Most of us have mulled over the purpose of existence at some point or other in our lives. I started down that path too, but at some point I decided to step back a bit, flip the argument around and look at something more fundamental: the existence of purpose. Does purpose exist per se (as in -- does it have its own "life") independent of human existence or does it exist because we humans say it should? I found that we must get past this question -- about the existence of purpose before we get to that question -- about the purpose of existence.
From the perspective of Aristotle's four causes, it is always possible to show material cause, formal cause and efficient cause to existence (as indeed, the sciences endeavour to do in all earnestness, and are highly successful at), but not final cause (a.k.a."telos"). If asked to show final cause to existence, as per the above argument, I would question conclusion C, which in effect means questioning assumption A, given that B is merely statement of fact. I would say: first prove A, and then let's talk about D. Before we go about trying to determine final cause, we need to show that it exists.
When we ask the profound metaphysical question: "Why", we tend to overlook the fact that the question itself presumes purpose. If one were to tease out the implicit premise contained within the quest for purpose, it would turn out to be based on an assumption that there "is" (or "must be") some sort of purpose. The question: "What is the purpose of existence?" is not as straightforward as it seems. It actually embeds a slightly complex argument that may be simplified as follows:
A. There is a purpose underlying all things
B. Existence is a 'thing'
C. Therefore, there is a purpose underlying existence
D. What is it?
From the perspective of Aristotle's four causes, it is always possible to show material cause, formal cause and efficient cause to existence (as indeed, the sciences endeavour to do in all earnestness, and are highly successful at), but not final cause (a.k.a."telos"). If asked to show final cause to existence, as per the above argument, I would question conclusion C, which in effect means questioning assumption A, given that B is merely statement of fact. I would say: first prove A, and then let's talk about D. Before we go about trying to determine final cause, we need to show that it exists.
This is where what causes us differs from what we cause, where the anthropological differs from the anthropogenic, where the individual differs from the institution: in the case of the former, existence is primordial and precedes purpose; in the case of the latter it is the other way around. The telos of an individual's existence (other than the genetic imperative of self-preservation and perpetuation through propagation, and strategies to be successful in fulfilling that imperative) is precisely what that individual makes it out to be, if anything. But as far as institutions are concerned, purpose precedes existence. Organizations, corporations, nations, governments, associations, schools, academies, marketplaces, societies, etc. are created by humans to serve specific purposes, and those specific purposes form their raison d'être. Not only are their reasons for existence defined before they are created, but those reasons in fact guide their design, functioning, growth and evolution. If those reasons did not exist, those institutions would not exist. And after those institutions have outlived their purpose, they should cease to exist.
Institutions would do well to clearly define, and at all times be in touch with, their raison d'être. Those that don't have one, or that have outlived the one they had, should liquidate their assets and release residual resources for deployment elsewhere.
