07/30/2016–Revisiting my purpose helps ensure two things:
- That I’m on track
- That it’s still my purpose to pursue
I set a purpose over four months ago (“to be content at death”). This still sounds a little insignificant, at first. Again, I don’t think it’s necessarily right for other people. When a purpose is identified, a person guides their activity toward the fulfillment of that purpose; it’s a voluntary guidance. That implies the purpose is most appropriate if the person chooses it for him or herself. This “choice” differs from the idea that one’s purpose is assigned, which is a commonly held view (“God’s plan for you”). So, it should be explored what is the nature of purpose.
The definition I use for purpose is “my most future goal”. Thus, to me it’s best to select a purpose for oneself. Obviously, “most future” could mean “at death”–the last possible point on your timeline to achieve a measurable, time-bound goal. Regarding post human goals, I don’t subscribe to the camp which includes life events of loved ones in your life’s evaluation (it’s an obscure belief held by some students of philosophy). I don’t have a goal to have kids who, after I die, go on to do certain things or even “be happy”. Certainly these are wishes of mine, and my goals during life are inexorably tied to my kids’ outcomes. This is for both involuntary and by-design reasons. But I don’t have authority to superimpose my goal onto theirs. So, “time of death” is the farthest point in time I can set a measurable goal, and thus my purpose.
The alternative to choosing a purpose for oneself seems like it is to “accept” the purpose assigned, obviously by one’s spiritual leader of choice (excluding auto-assignment by atheists, whose deity is themselves, by definition). As a Christian I don’t reject that this is the source of the highest form of purpose (“God’s plan for me”), and therein lies the effective union of his and my purpose as they relate to my life.
A thought experiment may help clarify. Imagine I’m deciding what my purpose is (understand I mean how I “should spend my time, energy, and all resources” and what I’m pursuing). I’ve already explained that having measures of success and deadlines are what give quality to goals. I’m not sure we can expect to realize what God’s metric or benchmark is if we’re accepting his assignment of purpose and not joining it with a purpose of ourselves. If I hear a calling to be a teacher, and my God-given purpose is to teach, how can I assign a deadline and metric to that? It’s not my goal–he knows how well I can teach, not I. One might argue, God’s plan for each person is not meant to be measured or given a deadline by man–and I would agree. Therein lies justification for a complimentary self-assigned purpose. I can (must) measure and have a deadline for anything I wish to accomplish with any sincerity. How important is a goal, really, when there’s no measure of quality nor deadline?
Back to the union of God’s and man’s purposes. I’m able to claim dual-membership in both camps for the following (maybe unconvincing) reason; God assigns true purpose. I choose how it’s achieved.
I do feel God’s purpose for me, individually, and it is to encourage love. This purpose supersedes my desire, as well as my ability to measure my own value as a human (a.k.a. judgment). Therefore, any deliberate honest pursuit of fulfilling God’s purpose benefits form my own assignment of some measure of quality. This measure needn’t be only quantitative (# students taught); it can be qualitative, even subjective (“best teacher I could be”). Honestly I can’t imagine any ultimate purpose other than “to encourage love” or some version of that. If there is any purpose at all above our own desires, what else could it be? Utility? By definition, that pursuit maximizes value to the whole human race, based on benefit + happiness. Benefit in what way? That it supports my pursuit of what I want? Thus, it supports my individual purpose, in spite of/negligent of the collective? This categorizes “utilitarianism” under man’s assignment of his own purpose. Thus it fails to reach the level of a purpose given by God. Plus, it’s almost impossible by definition. At some point, the utilitarian will have to decrease “benefit or happiness” overall to preserve his own achievement of purpose. Whether this looks like frivolous spending (not frivolous to him, but remember he can’t define frivolous for himself as a utilitarian), or it looks like saving his wife’s life at the expense of two or more strangers, he will face a situation which puts self at odds with others. The source of this struggle will lie in him having only assigned purpose for himself, thus defining it, measuring it, and pursuing it for himself. That doesn’t sound like a path to “maximum benefit and happiness for the most people”. If there’s no higher purpose, I suppose this is as good as any (who’s judging?) but it fails, still, to be effective until each person translates how it will look, in practice, measurement, and with some deadline.
Thus, my purpose remains:
“to be content at death”
with one update that this is my own design of God’s ultimate intention for me:
“to encourage love””
If encouraging love is the highest purpose for everyone, I recommend each person builds the archetype of how this looks for themselves–meaning how they’ll choose to fulfill that purpose. What priorities to set, goals along the way, etc. Should come from each person, applicable only to him or her. It’s individual paths to a shared destination.
QOTW–“Pleasure is different from joy.”-Ricky
?FNW–How successful am I? 100%