[Bups-dis] purposes etc.

[lj lj]

Dear Sophie,

I don't think that anyone denies that things can and do have purposes, be 
they man-made or not. The issue here is rather whether those purposes are 
objective or not. It seems to be a common assumption that if a thing is 
man-made then it's purpose must be in some way subjective. Airplanes, for 
example, are human-made artifices. It is true that their having any sort of 
purpose whatsoever is dependent upon human beings but that's a trivial kind 
of dependence since it's only because human beings make things like 
airplanes that airplanes are around to have any kind of purpose whatsoever. 
It does not, I think, follow from any of this that, say, an airplane's 
purpose is in some way less objective than any other non-human made object. 
That an airplane is capable of having a purpose is contingent upon human 
beings in the trivial way just described but once there are airplanes it's 
not at all a subjective matter as to what purposes they can have. I mean, 
it's not as if it's a matter of convention or anything thatthe airplane 
doesn't serve the purpose of clipping my toenails but it does serve the 
purpose of flying people through the skies.
I don't really think that the chronological claim is going to work either 
since it seems far from necessary that such and such has purpose A (the 
'original purpose') before it has purpose B.
And surely there are plenty of cases where purposes are completely 
superseded: consider spears or javelins (the javelin just being an evolution 
of the spear). Now, I doubt that anyone in the western world uses a spear 
for hunting but you surely can see Olympians chucking spears at the games. 
Or if that example requires too many assumptions, how about the example of 
swords which used to be used for fighting but are now almost exclusively 
used for ritualistic training and ornamental purposes (I mean, how often 
does someone use a sword to kill someone else?).
If you think that a thing has a purpose and that other uses are just people 
making different uses of something that has a set purpose then you not only 
have to be committed to the view that purposes are objective but also that 
things have intrinsic purposes. The problem is that, as far as I can see, 
there's no compelling reason to think that's true (hence my comments about 
priority in my last reply).

But if you are really interested in what philosophy can be used for then I'm 
not sure that's a particularly philosophical matter. Philosophy can be used 
for many purposes- some of them good and some of them bad. Philosophy can be 
used in order to make other people look stupid and or to gain power and 
influence and philosophy can be used to support people's views, and to 
educate ourselves and others. Philosophy can be used to reveal or conceal, 
in equal measure. What's far more interesting to ponder is exactly what kind 
of people are attracted to philosophy. For that, in my opinion, will tell 
you a great deal more about what uses philosophy might find. Some 
philosophers wish only for us to understand one another and to live in 
peaceful harmony and their works reflect that; others have an axe to grind 
which spills out in vitriolic rhetoric (Richard Dawkins anyone?). In the end 
what people use philosophy for is going to be directly related to their 
desires and that's why it makes sense to talk about the relation between 
people and philosophy. If anything I think that the issue is an interesting 
empirical psychological issue insofar that you want to know what it is that 
people might be motivated to use philosophy for. Of course, there might be 
other possibilities that might never be realised because people would never 
be motivated to such uses but I think that the subset of possibly 
psychologically motivated uses are the most relevant.
And I think this is a very important issue: the dehumanisation of 
philosophy. We must not forget that purposes are inseparable from agents and 
to treat philosophy in the abstract is to license an abdication of 
responsibility. It's when we talk about philosophy in this abstract, 
insulated way that it becomes all to easy to say things like 'philosophy can 
and even should be pursued for its own sake'. As if it were divorced from 
human actions and thus human RESPONSIBILITY.


I didn't say that philosophy wasn't particularly suited to my aims. I said 
that, as far as my ends are concerned, it's not a necessary means. That 
doesn't entail that philosophy is somehow ill-suited to my ends. All it 
entails is that if philosophy is suited to my ends then it doesn't have to 
be the only thing that is.
I'm not sure why you think that my attitude or actions are ironic. As I've 
said before, my choice of philosophy is a matter of desires and inclination 
(plus a limited amount of ability at it). A very hard part of growing as a 
person is doing things that one does not want to do but, that can't be a 
rule to live by. Living like that all or most of the time is a miserable 
life (no matter how noble/ masochistic it might seem). You can't become a 
better person just by becoming strong. What's the point in becoming strong 
and miserable? One may as well have stayed weak but happy or weak and 
miserable while avoiding the hard work to get stronger.
I'm ambivalent about philosophy. On my good days I believe deeply that maybe 
it can change the world but on my darker days I think that it's intellectual 
self-gratification and that I'd make more of a difference to the world if I 
did something else.

P.S. I don't know if I'm coming across as adversarial but if I am it's not a 
realistic impression of my attitude (I mention this just because sometimes I 
write in a rather assertive style that can give that impression).

Regards,

Luis.

_________________________________________________________________
Tell MSN about your most memorable emails!  http://www.emailbritain.co.uk/