what you're asking in the OP.

The concepts of psychological understanding and what these represent may go back to questions of objective 'reality' or qualia. The 'underlying structures' which you mention are fabricated in such a way, making them questionable but not necessarily redundant philosophically. Human values may be important here, raising issues of theoretical principles and living aspects of sentient existence. Philosophy may go in variable directions in embracing this dichotomy.

I am sorry if my outpost is not clear. I guess that I am thinking mainly of the difference between objective and subjective meanings and understanding. It may be a thematic aspect of thinking ranging from Epicururean to existentialism, as well as far more esoteric perspectives.

As individual human beings each person may try to follow larger schemes of meaning and purpose. Those of religious ideas may embrace ideas of redemption, whereas secular ones may involve ideas of the 'good life's, and even ideas of evolutionary aspects of life.

This may raise so many issues, ranging from the writings of thinkers like Spinoza and the Epicureans, as it goes back to the purpose of life and human life. It can be asked is there any meaning ultimately or is meaning itself a construct in assembling the collage like aspects of 'reality' and nature. I am inclined to think that there is some underlying ordering process, which may be recognised in chaos theory.

One of the reasons why I raise this question is that if my be answered differently in the specific disciplines of science, art and humanities. Some ideas of science and objectivity may be important but the emergence of human meaning, especially in relation to the realisation of meaning, in its mythic depths, may be more complex. The particular relationship between the rational and mythic, logos and mythos, may be important as a basis for the underlying aspects of life.

And your philosophical question / aporia is – ?

If I try to formulate s question accordingly it would be: is there any inherent purpose in life, including the evolution of human life and history?

is there any inherent purpose in life, including the evolution of human life and history? — Jack Cummins

With respect to (subpersonal) "life" in general, except conatus (i.e. "to persist in being" ~Spinoza), there is not any "purpose". As for "human life" in particular, neither to survive (i.e. "evolution") nor to thrive (i.e. "history") are "inherent" as far as I can tell.

This may raise the question of meaning in its existential depths. In some religious systems of thinking there is a clear sense of order. In contrast, in some philosophies, existentialism and postmodernism, this order is deconstructed. The nature of order, purpose and meaning can be constructed or deconstructed accordingly.

Within scientific understanding this is especially true, including ideas of the survival of the fittest. In some ways such a principle may be regarded as being a form of meaning in nature.

However, it could be argued that this accidental and the question may be about what is accidenal, intrinsic and the role of conscious intention in the patterns of life, evolution, and human understanding and consciousness? It comes down to issues of nature, including matter and mind as dual aspects, with the question of mind and meaning as an emergent ordering factor.

Again, you've lost me, Jack. Tell me what you may find problematic about the answers I gave to your question.

I think Aristotle was on to something when putting the pleasure of perception and knowledge above others.

And how will that be measured against another thought?

is there any inherent purpose in life, including the evolution of human life and history? — Jack Cummins

I wouldn't have thought so. But how does one determine or measure purpose? Against what?

Here are some definitions inspired by reinforcement learning (an approach to AI). Pleasure is the rewards that you receive from time to time from the environment. Happiness is your estimate of the total amount of pleasure you will receive in the future. Your rationality is your ability to make good estimates of your happiness.

I presume some philosophers have similar notions.

I would argue that ideas of 'happiness' in philosophy often collapse in the dilemmas of life in the question of ideas of immortal or eternal perspectives, and perspectives of life in tje here and now of everyday life. — Jack Cummins

I think I absolutely agree with this, if I understand it properly. I often think that 'high brow' (for lack of a better metaphor) philosophy, religion, theism or even that which I often espouse myself, in terms of 'high/fair/equitable,' secular humanist, democratic socialist, ways to live 'happier,' more 'meaningful,' more 'pleasurable' lives, often come across to many others as 'utopian,' or forlorn dreaming, when we consider the realpolitik of the day to day lives of most humans, regardless of their economic status.
I found that in my teaching career, I was more successful in progressing an individual pupil's knowledge, when I took the time to gain a clear understanding of what their prior learning system was and what stage they were currently at, due to that prior learning/experience. The problem lies in how long that can take to establish a detailed enough profile of the current knowledge level each pupil had and design an effective personalised curriculum based on their specific needs and goals.

All philosophers, theists, atheists, ideologues etc are weaker imo, the less they are in touch with such as street epistemology.

The most common distinction between pleasure and happiness I am aware of is something along the lines of Aristotle's definition of eudaimonia (generally translated as "happiness" or "flourishing") vs pleasure. Aristotle's explanation ends up covering purpose too as well.

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that pleasure, honor, and virtue arenot equivalent to happiness. Rather, these three are subordinate means of achieving happiness, in the same way that “bridle making… [is] subordinate to horsemanship.” They are “lower ends… pursued for the sake of the higher,” i.e., happiness.

Aristotle calls the life spent pursuing pleasure “completely slavish… a life for grazing animals.” Pleasure is a “good of the body,” (sensuous experience alone) while eduaimonia is a “good of the soul.” For Aristotle, this makes eudaimonia unique to man, since it requires reason.

Pleasure is temporary, while eudaimonia must be measured across a lifetime. A man whose life goal is to build some sort of lasting peace settlement or to provide for his family will be "unhappy" if these efforts fall into ruin after his death. While “a truly good… person… will bear the strokes of fortune suitably,” a hedonist will fall into misery if their fortunes change. Thus, eudaimonia is a stable form of happiness that is not easily disrupted by circumstance.

For Aristotle, happiness is “activity of the soul in accord with virtue.” It is the development of what is unique to man: reason. Excellence in reason allows man to make good choices and turn his desires towards good aims. Virtue is a “necessary condition for happiness,” while honor and pleasure may be “cooperative instruments” that aid happiness, but they are not happiness itself. Wepraise honor and justice, which bring happiness about, but instead celebrate happiness, as it is the greatest good we hope to achieve.

Saint Augustine develops this point in Aristotle. Augustine makes a distinction between "things desired for the sake of something else" (e.g., wealth to buy things) and "things desired for their own sake," (e.g. mystical union with God). For Augustine, the things we should focus on having are the things we cannot lose or fail to possess, the incorporeal, eternal things of God (wisdom, etc.). These are what we desire for their own sake. Since these cannot be seized from us (at least not in a straightforward way) they are a more stable source of happiness. And, for Augustine, they are more stable sources precisely because they are closer to man's telos/purpose, the contemplation of the divine. "You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you."

(Aristotle has a second definition of "happiness" he throws out later, which specifies the "contemplative life," as that which will produce the greatest happiness as well, although his first definition is more popular. So, he also ends up close to Augustine in some readings.

For a more modern version of this sort of "stable, self-developed" view of happiness, consider Maslow's "self-actualization," Jung's "individuation," or Hegel's "bildung."

However, we shouldn't be tricked into thinking that this means happiness lies in "being good," for Aristotle. Per Aristotle, one may be virtuous, yet still “suffer the worst evils and misfortunes.”

Augustine agrees with this when "being good" simply means "acting morally." However, for Augustine, while we can experience pain and suffer due to circumstantial misfortune, the deeper satisfaction we get from having a deep sense of purpose and union with the divine outweighs these misfortunes. To be sure, it would be better to have pleasurable surroundings and this sort of enlightenment/divine union, but this isn't always possible. And indeed, it might require suffering to bring us to the higher form of happiness, to turn our eyes from the pleasures of the senses. Saint John of the Cross gets at this idea, the need for a "purgation of the senses," quite well in his The Dark Night of the Soul.

Now, as to a "meaning of life," consider the proposition that "an effect is a sign of its cause" (Bonaventure, Aquinas). Our life's meaning then becomes dependent upon the determining source of our life. This helps make an argument for freedom as a chief goal in finding meaning in life. For we are free to the extent we are self-determining (not mere effect), and so our life has meaning (as opposed to being merely a sign of something else) to the extent we develop our freedom.

This sort of definition of life's meaning in terms of human freedom is no problem for the scholastics religious sentiments, in that our freedom is "in God," for them. God liberates us from being mere effects, from being driven by instinct, desire, and circumstance (Romans 7). In union with the divine, we are instead determined by Logos and through self-transcending Spirit.