the usage of "for " in OF studies

I would like to know what the hell you just said.

Yes, the use of the word "for," as you have bold-faced it, means the same as because.

Otherwise, that is an incoherent mish-mash of language, which manages to convey almost no meaning at all. I strongly suspect that the paragraph was not written by a native speaker of English.

Yes, that usage of "for" is syntactical technique. It is not, however, used very often in contemporary English, although any reasonably literate native speaker of English will recognize the meaning.

Let's have a look at that paragraph:

Studies server for delight, for ornament, and for ability.

"Studies" used as it is here is somewhat problematic. If the writer is a contemporary native-speaker of English, a question arises as to what he or she means by "studies." If the meaning is the act of studying in order to learn, the use of the word "study" makes more sense, and makes the first sentence much more clear--as in: Study serves for delight, for ornament, and for ability. Regardless of whether one uses "study" or "studies," the verb cannot be "server," which is a noun, and either refers to an employee who serves, or an electronic device used as a central computer in a network system. So it should either read: Studies serve . . . ; or it should read Study serves . . . .

In contemporary English, the word studies, in that plural form, is often used to refer to research--as in: "They reviewed the studies conducted by the scientists at the university.

Their chief use for delight is in privateness and retiring; for ornament, is in discourse; and for ability, is in the judgment and disposition of business.

This sentence is reasonable, although the usages are archaic. I will assume that you are again quoting Bacon. If this is true, the problem you have is that you have not correctly copied the passage--an example would be in the first sentence in which the verb was rendered as "server," which is obviously incorrect to any native speaker of English.

For expert men can execute, and perhaps judge of particulars, one by one; but the general counsels, and the plots and marshalling of affairs, come best from those that are learned.

This is also a coherent sentence, although it did not appear to be so when i first read it. The meaning of this sentence, is, however, questionable. The writer seems to offer a distinction without a difference. Why does the writer refer to experts, and then refer to those that are learned, as if these were two different categories of people? That doesn't really make much sense. Once again, the usages are archaic, which would make sense if you are quoting Francis Bacon, the body of whose work was done nearly 400 years ago--his usages would be obsolete usages of early modern English. One can learn a great many useful ideas by reading Bacon, but one is not going to learn how effectively to speak contemporary English.

Leaving aside the questionable content of the three sentences--i would suspect that the writer thinks there is a "clausal relationship" between the first two sentences and the third, in that the third sentence attempts to derive a conclusion from the assertions embodied in the first two sentences. By the way, i've never heard anyone use the term "clausal relationship" and it makes little sense to me in looking at a series of sentences; clauses are parts of sentences, and any relationship which clauses have would occur within a sentence, and not between sentences. I could be wrong, but i frankly don't understand why anyone would use an expression such as "clausal relationship" to refer to the relationship of a set of sentences.

I think this is a badly expressed and unreasonable set of contentions, and if it is indeed the work of Mr. Bacon, i will have to seriously review my opinion of his writing--this passage makes little sense, and seems to be a poorly reasoned conceit of an educated man who seeks to claim great virtue for learning, but does not demonstrate that virtue in his writing.

Your English is not bad at all, you express yourself fairly well--but you don't have the smooth command of the language which marks the native speaker of English. You also make some basic errors of writing--such as not capitalizing the first word of a sentence, which is not just a pointless rule, but helps the reader to understand that a new sentence has been begun.

More than anything else, though, your usage of the rather dull-witted neologisms of adolescents who are fond of text messaging makes you look inept in your English usage. Examples: "u" is a letter of the alphabet, but it is not a word in the English language. If you mean to use the second person plural personal pronoun--"you"--then write, you and not "u." It makes you look like an immature idiot. There is no word in English which is spelled "pls"--if you mean "please," then write please. There is a word in English which is spell "ur"--but it is a proper noun, it is properly spelled "Ur" and it refers to an ancient city of the middle east which was abandoned thousands of years ago. However, despite the silly spelling, i understand that when you write "ur" you mean "your." You should use the word "your," and not "ur." Especially if you hope to find employment which is based on, or relies on a command of the English language, i advise you not to use silly spellings such as "u" for "you," "pls" for "please" or "ur" for "your." The business world is actually rather conservative, and people who hire and employ other people in the business world will not look kindly on someone who employs such usages. They would either think you are stupid, or that you don't care enough to spell the language correctly. Either opinion of you wouldn't be helpful.

Thank you for your long reply:)
Thank you , in particular for your pointing out my errors.
I think that is because I use simplified words and expressions online (chatrooms or messenger). I admit that it is a kind of misuse of English.

I guess you must be a scholar of great merits--a guru. I really appriciate your help,patience and scrupulousness in study.

Best wishes.

ps: it is the original work written by francis bacon himself.