Recently I have been thinking about purpose. It seems like such a simple word and, I suspect, most folks assume they know exactly what it means. At the surface level, I would agree with this assumption. I do think most folks know what the word means. But if you want to have some fun, ask someone to define “purpose.” That is when it gets harder than we assume! It is not unusual for people to talk around the idea, rather than nail it directly. Additionally, most folks assume they have a purpose and probably know what it is. Again, I suggest we ask someone, “So, what is your purpose?” I would not be surprised to hear some stammering. If I ask a college student, the answer I am most likely to get is “I want to be happy.”
Me too! I also want to be happy. Most people I know want the same thing. We may have an idea of what would make us happy. And in many cases, we are not doing or getting enough of that to make us happy. For example, if you read statistics about people at work, about half of the working people are not happy. I would not pretend to know all the reasons why, but I think there likely are multiple reasons. Some jobs would be awful. Some don’t pay enough. And I am sure, there are more ways of explaining unhappiness at work.
Having done some research, I can say that one key element in happiness or meaning, an even more important concept to me, is purpose. If someone is clear about their purpose, then the chances of thinking life (or work) is meaningful. And that person is also likely to be happier. Since this is probably true, the secret is having or getting a purpose. Again, that sounds so simple and easy. Perhaps it really is simple and easy, but it usually takes some thought. Amazingly enough, that is what so many folks have not done---they have not been thoughtful enough to be clear about their purpose. That is why they will say something like, “I just want to be happy.” Me too!
What if happiness is actually a by-product? To say that is to claim we become happy by doing or getting something else. For example, we think a new car will make us happy. Indeed, it likely will make us happy or even happier. But the feeling does not last very long. Within a couple weeks or three, it slowly has become “a car.” For most of us, a car is functional---it gets us somewhere, from point A to B. It finally does not matter whether it is red or white. Effectively, the purpose of a car is to transport us---not necessarily to make us happy.
If we delve into the idea of purpose, we learn that it is an old French word and behind that, a Latin word. Purpose describes what is intended or desired---a result or outcome, i.e., happiness in our example. Purpose can describe the reason something is done. In our example, we buy a new car in order to be happy. Our example reveals why the idea of purpose winds up not being so simple or easy. In the first place, not all purposes are equal. Probably some purposes are more short-term. In spiritual language I would not call this an ultimate purpose, aping the 20th century theologian, Paul Tillich, who talked about “ultimate concern.” I would argue that even happiness is not ultimate. For me I would prefer to have meaning than to be happy.
Pushing the analysis a bit further, we can say that purpose is the “why” of things. If we are talking about our lives, having a purpose is having a “why.” To have purpose is to know why I am alive and why I am living. To ask people this question typically yields some very general answers, but they are good answers. Some would say their purpose is “to make others happy.” I am more likely to say that my purpose is “to serve others.” I am confident I can actually serve others. I am less confident I can make others happy! And I think happiness tends to be short-term, so even if I were to make someone happy, there is no sense that it will endure.
We can move into the spiritual area with our analysis of purpose. Now there should be some alignment between why God created me and the purpose of my life. If I am to be personal, the reason for God’s creating the world and all of us is love. Theologically, I can say we were created by love for love. God’s purpose (creating out of love) becomes our purpose (to love). A number of details can be enumerated now.
A primary detail for me is to acknowledge that my real purpose in life should not be egotistical. In other words, it is not all about me! I am not the center of the universe; God is. Since God created us all in the image and likeness of the divinity, we can affirm that we are unique and valuable. I certainly am! But I am no more so than anyone else. To be serious about this necessarily asks me to park my ego. I am important, but so is everyone else.
As usual, love is paradoxical. If my purpose is to love and serve others, the paradox is I become the recipient of the same thing. What I give, I get back---but in a different way. True love is a gift. The gift is ours, but we cannot dictate the nature of how we are loved. We are both givers and receivers. However, we need to be clear which is which. To do that goes best if we become clear about our purpose. And it is best to have a good, even spiritual, purpose.
This is why purpose is important.
Those of us who have read theology or, perhaps, those who are people of faith and are old enough might well recognize this title as a reminder of the late Jewish philosopher and theologian, Martin Buber. I remember reading Buber’s book, I and Thou , when I was in college in the 1960s. It was already a famous book by then. I am not sure I fully understood it, but that would not be the last time I read it. It has been a while since I looked at the book. Buber came up in a conversation with a friend who asked if I had seen the recent article by David Brooks? I had not seen it, but when I was told about it, I knew I would quickly locate and read that piece. I very much like what Brooks decides to write about and what he contributes to societal conversation. I wish more people read him and took him seriously. Brooks’ article focused on the 2016 contentious election. He provocatively suggests, “Read Buber, Not the Polls!” I think Brooks puts
Comments
Post a Comment