Looking for writings about a distinction between function of a thing, and purpose of a thing, I'll explain what I mean: Function is what you deduce a thing to be for when looking at its aesthetics, because continual use shapes aesthetic (either by sharpening a stone, or through lots of years of evolution). So it's typically things that are related to life that have function, lifeforms or tools basically. So a knife has a function "to cut" which you deduce from its aesthetic, "it's clearly *made* for cutting" you'd say. Or a leaf and branches have for function to grab light, because you can see them spread out and cover large surfaces, so you deduce function from their appearance really. To be clear, I'm not saying function is some magical property inherent to tools and lifeforms, I'm just talking about how humans categorize things when looking at the world. Purpose is what you use something for, it's an *assigned* utility I'd say. A rock in the forest has no function, it's just a thing that is, but you can pick it up and use it as a weapon, or to break stuff, that's what I'd call purpose. This is related to Art. People often say art is without "purpose" but I think it'd be more correct to say it is without function, as you can always assign purpose (maybe you want to convey something, to comprehend something in greater detail, whatever, many purpose exists when one makes art). Because art aims to be an object, or a phenomena, art's aesthetics is entirely inward facing, the only aim of it is to construct a certain coherence, which would make it hold up as one standalone thing. I like to say : When making machines and tools humans replicate life, goal and function; when making Art humans replicate reality and existence.So that's why I believe the distinction is important, art pieces are objects more than tools or machines, and things that merely are (rocks, sounds, matter and physical interactions in general) in my view can be said to have no *function*, but a purpose is whatever you want to make of things.
Function is design, purpose is intent?
Form follows function, and the function of AI is to get you to pay more for water
bump
>>24964156Water used to be free, you know
>>24964753drinking water used to be deadly, it still is in most parts of the world
>>24964767Breathing air as wellAnd don't get me started on food
>>24964776no sorry but cholera and thyphus are a thingdisentry killed Ramanujan
>>24963783https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes
>>24963783You summarized the disctinction, what else are you hoping to read? In cognitive science you might encounter some elaboration on structural-functional organization vs relational function. The former is a term Vervaeke uses, so I assume cognitive science does work with these terms.In theology, I think St. Maximus talked about the inherent logoi in things in contrast with man-made extensions of logoi, in my discussions with a LLM it characterized Javascript as necessarily having a separate logos, but being merely an extension of human cognition, human logos.
>>24963783look for books about "form over function"
>>24963783>A TRANSGENDER in the forest has no function, it's just a thing that is, but you can pick it up and use it as a weapon, or to break stuff, that's what I'd call purpose.
>>24964767water in general isn’t good for you to drink.it’s a solvent it just leeches nutrients.
>>24963783not reading all that, but it sounds like you might enjoy System of Objects by Jean Baudrillard.also Simulacra and Simulation, and America, also by JB
>>24964906>what else are you hoping to read? I'm guess I'm looking for validation. I had to think this through distinction myself and thinking is tiring although rewarding. Idk, I just wish someone spoke about this, so that I may read what other good thoughts such a person may have. I no one described this precisely like I did, it seems to me a bit depressing.I'm sure some Greek dude must have spoken about this, they did speak a lot about those little distinctions, maybe it's just lost in some forgotten work because it was too irrelevant.
>>24963783Read. Heidegger. Now.
>>24964901I guess what I call purpose is the Final Cause, and function could be neighbor to the Formal Cause and design as >>24963864 said.I guess seeing an object and figuring out it has a function is seeing a form that was touched by life, and something that is only touched by elements and weather will have a form that seems without use; although the elements could sometimes through luck carve a rock through erosion to be like a very fine bowl, this would be just an exception that proves the rule and we would say "how funny that the elements imitated life it making this rock into a bowl". That makes me want to read Aristotle, and a reason to read him more is what I needed.
>>24965486That is one ugly ass table.
>>24965486Also see this article which is linked far down in the other article.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology
>>24964779Yes in third world shitholes like your own "country"
