This gets deep, but, is a tree only a "tree" because we label it as such?

Question

Could the telos (final cause) of humans be merely to assign meaning and value to given objects and entities in God's Creation? And if that is the case, why do we seem to have chosen money, fame and superficial goods to be so highly touted? Maybe Humanity has been getting it wrong (not all of us, obviously, but in this scenario, our actions as a unit, not as individauls, seems to be most relevant)...could it be that we are all a flawed version of what God intended us to be, and that this world will have to be scrapped (whether through God's awesome destructive powers, or our own) and this bizarre cosmic experiment of creation will be renewed in another galaxy or realm or whatever you like???

I have always struggled with the Philosopher's view of God (All-powerful, All-knowing, All-good). Perhaps the creation is just fine, how it was supposed to be...people are perfect. However, in being perfect people, we are still often, if not predisposed, to err.

Everyone sidestepped the real question, that being, what is the purpose of the Human existence (not the meaning of life, I already know that one)? As stewards of God's creation, is it possible that our purpose is to choose what is worthy and good?

I understand that "tree" is merely a semantical ordeal in our minds, and my calling it a tree isnt imperative to its existence...I want to know if it is possible that creating all these useless terms and hair-splitting classifications is our purpose. Call me Platonic or Anti-Aristotlean I suppose...but I do feel that a wider angle of the world would be more productive. Too much Tao in my life, perhaps.

No. Where it gets "deep" is in the very fact that there ARE numerous questions which must be answered before the next question can be assessed.

I apologize if my major has me using the vocabulary consistent with it, but I hardly think one use of the word "telos" is an attempt at sounding smart. If I wanted to sound smart I'd go answer questions, not ask them.

So, what is the "real question" I am asking?! It is this, "is it possible that the purpose of human beings is to name all the phenomena in the world/universe, and decide if it is good or bad?

And the answer, since I can see clearly now the rain is gone, is Yes. Or, No. Thanks.

I see your paragraphs, I don't see an answer in them. But I appreciate the response as it has caused me to run myself in circles until I slammed into the wall they call philosophy allover again.

And while were attacking writing styles, sentences generally begin with capitalized letters. Adios 'ol Owl...cottleston pie

Answer 1

God is not a dodo. Things are the way they are because he/she/it wants it this way.

Answer 2

Ah, but that assumes that God is capable of making a flawed creation. If you believe in an all powerful and all knowing God, then *be definition* man cannot be flawed, as such would imply that man was not as God intended him to be.....thus meaing God was not all powerful.

As for "tree".....that depends if you beleive there is an objective existence or is this all just a consensual illusion? If there is a real and objective world (and if you think there is isn't go tell an oncoming bus you don't beleive in it....), then a tree has an essental "tree-ness" regardless of what we call it.

Or, more to the point -

"tree" is merely a phonetic symbol, one of many, used to convey the concept and experience of the objective object "tree". If we changed the symbol to "Pen", would it change the objective nature of the "tree" or merely our subjective experience of it?

----After reading your additions----



Is our purpose to name things? Hmm.

If so, do we ignore the fact that different people use different names for the same thing? I mean....the object that we link in English to "tree" maybe the same object that is linked to the Japanese symbol for "tree" but is the meaning the same. I may call something "snow" but to the Inuit, it's a particular kind of snow.

My point is, since we as a species do not have a unified linguistic symbol-set, I fail to see the pragmatic utility of "labeling" as humankind's end meaning.

Hmmm....not sayng tht right.

We use different words to refer to the same objective object or subjective experience.

The words, even when they reference the same thing, carry with them different symbolic value.

If the species as a whole cannot agree on what the one singular symbolic referent for a particular thing/event/experience is, how can that be our purpose?

Unless, society is an evolutionary vehicle for language...which posits that at some future point all language will merge into some sort of unified concept.

If not, if we still have however many words for tree, where's the utility in that?

If there is no utility, how can it be our purpose?

A purpose, by definition, implies that the action serves some use.

But then again....maybe that's just my language talking.

Answer 3

I'm not sure if this is where you're going, but what if you extrapolated from Saussurean structural lingusitics (there's always an unbridgeable gap between signifier/signified) and added another component to the mix? What I mean is just like we know that the word "tree" will never actually reach the essence of what a tree is, maybe "fame/money/power" are also just faulty signifiers... I'm invoking Lacan for a moment: maybe humans are striving to fill the unfillable "lack" existing between the signifiers -- "fame/money/power" and what humans have come to assume to be that which they signify -- some higher purpose. Perhaps the logical fallacy here stems from an inherent inabiity to bridge from those two components which appear to, but don't really, share Saussure's formulation of the signifier/signified relationship, and that "fame/money/power" would be better replaced by "love/gentleness/peace" (or something of that nature)? (Or perhaps I've spent too many years in graduate school and am just using nonsensical theory babble?) I don't know if that's of any help, but good luck... and thanks for giving me an interesting question to ponder!

Answer 4

How many questions do you get?!
1. Of course. (If it had a different label: by definition, it would not be a tree)
2. No.
3. Not applicable because of answer 2.
4. No. Whatever God intends (i.e., purposes) comes to pass, because God, by definition is omnipotent.
5. Yes. This world will be scrapped by fire (God stated that he purposed it).
6. Yes. The world will be renewed, but there is nothing to indicate that it will be in another galaxy (this one seems to be suitable for renovation).

Answer 5

Not only is it only a tree because we label it a tree, but the individual perception of a tree is just that, our perception, and it's all we have to go on. What the tree *REALLY* is and the fact that it is composed of countless layers of reality (...

Answer 6

The answer is sort of in your question.
"could it be that we are all a flawed version of what God intended us to be, and that this world will have to be scrapped (whether through God's awesome destructive powers, or our own) and this bizarre cosmic experiment of creation will be renewed in another galaxy or realm or whatever you like???"

God comes to make all things new. The world of satan falls and the new Gods World prevails.

Answer 7

What is all but symbols defined
within our clutching mind?
All we say or do
are but symbols we accrue.
We assemble them in orderly fashion.
Yielding only in our enterprising passion
to face a fact of startling negation
as our mind reels in madness
when we are beset with puzzling truths of vastness.
This confusion will but a moment stand
for we ignore that which we fail to understand
and blunder on to complete incomprehension.

Answer 8

first...i will answer this question semi-seriously.

the question you ask with the supplied text is deep only because it is worded in a way to appear complex and difficult, probably because it is relentless question after question of pure jibber jabber with no breaks for paragraphs.

in reality, it is a whole lot of confused guck with very little continuity pertaining to the question you are trying to ask.

your question sounds like a Godly one, and i will give you kudos for that...but, again, you keep mixing the questions of God and reality together and constantly get them confused because, you yourself are confused.

if you really want to know God's true intention for humans...find yourself a good church that makes sense to you, have a deep conversation with the pastor or priest. get God's side of the story...THEN ask the secular world what this world is all about.

reading your questions is like reading van Gogh's diary...unable to comprehend what you are trying to ask.

i have an idea but i do not and will not take the time to try and figure out from all that mish mash the true core of your question. i have other questions to answer in my usual and typical horrifically sarcastic fashion but feel privileged that i actually took your question somewhat seriously...

your question is not deep...it is CONFUSED just as you most likely are. not trying to put you down...but you sound like one of my old college friends who did nothing but ask questions and answer them himself...only to sound like an uneducated ding dong. your writing style is indicative of someone who is at best average intelligence who is trying to sound smart...y'know...like dennis miller...he is an imbecile using big words he learned in school so he says them on tv to make himself look smart when in actuality...he is a nimrod...

your view of God and the world is CONFUSED. how many times did i say CONFUSED?

see how my answer is nicely paragraphed out and is easy to read? see how my writing, while rude, arrogant and hurtful, is again, easy to read? writing doesnt have to be complex to try and make yourself look smart...the true litmus of intelligence is not the question one asks...it is HOW the question is asked.

Answer 9

If we didn't label a tree "tree", then we would point and say "that". We as humans simply want to identify things. My name is Yuffie only because my parents labeled me as such.

Answer 10

If one does not believe in God why even bother.......but if one believes, then wouldn't be totally fair to think that He would know what He is doing?

Answer 11

Who is to say what we know is correct? Think about it. Us humans named everything, made up language and meanings for everything.. We even made up science. We could have it all wrong.