Objective purpose and buckets of water

[ChainBreaker]

We invented mop buckets for the purpose of holding water among other things. but does the purpose of holding water exist objectively in the nature of the bucket?

I would say no it does not, but instead we impose that purpose on an object because its nature and form serves that purpose effectively. In other-words buckets do not exist objectively, but rather only the object that we use for the purpose of holding water exists objectively and to that end alone do we call it a mop bucket.

It’s nature is not truly a mop bucket. Mop buckets are purely conceptual. If human beings ceased to exist, mop buckets would cease to exist as well. In fact mop buckets, as well as pliers, hammers, nails, and other possible house old items including the house in which they are stored have never existed objectively.

 

[on_the_hill]

I think I understand your point: purpose is the object? That without the purpose the material object/item doesn’t exist in that it has no meaning.

The physical object does exist, of course, because it’s an assembly of molecules that are in a particular shape and with particular properties.

But I think I understand.

 

[lmelahn]

We invented mop buckets for the purpose of holding water among other things. but does the purpose of holding water exist objectively in the nature of the bucket?

I would say no it does not, but instead we impose that purpose on an object because its nature and form serves that purpose effectively. In other-words buckets do not exist objectively, but rather only the object that we use for the purpose of holding water exists objectively and to that end alone do we call it a mop bucket.

It’s nature is not truly a mop bucket. Mop buckets are purely conceptual. If human beings ceased to exist, mop buckets would cease to exist as well. In fact mop buckets, as well as pliers, hammers, nails, and other possible house old items including the house in which they are stored have never existed objectively.

Perhaps part of the difficulty here is that mop buckets don’t really have a “nature” as mop buckets; what truly has the “nature” is the plastic (or metal or what have you) that makes them up.

(That is because mop buckets are not technically “substances.” Technically, a substance is any being that has independent existence: trees, animals, men, angels, stones, and so on. But substances on the lower end of the spectrum can be arranged by man into what are sometimes called “artificial substances”: things like tables, computers, cars, and so on. In reality, they are aggregates; what really qualifies as “substances” are the plastic, metal, wood, and so forth that make them up. Mop buckets fall into this last category.)

It is a mistake to think that the “purpose” of a thing is like an inherent property: as if ther purpose were “embedded” within the mop bucket (as in your example). Rather, “purpose” functions like a cause (that is why Aristotle called it a “final cause”): it is, in its simplest form, the motivation for performing an action.

In the case of the mop bucket, there are two related final causes at work simultaneously on different levels: there is the desire of the bucket-maker to have something that holds water; and there is the tendency of the bucket to become full of water under the right conditions.

This might take a minute to grasp, but if you think about it, the first kind of final cause is exerted by the bucket on the bucket-maker. The second kind is exerted on the bucket itself (i.e., because of the concave accidental form that it now has, it tends to ship water).

The problem, I think, is that in the case of an aggregate such as a bucket, the “intrinsic” final causality (the second kind) is so weak that it is easy to overlook.

But if you look at something more noble, such as an animal, it is easier to see: animals are constantly striving to survive, reach adulthood, and reproduce their species. That, if you will, is their intrinsic “purpose,” the final causality that is exerted on them. It comes from their natures, which produces in them a constant drive to reach their own fulfillment.

 

[TheSurvivor]

We invented mop buckets for the purpose of holding water among other things. but does the purpose of holding water exist objectively in the nature of the bucket?

I would say no it does not, but instead we impose that purpose on an object because its nature and form serves that purpose effectively. In other-words buckets do not exist objectively, but rather only the object that we use for the purpose of holding water exists objectively and to that end alone do we call it a mop bucket.

It’s nature is not truly a mop bucket. Mop buckets are purely conceptual. If human beings ceased to exist, mop buckets would cease to exist as well. In fact mop buckets, as well as pliers, hammers, nails, and other possible house old items including the house in which they are stored have never existed objectively.

Are you saying that if one used a cellphone as a door stopper it would not be cellphone per se, though it retained the required assembly of parts to function effectively?

 

[Aloysium]

Am I to believe this cell phone causing me grief trying to type this, is not objectively real?
If a bucket is not real, is my DNA objectively real?
Their is no difference as far as I am concerned other than one (as a component of our physical existence) is created by God, the other (helping us participate in the physical world) man.
I’d have more to say but a small screen and physical impairments are conspiring.
For something not objectively real, it sure is aggravating!

Just saw the post above. Great minds think alike.

 

[inocente]

It’s nature is not truly a mop bucket. Mop buckets are purely conceptual. If human beings ceased to exist, mop buckets would cease to exist as well. In fact mop buckets, as well as pliers, hammers, nails, and other possible house old items including the house in which they are stored have never existed objectively.

You appear to be claiming that if all humans die from some dread disease, then at the moment the last human dies, all buildings, all roads, all cities, all cellphones will disappear < puff >.

Perhaps you could perform an experiment. Repeatedly hit yourself over the head with a mop bucket, and report back on how long it takes you to determine whether the bucket exists objectively.

 

[Dorothy]

Was all this for real?

Good for a smile!

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

We invented mop buckets for the purpose of holding water among other things. but does the purpose of holding water exist objectively in the nature of the bucket?

The fundamental area here is instrumental causality. A bucket, like pliers, hammers, nails, or sticks and stones are instrumental causes that serve the purposes of the primary cause (the creator/user). They have extra-mental being : they exist in reality : they are mind-independent as regards their act of existence as a being. Whether or not they are put to use depends on the existence of the primary cause.

I would say no it does not, but instead we impose that purpose on an object because its nature and form serves that purpose effectively. In other-words buckets do not exist objectively, but rather only the object that we use for the purpose of holding water exists objectively and to that end alone do we call it a mop bucket.

The rock exists objectively and independently of man. It becomes a weapon to strike an enemy or a building block for some construction because we put it to one or the other use and thereby make it an instrument. Whether we use it or not it still has its nature and finality as a rock.

The bucket would still have the nature of an artificial (man-made) object; and a bucket could still hold water, say from rain, even if man ceased to exist: it could still function, at least in part, as a man-made item for its intended purpose even though there would be no user.

It’s nature is not truly a mop bucket. Mop buckets are purely conceptual. If human beings ceased to exist, mop buckets would cease to exist as well. In fact mop buckets, as well as pliers, hammers, nails, and other possible house old items including the house in which they are stored have never existed objectively.

A little unclear IMHO. If man never existed there would not have been mop buckets and other man-made items in the first place. There would, however, be sticks and stones. If human beings ceased to exist as of now, mop buckets, sticks and stones would still exist, but there would be no longer any human users. A bucket would still have the nature of an artificial object and could still function as intended. A mop bucket is complex serving several purposes at once for the user, and like a car, most of its intended purposes would not be served w/o a human user.

If man ceased to exist, the man-made items would still exist as man-made items and may continue to function as they were intended. A house could still function as a shelter, say for animals.

However let’s take a falcon trained to hunt and kill prey for us. As an instrument, if man ceased to exist, it would no longer serve his purposes. It would however still have a nature and a final cause of its own: a falcon and the full actualization of its potentials as a falcon.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Are you saying that if one used a cellphone as a door stopper it would not be cellphone per se, though it retained the required assembly of parts to function effectively?

For you it would be a door stopper.

 

[ChainBreaker]

The fundamental area here is instrumental causality. A bucket, like pliers, hammers, nails, or sticks and stones are instrumental causes that serve the purposes of the primary cause (the creator/user). They have extra-mental being : they exist in reality

The objects we use for a hammer (a hammer is a concept) or a nail exists, but hammers and nails do not exist objectively. They are teleological concepts that have been imposed on objects.

they are mind-independent as regards their act of existence as a being.

I am not denying that the object we use as a hammer exists objectively. I am denying that hammers objectively exist.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Am I to believe this cell phone causing me grief trying to type this, is not objectively real?

The object that you are using for the purpose of a cellphone exists objectively. However cellphones don’t exist objectively.

 

[ChainBreaker]

I think I understand your point: purpose is the object? That without the purpose the material object/item doesn’t exist in that it has no meaning.

The physical object does exist, of course, because it’s an assembly of molecules that are in a particular shape and with particular properties.

But I think I understand.

Let me put it another way…

If i wear on my head that which is commonly thought of as being a sock, then in the eyes of people it would appear true that i have a sock on my head. But this is purely an artificial agreement among people about what that object is best used for. The object is better to be used as a sock. But it would be a mistake (an easy mistake to make) to think that therefore a sock is the actual objective Nature of the object on my head. The truth is socks do not exist objectively. I am not truly wearing a sock on my head. I am simply wearing an object on my head that is commonly used for the feet or at least there is an agreement among people that this object is best used for feet.

A sock is subjective teleological concept that we invented in our minds due to some need, and then we assigned that concept to an actual object that we felt best fulfilled the idea of a sock.

Thus i am correct to say that socks do not exist objectively.

 

[on_the_hill]

A sock is subjective teleological concept that we invented in our minds due to some need, and then we assigned that concept to an actual object that we felt best fulfilled the idea of a sock.

Thus i am correct to say that socks do not exist objectively.

I see.

This is interesting, and can lead to all sorts of absurd…absurdities. If one were to take it to absurd extremes. (My formal knowledge of Philosophy is absurdly lacking…so I tread lightly here.)

At my work, where we do some legal research on occasion, we received a letter from a prison inmate who asked that we provide him with documentation that the laws under which he was prosecuted are unconstitutional.

His claim was that he had not agreed to abide by the laws, and therefore they didn’t apply to him. His claim was absurd.

In other words, his viewpoint was that the laws had no objective truth, since he hadn’t assigned the necessary teleological concept to them. (he had been convicted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse–basically rape of a minor).

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

The objects we use for a hammer (a hammer is a concept) or a nail exists, but hammers and nails do not exist objectively. They are teleological concepts that have been imposed on objects.

I am not denying that the object we use as a hammer exists objectively. I am denying that hammers objectively exist.

The traditional way of analyzing this state of affairs covers all the facts and relations you bring up. It is as follows:

That which we call a hammer exists objectively. And that which we use as a hammer exists objectively.

In the case of a rock used as a weapon or a porcupine quill used as a needle it is fair to say that a human purpose has been given to them over and above their intrinsic finality. They are instrumental causes. Should humans cease to exist, they are nothing but the naturally occurring object they were in the first place.

In the case of a man-made object like a hammer or bucket, they would retain their nature as man-made (artificial) objects and could still function in some cases even if all humans ceased to exist. So to that extent, at least, hammers do exist objectively. What would cease to exist is the concept of hammer (in the mind of a human knower) and the knowledgeable user.

Should, in our human annihilation scenario, a distant alien arrive and find them, such objects as hammers would be recognized as artificial, made for a purpose (discernible in principle), and a sign of intelligent life. We do this all the time with pre-historic cultures: we recognize tools.

Bear in mind that “mind-independent object” is a concept too, but we cannot for that reason say such things do not exist.

So, why is it more reasonable to urge the ambiguous statement “Hammers do not objectively exist”?

 

[Aloysium]

Does DNA exist?
Why, if not as like a bucket?
All that science tells us is instrumental.
We don’t know what matter is, just what it does.
We are matter, but that is mystery.

 

[fhansen]

What if one were to find a mop bucket, with the words “MOP BUCKET” stenciled on the outside, in a place where it’s known that no human beings have ever ventured? By the same token, how do we know for sure that all mop buckets we’ve encountered we’re produced by humans, rather than having a natural cause?

 

[on_the_hill]

What if one were to find a mop bucket, with the words “MOP BUCKET” stenciled on the outside, in a place where it’s known that no human beings have ever ventured? By the same token, how do we know for sure that all mop buckets we’ve encountered we’re produced by humans, rather than having a natural cause?

Similarly, my college roommate speculated that it was within the realm of probability that a chair’s atoms could spontaneously rearrange themselves into an alligator.

 

[ChainBreaker]

What if one were to find a mop bucket, with the words “MOP BUCKET” stenciled on the outside, in a place where it’s known that no human beings have ever ventured? By the same token, how do we know for sure that all mop buckets we’ve encountered we’re produced by humans, rather than having a natural cause?

No matter what you write on the bucket the symbols we call words have no objective meaning. The concept of a bucket has no objective object. We use an object for the purpose of buckets; the object itself is just an object, it is not a bucket.

 

[Aloysium]

An object is merely a process that has been defined as a static entity.
This is not to say there are no things, but that they are events, happenings in time and space, which is always in a process of transformation.
A bucket is a man-made object constructed for our purposes.
The earth is an object created by God for His purposes.
The problems that we are having with the environment are the result of not grasping the total picture of how everything is intertwined with its own purposes within the whole.

 

[ChainBreaker]

An object is merely a process that has been defined as a static entity.
This is not to say there are no things, but that they are events, happenings in time and space, which is always in a process of transformation.
A bucket is a man-made object constructed for our purposes.
The earth is an object created by God for His purposes.
The problems that we are having with the environment are the result of not grasping the total picture of how everything is intertwined with its own purposes within the whole.

There is no such thing as a Mop Bucket objectively speaking. The object that we use “as” a mop bucket does exist, but the purpose it is being used for (a mop bucket being the end goal for which it was formed) is purely a subjective teleological concept insofar as the object being used is not by its own objective nature a “mop bucket”; it is simply being used as one according to a concept in our minds. In other words we are giving a meaning to an object that does not exist in its nature objectively.

A true teleology requires the teleogical meaning to exist in the very nature of the object we percieve.

Mop buckets however do not have this quality becuase the teleological meaning does not exist in the object itself, but instead a subjective concept is imposed upon it. The same is true of hammers, socks, Christmas cards etc. The teleological meaning we give to these objects are purely subjective. what reason does one have to disagree?