Philadelphia, PA

Dear Hoxie,

You may not be aware of it, but your question is a very Aristotelian question. Aristotle considers the various organs of human beings, and each seems to have a purpose: the purpose of the eye is to see and of the ear to hear, the feet and legs are for the sake of motion, the hands for grasping, etc. We can go on in somewhat this manner pretty convincingly. But wouldn't it be strange if every human appendage and organ has a purpose but the human being has none?

The eye is good if it performs its function well, and so on for the ear and the legs, etc. Likewise, say, a medical doctor is a good doctor if he is able to heal--and do no harm; the horseman is a good horseman if he or she can ride well, and so on. Anything and anyone who can perform its stated function well, is said to have "virtue." Even a knife has "virtue," if it can cut well.

So, in Aristotelian terms, knowing the purpose (the telos) of mankind or of human beings amounts to know what the human virtues are (sometimes the Greek word is translated as "excellence"), and this is a very large part of the aim of Aristotle's Ethics: to tell us what counts as human virtue and what is the good for mankind. Knowing what to count as human virtue pretty much fills the detailed account of human purpose.

Human beings, according to Aristotle are "rational animals," and human beings are also social animals. So, one way to look at the question of the purpose of human beings is to see what they are best suited to do; this involves a rational regulation of life and society suited to express the best, highest and distinctive elements of human nature. In this way, the question of the purpose or telos of mankind is very closely connected with our account of human nature.  It would make little sense to assign a purpose outside the reach of human nature; and it would make little sense to assign a purpose which ignores human nature.

We are suited to the life of thought and moral virtue in society.

H.G. Callaway

I really, really wouldn't know how to answer your interesting question, dear Dwight.

I do know I have often wondered why I am human, or if I chose to be born human... A few months ago, I posed a similar question, in philosophical terms, ("What's wrong with us Humans?"). Many interesting contributes were collected there. But deep down, I still wonder. Why, and How...

Is there a purpose for humanity? Probably, we are here to accept what we cannot change, and to enjoy as best we can, our human condition, but for the very short while that we remain humans, as it is...

I hope to be able to enjoy my life, as it is, for as long as I remain here. I hope.

Human beings - particularly in the history of the western world - need to believe that they matter - that hey do have a purpose. After all, the West is a teleological civilisation.

After a sound reflection and experience, we can safely say that we do not have any particular purpose on earth, other than the one each individual believes. But that is his/her problem.

Do elephants or ants, f.i. have a special purpose? Do flowers or trees have one of their own? Life is a contingent and free event, that's it.

To become One.

My first cynical reaction was, why do we need to have a purpose? Or at least, an overarching purpose? Perhaps it's enough for our purpose to be to survive another day, always doing the best we can with what we are given.

Then, if I want to get all metaphysical and introspective, thousands of years ago some perceptive person wrote the story of Adam and Eve. And this perceptive person figured out, that far back, that humans are born with the "curse" of having an imperative to gain knowledge. We went from our primitive, dumb, fat, happy, and clueless selves, to being knowledge-seeking machines, where nothing could stop us.

So, whatever the reason, that's our purpose. Seek out the truth, always and forever. Which is great for academia. Puts academics at the top of the heap!

Humanity. What is its purpose?

I think the purpose of humanity is to propagate human values throughout generations or civilizations.

To know more on some of human values, you can refer to the following:

http://www.graines-de-paix.org/il/layout/set/print/nos_idees/trois_idees_fortes_comme_facteurs_de_paix/les_valeurs_humaines/valeurs_humaines

To realise how we can connect our internal self to the external by knowing our true spiritual wisdom to help ourselves and the society.

Service to Humanity is  service to God & when the services are offer to God under the true & honest without any our personal purpose ,the care taker of our God always looks after us & taken care of us .

It is in this line some times back i wish to recall my publication under the captioned '' Service to Humanity '' which i submit herewith for your perusal & also for our valued readers 

There is no purpose or goal. A collection of individuals live by the rules that offer reasonable chances of survival. The totality of rules observable in human population come back as a thought there may be some purpose, but whose purpose?

A farm of beings to be slaughter sooner or later, this way or another? 

The spark of humanity appears beautiful but it is rare and means very little in the world of increasing violence stupidity and arrogance.

I think that one of the best answers to the question posed here is given by the following quote:

"The purpose of human life is to serve, and to show compassion and the will to help others." — Albert Schweitzer (Taken from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/purpose.html)

I think, first the meaning of purpose should be defined. Because Humanity is a system, and persons are systems too, but persons act mainly following concious purpose, oriented to satisfy needs, while humanity activities are the result of interactions of indivuduals, and purpose can not be understsood in the same way; persons can think on what could be the purpose of Humanity, how its parts can interact in a more rational, useful (for persons) way, but by itself, Humanity doesn't have a concious purpose.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Hoxie,

You may not be aware of it, but your question is a very Aristotelian question. Aristotle considers the various organs of human beings, and each seems to have a purpose: the purpose of the eye is to see and of the ear to hear, the feet and legs are for the sake of motion, the hands for grasping, etc. We can go on in somewhat this manner pretty convincingly. But wouldn't it be strange if every human appendage and organ has a purpose but the human being has none?

The eye is good if it performs its function well, and so on for the ear and the legs, etc. Likewise, say, a medical doctor is a good doctor if he is able to heal--and do no harm; the horseman is a good horseman if he or she can ride well, and so on. Anything and anyone who can perform its stated function well, is said to have "virtue." Even a knife has "virtue," if it can cut well.

So, in Aristotelian terms, knowing the purpose (the telos) of mankind or of human beings amounts to know what the human virtues are (sometimes the Greek word is translated as "excellence"), and this is a very large part of the aim of Aristotle's Ethics: to tell us what counts as human virtue and what is the good for mankind. Knowing what to count as human virtue pretty much fills the detailed account of human purpose.

Human beings, according to Aristotle are "rational animals," and human beings are also social animals. So, one way to look at the question of the purpose of human beings is to see what they are best suited to do; this involves a rational regulation of life and society suited to express the best, highest and distinctive elements of human nature. In this way, the question of the purpose or telos of mankind is very closely connected with our account of human nature.  It would make little sense to assign a purpose outside the reach of human nature; and it would make little sense to assign a purpose which ignores human nature.

We are suited to the life of thought and moral virtue in society.

H.G. Callaway

''In this wonderfull human brain of our there has dawned a realization unknown to the other primates.  It is that of the individual, conscious of himself as such, and aware that he, and all that he cares for, will one day die.

This recognition of mortality and the requirement to transcend it is the first great impulse to mythology. And along with this there runs another realization; namely, that the social group into which the individual has been born, which nourishes and protects him and which, for the greater part of his life, he must himself help to nourish and protect, was flourishing long before his own birth and will remain when he is gone.  That is to say, not only does the individual member of our species, conscious of himself as such, face death, but he confronts also the necessity to adapt himself to whatever order of life may happen to be that of the community into which he has been born, this being an order of life superordinated to his own, a superorganism into which he must allow himself to be absorbed, and through participation in which he will come to know the life that transcendes death. In every one of the mythological systems that in the long course of history and prehistory have been propagated in the various zones and quarters of this earth, these two fundamental realizations -- of the inevitability of individual death and the endurance of the social order - have been combined symbolically and constitute the nuclear structuring force of the rites and, thereby, the society.''

Joseph Cambbell, The Emergence of Manking, 1966

Philadelphia, PA

Dear readers,

Be wary of absolutizing the claims of religion. I say this in the spirit of the 1st amendment to the U.S. constitution--which forbids religious establishment while protecting the diversity of religious practices. Mutual tolerance requires that no single religious group have the last word simply because so deeply entwined in the political.

The first lesson of politics, perhaps, is that the rigidity of any political establishment correlates with the vehemence of the leftward reaction against it; and correspondingly, the ferocity and aggressiveness of dissent correlates with the rigidity of any subsequent political establishment. Any democratic society will do well to avoid these extremes.

Readers of this thread may find the following paper of interest:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275041797_What%27s_Wrong_with_Relativism_anyway

Vehement, aggressive relativism invites politically reactionary regimes seeking power for its own sake and by unprincipled means. That is because the morally unbridled doctrine of relativism itself seeks power for its own sake and by unprincipled means. To wrap this unseemly story in the mantel of religion and mankind's highest aspirations is a disservice to religion. 

H.G. Callaway

Research What's Wrong with Relativism, anyway?

The scientific program asserts that we have no ultimate purpose. Its practitioners posit that what we have are the—often purposefully interpreted—consequences of our genomes randomly progressing toward relationships with our causal environment in which all of their living expressions are immortal, while our energetic matter deterministically moves toward a world in temporal symmetry.

Having contemplated this question for some time from a philosophical perspective, what I have observed that our purpose seems to be to compassionately: 1) promote the growth of all conscious beings, 2) aid living beings in the fulfillment of their desires that do not conflict with Task 1, and 3) avoid needlessly obstructing the efforts of causal beings to satisfy their needs that do not conflict with Tasks 1 and 2. Our goal is ubiquitous harmony.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Harris,

Interesting proposals.

I think people may wonder if it is viable, or entirely clear that we should "promote the growth of all conscious beings." In a way, this brings up the problem of the particular and the universal. Sometimes we have to make a choice. For example. are people not entitled to prioritize their efforts on behalf of their own families, their friends and neighbors, their local community or their own country, say? Dos the imperative to "promote the growth of all conscious beings," forbid giving priority to human life and well-being in contrast to that of various other conscious beings?

Often enough, I think, we cannot see how to promote the growth of the larger world except in relation to the people whom we understand somewhat better; and the mere claim of universal benefits --upon our efforts and resources-- would not seem to justify itself merely by its purported  aim. We would want to consider the actual effects of the particular proposal. 

For example, it may be argued that further continual expansion of world trade brings great benefits to the world at large, bringing vast numbers of people out of poverty. But would this aim or objective justify the policy if it also involves various negative effects locally? What if it implies that the lack of domestic manufacturing produces long-term unemployment in many of our great cities, deep poverty, crime and a host of other social ills? Would the universal aim still justify the further, continual expansion of world trade? What if it produces domestic disarray, political dysfunction and right-wing populism?

This is only one kind of question posing the local and particular against universal aspirations. But it is perhaps a good illustration of a pattern of possible objections. Don't we need to approach universal ideals via our various particular concerns and human relations?  Don't we have to wonder if equal concern for all conscious beings is within the capacity of human nature?

H.G. Callaway

Buddhism views humans as only a part of a much wider web that encompasses all things, and views the distinction between humans and everything else as unhelpful.

For humans to have a purpose implies that we are different. It elevates our particular tribe of apes to a status apart. This is unhelpful.

To suggest that we have some kind of Grand Aim that we should bring about is rather funny, given that the world is in a state of utter dereliction due to the best efforts of the well-intentioned. Make no mistake: pretty every attempt by humans to make the world a better place has made it worse, whether by just wars, improvements in agriculture, manufacture of things to make life better, mass transport, pharmaceuticals – the list is endless.

So please, no more of this. Rather than contemplating some Grand Purpose for Humanity, we should perhaps be considering our place in the ecology of our only planet.

Perhaps you might enjoy a different take on your question, here: http://www.lionsroar.com/the-doors-of-liberation-may-2014/

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Conroy,

Thanks for your comment and suggestion.

If I may reply briefly at this point, what I always say to conceptions of humanity such as you have presented is very simple: Socially, this is a doctrine of pronounced acquiescence. (Read acquiescence in the powers-that-be.)

I am waiting upon the world's first successful Buddhist democracy. I suspect this might represent a reform back in the direction of the "middle way." Democracy requires that people have to fight oppression and the potential for oppression. It never disappears completely.

H.G. Callaway

Here a dare enter. Dear H. G., Bouddism does completely challenge the western mindset, precisely. The very issue about a bBuddist democracy is quite sensitive, however it is not a central concern there.

In contrast to the three Monotheist religions constitutive of the west, Buddism - which is not a religion - does not practice ecumenism or catechesis in any sense, no matter what. 

The concept of Buddhism as an entity was an English invention. Buddhism is not a philosophy like neoconservatism or marxism, or indeed structuralism. It is a practice. Where it has become the official religion of a country, it has, like any other official religion, stifled opposition and imposed itself as a norm, in the way that the arms industry (and its entertainment division, the neocons)* have stifled dissent in the US.

By contrast, what has been called Protestant Buddhism (on an analogy with the reformation) has become a movement that is very politically and socially engaged, but lacking the formal structures that you would expect from a religion.

Given the baleful role of modern democracies in bringing death, illness, social disorder and economic collapse to the countries of the middle east at present, I am not convinced that democracy is anything much to aspire to. Faith in political systems of any sort seems to me to be just another religion.

*Credit Frank Zappa. "Politics is the entertainment division of the arms industry"

Dear Callaway,

The viewpoint I described simply prioritizes inducing selflessness through selfless acts, over striving solely for the benefit myself, my family, friends, local community, or nation. It does not explicitly forbid prioritizing particular subgroups, but actions to that effect are of a lower priority when they are selfishly focused. The key here is to do for others with an empathy that makes them more capable of doing for others because everyone benefits (if indirectly), not merely me, my family, my community, or my nation.

The fact that this compassionate focus is difficult to achieve and sustain, does not prove that we wise primates are not meant to strive for it. At the same time, this point of view does not in itself prove that science is wrong in asserting our ultimate purposelessness, it merely provides an alternative.

Kevin

Ronán,

Myanmar is a nation with the majority of the population which are practicing bhuddism except for the Rohingya minority which are muslim.  Right now there is a genocide of the Rohingya  by the bhuddists. It started during the military regime but it now continues under the new democratic regime and  Aung San Suu Kyi is not even denouncing it.  Is it a failure of buddhism?  No, simply a failure of people to live up to their ideals.

Our purpose is to struggle.

To All

First of all I thank you all for your answers and comments! However, I herewith need to amend my original question.

My question has been interpreted largely in terms of “telos” in the large whereas I was actually thinking of “telos” in the small. Is our “purpose” to elevate all human beings to . . . to what?  How do we place value on the success of a society of humans that lives, dies, but thrives in the rainforest of the Amazon Basin relative to a society of humans that ekes out bare survival in the slums of the world’s great cities? In the centers of those great cities are the enlightened whose knowledge can replace nudity in the Amazon with designer clothes - but for what purpose? The tribes of the Amazon conduct war amongst themselves and so we bring them the weapons of mass destruction. Is that our goal? I am confused. Ah, Prince Hamlet “What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an Angel! in apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world! The paragon of animals! And yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor Woman neither; though by your smiling you seem to say so."

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Hoxie,

Many thanks for your comments and the opportunity to clarify.

My inclination is to draw on Aristotle, since I regard Aristotle as basic in the common sense of Western civilization. But I would emphasize "common sense," here. Its a matter of stress on background commonalities.

So, I sympathize with your emphasis on "telos" in the small, as you put the matter.

Please do view my suggestions as a matter of answering the question, "What purpose should I best set for myself?" Why should we not consult great thinkers in answering this kind of personal question? It seems a reasonable approach.

People are going to disagree about such a question and any similar questions. Of course! We have to go through the entire process of moral education in every generation. In consequence, the thoughtful and sophisticated answers, drawing on the wisdom of the ages are going to be found mixed up and interacting with various disillusioned spirits and first-goes at the matter. That's the way it has always been. That's the way it will always be. But in the broad sweep of history, particular answers stand out as exemplary. It would be foolish to ignore them. Equally, it would be a mistake to regard them as mere "large scale" answers.

I like your quotation from Shakespeare. But poor Hamlet! --who could not delight in mankind!

H.G. Callaway

Dear Dwight,

I think we should question the word "our" in the wording of your question. If "we" is all of humanity, then "our" goal is ... a self-replication. But do "we" have the right or wisdom to speak for humanity as a whole?

The purpose of humanity as a whole cannot be answered by empirical sciences. Some philosopher give their own answer, whereas some religions give their. Jews, Christians and Muslims believe that humanity as a whole has a purpose because God has created the human being and everything else with a purpose (Psalms 8, Psalm 19 and Psalm139). There are, however, no criteria for demonstrating which of the possibility different answers is the true or the most reasonable one, even if they may exist one. I think that each one of us accepts or finds the answer that is coherent with his/her worldview (Ger. Weltanschauung) or view of life.

Yes, we try to achieve and preserve an ideal telos, Aristotle called eudemonia, bliss. He believed that only by cultivating a virtuous character and excellence in activity, eudemonia could be reached. He strongly recommends the cultivation of friendship and above all, friendship of virtue. Friendship of virtue is based on a person wishing the best for his friends regardless of utility and pleasure. By activity he means professional ability and active participation in the polis, the citizen state.

A famous mexican comedian and philoofer Cantiflas said, we humans come to this world to be happy and make others happier.

Louis: Not only Myanmar, sri Lanka, another "Buddhist" country, waged genocidal war on its minority Hindu population. The institutionalisation of religions turns them into part of the entertainment division of economic power.

I recall Thich Nhat Hanh fielding a question about Buddhism as an organised religion. His answer could apply to any religion, I think. He said We mustn't let Buddhism get in the way of our being Buddhists.

My main problem with Aristotle (and my research is actually focussed on his concept of eudaimonia) is that it's an individual, not a social view of the good life. It misses the social embodiment of our lives. 

To achieve a further step in our evolution. This step might very well be in the domain of ethics: to act always as we believe is morally right to act. I argued that this quality characterizes "postpersons". They are are beings with a higher moral status than "mere humans". 

Ronan:" My main problem with Aristotle (and my research is actually focussed on his concept of eudaimonia) is that it's an individual, not a social view of the good life. It misses the social embodiment of our lives"

In his Politics, Aristotle  proposes a  constitution of the polis where” each and every citizen will possess moral virtue and the equipment to carry it out in practice, and thereby attain a life of excellence and complete happiness.  All of the citizens will hold political office and possess private property because “one should call the city-state happy not by looking at a part of it but at all the citizens.” Moreover, there will be a common system of education for all the citizens, because they share the same end

Do you think that Aristotle's political view is in conflict with a social view of good life?

Aristotle's political view is in conflict with a social view of good life as we would define 'social' but not as the Greeks would have defined it.  In common with his 'teacher' Plato Aristotle seems to be defining the good life as service to the state.  In this he is very rooted in the mores of his time and place since the views he expresses would not be out of place in Pericles' funeral oration. Moral virtue and excellence and the holding of political office are exactly what Pericles stated should be the goal of all Athenians, those who did not so aspire were characterised as useless.  Ditto for the holding of property, in Classical Greek terms this must be seen as an attempt to prioritise service to the state since it would mean that the state could raise a larger army and thereby be both more secure and more assertive in international affairs.  This fits a definition of social view as service to society but misses out on what seems to be the modern western concepts of social whereby individuals are given choices and different individuals can prioritise actions that make them happy.  In Aristotle what will make the citizens happy is what they have been educated to do, serve the state.  Aristotle's Politics always reminds me of three things.  Firstly Aldous Huxley's Brave New World which features a similar view of education to fit for a life of service to the state by ensuring that everyone is happy with their role.  Secondly the theory of education as applied to the Hitler Youth designed to produce future soldiers and farmer settlers through it's strength through joy programme.  Finally there is Sparta, the common education, the moral virtue etc are all very reminiscent of this state.  Of course the citizen body of Sparta was very restricted by Athenian standards let alone that of a modern western state.  This may be the unanswered question in Politics what was Aristotle envisaging as the size of the citizen body as a percentage of the overall population, was he a utopian who hoped to achieve his aims by raising the entirety of the thetes up to hoplite class standards or was he advocating restricting the citizen body to the better off.  Given his connections with monarchic Macedon and the roots of his philosophical 'school' which could be said to include such associates of Plato and Socrates as Critias and Xenophon I suspect the latter.

Dear Fliippo,

I agree with your answer but does that not allow humanity to define its own purpose? Dostosyevsky"s Grand Inquisitor states "For the mystery of human being does not solely rest in the desire to live, but in the problem--for what should one live at all?" What then be the purpose of humanity in our terms  or is it to be in terms of that of the Grand Inquistor aka Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Atahualpa, . . . ? Are we not the the masters of our fate? Or (Rousseau) are we born free only to be blindly enslaved by the chains of dogma, bigotry, extremism, greed, lust and all the other so-called sins? Is the question merely rhetorical? What will be will be and, no, ours is not to meddle but to accept that what is and will be. "Hello Darkness my old friend . . ."

This is what we bring to the newly discovered tribes of the Amazon Basin - is that our purpose?

 It is important to distinguish between: 1) what is the mening or purpose of everything?, 2) what is the purpose of the human life and suffering, and 3) what is the purpose of my life and suffering. I think that it is easier to answer the question 3) than the others. Concerning the question 3) I am disposed to follow Frankl’s and Dostosyevsky’s answer, namely, to have a task in life

“If there were no internal propensity to unite, even at a prodigiously rudimentary level — indeed in the molecule itself — it would be physically impossible for love to appear higher up, with us, in hominized form. . . . Driven by the forces of love, the fragments of the world seek each other so that the world may come into being.”

― Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Dear Fillipo, I was going to post a very similar answer to yours myself since if I am wearing my geologist's hat I quite agree that humanity has no more intrinsic purpose than any other thing in the universe that has reached it's present state through evolution, whether that thing be organic or not.  However, I chose not to since I am afraid that the so called debate between the rationalists and what we may term the spiritual is both frustrating and sterile, for a good example of this see if you can find on You Tube the video of Richard Dawkins 'conversation' with a fundamentalist, I think it was Anjem Choudhry.  Indeed due to the polarisation of starting points for the conflicting world views I am afraid it usually is about as useful as listening to two school children 'debating' whose father is better.

Therefore I chose to enter the debate on the terms that earlier respondents have set and add my comment on the Aristotelian view of purpose.  In this field we can at least hope to have a rational conversation with each other and hopefully make contributions to each others research projects.

Further to this if I may I would like to expand the debate to what we mean by purpose.  If we follow Filippo's definition of purpose as  "roughly the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists" then this raises an interesting dilemma in semantics.  Humans have created spanners to turn nuts and therefore this can be said to be 'their purpose'.  However, spanners, especially the larger varieties are frequently misused as percussive instruments either as tools or in fighting.  In this latter case can we still say that an inanimate object has a 'purpose'.

For Aristotle the principle of connection was vital for the purpose of humanidty

The principle of connection would indeed seem central to one definition of humanity's purpose especially if we accept the one interpretation of "man as a political animal", that is that man is predisposed to live in political units.  However, this view is not universally accepted with other scholars considering that what Aristotle meant is that man only becomes developed when he overcomes his natural tendencies and joins together to live in a political unit.  If we accept this interpretation then humanity has no actual purpose merely a potential goal by which he can be defined as civilised when he achieves it.  This consideration may be closer to the intent of Hoxie's original question that has triggered this page since Aristotle may also be following the 'civilised' is good and advanced, 'uncivilised' is primitive and bad.  I must admit I tend to follow the latter interpretation of Aristotle's meaning primarily because it ties in with the Prometheus legend in which humanity was nearly destroyed by Prometheus' gifts precisely because they did not have the purpose of living in political units, this had to be taught them by Zeus.

Man as an end.

"The  ultimate moral principle may be understood as saying: Act so that you treat humanity whether in your own person or that of abother always as an end and never as a means" (from E. Kant  “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals”,1797).

g

Dear Timothy,

From your recent comment following that of Flippo I perceive the use of “purpose” in two contexts with respect to your inanimate object. There is the “original purpose” for which the object was designed and manufactured (the purpose for which it was “created”) and the “subsequent purpose” for which it was then consciously put to use by an anímate user. Now if we apply these contexts to humanity as a whole, in the first context, we enter the realm of theology and in the second context we arrive at modern man that, for example, is put to use to fight wars, pay taxes, vote, etc. Applied to human beings Flippo denies or disregards the first context and implies that the second context is up to us to define for ourselves either collectively or individually. That is, he essentially invokes Dostoevsky’s “If there is no God, then everything is permitted” (The Brothers Karamazov) that thereby includes giving us license to choose our purpose. So I ask, given that this is so, what is or what should be or what could be our purpose on this planet?

Dear Dwight,

Your comments do not quite address the full range I postulated for how to ascribe 'purpose' to an inanimate object.  The reason I specifically included misuse as a weapon is because this may not involve conscious action at all, merely the instinctive/accidental use of whatever is to hand in order to cause damage to an adversary.  In Japanese martial arts the difference is often defined as that between a te and a jitsu technique, in the former the strike is the same regardless of whether an object is used and in this respect it is possible to unintentionally use say a set of keys to augment the effectiveness of blow.  In this instance I would argue that usage and purpose are clearly different but that we cannot say that the object's secondary usage is purposeful.

The Dostoevsky quote is interesting and is reminiscent of Kevin Harris' reply since while similar views could be used to argue that humanity is free to select a purpose since there is no god to enforce one, a popular Humanist view, similar sentiments are often used by theists to argue that the ultimate proof of the existence of their god is that without his benevolent guidance humanity would dissolve into chaos brought about by the intrinsic selfishness of mankind.  This returns me to my previous reply regarding Aristotle where I mentioned the Prometheus legend which has this as one of it's themes.  The view that mankind is inherently wicked and the fear of divine retribution is required to keep him in line has also been attributed to Critias the leader of the 30 in Athens, who seems to have been a fellow student of Aristotle's 'tutor' Plato.  It has of course been a standard trope of dictators ever since, and probably before.  The interesting thing about Critias is that he himself may have been an Atheist. 

If we agree with Aristotle that happiness is the purpose of Man, then progress is intended for this purpose. But then we must also accept Aristotle's virtue ethics as a necessary condition for eudemonia, since otherwise progress could be used as a weapon of destruction. Thus, ethics is the ratio essendi of eudemonia and eudemonia is the ratio cognoscendi of ethics.  

From a Christian perspective, God is love, and love needed a family. So "being God's family" would be humanity's original purpose. In terms of evolutionary theology (has nothing to do with Darwin), consciousness initially was one, then split into the observer and the observed, then became the many, in order to evolve, which it is still doing. (This point of view has much in common with Hindu, BUddhist, and Native American beliefs.) If one factors in Jesus's prayer that Christians be one with him and the Father, these two versions of human purpose are not so far apart, are they? Dostoevsky placing the question, "so if there is no god, then everything is permitted?" in Dmitri Karamazov's mouth speaks to morality and ethics, not purpose. If there is no god, then we are left with the world springing into existence through random processes, in violation of the Second Law of thermodynamics and common reason, and there is neither purpose nor meaning in an ultimate sense. Humans could of course create their own meaning, which is the function of the mind, but as von Neumann pointed out, a "physical" (computer-like) mind cannot process meaning, so we have changed the question to "what is mind?", and the answer cannot be the promissory materialist position, "an epiphenomenon of the brain", as that answer is philosophically bankrupt. So, Dwight, you have raised a very tangled question, one that cuts to the core of human nature and worth!

Richard at the risk of seeming to be offensive I'm afraid that you seem to be falling into the trap that many theists fall into with your mention of the Second Law of Thermodynamics since saying that the idea of a not created universe violates the principles of this Law misses the point.  Yes as a geologist I am somewhat at a loss to explain this but I do not accept that the answer lies in resorting to the God of the Gaps mentality, if a theist can ask what came before then an atheist is equally entitled to ask who created God.  A reply that nothing did he is the alpha and omega I'm afraid is not really good enough for an academic debate.  This is the reason I chose to focus on differing cultural views of humanity's purpose rather than endorsing the approach of any one of them, since at least here we can produce meaningful research on how cultures have defined their roles rather than a circular argument based on unprovable and irreconcilable world views.

At this point it might be a good idea to ask Dwight to referee this debate by asking him to comment on whether it has gone in the direction he intended when he posted it, since in all fairness I believe that the purpose of postings on this site is to generate feedback useful to the posters' own research.  So how about it have we wandered too far or are we still making useful input to your research interest?  If the former what track would it be useful to return to? 

Valid criticism, Timothy! I would like to hear from Dwight. But back to the question of purpose: that question does not stand alone. Any answer presupposes a specific metaphysic, and as Aristotle reminds us in Rhetoric, we must establish basic points of agreement before meaningful discussion can proceed. My response to Dwight's "first context" did indeed "enter the realm of theology" as Dwight put it. In the spirit of not chasing rabbits, I choose not to further discuss your "God of the gaps" point, as it would lead us seriously astray.

In the case of an individual human life, its purpose is what the individual is passionated about, what he/she devoted her/his life.  In the case of humanity, we have to look at its history in order to determine its purpose or direction of this history. We have to see that we are moving toward a world wide economic and cultural and political order.  Our numbers and current practices are currently destabilizing the life and climate equilibriurm and this will force us to unified further in order to harmonize with our planet which necessarily require our own harmonization with each other.

Dear Richard, Timothy and All,

I very much thank you all for your comments that have expanded my thinking about my own question. The question was inspired by my trying to come to grips with that piece of history dealing with the encounter of the “advanced” with the “primitive” and the consequences following therefrom. The “advanced” nominally brought “civilization” to the “primitive” and this could be construred to be a “purpose” or “goal” of humanity – to advance “civilization” and bring it to the “uncilivized primitive.” We might think of the European arrival in the Western Hemisphere as an example. In this example I see two issues:

• ·      First, were the peoples who the Europeans encountered really “uncivilized primitives”? (I am thinking here of the Aztecs and the Incas, for example. Were their empires not “civilizations”? Jose Vasconcelos in his book “Breve Historia de Mexico says “no, they were not”.)
• ·      Second, was the “civilization” that the Europeans brought of benefit to the “primitives” who received it?

With respect to my true concerns my original question was was not well posed. Although I alluded to “advanced” and “primitive”, the phrasing of the actual question led to a broad range of answers and comments that, however, I greatly appreciate. But with all that said, I additionally would appreciate your answers and comments on my two questions above.

Thank you!

Its purpose is to not interfere with individual freedom:

• Individual humans have purposes (some of them, when they consciously decide so);
• Human organizations have purposes (as established by the consensus of a directive board, or by adopting the purpose and vision of one or more of their founders).

Since Humanity was not "founded" and is not owned by any individual or group of individuals with original goals and intents, and since (thankfully) it has no board of directors, than I can safely say Humanity (understood as the whole collection of human individuals) has no purpose other than staying away from assigning "purposes" to any individuals and voluntarily-formed human organizations.

Having said that, I consider that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other collective agreements of such status are valid, should be celebrated, and constantly discussed and refined as a reference of human standards that can guide nations toward common understandings. I'm in favor of those instruments as cultural byproducts of (1) rational thought towards freedom, recognition of individual rights, and of (2) a commitment towards mutual understanding and tolerance among different cultures and perspectives.

Primitive is in many ways a value laden judgement, however, in terms of being uncivilised it rather depends on the interrogator's view of what constitutes civilised.  This can be shown by the way that the Spanish themselves viewed the Aztecs.  If you read Bernal Diaz's account, I am using the Penguin translation, then it becomes clear that e views the Aztecs as uncivilised in certain aspects of their behaviour.  These seem to be those ways of behaving that the Spanish found morally repugnant: human sacrifice, idolatry, homosexuality and cannibalism.  This is in common with the way European powers often used the term uncivilised to describe each others behaviour during WW1 and 2.  It is a comment on certain aspects of behaviour rather than a judgement on society as a whole, perhaps the most extreme example of using language in this manner is the Holocaust where commentators contrast this abomination with the fact that it was perpetrated by arguably the most civilised nation in Europe.

However, Diaz's account also makes clear that this was not the only way that the Spanish saw the Aztecs.  In general Diaz is quite complimentary of the level of civilisation that the Aztecs had reached and suggests that if only they would abandon the above mentioned practices they would be fitted to take their place as worthy subjects of the King of Spain.  Therefore, with apologies to Vasconceros, whom I admit to not having read, I think that the contemporary opinion was that the Aztecs were a civilisation.

The question may be complicated wrt Incas.  It may be reasonably said that the motivations of these two groups of conquistadores was different.  In general the conquerors of the Aztecs seemed to be motivated with bringing the Aztecs into the Catholic fold, while also enriching themselves admittedly, and therefore seem to view them in a more positive light.  In contrast the later conquerors of Peru seem to have been more interested in self enrichment at the expense of the natives.  In this case it was in their interests to downplay the civilisation of their enemies.

As to whether this was ultimately of benefit to the natives is beyond my competencies and may be a dangerous debate to get into since I cannot see it being possible without running into the lunatic fringe of nativists and white supremacists both of whom have vested interests in this topic.

Timothy

But when push comes to shove what is all about? The Universe could care less about the happenings on planet Earth. So is it not up to us to to create our own "purpose of being"?  Is it to live today for there may be no tomorrow? Is it happiness, whatever that may be? I live in Mexico where "mañana" does not mean tomorrow - it means not today - thereby life here is a day-to-day existence, the reward of civilization? But the women here do have their cell phones by which they "come and go talking of Michelangelo"! So the Cosmos says "There is no purpose, there is only "is". Is it that we advance upon the "primitive" tribes of the Amazon Basin so that we can display their naked ladies on YouTube? Be that our "purpose"?

I fear that the question that I pose has no simple answer and my bitterness at having arrived at this point is on display. So is more value to be placed on the life of the Conquistador who slayed the "primitive" Inca  because the Conquistador was bringing European civilization to the "unenlightened"? Oh, "human sacrifice" as the act of a "primitive savage" and how many has Western Civilization "sacrificed" under the "noble" guise of war?  We in our Ivory Towers may view the world through our "rose-colored glasses" and dismiss such concerns as I am trying to raise amongst our "enlightened" RG fellowship because for many in this world the vision they have is "through a glass darkly."

Dear Dwight, you point out to two quite sensible issues. It is not even that the "civilisation" brought to the Americas was a "better" one than the ones that existed there at the time. J. Diamond has argued that the reason of the triumph of the Europeans was based on germs, steel, and weapons. A quite low civilised argument - if any.

Many times foot soldier in a battalion is unaware of the purpose of the mission he is engaged in till it is accomplished. His only duty is to keep on working on the tasks presented before him. As he gains experience in performing his duties, he is promoted to perform higher forms of duties where overall picture of missions undertaken become more and more clear. In case of humanity it happens over a long period of time involving many cycles of birth and death.

Vikram, In every life cycle the previous cycles are forgotten. What is accumulated in many cycles to clarify the "purpose"? The soldier has a vague idea of his task: to contribute to the victory against the enemy. What is the vague purpose you have in mind  that would become clear after many cycles of birth and death? Is it  the return to the harmony of the ONE we supposedly come from?i

Vikram, speaking as an ex soldier I have to agree with the sentiments expressed in Black Hawk Down, a soldier needs to do the job he is assigned to do and if all your guys come home in one piece as well that's a lot more important than worrying about the whys wherefores and motivations of why you were given the task.

Carlos, I really think that we need to adopt a more nuanced approach to our models of the colonisation of the Americas.  There is a notable difference in approach between the Catholic Spanish who in general did see themselves as improving the lot of the natives by bringing them into the Catholic fold, and the Protestant northerners who saw it as their duty to improve the landscape by turning it over to productive European style usage.

These differences are reflected in their views of the diseases that decimated the native populations.  The Spanish were horrified while the Protestants regarded this as proof of God's approval since he was removing the 'unproductive natives from the 'promised' land in order to make it fit for his 'chosen' people.

The mention of disease brings me to Diamond's argument: germs, steel and weapons.

As I mentioned above the northern settlers tended to regard the germs as proof that they were the 'superior' culture, while the technological superiority was invoked to justify the takeover since it meant that they were civilised and the natives not, see my previous answer for a different Spanish view on this.

However, in response to Carlos' posting the effects of this overwhelming technology have in many cases been overstated.  In the case of the Aztecs a large part of the success was due to the fact that the Aztecs were so hated that given a chance their subjects went over to the newcomers reasoning that they couldn't get a worse deal from them.  Similar overstating of the effects of technology are very common in modern literature and seems to stem from attempts to project an image of pre-colonial peoples everywhere as more worthy but overwhelmed by superior technology.  In most cases they were not they were just as nasty as we Europeans were/are.  To use Richard Attenborough's line in Guns at Batasi "their best is as good as ours but their rough is every bit as rough as ours and that's pretty rough".

Dear Dwight,

Maybe, your crucial question is so hard to answer because there is no such thing as Humanity which could "have" or "decide" a purpose. Perhaps we humans. have, miraculously, the ability to accept purposes proposed or to form our own purposes. As it appears, we are even able to gather in groups and communities observable, in which we establish shared beliefs about purposes. This is as far as where the practical discussion about "purpose" goes.

For Humanity as a species is there such a (non theoretical) thing as a purpose? Do we not appear to behave all together as any other species, just augmented with the frightening power of Homo Faber?

A good discussion this could be, provided we define the word "purpose".

Anyway, thank you for making us think... we are so busy with doing things.

By defining purpose here, we define humanity

The purpose of humanity id the integrated purpose of individual humans. What each human seeks is also what humans as a collection seek. It cannot be otherwise. Just think of it! 

Hello Dwight and Colleagues, 

In my humble opinion the first purpose is to practice humanity (now that, I admit, opens another question). However for me the REAL PURPOSE IS TO DISCOVER OUR TRUE SELF. The success of this latter task, also depends on how well we have practiced being truly human - our heart must open for the latter undertaking to succeed. 

With respect to all points of view - Namaste - Tina

Could it be time to grow up and look beyond  "My purpose is to decide my purpose." Let's not stop there.

As has been mentioned the moral purpose of each level of being is judged based on its alignment with the purpose of the higher levels. My eyes fulfill their purpose if they support me in my human purpose. I fulfill my purpose if I support my society's purpose. The society fulfills its purpose as far as it support the planet's purpose. So, all purpose relates back to the biggest purpose we can imagine. What is the universe's purpose? 

I take the universe's purpose to exist and experience itself existing.

Working back from this, I would answer that Humanity's purpose is primarily to experience as widely and deeply as we can and secondarily to build new experience possibilities for the future. Having children fulfills both. Creating organizations, nations, religions, etc. are secondary actions to provide new primary experiences for future beings. Enhancing our human structure with external aids and internal improvements speeds up the cycle of building experience.

If we can contribute to the possibility of a galaxy of experiencing existences looking out at the entire universe a billion years from now, we will feel our purpose well fulfilled. 

Tina what happens when being true to your true self is in opposition to respecting all points of view, as a scientist I cannot truly respect the views of creationists since their methodology is polarised to mine, nor can they accept mine since it refuses to prioritise faith over evidence based reasoning.  We may agree to differ but even that is only possible if we do not clash over resources so in effect do not interact.  There is also the question of defining humanity, I have been training in Japanese martial arts since childhood and have absorbed much of the Samurai idea of on and giri with the result that I doubt I have the same perception of the highest point of humanity to people from a more pacifistic background.

Frank, that is an interesting answer but I would question two basic assumptions within it.  Firstly can the universe/galaxy really have a purpose, I have to agree with Fillippo on this, it exists that is enough it does not exist in order to fulfil any goal.  Therefore to describe humans as existing to fulfil the universe's purpose seems to be irrational, as much as I acknowledge that if my girlfriend's gaian beliefs were true and were enacted upon the world would be a happier place.

The second problem I have is with the concept that the morally correct action is that which aligns with "the purpose of higher levels".  While this is appealing to my inner samurai since that is the entirety of my school of Bushido I must admit that as a westerner it does make for uncomfortable reading.  Virtually every instance we have of characters who are upheld as paragons of morality would then have to be cast as immoral since they failed to align with the purposes of the higher echelons of that society.  In contrast the SS with its motto of loyalty is my honour would have to be seen as exemplary paragons of morality since the casualties they sustained in obedience of orders was horrific.  I believe the western world made a "Judgement at Nuremburg", sorry had to slip a film reference in, as to whether the Mahatma Gandhis, Martin Luther Kings and Nelson Mandelas of this world were morally preferable to the Adolf Eichmanns and Joachim Peipers.

Hello Timothy,

For me science is not entirely so different from spirituality in that both want to know the nature of life. However it is how they approach it that is different and when they discover and understand this, they can work together to establish a more complete understanding.

Spirituality involves not only knowing the "truth" but experiencing it - both are needed for the path to be complete. This journey is also repeatable by others, hence yogis are known as "inner scientists". The path that gives live to the experience is "tested" by the people who practice it. 

The Self I refer to here is with a capital, it is not the little self. I clarify this difference in my dissertation.

Your practice of marshal arts from childhood has given rise to a certain perception. If that is where you wanted to land up, that is great. Nature does not tell her children what to do, we each have to decide for ourselves. 

With respect for differences - Tina

What is sophrosyne? I this not the purpose of humanity?

Unfortunately Tina there is more to the differences between science and spirituality than merely how they approach understanding the nature of life.  There is a deeply rooted dichotomy in what is acceptable as evidence.  In science all proposals are hypotheses that are tested to become theories and laws or rejected if they do not measure up.  In all aspects of spirituality there are certain assumptions that defy testing or worse are still held to be true no matter how much they fail tests.  To argue that they are tested and thus validated by the people by practice reveals how divergent and thus incompatible these world views are.  This makes it unlikely that the two can ever exist in harmony and work together to "establish a more complete understanding" since the two cannot both be right, they could of course both be wrong but that seems unlikely in the case of western science although we have certainly not got all the details worked out yet.

  The clash of these world views brings us back to some of Dwight's questions.  Richard Dawkins used to be fond of using the cargo cult analogy, if you want to fly to a conference on the anthropology of Polynesia then you had better do so in an aeroplane built by scientific engineering not one constructed by cargo cultists at least if you want to get there.   Regrettably no amount of cultural relativism will change this.  This, to return to an earlier posting re germs, steel and weapons is a good part of why the west has dominated the world, and continues to do so even Chinese civilisation now owes more to western science than to its own traditional ways.

   While this does not answer the question as to what is humanity's purpose it does at least provide a rationale for the viewpoint posed in Dwight's original question, Nobel laureates are lauded because, returning to Frank's posting, their work advances the cause of society the 'primitive' are castigated precisely because they are seen as having fossilised in a state that evolution has left behind.

Suddenly, I grow tired of finding any useful answer to the initial question in this discussion. It was so rich, openminded and warm as long as it lasted...

Peace!

 Harry, In every life cycle the previous cycles are forgotten because of the lack of ability or power to recall the memory of previous lives which is stored in the subtle body which does not die when the gross body and gross part of the mind die. Buddha had this power to recall memory of previous lives. This is well recorded in a set of stories called Jatak Tells. In Bhagavad Gita Sri Krishna tells Arjuna, Many lives have we passed through, you do not know them but I remember them all. In Gospel Jesus tells jews. Before Abraham was, I was. And Elias did come first (John the baptist) but they knew him not.

What is accumulated in many cycles to clarify the "purpose"?

When a soul in an animal body acquires human body for the first time, his mind and intelligence and other faculties are bordering on the animal human creation. Over many lives, these faculties (the core part in the subtle body) become more and more subtle and refined and are able to penetrate mysteries surrounding its existence.

What is the vague purpose you have in mind  that would become clear after many cycles of birth and death?

Every human has the vague idea to servive as long as he can and get maximum happiness and joy. This is accomplished when he discovers the everlasting blissful existence beyond life and death.

Timothy, one thing I like to add. A soldier can do his assigned job without knowing why as long as he has complete faith in his commander, that he is not going to mislead him.

The question of 'Humanity and Its utmost Purpose' has been there from the time immemorial. It has been the core focus of Sciensophy, which has yet been unable to have a standardized response. having said that, 'Humanity and Its Utmost Goal(s)' could better be comprehended by distinguishing between it and 'Divinity'. But if an ideal answer must be provided, it is for humanity to preserve its well-being and protect its race from extinction.

Assuming you are still following this Ioan, this forum was never really going to produce a useful answer to the initial question since it is so broadly cast and dependent on individual and cultural values.  However, the discussions of how different groups, or in the case of Aristotle possibly individuals, would answer the question has certainly for me as an archaeologist produced valuable insights into differing cultural practices that may help inform any interpretations I make of 'ritual' sites by increasing my understanding of other cultural views.  So the answer as to whether or not it has produced a 'useful' answer depends on what use you were going to put that answer. 

   Congratulations Dwight you seem to have produced a modern Socratic dialogue since in many respects we are not answering the unanswerable question of our purpose but are dealing with the question of 'how do we know what our purpose is?'  This is definitely valuable.

   Vikram, I agree on your about a soldier but have to observe that in this the armed forces are no more than a microcosm of larger society.  We pay taxes, vote, obey the law etc in the belief that this is for the wider benefit of society rather than a scam by the higher echelons of society to enrich themselves.  When this confidence is lost society can no longer function.

Although returning to the soldier question the usual military approach is that your commander will not mislead you except where it is necessary for the fulfilment of the mission.  This is why there have been so many military coups throughout history, soldiers basically, despite groaning, trust their offices who are soldiers like themselves but often come to view the civilian elites with distrust.

Dwight, Humanity is one the Creator's great handworks, made with free will and the potential to display god-like qualities (John 10:34 and Psalm 82:6) on raising its consciousness by realizing the realizable aspect of the Creator, that is, Being, The Absolute, The Unified Field, or Ein Sof through meditation, contemplation, or concentration. On achieving this higher state of consciousness, humanity will enjoy bliss, peace, prosperity, abundance, non-predation, and a wonderful afterlife (Isaiah 2:24 and 11:6-9, John 10:10, Papias 443.). So then, the Creator's purpose in creating humanity is to give it bliss and a wonderful life in the here and now and in the after life and thereby show the Creator's love for it.

Here is Pico Della Mirandola's answer:

''Finally, the Great Artisan mandated that this creature who would receive nothing proper to himself shall have joint possession of whatever nature had been given to any other creature. He made man a creature of indeterminate and indifferent nature, and, placing him in the middle of the world, said to him "Adam, we give you no fixed place to live, no form that is peculiar to you, nor any function that is yours alone. According to your desires and judgment, you will have and possess whatever place to live, whatever form, and whatever functions you yourself choose. All other things have a limited and fixed nature prescribed and bounded by our laws. You, with no limit or no bound, may choose for yourself the limits and bounds of your nature. We have placed you at the world's center so that you may survey everything else in the world. We have made you neither of heavenly nor of earthly stuff, neither mortal nor immortal, so that with free choice and dignity, you may fashion yourself into whatever form you choose. To you is granted the power of degrading yourself into the lower forms of life, the beasts, and to you is granted the power, contained in your intellect and judgment, to be reborn into the higher forms, the divine."

Pico Della Mirandola: Oration On the Dignity Of Man (15th C. CE)

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/world_civ/worldcivreader/world_civ_reader_1/pico.html

Louis many of the more spiritual answers that have been posted would probably be at variance with this view of the limitless potential of man since it implies the right to wreck the rest of the ecosphere.  I wonder whether della Mirandola was more influenced by Virgil whose words attributed to Jupiter regarding dominion without limits for the descendants of Aeneas seem to be echoed here than by the Bible since we all know what happened to mankind when he took these sentiments too literally in the Biblical account, they were scattered to the ends of the earth and made incapable of comprehending each others languages in order to prevent man raising himself to the divine.

Vikram, Reincarnation is rejected by the physicalist worldview which denies the existence if the spirit. The physicalist worldview is based on the fallacy that the knower is identical in nature with the known material objects affecting our material senses. As a scientist i know that mental properties cannot be ascribed to physical or physico-chemical effects: physical propeies can described only in physical terms. Happiness is a mental state which requires control of mind over body not the physicalist addiction of the mind to matter. Thus, Aristotle uses the word eudaimonia to denote happiness, eudaimon being a good spirit. 

Timothy,

The much higher capacities or flexibility or plasticity of humans allows them , if they choose to,  to undermine the life processes sustaining us.  It is not our right, but an open possibility, as the opposite one, which is to choose to develop in harmony.  Purpose is given to animals while we have to choose it and this is our dignity and our potential downfall.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Harris,

The problem with unrestricted universalism is that people end up not knowing what they are doing, because of the sheer complexity and scope of the intended action and its results. I think it makes sense to hold that our devotion to humanity as a whole should be a very strong influence on our actions, however, it often remains entirely unclear how one might best go about this.

You wrote:

The viewpoint I described simply prioritizes inducing selflessness through selfless acts, over striving solely for the benefit myself, my family, friends, local community, or nation. It does not explicitly forbid prioritizing particular subgroups, but actions to that effect are of a lower priority when they are selfishly focused. The key here is to do for others with an empathy that makes them more capable of doing for others because everyone benefits (if indirectly), not merely me, my family, my community, or my nation.

---End quotation

Frequently, or most often, as I see it, we do not know how to go about benefiting mankind in general, except through actions in relation to self and family, local community and country. It is not that we can never see beyond these limits, but it usually amounts to what we know best. To describe a related focus as "selfish," seems very misleading. It would only be selfish, if everything one does is designed to benefit oneself alone; that is a lack of virtue basically unsuited to a social being. A judgment on such matters cannot be based merely on commitment (or lack of commitment) to unrestricted universal benevolence.

On the other hand, those who profess undivided devotion to universal benevolence, will, often enough be found to simply hide their selfish motives behind the overt objective--inducing sacrifices from others when they see it as benefiting themselves. How would we know that this is happening? Well, the point is that we would have to know a great deal about the wide world in order to be in any position to judge of the matter. Ordinarily, we do best in judging of those matters closer to us.

H.G. Callaway

In the Oration on the Dignity of Man (1480), Pico della Mirandola  represents a point of view somewhat similar to that of Louis Brassard. However, he differs from Brassard by ascribing a three-step mystical vocation to humanity: (1) a moral transformation (2) intellectual research (3) final perfection in the identity with absolute reality. This paradigm is universal  because it can be retraced in every tradition

There is no purpose to humanity.

Timothy, your deliberation on soldier's faith is very correct. When the higher echelons of a society do not perform their duty in the spirit of service, then the corruption eats up that society.

Harry, physicalists worldview is very much restricted to gross matter and they have lot to learn about the finer aspects of creation like the mind, intelligence, consciousness, memory, spirit, soul etc. In Upanishads it is said that mind is food. If a person stops eating food for few days he will notice the decay of his mind. A child has a small mind. As the child grows, his mind grows like any other organ. This subtle materials of the mind coming from the food is completely unknown to physicalists. In Vedanta, mind is described as having four states. Waking, Sleeping, Dream and fourth called Turiya which is a superconscious state accessible to yogis. In this fourth state called Turiya, the mind communes with the all pervasive blissful Spirit underlying the entire universe. This blissful state is beyond the everyday sense experience of happiness in that it does not have an opposite like misery. Happiness and misery go together but blissful state is without slightest tinge of pain. So it is the Spirit underlying the mind which makes it conscious. When the mind disconnects from the Spirit, it becomes unconscious. Subtle materials between the all pervasive Spirit and the gross body-mind complex is the subtle body of the individual soul which is subject to reincarnation.

Vikram, this agreement on the soldier's faith raises an interesting question about purpose and duty.  When does the purpose of a lower ranked member of society, as assigned to him by that society, justify him rebelling against a higher ranked member on the grounds of the latter's corruption.  In the west the answer used to be never, as evidenced by the Pope excommunicating the Catholic Northern Earls for their rebellion against Queen Elizabeth I since, while he appreciated their zeal in wanting to restore Catholicism, he believed that as subjects it was not their place to judge their monarch.  However, more recently, as shown by war crimes trials from Nuremburg on, the attitude has been more one that an individual should judge and, within societally acceptable restraints, act accordingly.

I was wondering whether you have any input on this noting that you are from India I was wondering whether you are aware of any teachings whereby lower caste members could judge and act against higher castes.  This is not to imply that I am stereotyping Indian culture just that I am aware of a millennia old tradition of caste based society and both literary epic and spiritual texts that far outnumbers anything we have in the west.  In particular I would be interested in notions of clash of duty between Brahman and Kshatriya which here in the west we usually regard as roughly priest and soldier.  We have of course had a similar divide particular in the medieval world with the clash over superiority between the Pope and the Emperor.

The question of "what is the purpose?" presupposes that there is a purpose, so that there must be an entity that has goals for humanity.  Looking strictly at evolution, Humanity is simply an organism, formed by a genetic patterning mechanism which has survived the environment through occasional accidental changes in biochemistry and anatomy that, in the environment of the moment, made it more likely to continue to the point of procreation.  This would also be the reason for our "racial" differences globally. 

On the other hand, if there is a designer of humans that has a purpose for humanity, How can Humanity know that purpose unless the designer tells them?  And individually, cannot each human being have a different purpose? Does all of humanity have to have a singular purpose, even if there is such a purpose for human beings.

Alan watts, an Anglican priest, and Zen Buddhist teacher from the 1960's, said that the reason for humans is that the Earth "peoples" (verb), just as an apple tree "apples", and the ocean "fishes". 

Quantum physics, specifically the "Schrodinger's Cat" concept says that there had to be an observer present at each inter-action of matter/energy in space-time, for the event to have occurred.  This theory continually proves to be very strong.  If that logic is taken back to the first inter-action in space-time, then there had to already be an observer, did there not?  If so, some form of intelligence had to exist before matter did.  Did the matter that humans are made of come from that intelligence?  Did that intelligence "make" the matter that constitutes humans?  If so, what is that observer, and what is its "purpose"?

I think the concept that each human may legitimately have a different purpose is what I was asking Vikram about wrt ancient Indian texts.  Although whether the concept of bellatores, oratores and laborares having different purposes or merely different roles to achieve the same purpose which is the advancement of society as a whole is probably a whole new question, almost certainly the medieval Church and the Gallic peoples, at least according to Caesar's Gallic Wars, would probably argue for the latter.  This may return us to Dwight's original question as to why we denigrate the 'primitive' it is because they are not seen as advancing the goals of humanity but rather being stuck in a rut as it were.

I also think that some correspondents may be in danger of confusing two issues that are implicit within our discussion.  The first is whether or not humanity has a purpose, this may be the question that Dwight originally asked, was it Dwight?  On this I confess to being a scientist and fully align with my colleagues who say that humanity has none, like everything else it does not exist for a reason it just exists. The second, and to me as an archaeologist more interesting question, relates to perceptions of purpose both by individuals and by societies.  This I think is more relevant to Dwight's supplementary question and I truly believe where a rational academic debate can be fruitful, we do not have to share any of what I call the more spiritual worldviews in order to be informed by them and guided in our researches.

If,

who live in harmony and equilibrium with their environment -"primitive."

who win Nobel Prizes -"advanced".

then,

Those who exhibit humanity - "human"

Don't u feel, today there is no dearth of successful persons but where have gone all real 'human beings'??? Do we  possess all the humanly qualities?Do we all qualify to be called 'humans' in true sense??  Many a time this question really puzzles me.. If love, compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, help and service to the needy, non violence, peacefull coexistance, charity  etc are considered to be the humanly qualities then whether we all bear all these qualities ??

thanks& regards

Priyadarsini, now there is a really dangerous question that in essence lies at the labelling of some 'others' as primitive.  In the case of North American this was certainly the view of colonists from the Protestant nations that the natives were primitive since they did not exploit the land the way real humans would and therefore it was justifiable to exterminate and displace them.  A very similar process operated wrt black Africa.  While slavery was permitted to Christians according to interpretations of the Bible then prevalent there is a clear injunction to manumit your slaves every seven years.  In order to get around this the custom arose of denigrating the African as somehow less than fully human both morally and mentally.  This enabled slave owners to get around this injunction by claiming that it would not be in either society's or the slaves' interest for them to be freed since the poor things could not cope on their own, far kinder to keep them in servitude where at least they could usefully employed and kept on the righteous path.

  The same mechanism is frequently employed to justify either the extermination or exploitation of another group by claiming that they do not "qualify to be called 'humans' in the true sense".  The most famous example is of course Nazi Germany where Jews were deemed so 'sub human' that they must be exterminated out of hand and Slavs slightly more elevated but still not fully human and therefore eligible for appropriation of their property and enslavement of their persons.  One might observe that the history of your own country is also an exemplar of this with we British labelling certain groups as 'martial races' with whom we could interact and others inferior and unworthy of decent treatment.

  The underlying problem with the question "do we all possess all the humanly qualities?" is who decides which they are and who possesses them.  This gives rise to further problems regarding to what use this decision is going to be made.  Regrettably this is normally the prelude to mass disenfranchisement followed by slavery followed by genocide.

Timothy, In Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna says, I am the author of the caste system. Manusmriti describes in complete details the duties of the members of the four principle castes namely Brahmana (priestly class), Kshatriya (warrior class), Vaishy (business class), and Shudra (servent class). Over a period of thousands of years, laws given in the Manusmriti had the maximum impact on the functioning of the society in India. The same text clearly states that the Brahmana who is without learning and austerity and who has fallen from his duties should not be respected as a Brahmana just because he is born in a Brahmana family. These four class of  men are seen to exist throughout the world, not just in India. So the caste system is universal. Actions coming out of these four class of men are natural to them. If one class of man tries to perform the duties of another class, he will be extremely uncomfortable and fearful. In epic Ramayana there is a story of the great sage Vashishta with his miraculous cow Kamadhenu and the great kshatriya King Vishwamitra and his large army and the conflict between them for the possesion of Kamadhenu. At the end of the conflict, Vishwamitra himself ends up renouncing his entire kingdom and power in order to acquire powers like Vashishta and thus becomes a sage.

In Ramayana there is another story of a young man Shravan and his blind parents. This was a low cast family but they had wonderful powers like sages. Rama's kshatriya father Dasaratha accidently kills Shravana mistaking him for an animal while he was excessivley given to hunting. Shravan's blind parents enter the fire and give up their lives. Before entering the fire they curse Dasaratha that he will have to die a similar death on account of separation from his son (Rama). The curse comes to pass.

One point you should note that the religion in India has never been an organized activity like west. There are many number of small sects and groups that practice their faith with complete autonomy. So the separations like the one between Catholics and Protestants is natural and fundamental to Indian religions which is based on unity in diversity. In medieval times we had Maharajas (Kings) but there was no Pope like figure to compete for superiority. There is one class of religious people which is considered beyond all caste restrictions and these are the monks who have taken woves of life long poverty and celibacy. Brahmanas usually marry and make their living by providing religious service. But Buddhism being the offshoot of Hinduism is nevertheless organised like the Catholic church and Dalai Lama's conflict with China over Tibet is well known.

Interesting question and also a well known question.  I read so far mention of Aristotle, Christian perspective, Hindu's views and this leaves me somewhat surprised as probably no sensible answer could be expected from these 'ancient' and ' primitive' perspectives.  I used these terms deliberately but not to insult or judge any simpler explanation that comes from history but with little chance to convince these days a bunch of 'modern' thinkers.  I think we need to review our philosophical use of the word 'purpose'.  In modern biology there is no use of this word for good reasons.  To attribute 'purpose' to anything in the world has been a form of anthropomorphism, ie a tendency to attribute how we feel to the world. Clearly we feel that most of our actions do have a purpose.  This feature is well embedded in the way in which our brain has evolved with a 'will' to act, with a sense of authorship and thus with goals and thus purposes.  This feature is sufficient to keep us busy in considering the deep biological bases of such intentionality, its moral and legal consequences.  But to attribute purpose to any other 'entity' object or biological species is simply an aristotelian fallacy, ie a philosophical category error.  I could expand on the present discussions in neuroscience about purpose but this is simply a suggestion to change tack and to take a few steps back before advancing again.  Primitive and advances are adjectives which, if used with no value connotation, simply indicating degrees of complexification, are still valid and may not compel us to search for an absolute value.

Is the purpose to stay alive and healthy as long as possible based both on fear of suffering and on a desire to go on living ? If so, is this purpose shared by primitive people, advanced people or almost all of humanity? Is the strength of this purpose the result of natural selection? I believe that yes is the obvious answer to all these questions.

Any living organism from the mere bacterial slime srives to stay alive and humans are not exception but life is much than that maybe not from slime but for human it is much more except at the last moment where we only try to breath and stay alife.  I rarely heard to the question: What is your life is about? The answer: Simply to stay alife!  Generally it is implied in the answer but generally the answer is about doing something important.

Louis, We do not know whether the desire to stay alive as long as possible and to make preparations for this eventuality is conscious in other living beings. Therefore, we attribute purpose only to human beings. The higher vocation of life is, such as expressed by Pico della Mirandola in his famous Oration, is shared only by very advanced people. 

Harry,

It is easy to see that the desire to stay alive is common to all form of life.  In bacteria, it is called metabolism.  Take a dog and take a knife and tries to slowly kill it.  See what happen!  Does it demonstrate a clear desire to stay alife?

Louis, My tendency is to believe that all living beings react to stimuli here and now; but purpose introduces a consideration of time, which Kant considers as an intuition but it is also a concept, Only humans are aware of time and only humans make plans for the future because of this awareness of time.

The Purpose of Humanity

To ask the question “Humanity. What is its purpose?” is to invite all, even the Devil, to dine at the table. It is at once a question without answer and a question whose answer may determine profoundly the course of biological evolution on this planet. It is a question from antiquity that persists to this day as answered by theology or as remaining unanswered but continues as the subject of spirited discussion.  The question also has been addressed on a restricted ad hoc basis by purposeful actions taken in specific cases such as the attempted purposeful extermination of undesirable biological species including whole collections of human beiengs, by the conduct of war, by the perpetuation of racism, by the continuing struggle for mere survival, by the evolutionary directive of procreation, and other human actions that exhibit the attribute of “purpose”.

The question posed here by the questioner was rather ill-phrased. He was seeking an answer to a restricted question implied by the background information he provided but did not state directly: Is it the purpose of humanity to bring modern civilization to the remaining indigeneous peoples of the Earth with special reference to the “undiscovered” tribes of the Amazon Basin of Brasil? These are people, he believed, that live in harmony and in dynamic equilibrium with their environment. Should their beliefs and practices be uprooted in the names of “progress” and “humanity’s purpose”? These are “primitive” people by modern standards but are their values of less importance than those we associate with our “advanced” societies? “So what is it that we do?”  the questioner asked himself. His pessimistic thought was that we bring these people into the modern world to eke out bare subsistence in the slums of our “great” modern cities. He then asked, “Is this humanity’s purpose?”

A common theme in the comments was the lack of a definition of “purpose” as it may pertain to humanity. Life in general, including us and according to Darwin, has one grand purpose – to survive, to procreate and to diversify. Whatever other purpose or purposes that may obtain may be limited to the cognizant intelligent beings that insofar as we know on this planet are restricted to us. In this context what do we mean by “purpose”? I avoid Wikipedia and the dictionaries to offer as definition “ A “purpose” is an action or set of actions deliberately executed to achieve a desired end.” A “purpose” must entail a deliberate action by an actor or actors to achieve an end. A “purpose” without action is an idle thought of no consequence. The ends purposely to be achieved may have positive, negative or neutral value depending on the judgment of those observing or impacted by the means or ends associated with the purpose. To some Hitler’s purposes may have had positive value to others he was the Devil sitting at the table.

 The issue before us is can humanity have a purpose other than the Darwinian imperative cited above. As a starting point, I offer the following categorization scheme of possible purposes that may apply to individuals or to the collective whole of humanity:

1.    Theist:  Most of the world’s organized religions offer some kind of world view that includes reference to a “purpose of being” consisting of the worship of a deity and, generally, a set of actions to be taken or avoided by the practitioners. This point of view is based on wisdom or guidance received or decreed from outside of the human community per se.

2.    Classicist: This point of view is founded on that of Aristotle, his predecessors and his followers and speaks of “human virtue” as a purpose of individuals to do that for which they are best suited in service to their community and to the state.

3.    Humanist: This view could follow from Dostoevsky’s observation (The Brothers Karamazov) that if there be no God then all is permitted including the freedom of humankind to choose, or not, its own purpose of beneficence to all. 

4.    Rationalist: We arrived at where we are by way of evolution without a stated purpose except to continue in evolution’s path. We can choose or not, individually or collectively, an auxiliary purpose for our being.

5.    Spiritualist: There exists an internal spiritual sense that offers guidance to each of us individually on our forward path in life and, in so doing, establishes our purpose.

6.    Fatalist: There is no purpose other than survival by whatever means available without regard to the well being of other than one’s own.

7.    Hedonist: “Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we may die.”

8.    Adventurist: To seek out, confront and conquer the challenges that living on this planet offers be they mountain summits, ocean floors, stratospheric ascents or or descents into the depths of the deepest caves but always to go boldly where man has never gone before.

9.    Trumpist:  The purpose of a human being is to achieve Worldly Success, whatever it may be, by whatever means.

This set of categories likely is incomplete and the categories themselves are not mutually exclusive; they are offered only as a means to provoke thought of one’s own personal view of humanity’s “purpose” if there be one. These categories mostly apply to individual aspirations that, however, possibly could be combined into a common goal. Or maybe the entertainment industry already has the answer: “May the Force be with you. Live long and prosper.”

Dwight there is one feature of your original question that I suddenly realise that none of us seem to have addressed, thank you for restating it.

The assumption that the so called primitive peoples live in harmony with nature.  This view has variously been used to justify expropriation of their land on the grounds that the purpose of humanity is to advance itself in worldly terms, I am still chuckling at your labelling this Trumpist, and more recently to advocate that they have a moral right to their land because they live in harmony with their environment. 

Speaking from an archaeological point of view I must say that the concept of 'primitive' man living in harmony with his environment is extremely questionable, the are too many coterminous examples of large fauna die off and human arrival in areas at least some of which are likely to be the result of over predation by humans.  Added to this is the evidence for mass kill sites where the number of animals slain is out of all proportion to any potential scale of use.  Further we know realise the amount of environmental engineering that Mesolithic peoples engaged in via controlled burnings.

if we look at modern 'primitive' peoples we often see equally destructive behaviour, for instance when a hunter gatherer wants to collect honey they normally destroy the whole hive rather than harvesting part of it.

This seems to suggest that 'primitive' man never really had, or has, this sense of harmony with their environment.  The only reason that they seem to is because low population levels mean that overexploited areas get time to regenerate since there is always space to move to new resource areas. 

This suggests that in it's natural state humanity may be more Trumpist than is generally considered, even the spirituality often being directed towards success in the hunt etc conditioned from a fear that if the animal is not respected it will be harder to hunt and the community will go hungry.

it is possible that subsistence level economies o not really have the resources available to be anything other than Trumpist and only more 'advanced' cultures with the surpluses to support specialists are capable of developing this.

Dwight: "9.  Trumpist:  The purpose of a human being is to achieve Worldly Success, whatever it may be, by whatever means " The trumpist purpose may turn out to be counterproductive. A sophisticated egoist realizes that sustainable existence depends on coexistence and therefore we may add 10. Sophisticated egoist: the purpose of a human being is to achieve happiness by ethical means, 

 Dwight Hoxie: "A “purpose” must entail a deliberate action by an actor or actors to achieve an end. A “purpose” without action is an idle thought of no consequence"

Ayn Rand:  "A desire presupposes the possibility of action to achieve it; action presupposes a goal which is worth achieving".

Speaking from the purely practical view the Trumpist view will eventually be unproductive since there are only finite amount of any commodity available.  At some point humanity is going to run into the problem that it will be impossible to exceed your father in achievement in material terms simply because resources have been depleted, however, I have no doubt that at that point society and individuals will restructure their notions of success in order to redefine success in terms of achieving intangible things.  To an extent western society is already doing this witness the grade inflation here in UK education system or more universally the banking system whereby someone receives large 'rewards' for moving non existent things between 'accounts'.  This does not give me any hope that what will replace Trumpism is going to be any more ethical than current systems.  

yes Harry but that is the eternal question, whose ethics, that was sort of the sub theme I was pursuing with Vikram, the priest, the warrior and the merchant may all have a different set of ethics that none of the others would recognise as ethical behaviour.

Dear Harry,

 Dwight Hoxie: "A “purpose” must entail a deliberate action by an actor or actors to achieve an end. A “purpose” without action is an idle thought of no consequence"

Ayn Rand:  "A desire presupposes the possibility of action to achieve it; action presupposes a goal which is worth achieving".

Any similarity between these two statements, neither of which is very profound, is purely coincidental. I have read some of Ayn Rands writings but do not, in general, endorse her philosophy.

Humanity. What is its purpose? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Humanity_What_is_its_purpose#view=57dec97596b7e42419400b11 [accessed Sep 18, 2016].

Timothy: As a starting point, what do you think of the tripartite motto of the French revolution: "liberty, equality, fraternity"?

Dwight: I guess that you are not fond of Rand's laissez-faire capitalism. This corresponds to deleting equality and fraternity in the French revolution ideal.

Timothy, The duties of the Priest, Warrior, Merchant and Servants are divided according to the dispositions of their nature. Devoted to his own duty, a man attains perfection.

Serenity, self-control, austerity, purity, forbearance, uprightness, knowledge, realization (of God), and faith are duties of a Priest.

Heroism, boldness, firmness, dexterity, not fleeing from the battle, generosity and lordliness, are the duties of a warrior class.

Agriculture, cattle-rearing and trade are the duties of a merchant class.

Work of the nature of service (to other three classes) is the duty of a Sudra.

Harry, the motto of the French Revolution is egalite not equality.  This has a completely different meaning referring as it does to equality of opportunity rather than actual equality as we understand it in the west today.  It is one of those concepts that is very rooted in it's own specific culture since it originated as a protest against the number of roles that were reserved for aristocrats in pre-revolutionary France and could not be filled by a commoner no matter how talented or wealthy or well connected.

In this respect Rand's laissez-faire capitalism, which incidentally I don't like either having grown up with Maggie Thatcher as PM, does not really delete equality, because it was never there, but is perfectly in keeping with the doctrine of egalite.

I must admit that I think the motto is pointless and trite, like most if not all such mottos which are designed to rally a cause rather than be understood rationally.  If we apply Socratic method then each of the terms needs a whole essay to even define in personal terms.  The most meaningless is the concept of fraternity since this implies a universal brotherhood of man which is a concept that I find incomprehensible as is being amply demonstrated just across your county's border by the various factions Syria, Egypt and Lebanon.

Harry while I was writing Vikram posted an answer explaining how morality and duty are linked in Hindu philosophy.  Now that is a concept that I do both understand and agree with.  Indeed that would form the basis for a true system of liberty, equality, fraternity.  If we acknowledge that we have differences of roles and seek to achieve perfection and contentment within that role.  Of course that pre-supposes that society's elites play their part and rule well otherwise the whole thing merely becomes a mechanism for exploitation, which was essentially the point of various education systems for instance British Public schools of the 19th and earlier 20th century and that of Plato's idealised Republic to ensure that this does not happen.