Is it possible for us to create a purpose?

[Gambit]

Yes, agreed - seeking "good" for myself. As you said - doesn't even need to be stated, really. However, I am sensing something behind your words... what point are you really trying to make?

I believe I stated that point clearly in the OP of this thread. However, since you think I did not, then I will rephrase my argument. The atheist's intention to create a purpose requires a higher purpose (a purpose which he or she did not create) in order to give an intelligent account of that intention. IOW, whatever purpose you think you create can be subsumed by the higher purpose of seeking the good - a purpose, which you yourself agree, that is so self-evident that it hardly needs to be stated.

 

[leibowde84]

What you are failing to understand is that the intention to create a purpose requires a higher purpose in order to account for the intention.

That's not necessarily true. That intention could be an evolutionary trait retained because it makes us more fit for survival.

 

[ArtieE]

For a Buddhist, nothing is self-evident because the Buddhist believes there is no self. And since the Buddhist believes there is no self, then the he or she cannot rationally justify a belief that we create our own purpose because there is no "we."

If there is no self who is it that believes there is no self?

 

[Gambit]

And what do we see as good?

What you see as good depends on your personal background. But what I can say is this: all lower goods point to a higher good. That's why the purposes you believe you create for yourself are constantly changing as your life unfolds.

 

[Willamena]

Merriam-Webster defines "intention" as "the thing that you plan to do or achieve : an aim or purpose."

You plan to achieve an aim or purpose. The purpose is not the planning.

 

[LuisDantas]

For a Buddhist, nothing is self-evident because the Buddhist believes there is no self. And since the Buddhist believes there is no self, then the he or she cannot rationally justify a belief that we create our own purpose because there is no "we."

Free tip: you have no idea of what you are talking about.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If there is no self who is it that believes there is no self?

You also belong to the category that Luis is pointing at, 'no idea about Buddhism'.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I just explained why. I suggest next time you actually make the effort to read my post before you attempt to respond to it.

Except that you didn't just explain why. You just asserted it. More than once, with no explanation.
I'm clearly not the only one who thinks so.

 

[LuisDantas]

If there is no self who is it that believes there is no self?

That is actually a very relevant question.

If you feel like that, take a look at the concept of "Anatta" / "Anatman" sometime and come back to tell us what you understood of it.

It is important to use your own words.

 

[atanu]

Many atheists are inclined to argue that the only purpose we have is that which we create for ourselves. But creating a purpose qualifies as a purpose in and of itself. IOW, whatever is driving the atheist to create a purpose is itself a purpose which the atheist him- or herself did not create.

Question: Is it possible for us to create a purpose without acting on some higher purpose (which we ourselves did not create)?

"The good is what all desire." - St. Thomas Aquinas

Actually as atheism is closely related to materialism, it cannot ultimately have any place for creation of purpose for self, since the existence, life, will, intelligence etc. are all determined through material interactions.

 

[RRex]

If you're hungry you eat to stop feeling hungry but eating also serves the "higher" purpose of surviving. There it stops. Our survival and need to produce offspring doesn't serve a "higher" purpose. It's just how we evolved.

I question this definition, but I'll leave you to it.

 

[Gambit]

I believe manipulation of our fellow man is a good example of creating a purpose which is not representative of a higher power.

Everyone is seeking the good as he or she understands it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Everyone is seeking the good as he or she understands it.

So, would you say the "good" is subjective?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I believe I stated that point clearly in the OP of this thread. However, since you think I did not, then I will rephrase my argument. The atheist's intention to create a purpose requires a higher purpose (a purpose which he or she did not create) in order to give an intelligent account of that intention. IOW, whatever purpose you think you create can be subsumed by the higher purpose of seeking the good - a purpose, which you yourself agree, that is so self-evident that it hardly needs to be stated.

The problem is in the addition you made in parens in the OP: "which we ourselves did not create"

Even "good" is subjective. Meaning subject to the interpretation of the one experiencing or witnessing it. Which means that we all create our own version of "good" coming into this world. What is "good" for me (a good job, a loving wife and kids) is not necessarily the "good" for someone else (who doesn't want to be married or tied down, who doesn't want children, who is fine with any job as long as their needs are met and they like the work). So, you see, we still "create" good in the first place - each of us, and then we create purposes for ourselves to achieve that "good".

 

[RRex]

Everyone is seeking the good as he or she understands it.

I don't equate this with a higher power.

 

[Sunstone]

But creating a purpose qualifies as a purpose in and of itself. IOW, whatever is driving the atheist to create a purpose is itself a purpose which the atheist him- or herself did not create.

I assume you mean by "purpose" an overall, all-embracing, or "cosmic" purpose to life such as "to benefit humanity", or "to make the world a better place", for it would seem absurd to make such an argument as you have on the basis of transient and limited purposes such as "to find one's car keys" or "to pay the mortgage".

If that's the case, then suppose we could know with reasonable certainty that humans are "driven" to create a cosmic purpose, rather than, say, creating a cosmic purpose is an option for humans (which would seem to be the actual case since there appear to be people who neither have nor attempt to create for themselves a cosmic purpose). If we could reasonably be certain that humans are "driven" to create purpose, wouldn't the most reasonable explanation as to why they are driven to do so be that having a cosmic purpose somehow promotes survival and has thus through natural selection become encoded in their DNA?

That is, if we ask why someone thirsts, it's ultimately because thirsting promotes survival and has thus become encoded in our DNA. Why would a drive to have a cosmic purpose be any different than thirsting?

 

[Sunstone]

Everyone is seeking the good as he or she understands it.

The proposition that "Everyone is seeking the good as he or she understands it" is non-falsifiable.

 

[Sunstone]

For a Buddhist, nothing is self-evident because the Buddhist believes there is no self. And since the Buddhist believes there is no self, then the he or she cannot rationally justify a belief that we create our own purpose because there is no "we."

Pretty little semantics. Cute, but no more than cute.

 

[ArtieE]

That is actually a very relevant question.

If you feel like that, take a look at the concept of "Anatta" / "Anatman" sometime and come back to tell us what you understood of it.

I read the Wikipedia entry. What I understood? Pretty much zero. Whoever can understand anything of it are welcome to it.

 

[viole]

God is the highest purpose (the final cause). So, it is not possible for God to create a purpose that is contrary to himself.

That would entail that my homicidal act serves God's purpose and was finally caused by Him.

I want to be sure I understand you correctly. Let's recapitulate:

I suddenly decide to buy a shotgun and kill the first child i see.

Now, I can only think of two alternatives

1) my will, or decision, was uncaused
2) it is caused by the final cause, ergo God

Which one is it?

Ciao

- viole