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. — tim wood

Yes, I think that's closer. I was thinking similarly of a sort of comportment, a style, a way of doing things.

The usual model boils everything down to decisions and preferences, but those are always open to change. Something no longer in play, if it ever was, isn't much like one of those, but more like a sort of framework for them. It's given. It will shape all the changeable stuff, channel it in a particular direction.

But that's just a model. The question is whether we're really like that, and if so, why?

There's Hume's line in the Treatise about the "belief" in (that is to say, unwavering commitment to) object permanence: he says there are things Nature has deemed too important to leave up to our fallible reason.

What we're talking about looks something like that. (Not the sort of thing Nature left to the rational-agent, decisions & preferences model.) If it does develop over time, over the course of a life, it does so by a process we play little conscious role in. It's practically something that happens to us, like aging itself, not much like something we do. You wake up one day and realize you have a principles (or prejudices), or feel you have a purpose, whatever. Not your doing, exactly, though somehow for that very reason close to the core of your identity -- because it wasn't up to you, anymore than your identity in any other sense is.

You don't really make choices about your blind spots, for instance. — Srap Tasmaner

Maybe not, but if it's not of supreme importance, we leave wiggle-room for them.

But it's up to us whether to call such stubbornness "principle" or "prejudice" — Srap Tasmaner

I don't think it is. We may have a theoretical grasp of the situation, but I, personally, can't understand it well enough to judge.

Exactly how to hold people accountable for prejudices they
grew up with, and may only dimly be aware of, is rather hotly debated these days. — Srap Tasmaner

When it comes to absolute commitment, dimly understood childhood conditioning is not a major factor. This kind of all-or-nothing decision is made consciously, with a head full of passionately held ideals.
I'm not particularly interested in praising or blaming, except when it's about causing harm to others.

We may firmly believe that some course of action would be "the right thing to do" and still not do it. Why? Who knows. — Srap Tasmaner

Lots of reasons. It's too difficult. It's too costly. It's frightening. We might fail and be humiliated.
Sometimes we opt for a compromise: do only some of it and then turn back; support the people who do it, while we stay in the background; do the next best thing; do three other good things to make up for bailing on that one....

So what appears to be principle or prejudice may be neither, but merely an inability to act otherwise, whether accompanied by an ability to think or choose otherwise or not. — Srap Tasmaner

Okay. But are all commitments like that? Just habit or coercive circumstance?

This kind of all-or-nothing decision is made consciously, with a head full of passionately held ideals. — Vera Mont

Do we also consciously decide which ideals to hold, and how passionately?

But are all commitments like that? Just habit or coercive circumstance? — Vera Mont

Ah, is this the issue for you? You're concerned that I'm downplaying if not denying the individual's agency, in favor of habit or circumstance?

Yeah, I expect I am. I don't think you choose who you are or what you believe. You at most become aware of who you are, what you are, what you believe.

When it comes to absolute commitment, dimly understood childhood conditioning is not a major factor. — Vera Mont

"Give me the child till the age of five-- " you know the rest.

I really can't imagine what you have in mind here. Almost everything that matters happens when you are a child.

Do we also consciously decide which ideals to hold, and how passionately? — Srap Tasmaner

Yes. Not all at once; over time, one observation, idea, judgment and commitment at a time.

"Give me the child till the age of five-- " you know the rest. — Srap Tasmaner

I do. Aristotle apparently said “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the foundations of the man”. Now that could mean he would observe how a child behaved between infancy and the age of seven to predict what kind of man that child would become. Or it could mean that in seven years, he could teach a child how to be the right kind of man.
Loyola perverted that to "give us a child till he's 7 and we'll have him for life", meaning that if they had control of very young children, they could program them to Jesuitism. (just boy-chidren, mind; neither of them knew a damn thing about girls).

Almost everything that matters happens when you are a child. — Srap Tasmaner

Then there's no point living past puberty, right?

Almost everything that matters happens when you are a child. — Srap Tasmaner

Then there's no point living past puberty, right? — Vera Mont

I only meant, everything that matters for determining what sort of being you are. Your understanding of physics, geometry, numbers, your native language, social bonds and social cues -- etc etc etc.

The point isn't even that you're finished by the time you're seven. Your brain's not even done yet. But you're set on your way and given the wherewithal to develop into something complete. What that will be depends on what happens to you, and of course on the choices you make, but how you make those choices is guided by what happened in those first years.

Do you disagree? Are we born and remain autonomous free agents? Rationally, I suppose, choosing our values and so forth, decade after decade? -- I presume that's a caricature of your view, so what's the real view? We are formed

over time, one observation, idea, judgment and commitment at a time — Vera Mont

certainly, but what's the nature of these? What's their origin? Do you freely choose what you notice? Do you choose what ideas occur to you? If you are moved by something you observe, something that changes your worldview or your values, did you choose to be so moved?

he 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. — tim wood

Why do you conclude this? Do you have absolute control over anything you created? Why do you think that God would have absolute control over the universe He created? It seems to me, that "creations", whether they are by human beings, some other creatures, or even God, are just not like that.

And if constrained, then not God — tim wood

Why? What makes you think that God must be absolutely unconstrained? I think that if you took the time to read some theology, you would see that even if it is often said that God is "all mighty", and sometimes said that He is "omnipotent" these conceptions are qualified, and it is not very often meant that he is absolutely unconstrained. Consider for example that it is often said that God only does what is good, and he exercises complete self-control to only do good. Clearly this indicates a special sort of constraint, which we as human beings also share with God. However, since we do not really understand self-constraint, and therefore have not been able to perfect it, we tend to imagine it in a very strange paradoxical way. The complete and perfect self-constraint which God is often said to have, is portrayed as an absolute freedom to do anything. And this is paradoxical because even though there are many things God could do, He also cannot do them, because of His self-constraint.

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. — tim wood

I was not handing you that argument as a "proof". I was only trying to make it clear to you that if you want to talk about "God", then you need to talk about "God" as He is understood. I find this to be a common problem with the atheist approaches to God. The atheist commonly approaches God with the presupposition, that God is an imaginary, fictitious thing, not real. But this is not how God is understood in theology. This prejudice which the atheist holds is completely contrary and contradictory to how God is actually understood, so it prevents the atheist from having any understanding of God. Aquinas, for example, asserted that God's essence is His existence. This implies that the very first principle one must accept before being able to understand anything about God, in any way, is that He has real existence. So if the atheist has any bit of intent whatsoever, to understand God, this prejudice must first be dismissed. Otherwise it's a waist of time.

Reality is the realm of nature, and recall we put that to the question. — tim wood

Your claim, "reality is the realm of nature" is fundamentally false. By saying "the realm of nature" you imply the possibility of other realms not contained within the realm of nature. And as a "realms" these must be real. So even the statement itself, as written, implies its own falsity. It's like saying "there is only one multiplicity". The statement is self-defeating.

Consider, that "the artificial" is often contrasted with "the natural". We cannot say that the artificial is not real. So many will class artificial as part of the natural. But by doing this we lose the meaning of "natural", which is defined as "not artificial". The intent of the person who redefines "natural" in this way, may be to include the artificial into the realm of the natural, to argue that only the natural is real, but what's the point? That statement is self-defeating as shown, and to class the artificial as natural, is to ignore the substantial difference between the two.

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. — tim wood

This is why it is a very good thread which you have started. If you learn something new then the thread is good, right? The issue here, I think, is the presuppositions which we commonly take for granted. These are what are commonly known as bedrock or hinge propositions. Since they are taken for granted they are not subjected to our doubt. Since we do not doubt them or subject them to any form of methodological skepticism, then we do not develop an adequate understanding of their meaning. So the use of many words, such as "purpose", just floats freely, being a facilitator of mundane communication, a word whose meaning is taken for granted allowing for fluid conversation. Because of this, the word's meaning gets shaped to the circumstances of conversation, and what comes out on top is the most common usage. If someone asks what is the meaning of "purpose", we have all sorts of examples in common usage to refer to. But since its such a commonly used word, we can restrict the meaning we express, to these common examples, and having not applied a methodic analysis like the skeptic does, the true deeper meaning escapes us.

However, I think I can distinguish between purpose and function. — tim wood

This is a good start. Let's look at the difference between "purpose" and "function". At first glance, we can say that the two might commonly be interchangeable, "a thing's purpose is the thing's function". But invert that and say "a thing's function is the thing's purpose", and that's not necessarily the case. This implies, right off the bat, that "function" has an even broader meaning than "purpose". Not all functions are purposes.

Further, we can see that "function" is most often an activity, whereas "purpose" is more often the goal of the activity, the end, or objective. This opens an even bigger rift between the two. What is exposed here is that "purpose" is something we attribute to an activity, the property of an activity, which puts it into a specific relation with an end, a goal. This makes the activity a means to an end. "Function" in its common usage does not necessarily imply such a relation of means to an end, because the function may be the activity itself, regardless of the purpose of the activity. So we might say, of a thing, that the thing has a function, and this function is the activity of the thing, without even indicating the purpose of that activity, or whether it even has a purpose.

So for example, if I am involved in a cooperative effort, I have a function, which is to bring the others coffee. That can be referred to as my function, what I am doing, bringing the coffee, and this can be said without any reference to the purpose, why I am bringing the coffee. In the heart example, the function of the heart can be stated as "to beat". The beating is the function of the heart, and this may be stated with a complete disassociation from the purpose of the heart. The thing has a function, an activity, and this is completely irrelevant to whether there is a purpose, goal, or end to that activity.

You can see how this has become a very convenient way to separate "function" from "purpose" thereby ignoring the question of "purpose". This is the way language evolves according to social circumstances to avoid areas of doubt, and facilitate mundane communication. We can talk about all sorts of things, and the function of each thing, with complete disregard as to whether that function has a purpose or not. That helps us to avoid having to think about whether or not natural activities have a purpose, thus keeping us away from the volatile "God" question.

The point isn't even that you're finished by the time you're seven. Your brain's not even done yet. But you're set on your way and given the wherewithal to develop into something complete. What that will be depends on what happens to you, and of course on the choices you make, but how you make those choices is guided by what happened in those first years. — Srap Tasmaner

How does that give anyone a purpose?

Are we born and remain autonomous free agents? — Srap Tasmaner

No and no.

Rationally, I suppose, choosing our values and so forth, decade after decade? -- I presume that's a caricature of your view, so what's the real view? We are formed — Srap Tasmaner

The real view? At about age 2, children begin to assert their character (Their temperament is already evident at two months.) They test the limits of autonomy, dependency and external constraint. By 7, understand about truth and falsehood, justice and injustice; manipulation and control; power dynamics. Their personality is roughly formed and they know who they are (that's usually the age at which a child recognizes if they've been assigned the wrong gender) but they don't know very much about the world.

In the next 10 or so years, they learn about the environment, other people, their society and culture, their own status in that social environment and their aspirations. Somewhere between 15 and 20, they question the beliefs, assumptions and values of their elders, and set out their own philosophy. (This is why censors are so adamant to deny them access to literature that doesn't support the status quo.) Not all adolescents are articulate; they don't all write down their thoughts - many are and do. The less intellectually inclined act out their doubts and opposition. The opportunistic keep their assessment to themselves and watch for opportunities to take advantage of its weaknesses. The meek accept the prevailing system and go along. The most fragile egos escape into materialism, fantasy or chemical placebos.

but what's the nature of these — Srap Tasmaner

The 'nature' of moment-to-moment decisions? See problem, work out solution, make a plan, act on plan. See desired objective, work out path to desired object, make a plan, act on plan.

What's their origin? — Srap Tasmaner

The brain.

Do you freely choose what you notice? — Srap Tasmaner

You notice what affects you.

Do you choose what ideas occur to you? — Srap Tasmaner

You choose from the ideas that occur to you. (Must be a home invasion. Just a burglar. My teenage son sneaking in past curfew. The next door neighbor, drunk and come to the wrong door again. Shoot him! Just threaten to shoot him. Run away! Hide and watch. Wait till he comes up the stairs and push him off. Hit him with a vase.)

If you are moved by something you observe, something that changes your worldview or your values, did you choose to be so moved? — Srap Tasmaner

No, but you have a pretty good idea by age 20 what kind of something would move you and what kind would not.