[afarrell]

My purpose is to care for the people I can as I learn to love and be loved.

It is not the job of the nation-state to give people a deep sense of purpose. That is a job for a church, temple, or other spiritual community. Governments which try to do that job tend to do badly, sometimes with monstrous results. They ought be separate.

[arp242]

It seems to me that historically, "the church, temple, or other spiritual community" filling that role has come with all the same downsides as the nation-state filling that role. And that's not a comment about religion – any organisation is at risk of abuse of that type because that's just how humans and organisations work.

And fully agree with "care for the people I can as I learn to love and be loved", but at the same time people do need some sense of "community", "togetherness", and "we're all in it together"-ness, especially in times when things are perhaps not going so well, and I do feel that's rather been lost.

[afarrell]

Any organization made of humans is indeed fallible and corruptible. I have heard some dark stories of this. They are not mine to tell.

Still, the people who say they are trying to uphold a responsibility are more likely to do so with care than those who are trying to do something else.

If a father needs someone to watch his 4-year-old daughter, is it wiser to drop her off at a daycare or at a post office logistics warehouse?

[arp242]

Every organisation attracts all sorts of people with different motivations, interests, desires, which often conflict within the organisation. I don't think there are big differences there. Daycares and post offices are narrowly defined specialist organisations, not broad wide organisations such as the church or government.

And besides, I don't think churches can be a general solution to sense of purpose or community, because it would exclude the growing majority of secular people who don't really have any religious affiliation, or are explicitly agnostic/atheist. You need ... something else for that, something more secular. I don't really know what that would be.

And let's not view the past with too much rose-coloured glasses either, as religion could be ugly business just as much as nationalism can. A famous example is Tolkien's mother, who converted from Anglicism to Catholicism and was pretty much ostracized and consigned to poverty by her family (her husband died of illness when Tolkien was about two). A Catholic priest took Tolkien in and that's how he got his education so the church/religion isn't all bad in this story, but there was a lot of needless misery, and he was "saved" by a stroke of good fortune.

I remember this type of stuff from my grandfather as well (in the Netherlands). Their house burned down during the war and after the war they relocated to the next village, which was protestant instead of catholic (or the reverse? I forgot) and were ostracized because of that. Especially in the context of post-occupation Netherlands this was double ridiculous because you'd think that these kind of small differences would fade away, but there you have it. One of the reasons they ended up moving to the city.

[neffy]

Let me suggest that the reason you label the church as the body responsible for the deep sense of purpose, is that the Church in all societies used to be, and in some cases still is, the Government. Europe's cathedrals were the middle-ages equivalent of work programs. (All those church tithes had to be spent on something.)

It has also done that job spectacularly badly at times.

[personomas]

The states of Germany and Austria take away a persons purpose because these states are very authoritative and oppressive. Governments shouldn't try to give people a purpose, but they should develop a country via laws that enable or encourage its people to find purpose. Socialism does the opposite, as it's based on the logic of taking away from people who have, and giving to those who don't, which means taking away from those people who found purpose, and giving to those who don't and usually don't seek purpose but instead search for temporarily pleasures like alcohol.

[derstander]

> it's based on the logic of taking away from people who have, and giving to those who don't, which means taking away from those people who found purpose, and giving to those who don't and usually don't seek purpose but instead search for temporarily pleasures like alcohol

I’m with you in your opinion that government shouldn’t try to give people purpose but I think the last part of your argument is an overreach.

You’re conflating purpose with making money. They’re not the same. Counterexample: Vincent van Gogh. His purpose was clearly art but he did not see professional success while alive. If you don’t consider Van Gogh’s purpose to be something like painting or art then I’d suggest you’re not using the word as it is commonly defined.

Also I’d suggest that it’s unfair to paint the poor broadly as not seeking purpose and instead searching for temporary pleasures. I have simultaneously known both an economically struggling person who refrains from drugs and alcohol and a well-to-do person who is a functional alcoholic.

Certainly alcoholism can make people lose money, relationships, etc. But it does not follow that simply abstaining from these things will make one wealthy.

[personomas]

Of course they're not the same, but before people can developer higher spiritual or social purposes they have to develop their material life. For most people, on top of what I just side in the previous sentence, developing their material life itself is a journey that leads them to developing and furthering their social and family life which then leads to a higher spiritual life.

Point being Vincent van Gogh who was "Born into an upper-middle-class family" according to Wiki.

> Also I’d suggest that it’s unfair to paint the poor broadly as not seeking purpose and instead searching for temporary pleasures.

Of course, but I was talking about those poor people who live their lives by becoming dependent on the social states without trying to further their lives. I'm not talking about poor people in general.