Meaning vs. Purpose

IMO, "Meaning" usually implies what others see of something where "purpose" is based on the reason the creator bought it into existance.

If you want a good example look at most any of the classic books or pieces of art. A lot of them were ceated to put money on the table (i.e. for the creator to sell) but if you walk into any gallery you'll see lots of people discussing the "meaning" of a artwork and English teachers are reknowned for their creative interpretations of what authors "meant" by their stories.

Re: Meaning vs. Purpose
Frequently both words are used in a similar sense. This is the case of all philosophies wo claim that our life obeys to a design, exterior to us (God, the History, the Specie). In this case, the meaning of life is nothing more that to satisfy that purpose.
But if you don't accept to be an actor in a previous written play, and refuse that design, so your life has no external purpose but has the meaning you choose to give it. Meaning being the sense of your life: for instance, you become a surgeon because you like being a surgeon, save lifes, help other people.

I think it might be more complicated than that; while I do think that when you contrast the two, there's a sense of divinity or personal connection in one, which one seems to vary. for instance, someone's room has no purpose other than to house them, but the meaning of the room really depends on who's in it, so in that case, meaning is the "holy" one. But, when talking about, say, a human being, both are equally other-worldly. Then, in events, Purpose is sacred, while meaning is more mundane. I think the difference between them depends on what you're talking about, person, thing, or event, but I don't exactly know how abstractions like emotion would figure into this. Insight, anyone?

I was talking about human beings. If we talk about objects, then the question is different. Objects have no purpose. We build things according to our own intentions, our design. The purpose of a room is only our purpose. And in this case, the meaning and purpose of a room are identical. We give an object characteristics in order to satisfy it's finality.

I have given som preliminary to this subject. Here is what I came up with.

Purpose:

Can be internal or external. When someone engineers an artifact they have a purpose in mind for that artifact. Let's say I engineer a stapler - it can be used as a hammer (as I use one now and then) and thus despite its intended purpose has found a new purpose.

Purpose does not have to be known to exist. A person can find a watch and not have a clue what it does - but it can have a purpose. Even if the artificer dies without translating that purpose - it seems that the design bears out purpose.

Purpose does not have to be well crafted or imply purpose for there to be purpose. If I crafted a hammer and did a horrible job of it - it still woudl have had a purpose.

Meaning:
Can only be external. Meaning is what we place on an object. Even natural objects are inerantly meaningless - until we place meaning on it.

Even if there is a God and he made us - it does not mean that there is an inborn meaning to me - there may be a purpose for me - but I my nature does not come with meaning.

A by product of this is that life is meaningless inherently. It is only when some being places meaning on life that it takes on meaning. This is perhaps seen in Nihilism - when no one values a persons life and they do not either - there seems to be no meaning to live.

Meaning does have to be known to exist. Unlike purpose it would be silly to say that something has meaning if no one knows it.

I will give this some more thought.

Meaning vs. Purpose
Hmmm. Coming from a bit more of a spiritual perspective, naturally my thoughts differ some. Let me give it a crack.

Purpose: Reducing something to its most basic contribution to this Earth; to me, purpose begins with a primary objective. That "objective" can of course, be expanded with time.

Example: A tree's most basic purpose is to provide some necessary elements to this Earth. Affecting air, soil and re-fertilization in death, these are things that are not subject to interpretation or manipulation. They just are the "purpose" that seems to have been "decided" before humans could understand or change the reasons for a tree's existence. Now, being that there are other living things that reside in/on trees, there seems to be an "extended" purpose than the most basic. Some trees are larger and more accommodating, some are flower, fruit or substance bearing, which fill a specific need to the consumer of that product, indicating a more specific purpose. So, this brings to mind the question of the Divine or simply the ingeniously engineered science of life's interdependency.

Now, taking it a step further, you consider the increased usages for a tree today, most of which we see as their "purpose" (Lumber, shade, beauty, etc) and ask yourself if that is purpose or meaning? To a Christmas tree farmer, would he not tell you that this is the purpose for his crop? Yet is it really the reason why pine trees exist? That coincides with Val's theory of it's "creator".

On a human level, the same applies. Reducing humans to the most basic form of contribution to this planet, we are designed to be born, procreate, nurture our young, grow old, die and replenish the Earth with our remains; keeping the population populated. Yet, some humans contribute much more. They seem to add "meaning" to their life, aside from that purpose. Some would believe that this was indeed their "divine purpose" (World leaders who change history, etc.) on this Earth. Whether spiritual or not, most humans are inherently uncomfortable performing only their most basic contributions and they spend a lifetime trying to discover their individual "purpose", or lack thereof.
I would call that meaning, although spititually, I believe that we each have a divine purpose and we intentionally spend our days uncomfortable until we discover it and perform it.

Eastern practices and religions would tell us that everything in this world is interdependent upon the other things and cannot exist without the balance of all things. No matter what you believe, Yin or Yang, action and reaction, positive or negative, good or evil… You could add to this list forever. The fact still remains, all of life is interdependent upon something else, to infinity. Meaning (seems to me), is about an expanded discovery of basic purpose, which still creates cause and affect and reinforces planetary interdependence.

The real question might be about why; some things (larger trees, influential humans, animals used for labor, etc.) are "selected" to fall outside the basic contribution group. Is that the divine, natural order or simply coincidence? And if so, how was the Maple Wood "selected" on the list of "most important trees to mankind", or people like Martin Luther King for that matter, to the list of most important people in our society?

I like that; the sense of Meaning as a striving for a perfection beyond our mundane, worldly Purpose. That also ties into thinkfactory's idea that Meaning is external, since you can't really tell if you've succeeded in being influential until someone else tells you so. Another example is a re-aligning election: the purpose was to elect a president, but the retrospective meaning was a re-ordering of the political landscape.
That was a not-quite subtle hint: GO VOTE!

Taliesin and Val, it seems that we may want to include the concept of FUNCTION here. The function of a room may be understood as the use for which it was constructed (viz. its intended PURPOSE), but eventually it may take on unplanned or unintended FUNCTIONS very personal to its inhabitants. This latent kind of use value may be understood as its MEANING. The question is very complex.

JL, I always considered 'function' to be a subset of 'purpose', especially as defined by Morning Pages. However, unlike 'purpose', it usually has no deeper spiritual context. Thus, it's a peripheral matter. My new "hierarchy" of words, as influenced by this thread, is this: 'Function' is a nouns' strictly physical, literal point of existence. 'Purpose' is the nouns' "higher calling" by some sort of divine being. "Meaning" is what is ascribed by people due to an effort to transcend what is wanted or implicit and become something more. In purely literal and semantic terms, however, here are the words' definitions:

Meaning - the message that is intended or expressed or signified; "what is the meaning of this sentence"; "the significance of a red traffic light"; "the signification of Chinese characters"; "the import of his announcement was ambiguous"

Purpose - an anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions; "his intent was to provide a new translation"; "good intentions are not enough"; "it was created with the conscious aim of answering immediate needs"; "he made no secret of his designs"

Function - what something is used for; "the function of an auger is to bore holes"; "ballet is beautiful but what use is it?"

There: two different ways of viewing the question.

Taliesin, points taken. I just want to add that the concept of function is multivocal:
We have MANIFEST (intended) FUNCTION which is very similar to "purpose".

We have LATENT (unintended) FUNCTION, which is usually but not always negative.

We have DYSFUNCTION which is an unintended negative consequence of a structure or action.

We have EUFUNCTION which is a positive and usually but not always intended consequence of a structure or action.

In sum, functions are CONSEQUENCES that can be intended or unintended, as well as positive or negative.

Interesting. Why did you label 'Latent Function' as usually negative? I like the idea of grouping all those things as consequences; after all, if you follow certain philosophies, everything is series of consequences, good or bad. That's why I never really understood why people so disliked the second and third parts of the Matrix Trilogy; they were about characters defining their own different views of the world: Destiny, cause and effect, mathematical functions, chaotic free will, etc. This also raises another, tangental, issue: which one of these views do you hold to? I personally see things as two mixes of two: either everything's a mathematical problem based on randomness (ordered chaos) or, if I were religious, that there is destiny, but a different kind. My destiny would be your actions writing destiny, not destiny dictating your actions. It's a kind of retrospective way of viewing the history of the universe. BTW, thanks for the enlightenment: I had never even heard of Eufunction before.

Perhaps, this complex question is really only a prelude to a larger question. We have successfully satisfied the Philosophy side of this topic, but what about the debate?

If "purpose" is seemingly something unchangeable and there are many ways to define meaning and function thereafter, then WHO... WHAT... defines the "purpose"? Maybe a new thread.

Excellent topic Taliesin, thank you for reaching into cyber space and bringing us all together for a gathering of like-minds! I think we should all think on. You guys and gals have enlightened my days since this began. Thank you.

I don't see a need for a new topic, let's just keep adding to and adapting this one.


An expansion on my earlier post: An object's Purpose is defined by its creator; Be that a carpenter in his shop or a puissant, omniscient God watching over us all. However, I have my own views on the truth/existence of God, which I'll be able to share with you all as soon as I finish the essay I'm writing on the subject.

Quick tidbit: Go to the Topic: What is the Soul? To see an abreviated version of my theory on God.