The atoms of a screwdriver don’t have tiny little XML tags inside describing their “objective” purpose. The designer had something in mind, yes, but that’s not the same as what happens in the real world. If you forgot that the designer is a separate entity from the designed thing, you might think, “The purpose of the screwdriver is to drive screws”—as though this were an explicit property of the screwdriver itself, rather than a property of the designer’s state of mind. You might be surprised that the screwdriver didn’t reconfigure itself to the flat-head screw, since, after all, the screwdriver’s purpose is to turn screws.
After someone points this out, the incorrect response is to start adding clauses:
The screwdriver’s purpose is to turn Phillips-head screws.
Or:
The screwdriver’s purpose is to turn screws designed to be turned by the screwdriver.
People are more likely to do this to something other than screwdrivers, obviously.
“The purpose of love is...” ″Eyebrows are there so that...”
It is easy to misinterpret the point of this post as claiming that the purpose assigned to an object is wrong or inadequate or hopelessly complex. That isn’t what is being said.
After someone points this out, the incorrect response is to start adding clauses:
Or:
People are more likely to do this to something other than screwdrivers, obviously.
“The purpose of love is...”
″Eyebrows are there so that...”
It is easy to misinterpret the point of this post as claiming that the purpose assigned to an object is wrong or inadequate or hopelessly complex. That isn’t what is being said.