Talk:Purpose (concept)

Untitled

This is the archived discussion of a merged/redirected talk page

Shortness of article

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) In my opinion, it's very strange that this page is focussing on philosophy. I came on this page via some (product) requirement management topics. Products & services in an enterprise (should) have a purpose ! That's why products are created and made, why services exists. So, think that it's the confusion with the philosophy-focus which blocks people to edit these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.3.244.100 (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too much focus on 'western' philosophical viewpoint

I don't think it warrants specific refence to Aristotle when concept is prior to that split.

If you know any better references, certainly you can add them. Similarly if you know any non-Western or other viewpoints that are relevant here, you can add those too. Michael Hardy 01:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[update] Sorry ripped out western - putting another badly defined term into this article will not help it. Will update when I have researched more

Evolution

April 1, 2005 Dean Gores thinks the following discussion is no longer applicable: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.

"biased in favor of evolution"??? Modern science indisputably accepts evolution - including the evolution of the eye - as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.43.37 (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final cause

I was redirected here from "Final Cause"; wouldn't it be more appropriate for that to redirect to Teleology? (DM 8/31/05)

It currently has its own article, though I would prefer to see it combined in an article on Aristotle's four causes - it's only a sentence long and doesn't even describe what the term means. Richard001 00:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stories

LOL

yes Stmpy (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)[reply]

...done. Michael Hardy 21:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "The Purpose Driven Life" is a lot less about purpose than its author would claim. You can't just make something about purpose by using the word "purpose". I find that book to be very transparently a book promoting one particular interpretation of Christianity and it's more an evangelical tract than anything else, in my opinion. Cazort (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Overly narrow definition

The current definition in the intro reads "Purpose is the cognitive awareness in cause and effect linking for achieving a goal in a given system,". Yet, in evolution, one can talk of the purpose of a given adaptation--and there is clearly no cognitive awareness here. Thus, the definition is too narrow! The dictionary gives us a few better places to start:

Dictionary.com: purpose

Some of these definitions are cognitive in nature (i.e. intention, or resolution) whereas others ("the reason for which something exists") are not necessarily cognitive--they could be but they could also be evolutionary. Cazort (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I can agree. It is true that conscious goal direction and the sort of non-conscious goal-directedness of which you write are both instances of a common phenomenon. But "purpose" may mean different things in different contexts, and the question would be which one is the right one here? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to either write the initial definition in general enough terms that it encompasses different uses of the word, OR if deviations from the main definition are in a small-enough minority view, to discuss different uses/definitions in perhaps a later sentence or two. (?) And if one or more deviant definitions is specialized enough or overlaps little with the other, perhaps a disambiguation page is warranted. I'm not sure any of this is needed here though. Maybe we should look for more reliable sources on the definition of purpose before we go any farther in this discussion. Part of the reason that I object to the definition as it stands is that it is unsourced and seems somewhat specialized, and honestly, smells a little bit like original research. I'd rather start with dictionary definitions because we can be certain that those are widely accepted. I also think it would be useful to examine how some philosophers define purpose. Cazort (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, where you say "clearly no cognitive awareness here" is unverified and doesn't seem to justify a narrow definition. The strength in this definition is that it describes a process, wherein the observer's cogitative awareness must be considered. It may be sourced to eastern philosophies like karma. In my opinion, to rule out the observer in the evolution process, as the scientific method may enforce, is too narrow a view. For it is the observer who then goes on to adapt further in the process. Where I see confusion is between purpose and function. Where function may be purpose with no cognitive intention. So where to draw the line ... it must be drawn where cognition begins. The article may benefit from a redirect like function. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this argument you are making is very compelling and I actually would agree wholeheartedly. But I think we're already getting in much "deeper" than is appropriate for the introductory paragraph. To me, discussing cognitive awareness in the first sentence makes the article less accessible, and also still smells like WP:OR: by saying "Purpose is the cognitive awareness" its almost like the article is making a bold ontological claim--and I tend to think any ontological claim for which there is less than a total and pervasive consensus ought to be kept out of the introductions of articles, especially when it's unsourced. I would strongly prefer starting with as basic, general, (and common-usage) a definition as possible, preferably with sources. I think it's hard to continue the discussion much further without having sources of various philosophers' definitions of purpose, but in the absence of that I would really rather stick with something closer to the dictionary definition. Then, perhaps discuss cognition and the perspective of an observer later? Cazort (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removed

I just removed the initial paragraph and replaced it with a very simple dictionary definition. The old material was unsourced and as I described above, I believe it was original research, and no one had thoroughly addressed my concerns here or provided sources. But I would like to see this page expanded beyond a simple dictionary definition--I think a good "moving-forward" point would be to find some sources discussing how various philosophers define purpose. Cazort (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i was hoping you would tell me what purpose is because i was just wondering and i dont wonna fill this test please help me anyone out there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.130.253 (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Assigned purpose' an oxymoron?

This article begins, reasonably, by stating that "Purpose is a result, end, aim, or goal of an action intentionally undertaken" but then states that "Some people hold that God, as the force that created life, assigns purposes to people and that it is their mission to fulfill them". The concept of "assigning a purpose" appears to be an oxymoron and to be incompatible with the logical opening sentence. For example, if an individual had intentionally undertaken to alleviate the suffering of others and made that the purpose of their life it would make no difference to that fact whether or not deities existed that wished that people had different purposes. If a god or gods existed that wanted us to torture one another the purpose of the life of our benevolent individual would remain unchanged because one conscious being cannot "assign purpose" to another or alter or remove the purpose that they have found in life. This is the basis of the view of many philosophers, from Epicurus to the Buddha, that whether or not gods exist they can have nothing to do with the purpose of our lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.43.37 (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect not supported by sources

The article redirect to teleology isn't supported this source [1]. The article should be restored and improved with sources. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above and this undo. References to Husserl's intentionality (e.g. this) could help develop the article away from teleology. Racconish^Tk 04:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was awful. The redirect is better William M. Connolley (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So be a Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND ARTICLE Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How ironic William M. Connolley (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New soruces

Found a bunch for article improvement [[2]] over redirect or deletion. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal of redirect to intention instead of teleology

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was redirect. The argument for redirecting to intention rather than goal was more persuasive, however, I will not oppose another target. But the way this article is currently written does not work. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind a redirect per se, but why to teleology? Let me quote the 1st sentence of the article on teleology: "A teleology is any philosophical account which holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that design and purpose analogous to that found in human actions are inherent also in the rest of nature." In other words, teleology refers to the purpose of nature in a metaphoric way, by analogy to the purpose of the human being. Redirecting to teleology is much too restrictive and non neutral. On the other hand, I quote the first sentence of the article on intention: "An agent's intention in performing an action is his or her specific purpose in doing so". It seems to me a redirect to intention is more neutral, allowing editors interested in developing aspects of the theory of purpose to enrich the article on intention, without reducing the scope to teleology. With the hope this could help establish consensus, could other editors express their opinion on this proposition?Racconish^Tk 08:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Racconish^Tk 08:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article on intention is mostly unsourced like the previous version of purpose, so this does not solve the problem at all. Have you considered our article on goal instead? If we can't agree on teleology as the primary topic, then the only other solution is to turn this target into a disambiguation page. Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, (a) the principle of least astonishment is in favour of intention, which is a proper philosophical concept (Epictetus, Aquinas, Husserl, etc., not to mention the "key" scolastic distinction between prima intentio and secunda intentio) covering the same semantic field as purpose and (b) reducing purpose to goal denotes a more behaviourist/mecanicist/cybernetic approach. Purpose and intention are terms related to human actions. Goal is a more generic term. Agreed the current article on intention is not up to what it could be. Can you agree it is not problematic by nature, i.e. intention is such a classic philosophical concept it deserves an article and there is a reasonable chance of improving it? See for ex. the article on intention in encyclopaedia britannica and the note 2, p.326 of this article on jstor. In any case, should other editors and yourself be adamant on a preference for goal, I would yield (but —privately— find it symptomatic of a cultural bias). Cheers, Racconish^Tk 10:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take to AfD Please take this page to WP:AFD to determine if the page should be redirected.Curb Chain (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Curb Chain, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Whenever possible, there are a number of steps that can be taken prior to using the AfD process, which you may review and memorize over at WP:BEFORE. You may want to pay close attention to C1-C4. Please do not respond to this comment with "use AfD" again. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Less enthusiasm, less bureaucracy, more thought would be good William M. Connolley (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support change to "intention". "Goal" is more general. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Add content, there are many "purpose" reliable sources (which will stand on their own) for folks interested in improving the article. The deleters should remove themselves first and let contributors work on the main space. There were at least 51 contributors to the article, just shoved aside for this distraction. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please change your position to oppose so that it is clear. "Keep and add content" doesn't address this proposal at all, and your rationale is less than what one would expect in such a discussion. Please specifically address the points raised by the proposer and explain why they are inadequate. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the suggestion that the article has 51 active contributors holds up. And if you meant 51 contributors ever, now inactive, then that is irrelevant (most of the edits before the 6th were vandalism and its reverting. Were you counting those in your 51?). Before the most recent flurry, ie up to 6th October, the article has had essentially no substantive changes in 2011. "contributors" have had every chance to work on the article, but they haven't done so. The current opinion for a redirect doesn't prejudice someone rewriting the entire thing from the ground up and then undoing the redirect. But not with the current content William M. Connolley (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment my initial feeling is that "purpose" is mostly a dictdef, and in some senses the best thing would be to point people at wictionary. Intention is a close word, but unfortunately also a close article: it really is poor, and like this article is unloved: no substantive edits in 2011 [3]. Clearly this isn't the place for an extensive discussion of the Intention article but having the intention-in-philosophy section about just one philosopher with no refs is no good. V has already mentioned a disambig page, and I'd say that is the best thing to do, given the current state of things. Or we could work to improve the article; but sadly writing "intention(or purpose)-in-philosophy" requires someone familiar with the philosophical literature. I know someone who is [4] but unsurprisingly wikipedia has managed to ban him William M. Connolley (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a disambiguation page would be better than a soft redirect to Wiktionary so I'm inclined to agree with you. It would also be a win-win for everyone, for the most part. Viriditas (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In any case better than the silly current redirect.Racconish^Tk 04:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WMC, you may be missing the subtle difference between purpose and intention. There are plenty of reliable sources to keep the purpose article going, which is evidence to keep it. And, yes it could benefit from TLC. The redirect seems disruptive to keeping the article going for a group effort, the way Wikipedia was intended, not for a sole selfish editing purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZuluPapa5 (talk • contribs)

We all seem agreed that disambig instead of redir is the way to go. I'll do that in ~12h unless anyone complains William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward and glad to contribute to a consensus. But slightly confused: disambig what from what exactly? Would you mind proposing here first? If you mean intention and teleology, I am fine with that. Thanks, Racconish^Tk 07:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean that, so I did it. Feel free to tweak the text - I took it from wiktionary (but don't know how to do the link properly). I added Goal, too, since that was one of the suggestions William M. Connolley (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fixed the link. Racconish^Tk 08:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, before reaching a "consensus" among a small group of editors to create a new disambiguation page, it might have been a good idea to consult with Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, or at least notify them of this discussion. This new page does not meet any of the guidelines for creating disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the disambiguation tag. This might be a broad-concept article (WP:DABCONCEPT) stub, but I'm not sure what category it would be in then. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support change but oppose redirect to Intention. A redirect to Goal seems best to me. It is not an exact synonym but there is no rule against redirecting a specific term to a more general one. Intention is mainly about actions being deliberate – on purpose rather than a purpose. Teleology is mainly about belief that some purpose exists rather than purpose itself. A disambiguation page would only be appropriate if Purpose had several distinct meanings, each explained in a different article, and I don't believe that to be the case. Certes (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2022: Let me count the supports and opposes. Support redirection to Intention: Racconish, Arthur Rubin, kind-of Viriditas since they closed the discussion in favor of redirection; opposes redirection to intention: Curb Chain (since requests AfD), Zulu Papa 5, Certes. This is 3:3 and therefore no consensus for redirection to Intention. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Consensus is not achieved by counting votes, it’s from arguments. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus is from arguments" is an incorrect statement, and does not meet any known definition of consensus, for which see OneLook: consensus. The assumption seems to be that the closure should be driven by the closer's assessment of the strength of the presented arguments rather than by consensus. That assumption presupposes that the closer, which is you, is more qualified to assess the validity of the presented arguments than other participants. My assessment of the arguments is that those for redirection to Intention are weak, and those who opposed redirection to Intention must have shared my assessment. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not achieved by counting votes, it’s from arguments. This is from the policy Wikipedia:Consensus. This is not a definition of consensus, it’s our policy. The proper procedure which you failed to follow, is to open a new move discussion. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, the policy says "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." But this is not what the word "consensus" generally means. By that policy's logic, if a discussion has 10 participants in opposition to an action and 1 participant in support of an action, an uninvolved party could still claim that "consensus" was for the action since only the 1 participant provided strong arguments and all other participants provided weak arguments; this cannot be the case and grossly contradicts the common meaning of the word "consensus". I surmise that the policy as written makes little sense and is contradicted by actual Wikipedia practice since the vote counts actually do play a role, even if they are not the only thing that does. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect roll back

There are adequate sources to support this article. The redirected target is a distinctly separate topic. This was discussed above. I suggest the re-director make a honest effort to contribute to the subject. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus to redirect this article up above, and it's a consensus that I recently closed. I agree that there is a valid dispute about the target of the redirect, however, you have misused sources in several ways to push a POV, and that is unacceptable. For example, your use of the Howard Warren source from 1916[5] (which you conveniently failed to cite properly) to make a claim about the study of purpose in science is totally unacceptable, as is your use of the Rosenblueth source from 1943. You are pushing a POV that is not reflected by current sources, and this needs to stop. I'm going to restore the redirect per the discussion above. You are free to discuss where the target should go, but you must stop misusing sources to push a personal POV about the nature of purpose. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, please undo the second redirect[6]. I would like you to better explain how you see a NPOV issue. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given you one example up above. Please respond to it first, and I will provide additional examples. The consensus on the above discussion was to redirect this article. The dispute is over the target of the redirect, not the redirect itself. Please address the issue I raised about your use of sources, which directly impacts the POV of this topic. Please don't make me keep repeating myself. In the event this isn't making sense to you, I'll make this easy. Please provide one single current reliable source that supports the claim made by Howard C. Warren. Good luck. Let me save you some time: I say "good luck" because there aren't any. Citing older sources for claims that are no longer relevant or current is a misuse of sources, whether by accident or on purpose. It would be like citing sources from the 1960s and 1970s questioning the validity of plate tectonics. You are, of course, free to discuss Warren's theories about purpose in his biographical article. If we can agree about the target of a redirect, you are also free to discuss them in the context of a historical overview, but you must not continue to make statements such as "scientific inquiry has at least three distinct lines of the study of purpose". This statement might have been true in 1916, but is in fact, anathema to science today. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that disputes Howard Warren's claim other than your POV? It was published by the Journal of Philosophy and was properly attributed to him alone, as it should be. This is adequate for inclusion and no valid reason to redirect the article. Where do you see a NPOV issue in this? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have fully explained the problem in more than enough detail above. As I predicted, you have failed to address it once again. The burden of proof on Wikipedia, falls on the editor making claims (or using sources to make claims). I do not have to prove that Warren's claim is relevant today; you do. I've made this clear. If you still don't get it, feel free to post a request on the RS or NPOV noticeboard and frame it any context you like, and I will be more than happy to participate as time permits. However, you must not continue to ask me to prove a negative nor question me about this dispute, as I have already answered both of those questions. Viriditas (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may have confused the issue. The source is relevant for the article. It can be attributed and amended with other sources to make a NPOV. If you are claiming an NPOV issue, then the burden is on you to provide reliable sources to make an NPOV contribution. What sources did you apply to conclude that Howard Warren's claim is not relevant to this article? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't confused anything, and the burden of proof is on the editor making claims, i.e. you. Howard Warren's claim may be relevant in an article about Howard Warren, or in an article about the history of the philosophy of purpose/intention/science, but what you are doing here, is that you are using older sources to make claims about the current state of knowledge that are totally unsupported. There happens to be a continuing problem with your contributions, and I have saved the previous version of this article that you created over at User:Viriditas/Purpose. Competency is required, and if you can't take this to the appropriate noticeboard (RS or NPOV) for needed clarifcation, then I must ask you to take a step back. Consensus on this matter is already established, and it was previously found that the content was unacceptable. The history of your contributions on this and in other articles shows a consistent pattern of POV pushing and an inability to "grok" the relevant policies and guidelines. The only thing we can do now is take this to the noticeboard of you choice. Please do so. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are disputing the date of the source, as valid for inclusion. This is an odd approach; because, we have not found any other sources to dispute the original claim, other than you and if I am correct here, your claim that somehow with a leap of faith, the Howard Warren claim has been supplemented with new (yet unrepresented sources). I appreciate your good faith in this, but can't seem to find it toward me. Again, remove your second redirect and I'll take your issue to the Reliable Source Notice board for better resolution. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have repeatedly explained to you above, that is not how it works. To recap: you are misusing sources to push a POV about this topic. We don't use sources from 1916 to make claims about today. We especially don't use sources from 1916 to make claims about science in 2012. Is this making sense to you yet? Please note, this is only one concern I have, of many, and please also note you have refused to address it. Because the content of this article has been problematic due to your edits, a discussion was held and a consensus was formed to redirect this subject to another target. We've been over this. If you have any further concerns, you are invited to take them to either the RS or NPOV noticeboard. Please do not continue asking the same question over and over again in an attempt to get a different answer. You've been given the answer from the very beginning of this thread, over and over again. That answer is not going to change until you change the sources and/or the content. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a false premise, the many sources in the article are making claims about "Purpose" which is the subject of this article. The date is only relvant when comparing source claims to make a NPOV. The Purpose article had many more sources than the one you redirected too. Your redirect is disrupting the article's progress. Please undo it. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat myself: you used older sources about science in the early 20th century to make claims about science in the 21st century. Perhaps you don't realize it or understand what you are writing. In any case, how is this any different than the discussion at Teleology#Teleology_and_science, which already discusses the philosophy of purpose and science in the appropriate chronological context? Please note, the current version of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy also discusses the philosophy of purpose and science in the context of teleology.[7] We should probably follow their lead by redirecting this article to teleology. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is this article has sources about the subject "Purpose", not Teleology. Wikipedia is not the Stanford Encyclopedia and can address all the sources for a NPOV. That's a wonderful thing about NPOV, it can bring in many diverse sources. The Teleology article is missing quite a bit about what the Purpose sources said for this article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between using "diverse" sources to write an article about a subject, and misusing old, out of date sources to push a POV. I've made that difference known to you. I've provided a current, academic tertiary source from the 2000s that discusses the same notion of purpose as you have, in the context of teleology. Please now provide the same or similar source that discusses purpose in the context you are trying to portray. Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I edited what the sources about "Purpose" said. I didn't try to mix Purpose with Teleology context; because, I didn't find those sources. This article is about Purpose as a stand alone concept, which the Teleology article neglects. There are many sources about Purpose, this article puts them into a NPOV. I don't agree with you that the Standford article is the same as what this article subject is about, it's really off topic to compare them. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you an example that refutes your position. In a recent version of the article on purpose, you composed a section titled "Evolutionary purpose". In that section, you wrote: "Amundson defined evolutionary purpose by the naturally selected biological trait. Evolutionary biology philosophers favor the function etiological concept according to selected trait function, which is the function's selected effect in the causal role. Biology philosophers observe no purpose only selected trait functions."[8] Please note, SEP discusses this in their article on "Teleological Notions in Biology"[9] and Wikipedia touches upon it in Teleology#Teleology_and_science. Now, since you obviously disagree, please present similar sources that discuss this in the literature that would compel us to keep an article on purpose rather than redirect it to teleology. Before you do, please pay very close attention to the source SEP uses. Yes, it's Amundson, R., & Lauder, G. (1994). the same one you used. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That text clearly says "Biological philosophers observe no purpose only trait functions" That's why this belongs in a separate and distinct Purpose article, because, it essentially says those folks ignore purpose. They push the Teleology POV I guess. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you express what you are trying to say again? I ask, because I want to honestly understand and reply to it and I don't want to put words in your mouth. Viriditas (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source essentially says Biological philosophers don't subscribe to Purpose except in the context of function. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which source says what? Viriditas (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's restore the article and put a hatnote saying Teleology discusses the modern scientific concept. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I need you to continue the discussion and to answer the question. Please don't keep changing it. Teleology is not a scientific concept. I think I've already said this. Now tell me which source says "Biological philosophers don't subscribe to Purpose except in the context of function". Viriditas (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, providing a third opinion here. My take on this is that the above redirect discussion was for a particular target, and that if there is a suggestion that it should be redirected to a different target, then discussion should take place before such redirect is performed. I don't think it wise to do so without discussing the issue, and stress the importance of accurately citing references. References are how we know that X happened, because Y source says so. To say that Y source states something that it does not causes me serious concern. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 01:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Source(s)

Purpose

Alvin Thalheimer

The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods , Vol. 16, No. 20 (Sep. 25, 1919), pp. 541-548

Published by: Journal of Philosophy, Inc.

Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2940589 This source adds credibility to Howard Warren's approach and extends it to Sep 25, 1919. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That source is from 1919. That is problematic, as I have already explained to you. If English is not your first language, feel free to request the help of someone who can help you understand the problem. Repeatedly making claims about science in 2012 by using sources from 1916-1919, is not acceptable. The notion of purpose is anathema to the scientific method. This has been explained to you. Please do not continue to use sources from the early 20th century to make claims about science from the early 21st century. If you wish to make claims about the relationship between science and purpose today, feel free to go to the library (or search using online tools) to research current sources about the state of current knowledge today. Any further questions should be asked at the appropriate noticeboard. Thanks again. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, and as I have previously maintained, this subject is appropriately covered in teleology, and the topic of purpose, philsophy, and science is already appropriately covered at Teleology#Teleology_and_science. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the article are their claims about 2012 ... the only place I have heard that from is you. The article is about the subject of "Purpose". What source do you have that says Purpose belongs in Teleology? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ZuluPapa5, competency is required here. Your arguments about the philosophy of purpose and science are identical to those made in Teleology#Teleology_and_science, and the rest of this article is identical to teleology. Why is there no entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the subject of "purpose", but there are multiple entries on the same subjects you are trying to write about, under the heading of "teleology"? Please answer that question. Please also note, ZuluPapa5, that the SEP is dated in the 2000s, not the 1910s. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any reliable sources on why their is no Purpose article at Stanford, there are sources on the subject of Purpose. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't parse. SEP discusses purpose in terms of teleology. If you wish to discuss it in a different context, feel free to find another source that is the same or similar that reflects your POV. This is a very, very simple request. If you cannot find this source, then we cannot write the article you envision. The first rule on Wikipedia, is that we find reliable sources in the current literature that reflect the topic. What we don't do, and what I've tried to explain to you is the problem, is put sources together to create a new topic that is not found in the literature. That's the problem here. My guess is that you don't understand why this is a problem. It's a problem because 1) it isn't allowed, and 2) it distorts the topic in favor of the editor pushing a unique POV. Find a current reputable source that covers the topic in the way you want to portray. This is a simple request, and it is required, not optional. The issue at hand is that you are doing this backwards. You are portraying the topic according to your POV, not the sources. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were many sources on the the subject of purpose, which is what this article is about. I edited from what the sources said. I don't appreciate you saying I made a POV issue, I went with the soruces I found on this subject, which is better than was there before. You are the one pushing that Purpose doesn't belong in Wikipedia by redirect to suit your POV. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The central problem isn't necessarily what the sources say but how you use them to say it. Do you understand? This is why it is best to look at tertiary sources first for guidance, then at the secondary for context, and the primary for details. When you've done that, the next step is to reverse it, to go from primary to secondary and to tertiary, to check for concordance, parity, and weight. Keep going back and forth like that, and neutrality emerges out of the sources. You won't need to force anything. It's an emergent phenomenon when it's done right, and you'll find that the editorial voice will be drowned out entirely. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are sources from 1290, 1943, 1997, 1987, 1994, 1974 and 1981 about Purpose for this article to make a NPOV. If anything the redirect is a POV push. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use the process I just mentioned. Which current tertiary source are you starting with? I gave you SEP as an example, but I assume you will want to pick one of your own. Which one would you like me to look at for guidance on the subject of "purpose"? Take your time to find one. I'm certainly open to the idea of writing a new article, I'm just not convinced without seeing the sources. So, which current tertiary source should I look at on the subject of purpose? Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to restore the article so we can collaborate on it, like wikipedia was meant to be. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, I would like to see a treatment of the subject of "purpose" in the current literature that reflects the way you are using the sources. I've given you SEP, which is exactly how Wikipedia covers it in the article on teleology. If you feel differently, point me to a current tertiary source that portrays it in the way you envision. I can't see any good reason why this subject should not be redirected to teleology. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect we can resolve this with a hatnote. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer the question I asked and please stop changing the subject. I would like to see at least one current, general-purpose or tertiary source that covers the subject of "purpose" in the way that you see it. As I have already said, this may take some time on your end, as you will need to perform actual research. Viriditas (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT CONFLICT - Look there are sources to support this article, it can be restored .... attributed and properly represented to serve the Wikipedia reader. When additional sources, as you demand to support a Teleology POV, are found they can be included to make a NPOV. Have faith. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat again, the problem isn't that sources support this or that, but how you are using them to support it. What sources say is irrelevant, actually. What we're concerned with is how to best use the sources in a way that is reflected by the overall literature. As I said above, the easiest way to do this, is to look at how the current tertiary literature describes the subject. As an example, I gave you a link to the SEP, which covers this subject in terms of teleology. If you wish to cover it differently, and that's entirely possible (hence the reason for disambiguation and redirects), please show me how the current tertiary literature covers it in the way you see the final article. Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[10] Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

Excellent work. The article you are looking to edit already exists. It is called philosophy of biology. Can we consider this resolved now? Viriditas (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source's Title is "Understanding Purpose", your mis-characterization of it for the other article is cause for concern. The source has some interesting things to say about Purpose and Teleology which could help you to constructively contribute to this article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you've misunderstood the source. The book you are trying to use is about the philosophy of biology, and this is in parity with the SEP. do you remember the advice I gave you regarding checking for parity? If you are having trouble understanding the sources you are using, keep asking questions, but I must ask you to stop ignoring the input you are receiving from multiple editors. Viriditas (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The SEP source isn't about Purpose it's about Teleology and is barely relevant to this article. The book "Understanding Purpose" is clearly reliable for this article. You seem to be synthesizing a POV about Purpose from the SEP source, to justify a redirect contribution, which is not supported in a fair NPOV to the sources. It's becoming clear that Purpose is an important part of the scientific history and an article is justified. We should restore the article, so the new folks can better see the content, and move the dispute to the next stage. Again, Purpose and Teleology are distinctly separate and this can be addressed by content in this article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that English is not your first language, as what you've just said makes no sense based on our discussion. To repeat, we only write about topics that have already been covered by RS. We don't pick and choose sources to create a new topic. Viriditas (talk)

Purpose is covered in many reliable sources, as you seem to ignore. There is no picking an choosing, there is just what the sources say to make a NPOV. None of the sources presented support your redirect contribution and it should be removed. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not how we write articles on Wikipedia, so you are operating under an erroneous assumption about the policies. We don't combine sources x, y, and z, to create NPOV Xyz. That's called OR. What we do, as you've been repeatedly informed, is we find primary, secondary, and tertiary sources that reflect the literature on the subject. Then we write articles on Wikipedia based on those sources. What you are doing, is you are cherry picking what you like and don't like, and then combining the information to form a new perspective (which you are wrongly calling "NPOV"). That's not how we write articles. As you've been previously informed, in order to do what you are doing, we will need to see how other sources treat the entire subject, not just one aspect from this source and one detail from that source. You are creating a coatrack to push your POV about purpose, and you are hiding the POV with multiple "coats". Please stop. Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time out

This back and forth isn't going anywhere. I suggest the two of you take it to somewhere like DRN where outside editors can weigh in on the issue. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we were making great progress until ZuluPapa5 decided to change the subject. We've come to an understanding that his treatment of the concept of purpose is different than that of the current literature.[11] I have therefore requested a current source that covers it in the way he wants to write this article. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I just think getting more eyes on the issue would be of benefit, but I've got this page watchlisted anyways. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here. More eyes the better. Viriditas (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes on what, the article is redirected. Time for a timeout. 05:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I share V's concerns of the article content; indeed,I redirected it before. Too much of the content reflected ZP5's (often rather confused) personal views. For example "Purpose in life and, meaning in life, constructs originated in Victor Frankl's logotherapy writings..." cannot be true; "Purpose in life" ideas go back millenia. I suggest that if someone wants to start a new article they do so in the traditional way as a sub-page in their own space, or a a sub-page of the talk page, so it can be constructively discussed. However, I note that ZP5 has severe problems in holding coherent conversations, so constructive discussion with him is very difficult William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your source that says "'Purpose in life'" ideas go back millenia" .... that comes from you. Seems like you are supporting a Purpose article with your statement, so why not contribute to it with sources to support your statements, in place of attacking me? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[| Read Epicurus philosophy] and tell me he wasn't thinking about purpose in life. Maybe not stated directly, but whether Gods exist and he certainly thought how a person should live. And that a goal of a person should be to achieve happiness, which seems to me to be as stating that the purpose of life is to achieve happiness. 94.208.66.50 (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, there are 24 sources in that article, would you have any to support this article? Purpose, is an admittedly difficult construct to conceive. I happen to agree with you; however, you know how folks are so particular about being true to sources to make a NPOV. I've found very few scientific sources about happiness and purpose; however, there are many other non-scientific sources that advance this POV in a NPOV. Just folks get there undies in a bunch when trying to write an NPOV article that covers both scientific and non-scientific views. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, unless you have a reliable source that presents the subject that way, you can't combine disparate sources to create a new presentation. You've been informed of this before. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"combine disparate sources to create a new presentation" is what is called a NPOV article. Why are you pushing a POV that a Purpose article should be redirected when there are ample sources? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. You are engaging in OR synthesis and coatracking. Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Representing all significant views is not OR and not coatracking. Time for the next step in the dispute resolution. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are deliberately misusing sources to represent ideas you personally feel are significant, and then you are creating a new treatment of the topic that is not reflected by the literature. This entire discussion proves that fact. You are operating under an erroneous understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, probably brought on by your ESL issues. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose Clauses

This source [12] addresses Purpose Clauses and will provide fertile ground for inclusion in this article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please make your way to philosophy of biology, as that article currently lacks references and the sources you are trying to add are about that topic. Viriditas (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've ignored the presented source, which is about purpose in linguistics. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you cannot create a coatrack article to push your POV about purpose. If you can't find a tertiary source about one topic, then you'll have to edit multiple existing subjects, such as linguistics and biology. No OR is allowed. This discussion is pretty much over as consensus is against you. Please take the suggestions you've been given or find something constructive to do with your time. I would also like to suggest that you apply for adoption, as you're still struggling with how to edit here, and this has been an ongoing problem for several years now as WMC and myself have observed. Viriditas (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, it is the views represented in the sources about this subject which is "Purpose". Purpose clearly crosses over many domains.Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to synthesize those views and create a new topic unless there is a source that has previously published that view. This has been explained to you already. What you are really doing is creating a coatrack article and transparently attempting to obscure your POV pushing behind the "coats". This needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What POV do you see me pushing, so we can get this clear? Did you read WP:WINAC? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's been clear from the beginning. Please stop asking the same question over and over again and expecting a different answer. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't frame it, then it can't be solved. You ignored WP:WINAC which says "An article with a title that can have several meanings .... is not a coatrack." The solution is clear, properly frame the article, to address you POV concern. Please frame your POV concern, else it be ignored. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And there is your glaring mistake for all to see. We do not frame topics, the sources do. Is this making sense yet? Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptual ingredients

"In sum, the central conceptual ingredients of purpose are intentionality, target-directedness, future orientation and a hypothetical result state p19", This passage from this source would indicated a distinct difference from teleology, which only focuses on the final cause. Purpose has to do with a "hypothetical results state". The simple difference between purpose and teleology is what was anticipated vs, what actually happened. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without an author name, date, title, and publisher, there's nothing to discuss. You can add quotes until the sun dies, and it still won't change the fact that you are engaging in OR. What you think a passage indicates is irrelevant unless we have a source that tells us what it indicates and how it is relevant. You've been asked this from the beginning, and you've failed to find one. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you see as original? (Yet alone, the content has yet to be added to the article.) Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been explained to you several times. Please stop asking the same question expecting different answers. Again, find a single reliable source that reflects your treatment of the topic. Do not continue to cherry pick sources from here and there. I'm asking for one source that treats all of the information you are trying to cram together. We know that source doesn't exist, because you are attempting to create a new treatment of a topic based on your own POV. That's OR. As I showed above, other RS, like SEP, treat the topic differently than you do, and their treatment is in parity with Wikipedia, but out of syn with your own. That is a good indicator that you aren't following the policies and guidelines. We go from the literature, and represent the literature. We do not choose individual sources in order to construct a new treatment of the topic. You're going about this completely backwards. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose phrases

[13] A linguistic source about purpose phrases and purpose clause. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another source from 1903? You've been asked to cite current sources. Is this making sense yet? Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose in psychology

[14] yet another source about how purpose affects a field of science. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That information should be placed in analytical psychology. Please feel free to expand that article. Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in Purpose. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. You don't get to determine or decide the focus of a new topic that doesn't already exist in a current reliable source. As was shown previously, your personal POV about purpose and science was not accurately represented in other sources, such as SEP, whose treatment of the topic matches Wikipedia, word for word. When an editor finds themselves at odds with the literature, there is a good chance they are engaging in OR. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose in life

[15] a good source to help elaborate on the Purpose In Life content discussed above. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That information should be placed in Inayat Khan. Please feel free to expand that article. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in Purpose. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless you find at least one good reliable source that makes the connection between all of these sources. You're cramming these sources together to highlight your personal belief that they represent an accurate, significant, and proportional POV, yet there is no primary, secondary, or tertiary source that supports this view in parity with other sources. You're engaging in OR. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose and happiness

[16], this source advances the POV that making your purpose to benefit others is the key to happiness. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop cherry picking titles from Google Books and start learning to understand that without a single reliable source that frames the topic you are trying to write, we can't continue this discussion. You're engaging in pure OR. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's called NPOV about the subject, which is Purpose. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to find at least one single reliable source that covers all of the POV you are trying to cram here. Otherwise, you are synthesizing POV to push your personal beliefs about the cherry picked statements, quotes and sources. This has been explained to you, and you were asked to support your cherry picking of sources about purpose and science with RS. You failed to do this, and you've failed to do it in every other instance. Editors do not get to create new topics based on their personal choice of sources. This has been explained to you. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The concept purpose

[17]. A secondary source to bring it together. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another source from 1904? You've already been asked to cite current sources. Please stop data mining for sources that reflect your own pet theories and start researching the topic as it is reflected in the contemporary literature. Do you understand? I've already addressed this. This is like someone trying to challenge plate tectonics by citing sources from the 1960s and 1970s. Science has moved on. How is the concept of "purpose" treated in contemporary literature? Please don't cite me another book by a corporate consultant and life coach. What are your motivations here? What is it about the concept of "purpose" that you are trying to communicate? Is that idea discussed in other articles? My guess is that based on your edit history and contributions, you're trying to "use" Wikipedia to communicate your philosophy of purpose, which your edits show is related to a sect of Tibetan Buddhism. You may want to focus on a smaller topic, such as Purpose in Tibetan Buddhism, or use that structure for another topic. That would go a long way to solving the problem. Focus on one treatment of the subject, and one only. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of Purpose

[18] "Templeton brings together a gallery of respected scientists to reflect on the evidence that find through their scientific research for design and purpose in the creation and workings of the universe." Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very familiar with John Templeton. You are welcome to edit intelligent design at your leisure, but please stop editing here. Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Machines with a purpose

[19] Seems to say machines have no purpose, but humans do. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't choose books based on their covers, nor on their titles. Feel free to find a single reliable source that reflects your overall POV rather than cherry picking sources that mirror your personal POV. Is this making sense? In any case, the source you are referring to is from 1990, pre-w3, and hopelessly out of date. Do the words "current" and "contemporary" mean anything to you? Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic purpose

[20] "reflections on the question of cosmic purpose written both by prominent scientists and by scholars representing the world's religious traditions." Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[21] Another cosmic purpose source. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

[22] Cosmic purpose was quite a term. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article you are looking for is called relationship between religion and science. Feel free to contribute there, not here. Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilism's purpose is to destroy

[23] This says nihilism has no purpose but to destroy. .... (this article) .... Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're on the wrong article. Try Nihilism. Viriditas (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The claim from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) is that "A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy." That is dubious: how did the moral nihilist replace nothing with destruction? A moral nihilist believes there are no true moral norms; how does one derive from it that a moral nihilist desires to destroy things? IEP disappoints. In any case, such a dispute would indeed be well placed to Nihilism since it is much more about nihilism than about purpose. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broad-concept article draft

Further to discussion on the dispute resolution noticeboard, Zulu Papa 5 has agreed to create a userspace draft of a possible broad concept article to use at purpose instead of the current redirect. The draft can be found at User:ZuluPapa5/Purpose. Anyone is welcome to comment on the draft, and I will keep this page on my watchlist and make suggestions as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Draft as of 02:09, 17 February 2012‎

Permanent link to draft: [24]

I don't have very much time to comment today, so I will be brief. For the lede, we really need to think of a better way of wording the sentence that starts "Because of its individual subjectivity..." I'm not sure what this is intended to mean. Zulu Papa, could you enlighten me? I also think that we should put more emphasis on "purpose" meaning an intended use for an object or tool. Again for the article body I won't go into detail here, but basically I think that a) there is an over-reliance on old sources (the older a source is, the more we should consider it to be primary rather than secondary), and b) the subjects chosen are overly broad. (I'm not sure cybernetics is really related to "purpose" all that much - Zulu Papa, could you explain why you chose to include this topic?) All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... Let's take the comments to here. User_talk:ZuluPapa5/Purpose. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of article

I have restored the article since #Proposal of redirect to intention instead of teleology did not show consensus for redirection. The redirection was de facto deletion without RfD; if the content is to be effectively dropped, RfD is the proper venue.

Intention is not a perfect synonyms for "purpose".

I believe that as a minimum, this page should be a disambiguation page directing the reader to multiple pages:

Teleology: is a related subject. Per Britannica: "teleology, (from Greek telos, “end,” and logos, “reason”), explanation by reference to some purpose, end, goal, or function."[25]. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Teleology is the study of purposes, goals, ends and functions."[26]. M-W purpose 3: "the use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena"[27]. AHD: purpose 1: "The philosophical interpretation of natural phenomena as exhibiting purpose or design."[28]. Collins: purpose 1: "the doctrine that there is evidence of purpose or design in the universe, and esp that this provides proof of the existence of a Designer"[29]. There is no doubt that "purpose" could well redirect to "Teleology" per the quoted material.
Telos: is a related subject.
Purpose of life: an obviously related term. Since that is a redirect, it could be Meaning of life.
Goal: is a synonym in some uses
Function: is semantically related
Intention: is not a perfect synonym but is semantically related. Since it is not a perfect synonym, it is a suboptimal target for a redirect.
Intentionality: is semantically related
Relationship between religion and science: this was the article recommended in one of the above discussion for "cosmic purpose". If this is correct, the disambiguation article can state "* For cosmic purpose, see Relationship between religion and science". I am not convinced that the alleged target is a good one; the article does not contain the term "cosmic purpose".

If the page should be a redirect, which I find suboptimal, there is textual evidence above that "Teleology" is a fine target. I believe we can serve the reader better by having a disambiguation page or a similar kind of page that contains a bullet list of candidate target pages of interest.

The page could well be a separate article answering such questions as:

What is purpose?
What are the kind of objects that have purposes? Human artifacts? Biological organs? What are the objections to the idea that biological organs have purpose? Are biologists using the word purpose in reference to organs and behaviors or do they use a different word and which one?
What is the purpose of life, if any?
What is the purpose of human life, if any?
What is the purpose of the universe or cosmic purpose, if any?

These are all philosophical questions. They are not answered in Intention article. They could be answered in Purpose article or in one of the multiple target articles.

The page currently has some sourced material; why could the material not be in Purpose article?

Now someone has asked why there is no article Purpose in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The answer could be that they are not complete; they do not have an article on Teleology, only Teleological Notions in Biology, Kant’s Aesthetics and Teleology and other articles where the term teleology occurs.

About original research: how is using sources to provide sentences for Wikipedia an original research?

I now noticed there is Purpose (disambiguation). Why should Purpose be a redirect and at the same time there should be a disambiguation page? Makes no sense to me. One option is to delete Purpose and move Purpose (disambiguation) to Purpose. This will still make it impossible to have a section on "Cosmic purpose", which a page dedicated to Purpose coud have.

Some philosophical works on purpose:

Understanding Purpose: Kant and the Philosophy of Biology by Philippe Huneman, 2007
On Purpose by Michael Ruse, 2019
The Philosophy of Purpose by Samuel Belkin, 1958
Development and Purpose: An Essay Towards a Philosophy of Evolution by Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse, 1969
Cosmic Purpose by J. W. Harvey, Philosophy 6 (23):295 - 306 (1931)[30]

--Dan Polansky (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected the article to Purpose (disambiguation). This addresses the key objection that Intention is not an obvious right single target of a redirect and also addresses the objection that the previous content of Purpose article was not encyclopedic even if sourced. I tentatively accept the objection raised that "Purpose" is not a demonstrable topic for an encyclopedia as not entirely implausible. I do not know how such disputes are resolved using sources; there is no shortage of sources on "purpose" but that alone does not seem to establish that there should be an encyclopedia article. Philosophy does treat of "purpose" but since there is article Teleology that seems to cover purpose in philosophy, a philosophical article dedicated to "purpose" would seem redundant. Stanford Encycopedia of Philosophy has "Teleological Notions in Biology"; it could have "Purpose in Biology" or "The Notion of Purpose in Biology", but it does not.

Another solution is to delete Purpose (disambiguation) and move its content to Purpose. I don't know which of the options best match Wikipedia policies on disambiguation pages and such but having a redirect from Purpose to Intention as if the latter covered the subject of Purpose, which it does not, is inferior. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]