The end of all actions: Philosophy Forums

The end of all actions
Is there a goal at which human action should aim?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

The end of all actions

emanswen
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 01, 2007
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 149

Posted 06/26/08 - 05:45 AM: Subject: The end of all actions	#1
Hello, Do you think there is some end, which I ought to try to bring about by my actions; some goal at which all of my actions ought to aim? Should I try to bring about maximum personal happiness (egoism), maximum total human happiness (utilitarianism), or something else. . . ? Do you think there is such an end/goal? Why/why not? I am also interested in hearing the famous answers to this question and what you think of them. Thanks

Ron C. de Weijze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2008
Location: Amsterdam
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 69

Posted 06/26/08 - 06:32 AM:	#2
Hi, Just like all of nature, one is to make structures functional, at a highest possible level, and completely avoid the second law of thermodynamics where everything turns into chaos (or heat). J. Bronowski called this "stratified stability". At the level of consciousness, this means accountability and the 'happiness' of understanding one's world.
Researching and developing a practical philosophy of 'Constructive Recollection'.

unenlightened
ri t nd r tist

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 1718

Posted 06/26/08 - 06:40 AM:	#3
The end of action is stillness. At the level of consciousness this means peace of mind, and in particular an end to 'trying' as an effort against the resistence of - what? Oneself? The world?
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

the PC apeman
Philosophy Consumer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 153

Posted 06/26/08 - 07:04 AM:	#4
unenlightened wrote: The end of action is stillness. Interesting equivocation. Of course the cessation of action is stillness (or, no action). But if you meant the goal of action is stillness, then why should the goal of action be stillness? PC

emanswen
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 01, 2007
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 149

Posted 06/26/08 - 07:20 AM:	#5
the PC apeman wrote: Interesting equivocation. Of course the cessation of action is stillness (or, no action). But if you meant the goal of action is stillness, then why should the goal of action be stillness? PC Yeah just to clarify quickly; I meant end as in goal rather than end is in finish.

unenlightened
ri t nd r tist

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 1718

Posted 06/26/08 - 07:55 AM:	#6
I guess you could have action for actions sake. Dance would be the obvious candidate, but then I'd have to go all mystical and talk about an inner stillness within the dance... But it is more or less the definition of a goal, that arrival constitutes the end of the action. The ball hits the back of the net, the whistle blows, and the game starts a new action from the centre spot.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

the PC apeman
Philosophy Consumer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 153

Posted 06/26/08 - 08:40 AM:	#7
unenlightened wrote: I guess you could have action for actions sake. Dance would be the obvious candidate, but then I'd have to go all mystical and talk about an inner stillness within the dance... But it is more or less the definition of a goal, that arrival constitutes the end of the action. The ball hits the back of the net, the whistle blows, and the game starts a new action from the centre spot. I agree. Let's not go all mystical. I have much sympathy with aiming toward stillness, peace of mind as a strategy. But as a reasoned response to the original post I find it lacking merit. Bear with me for a moment here. There are certain molecules that, when combined in a certain way, act to create (usually) perfect copies of themselves and their structure - despite many obstacles. Variations that are better at doing this tend to do it more often than those that are less able. Each action leads to more actions. I see no end-stillness to be extrapolated from this chain of events (save for increasingly insurmountable external obstacles.) So we can play with scale and granularity of actions but we still end up with a counterexample to your statement. (We could go completely nuclear with entropy at a universal scale but there lie some disturbing extrapolations.) So it is not my position that your claim cannot be the answer to the problem. I would be satisfied if it could be shown to be the case. I would just like to see your work. PC

unenlightened
ri t nd r tist

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 1718

Posted 06/26/08 - 09:41 AM:	#8
the PC apeman wrote: Bear with me for a moment here. There are certain molecules that, when combined in a certain way, act to create (usually) perfect copies of themselves and their structure - despite many obstacles. Variations that are better at doing this tend to do it more often than those that are less able. Each action leads to more actions. I see no end-stillness to be extrapolated from this chain of events (save for increasingly insurmountable external obstacles.) So we can play with scale and granularity of actions but we still end up with a counterexample to your statement. (We could go completely nuclear with entropy at a universal scale but there lie some disturbing extrapolations.) I agree. I see no end to the replication of replicating molecules, except extinction, and not end to the movement of energy except some kind of heat death or big crunch. So on that basis, I suppose you would simply say that there is no end at which the OP should aim, not that he should be aimless either, but simply that in fact he is aimless, whatever he thinks. I kind of assumed though, that I was talking to a person, rather than a bunch of molecules.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

the PC apeman
Philosophy Consumer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 153

Posted 06/26/08 - 10:01 AM:	#9
unenlightened wrote: I agree. I see no end to the replication of replicating molecules, except extinction, and not end to the movement of energy except some kind of heat death or big crunch. So on that basis, I suppose you would simply say that there is no end at which the OP should aim, not that he should be aimless either, but simply that in fact he is aimless, whatever he thinks. It seems we're equally lacking in a direct answer to his should question. I'm at peace with that. PC

emanswen
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 01, 2007
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 149

Posted 06/26/08 - 05:55 PM:	#10
Ron C. de Weijze wrote: Hi, Just like all of nature, one is to make structures functional, at a highest possible level, and completely avoid the second law of thermodynamics where everything turns into chaos (or heat). Why should I aim at these things? What reasons would you give for my directing my every action at the realisation of these ends rather than something different?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

You don't have permission to post.