NationStates Jolt Archive

To me, these three characteristics share the respective importances of integrals, functions, and derivatives, but there isn't any reason to study integrals and derivatives without the functions themselves. Yes, they all have to be balanced, but purpose is the only one that can independently exist.

EDIT: Sorry for being unclear. The goal was to see how these three terms were defined by voters since I believe that everyone's goodwill and humanity has similar foundations (yea, it's a little naive but it allows me to give people the benefit of the doubt of not being stupid thereby not behaving arrogantly about their poor decision making).

Purpose is the actual motive for why an action is performed.
Meaning is the believed motive for why an action is performed.
Reason is the deduced motive from the perspective of an outsider for why an action is performed.

EDIT 2: The meaning of ~Purpose, ~Meaning, and ~Reason is that any one is less important than the other two which are equally important.

okay can you explain in what sense you say this?
As in a longer definition of what you're trying to find perhaps.
:confused:

harmless gratification and infinite opportunities to create and explore.

"most important" TO WHAT?

=^^=
.../\...

Is this an exercise in defining things only in relation to each other so that no-one can understand?

To me, these three characteristics share the respective importances of integrals, functions, and derivatives, but there isn't any reason to study integrals and derivatives without the functions themselves. Yes, they all have to be balanced, but purpose is the only one that can independently exist.

What is the respective importance of integrals, functions, or derivatives? The analogy confuses me.

What is the respective importance of integrals, functions, or derivatives? The analogy confuses me.

you aren't the only one.

To me, these three characteristics share the respective importances of integrals, functions, and derivatives, but there isn't any reason to study integrals and derivatives without the functions themselves. Yes, they all have to be balanced, but purpose is the only one that can independently exist.

They end up being the same in the end. For doing something or thinking something, or feeling something there must be a meaning, a purpose and a reason. But this kinda confuses me. Can you explain it better?:p

To me, these three characteristics share the respective importances of integrals, functions, and derivatives, but there isn't any reason to study integrals and derivatives without the functions themselves. Yes, they all have to be balanced, but purpose is the only one that can independently exist.

EDIT: Sorry for being unclear. The goal was to see how these three terms were defined by voters since I believe that everyone's goodwill and humanity has similar foundations (yea, it's a little naive but it allows me to give people the benefit of the doubt of not being stupid thereby not behaving arrogantly about their poor decision making).

Purpose is the actual motive for why an action is performed.
Meaning is the believed motive for why an action is performed.
Reason is the deduced motive from the perspective of an outsider for why an action is performed.

Ah that explains it, well i suppose i'd go with purpose, then meaning then reason.
Purpose because it's the easiest to find, meaning is the justification for purpose, and reason is the hardest to find but probably the best.
So purpose.

I was looking for the answer Hot Pockets as a choice in the poll.

I would say the first and last, Purpose and Reason. Meaning may be important if it doesn't match Purpose. Self-delusion is pretty important. :p

But in regards to your actons, what you intend and what it would appear you intend are where the fun can be found. Especially if you intend to make sure that your actions could seem to have multiple intentions. I love dual meanings. I use it often in my posts. Hell, sometimes I manage to slip a third meaning in. ;)

Purpose is the actual motive for why an action is performed.
Meaning is the believed motive for why an action is performed.
Reason is the deduced motive from the perspective of an outsider for why an action is performed.

Hmm. I know you're defining these words in terms of elections and the electoral process, but I can't agree with how you differentiate the words from each other.

Purpose, to me, is the "what" question. What is this for? What does it do? I suppose it could be a motive, but it can also be an inherent quality of a [noun].

Meaning, then, is a value judgment, the "why/value" question. Why does it do this? Is that purpose important to me, someone, a group, or nobody? Meaning can be, and often is by its nature, very subjective. I can see your point in ascribing motive to meaning. This is a quality of a [noun] that is brought to the [noun] by those who perceive it.

Reason is the thorniest of the terms. It's also a "why" question, but it comes with a side order of "how" and is, ideally, devoid of subjectivity. In the phrase "I have reasons, but no excuse", the value judgment has been removed and we're left with the why-how of the situation.

I hope that makes more sense than I think it does as I re-read this.

To me, these three characteristics share the respective importances of integrals, functions, and derivatives, but there isn't any reason to study integrals and derivatives without the functions themselves. Yes, they all have to be balanced, but purpose is the only one that can independently exist.

EDIT: Sorry for being unclear. The goal was to see how these three terms were defined by voters since I believe that everyone's goodwill and humanity has similar foundations (yea, it's a little naive but it allows me to give people the benefit of the doubt of not being stupid thereby not behaving arrogantly about their poor decision making).

Purpose is the actual motive for why an action is performed.
Meaning is the believed motive for why an action is performed.
Reason is the deduced motive from the perspective of an outsider for why an action is performed.

It's still not entirely clear, to me at least.

Am I right when I think you're saying:
Purpose = motive.
Meaning is what you think your own motive is.
Reason is what someone else thinks your motive is.
I don't see why one should be more important than the other. I guess it's good to know your own actual motives when you do something and it's bad to act to much on 'meaning' opposed to acting on 'purpose'.

Or did we have to say what we understand ourselves under these terms? And they have to be important relevant to what exactly?

Ah that explains it, well i suppose i'd go with purpose, then meaning then reason.
Purpose because it's the easiest to find, meaning is the justification for purpose, and reason is the hardest to find but probably the best.
So purpose.

's exactly what I was thinking since facility and applicability of motive forms seemed to be both inversely related and substitutive.

Intangelon, what you said makes sense to me since I've learned about Carl Menger's Theory of Price, Value, and Distribution and your respectably ordered definitions of purpose, meaning, and reason seems to fit them.

Isidoor, the point of the poll is to see what people feel to be right. I don't think any of them can be universally held as objectively more useful than the others, but different people may find different forms of motive to be more or less useful in their own lives.

Isidoor, the point of the poll is to see what people feel to be right. I don't think any of them can be universally held as objectively more useful than the others, but different people may find different forms of motive to be more or less useful in their own lives.

Well, if I understand you right I'd say 'purpose' is the most important. 'Reason' shouldn't be important, you shouldn't do stuff because of what others will think of you, although it might be good to explain them what you're doing.
'Meaning' is inferior to purpose since it's based on delusion (if it wasn't than it would be be the same as 'purpose') and delusion is almost always a bad thing.

Well, if I understand you right I'd say 'purpose' is the most important. 'Reason' shouldn't be important, you shouldn't do stuff because of what others will think of you, although it might be good to explain them what you're doing.
'Meaning' is inferior to purpose since it's based on delusion (if it wasn't than it would be be the same as 'purpose') and delusion is almost always a bad thing.

Isn't it possible that a person can adhere to reason in ways other than peer pressure or groupthink? When should a person not adhere to intelligent constructive criticism? Shouldn't our minds always be connected to collective consciousness so we can constantly improve?

If delusions are what meaning is based off of, then how can sanity be based on sensibility? Is it because sanity is a relative comparison of mental state to the rest of mankind? Alternatively, is sanity actually a review of consistency according to neurological, genetic, and hormonal regularity as well as adherence to economic incentive, moral fundamentals, cultural mores, and societal laws? FYI, you don't have to treat every condition listed in the last sentence. Quality>>>Quantity.

Isn't it possible that a person can adhere to reason in ways other than peer pressure or groupthink?When should a person not adhere to intelligent constructive criticism?

It's possible to change your motives because of good criticism, but then your 'purpose' has changed. You shouldn't do anything because how the others might perceive you.

Shouldn't our minds always be connected to collective consciousness so we can constantly improve?

I don't know what you mean with that. We should learn from others, but that's not the same as letting our lives being lead by their judgment, only adjusting our own judgment to the experiences of others, that's not bad.


If delusions are what meaning is based off of, then how can sanity be based on sensibility? Is it because sanity is a relative comparison of mental state to the rest of mankind? Alternatively, is sanity actually a review of consistency according to neurological, genetic, and hormonal regularity as well as adherence to economic incentive, moral fundamentals, cultural mores, and societal laws? FYI, you don't have to treat every condition listed in the last sentence. Quality>>>Quantity.

well, meaning is based off of delusions by (your) definition. If you believe you're doing something for a reason, but you aren't actually doing it for that reason then you're deluded, you don't have a firm grasp of reality.
I think sanity is a state of mind in which you have a firm grasp of reality (as far as that is possible).
You're 'insane' in the loosest sense of the word once you have lost your touch with reality and your actions start to become harmful to someone.
Acting on meaning instead of on purpose isn't always harmful (one could convince himself that they're real philanthropists but in reality act like one because they want people to love them, I don't think this is bad but it is a delusion, on the other hand, if you look at it this way, there is no real distinction between purpose and meaning, because how can one act like a philanthropist and think they are one without actually being one, maybe my example sucks, maybe I'm just typing what I'm thinking now.)

I would say purpose.

Purpose in your definition as the actual motive for why you do something, rather than the motive you may have had or what someone thinks you may have had.

None of them are important; the effects of the action are all that matter.

None of them are important; the effects of the action are all that matter.

So if I intended to kill you by, say, pushing you off a cliff, but it turns out that in pushing you off the cliff, I pushed you out of the way of a lorry that would have killed you, and you survived the cliff fall without harm...I should be rewarded?

It's possible to change your motives because of good criticism, but then your 'purpose' has changed. You shouldn't do anything because how the others might perceive you.

OK, so what's the difference between consciousness and perception then? I don't mean to go off onto a tangent here, but everyone does things for political motives due to the power carried by others (it's natural for humans to be political). Entities do because we have conscious control over our exogenous resources and endogenous characteristics, but entities plan because we can perceive our own consciousness (as opposed to non sentient beings such as plants and animals that do just out of their nature).

I don't know what you mean with that. We should learn from others, but that's not the same as letting our lives being lead by their judgment, only adjusting our own judgment to the experiences of others, that's not bad.

Simple definition of collective consciousness. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_consciousness)
I don't mean to say that we should (or should not let others lead our decision making), only that we should stay open minded to the abundance of knowledge and expertise beyond our own capacity. The focus in the original question was to see if you believe constant improvement is possible by always possible by always staying open-minded to others. I don't believe this to be the case, but your agreement isn't what I'm looking for. What I want to see is when you believe we should not stay open minded.

well, meaning is based off of delusions by (your) definition. If you believe you're doing something for a reason, but you aren't actually doing it for that reason then you're deluded, you don't have a firm grasp of reality.

Definition of delusions. (http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Delusions.html)
I'm not saying that meaning and purpose (or meaning and reason) can't overlap. In fact, meaning could potentially be a subset of purpose or even reason if outsiders share our sentiments for motive and add some of their own. Going back to what I said about consciousness, how can purpose be proven to exist for any degree of objectivity? Are not our lives driven by the persistent revelation of facts? Furthermore, because every possible fact cannot ever be realized, isn't it naive to believe that sanity is short of perfect understanding of purpose? Note what you wrote in the quote below about a "firm grasp of reality" which implies you're already aware of the impossibility of perfect realization of fact.

I think sanity is a state of mind in which you have a firm grasp of reality (as far as that is possible).
You're 'insane' in the loosest sense of the word once you have lost your touch with reality and your actions start to become harmful to someone.

What does harming anyone have anything to do with insanity? If a loner on an estranged island walked around speaking jibberish and doing crazy dances but managed to sustain himself, why should an observer through a satellite consider that person to be sane? If you want, could you explain the difference between being insane and being uncivil?

Acting on meaning instead of on purpose isn't always harmful (one could convince himself that they're real philanthropists but in reality act like one because they want people to love them, I don't think this is bad but it is a delusion, on the other hand, if you look at it this way, there is no real distinction between purpose and meaning, because how can one act like a philanthropist and think they are one without actually being one, maybe my example sucks, maybe I'm just typing what I'm thinking now.)

Your grammar's a little confusing here. Are you saying that a philanthropist doesn't believe himself to be a philanthropist, or that a jerk believes himself to be a philanthropist? Assuming that it's the first (which I think it is), how can a person behave charitably without intent? Couldn't that person just be considered to be rational while letting others hitch on to his side-effect coattails as free riders because it's either too expensive to get rid of them or it's beneficial to have them along (such as in appearing to be humanitarian)?

So if I intended to kill you by, say, pushing you off a cliff, but it turns out that in pushing you off the cliff, I pushed you out of the way of a lorry that would have killed you, and you survived the cliff fall without harm...I should be rewarded?

More then somebody who killed me. I do not believe in "rewards", really. I would simply prefer a psychopath to save my life accidentally to a philanthropist to kill me accidentally.

Parkus, ur such a Machiavellian. :fluffle:

None of them are important; the effects of the action are all that matter.

I almost agree, actually, when in retrospect judging someone's actions I think the intended consequences are what counts. Because that's the most one can do, I can only intend to cause good consequences, if I fail the only bad thing I did was failing, but I didn't choose to do so.
I think the intention to cause the most satisfaction of preferences possible is good, the intention to cause less isn't so good, or even bad.

OK, so what's the difference between consciousness and perception then? I don't mean to go off onto a tangent here, but everyone does things for political motives due to the power carried by others (it's natural for humans to be political). Entities do because we have conscious control over our exogenous resources and endogenous characteristics, but entities plan because we can perceive our own consciousness (as opposed to non sentient beings such as plants and animals that do just out of their nature).

Sorry but I often don't really get what you're saying, English isn't my native language, I'll try to answer it the best I can.

When we do things for political motives we do that to 'fulfill our own purpose'. If we have a certain motive, a goal we want to attain, we might take into account the reactions of others (acting politically) to obtain our own goals.

We shouldn't act in a way that others view us more favourably, rather we should act according to what we really think is good.


Simple definition of collective consciousness. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_consciousness)
I don't mean to say that we should (or should not let others lead our decision making), only that we should stay open minded to the abundance of knowledge and expertise beyond our own capacity. The focus in the original question was to see if you believe constant improvement is possible by always possible by always staying open-minded to others. I don't believe this to be the case, but your agreement isn't what I'm looking for. What I want to see is when you believe we should not stay open minded.

Constant improvement is possible by always staying open minded but also very critical to the experience of others. We should always stay open minded, but we shouldn't always agree or follow other's advice when we think it's bad.

That seems common sense to me.

Going back to what I said about consciousness, how can purpose be proven to exist for any degree of objectivity? Are not our lives driven by the persistent revelation of facts? Furthermore, because every possible fact cannot ever be realized, isn't it naive to believe that sanity is short of perfect understanding of purpose? Note what you wrote in the quote below about a "firm grasp of reality" which implies you're already aware of the impossibility of perfect realization of fact.

that's a good question, I guess it would be better to describe motive as a combination of 'purpose' (which is subconscious) and 'meaning' (which is conscious).

What does harming anyone have anything to do with insanity? If a loner on an estranged island walked around speaking jibberish and doing crazy dances but managed to sustain himself, why should an observer through a satellite consider that person to be sane? If you want, could you explain the difference between being insane and being uncivil?

If the loner is as happy as is possible under his circumstances I'd say he isn't insane, but I think he probably isn't as happy as possible, so his behaviour is harmful, he is insane.
Notions like disease and saneness are social constructs more than we realize. Homosexuality used to be a disease, children with ADHD used to be just mischievous children...
The example you give is very hard because the person doesn't live in a society.

Your grammar's a little confusing here. Are you saying that a philanthropist doesn't believe himself to be a philanthropist, or that a jerk believes himself to be a philanthropist? Assuming that it's the first (which I think it is), how can a person behave charitably without intent? Couldn't that person just be considered to be rational while letting others hitch on to his side-effect coattails as free riders because it's either too expensive to get rid of them or it's beneficial to have them along (such as in appearing to be humanitarian)?

actually I was talking about a jerk 'deluding' himself into believing he was a philantropist. Which was why I asked myself if you can delude yourself into thinking you're a philantropist and acting like one without being one.

personally i think that thoughs three things are all the same

I'm not entirely sure what this means, but I'm getting an itchy back-of-the-brain, Lit-101, death-of-the-author type feeling and it's very uncomfortable.

A writer friend of mine makes a compelling argument for meaning: "I AM THE AUTHOR. YOU ARE THE AUDIENCE. I OUTRANK YOU!"

A writer friend of mine makes a compelling argument for meaning: "I AM THE AUTHOR. YOU ARE THE AUDIENCE. I OUTRANK YOU!"

Sig worthy!:D

Clarification.

A writer friend of mine makes a compelling argument for meaning: "I AM THE AUTHOR. YOU ARE THE AUDIENCE. I OUTRANK YOU!"

That's one of Franz Liebkind's lines from the Producers.

Mu (meaning, you have asked the wrong question, Grasshopper).
See 2nd line of my sig ;)

Clarification.

Amen to that!

Intangelon, what you said makes sense to me since I've learned about Carl Menger's Theory of Price, Value, and Distribution and your respectably ordered definitions of purpose, meaning, and reason seems to fit them.

Well, thank you. I assure you that had I intended to exemplify Carl Menger, I probably would have failed miserably. It's amazing what one can do when one doesn't know one's parameters.

In short, if it sounded scholarly, I assure you it wasn't. I just went from a limited understanding of denotation and my own personal connotation. I'm pleased to see it all fits somewhere.

I don't see why motive matters at all, but what does matter is the reasoning that leads to the the purpose, to use your parlance.

Reason, because reason makes meaning and meaning makes purpose.

Well, thank you. I assure you that had I intended to exemplify Carl Menger, I probably would have failed miserably. It's amazing what one can do when one doesn't know one's parameters.

In short, if it sounded scholarly, I assure you it wasn't. I just went from a limited understanding of denotation and my own personal connotation. I'm pleased to see it all fits somewhere.

Not to worry. Sometimes insight is just as useful as intelligence when trying to have an idea fit somewhere.