1

Is it possible that something has no purpose or cause? In that life has no purpose or no cause, it just exists. The same with the universe.

Or everything has a cause or purpose, it's just we don't know it, either because we don't have enough brain power as a species, or because humanity hasn't advanced so far yet.


I've found an answer to this question in Aristotelian ethics. Thanks everyone for answering.

Yet, if action A is done towards achieving goal B, then goal B also would have a goal, goal C, and goal C also would have a goal, and so would continue this pattern, until something stopped its infinite regression. Aristotle's solution is the Highest Good, which is desirable for its own sake, it is its own goal. The Highest Good is not desirable for the sake of achieving some other good, and all other "goods" desirable for its sake. This involves achieving eudaemonia, usually translated as "happiness", "well-being", "flourishing", and "excellence".

5
  • Welcome! This is a little casual as currently posed -- is there any chance I might persuade you to develop this a bit further, maybe to tell us about your context and motivations? For instance, what might you be studying or reading that makes this problem an interesting or urgent concern for you? What might you have found out so far? (In passing, you might also tell us a little bit about your degree of familiarity with academic philosophy.)
    – Joseph Weissman
    Dec 26 '11 at 4:30
  • 2
    Funny thing is, answer to each one of your question is, "We don't know for sure as of now and we also don't know if we can know." Dec 27 '11 at 12:50
  • Maybe it's just me but I see 'cause' and 'purpose' as fundamentally distinct notions, whereas they seem to be equated here...
    – stoicfury
    Jan 5 '12 at 18:17
  • I've found an answer to this question in Aristotelian ethics. Thanks everyone for answering
    – siamii
    Jan 6 '12 at 0:45
  • Yet, if action A is done towards achieving goal B, then goal B also would have a goal, goal C, and goal C also would have a goal, and so would continue this pattern, until something stopped its infinite regression. Aristotle's solution is the Highest Good, which is desirable for its own sake, it is its own goal. The Highest Good is not desirable for the sake of achieving some other good, and all other "goods" desirable for its sake. This involves achieving eudaemonia, usually translated as "happiness", "well-being", "flourishing", and "excellence".
    – siamii
    Jan 6 '12 at 0:46
1

Yes, there are philosophers who would argue that this is the case. The most obvious place to begin would be with the Existentialists.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.