That's only if it's to have a purpose at the moment of its creation. What about finding something and giving a purpose for where it previously had none? Picking up a rock and using it as a hammer? The rock was not made with intent, but it was nevertheless given a purpose post-creation.
You're misusing the term. Purpose cannot be given post-creation. If you find a rock and use it as a hammer, you haven't given it a purpose, you've given it a function. And I'm not arguing for the word per say, but rather the concept of purpose, unfortunately I have to resort to language to explain myself, but it should be evident that the word purpose has this sense or connotation in our language.
Think about it: If purpose simply meant the intentionality imposed on an object(including people) at any time, by anyone, then the question "what is the purpose of life?" is a rather dull and almost trivial one. After all if that was the case then purpose would simply be reduced to a relative notion, so that whatever role one chooses to impose on a thing at any given time, would essentially be the purpose of said thing. Hence as you say, if I use a rock as a hammer (me imposing the 'hammer' role onto the rock, or better yet, me imposing my
will on the rock), I am giving the rock a purpose.
But under this view the purpose of things is shallow and relativistic. If my friend decides to use the rock as a paperweight, then you're essentially saying that he's changed the rock's purpose, and whenever anyone decides to use the rock for something else they'd be changing it too. After all, there is no valid reason why I should have any priority over my friend in determining the "purpose" of the rock (you could argue that I used the rock first, but that seems a very arbitrary and unconvincing point).
And so the concept of purpose really loses that poignancy which we seem to give to it. It becomes simply a matter of whatever one wills upon an object.
Only if we want to go with the idea of a single, universal purpose that isn't to the effect of "everyone make their own."
But that's the only meaningful way we
have of inquiring about purpose. Again, if purpose is simply a relativistic notion (as your example implies), then why would we even bother asking what the purpose of life is? or the purpose of anything for that matter? After all, in such a case there wouldn't really be an answer because anyone thing could have any number of "purposes" at a time, after all, I might use the rock as a hammer, my friend as a paperweight, another friend might use it as a ball when juggling, etc. According to you, in each of those instances we change the purpose of the thing.
But notice, we ask what
THE purpose of something is. We don't ask what
A purpose is, we ask for one objective answer. Our language reveals the intuitions we have when we consider the concept of purpose.
If what was meant by purpose was simply what you mean by purpose, then we wouldn't attach so much weight to the concept and we wouldn't ask for a single universal answer, but we would instead ask people individually, what they considered their purpose in life to be. But the fact is that we ARE asking for a single universal answer, precisely because our concept of purpose isn't the one you propose. At least that's what seems most plausible to me.
My point is that if the word purpose really meant what you take it to mean, then we wouldn't even bother asking the question "what is the purpose of life?". And yet, the fact that we have been asking this question throughout human history seems to me a good indicator that you are not actually addressing what we indeed mean by the word "purpose".
(Note, even Aristotle's account of purpose (Telos) is one in which the purpose of a thing is an objective matter -- a result of its nature. Aristotle believed all things had an objective telos, I don't think I agree, since my explanation of purpose necesitates a creator of some sort (so I can't say for sure if trees have a purpose for example. Aristotle had the concept of the Prime Mover, but he never describes this entity as a sentient one or one possessing intentionality, which is crucial for consciousness/mind). The point is that even since Ancient times, what was meant by the concept of purpose wasn't what you mean by it.)
I have made it my purpose in life to be an intelligent, creative and compassionate person. There, I just defined a purpose. This is where your argument falls somewhat flat, because the idea of a purpose for a tool or a rock is not the same sort of purpose that can be discussed with something as complex as a human. For starters, it may or may not be born with a purpose (be it from a deity or simply their parents), and it can both be subject to a purpose or give itself one.
What do you mean by this? You have made it your purpose?
If by saying you've made it your purpose to be intelligent, creative, and compassionate (one could certainly argue whether you can just "decide" to be creative and intelligent), you're simply asserting that you want to lead a life in which you live up to those standards, then I would say you've set goals for yourself. But I am not sure the concept of "goal" equates with "purpose".
How is my choosing to fulfill an identical function to hammer not me choosing my purpose? I have changed myself - essentially created a new entity - and with that creation came a new purpose.
As you yourself said, you've changed your
function.
Besides, I don't think you really believe you've created a new entity. If I showed you a picture of when you were a kid and asked you who that was you would undoubtedly answer "me". Change is a tricky issue, and I'd rather avoid the metaphysical debate that will come of discussing it (which also involves the philosophy of time), since I get enough of that in school. Suffice it to say that there is a sense in which changing something about yourself makes you into a new person, but committing yourself to the idea that you've created a "new entity" is actually very counterintuitive and problematic and you should consider the implications before making the claim.
For example, when you say the statement "I've created a new entity" it would technically be the new entity asserting, but the one who did the creating was the old-you, not the new-you so how could the new-you make the assertion using the word "I" when it in fact wasn't the new-you at all doing the creating?
Not to mention that at every single moment we are changing physically, molecules move, cells restructure, atoms, protons, electrons, etc. We are not static beings, so literally every moment in time you are not the same as you were a moment before (moment is a vague and very problematic term, but for now and for argument's sake take it to mean an incredibly, ridiculously small unit of time). Therefore if you're committed to the view that a change constitutes the birth of a "new entity", then there is no "you" except for a brief moment in time, after that moment you would be (quite literally) a different person, and the moment after that another person again, and so on.
This is essentially the rejection of the idea of persistence, once of the most basic and fundamental intuitions we have. We inherently believe that things persist. If I see that the tree in my backyard is green in spring, and I come back in fall and it's red, I assume it is still the same tree, it seems silly to think that the old tree popped out of existence and a new, almost identical, red tree took its place (though it is certainly a logical possibility, nobody really believes that, even if they say they do).
Notice that if you reject persistence, the words "I" or "you" or any similar word would become rather obsolete, because even as you would utter the word "I" you'd be changing, hence it would be a different person as the word "I" leaves your lips, hence by the time you finish uttering "I", the word would lose all meaning since the person being referred to by the word wouldn't be the same person saying it at all -- and yet I is a self-referring term, meaning the person uttering it is the one being referred to by the word.
That's just one little problem I thought of on the spot. But there are many more. After all the idea of creating a new entity is incompatible with the idea of persistence through time.This is just the classic problem of change, seen since the time of the greeks, which is a big problem for the endurance theory of persistence. If you feel comfortable with saying things don't persist then go ahead. But intuitively nobody really believes that. Most philosophers would avoid saying that things don't persist, even endurance theorists try to explain how things can change and still persist instead of just saying that every change constitutes a new entity.
I at least certainly don't think I'm creating a "new entity" when I change something about myself. I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who actually accepts that.
