“The mystery of human existence lies not in just staying alive, but in finding something to live for.” –Fyodor Dostoevsky
Purpose is a fuzzy concept. It lends itself to different interpretations as wide and as varied as a lump of clay ready to be sculpted.
When we talk about the purpose of life, the purpose of a company, and our shared purpose as members of a community, country, or as human beings, what are we really referring to? Sometimes we use purpose, aim, goal, end, and objective interchangeably. What is the difference between them, if at all?
Aristotle and the Nature of Purpose
“Happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue.” –Viktor E. Frankl
Aristotle asserts that every activity we pursue, skill we develop, decision we make, and inquiry we undertake has a certain end goal. For example, the end of medicine is health, financial management is wealth preservation or profit, and the end of exercise is physical fitness.
For Aristotle, many of the things we do are instrumental in achieving other things. We make money to buy things we want, impress others, accumulate wealth, acquire new experiences, and more. We get an education to learn new subjects, become a part of a network, and get better jobs. Other things we usually do are aimed at gaining status in society, political influence, wealth, connections, and recognition, among others.
All that seems good for Aristotle, insofar as it is achieved within legal and ethical constraints. But he goes one step further, asking a more fundamental question about the ultimate aim of all this, one that is not instrumental in achieving something else, but is sought for its own sake.
According to Aristotle, every activity we pursue is fundamentally motivated by an ultimate desire to be happy, to achieve a certain degree of contentment and tranquility. This is not so much an instrumental goal that would help us achieve yet another aim. Rather, it is more of a continuous way of being, an attitude, and a process. This is achieved by living a life that corresponds with our function as human beings, or our purpose in life.
Our function or purpose is to live a life of excellence supported by reason, whereby we seek to cultivate good habits, or virtues, such as courage, honesty, justice, and temperance, to name a few. Through such a process of habituation, we build good character traits that aid us in living a good life. This process is conducive to the attainment of both instrumental goods and the ultimate good, namely, happiness.
Aristotle’s theory serves as an adequate entry point into the notion of purpose for two reasons: first, it makes it easier to identify what type of questions we can ask ourselves to clarify the concept and what it means. Second, it addresses a core aspect of purpose, namely, that it can only be achieved indirectly because it’s not an instrumental good, but a process.
“Those who have a ‘why’ to live, can bear with almost any ‘how’.” –Viktor E. Frankl
In Start With Why, Simon Sinek maps three concentric circles (what he refers to as the Golden Circle) onto the structure of human action, each corresponding to a guiding question: why (the end or purpose), how (the means or method), and what (the resulting instrumental good, product, or objective).
Sinek illustrates this structure through the often-cited Apple example: their why is to challenge the status quo, the how is through building beautifully designed and user-friendly products, and the what includes computers, phones, tablets. The same logic applies to our personal projects and individual lives.
The central thesis of Start With Why, as the title suggests, is that to live meaningfully, build a successful business, or thrive professionally over the long term, one must begin with the why, the underlying reason for pursuing any given endeavor.
Knowing the why is necessary, though not sufficient. When we are clear about our purpose, whether personal or organizational, we gain orientation. We know what we are trying to achieve, how we might want to go about it given the available conditions, and how to adapt when circumstances change.
Obliquity, Happiness, and Purpose
Another concept that echoes Aristotle’s account is obliquity, discussed by the economist John Kay in his book Obliquity. Kay’s main argument is that in complex systems, our objectives are best approached and achieved indirectly, or obliquely. In contrast, when the objectives are one-dimensional or simple to achieve, then it is best to approach them directly.
“I never, indeed, wavered in the conviction that happiness is the test of all rules of conduct, and the end of life. But I now thought that this end was only to be attained by not making it the direct end. […] Aiming thus at something else, [people] find happiness by the way.” –John Stuart Mill
He argues that happiness is best achieved not by chasing after it. Our lives are comprised of a complex set of factors, duties, obligations, interests, and hobbies. Given this complexity, chasing happiness as some sort of isolated objective would make us more frustrated. By engaging in activities that are self-fulfilling, we enter into a state of flow, contentment, or happiness. When pursued obliquely, happiness emerges as a byproduct.
Other examples Kay provides include creativity, innovation, profit generation, and social and political projects. A company seeking profit or shareholder value maximization is bound to fail if it does not focus on what it is good at, rather than financial acrobatics.
Kay’s argument echoes the other point that we came across in Aristotle’s account, namely, that purpose (in Aristotle’s view happiness) as an ultimate goal is best approached indirectly, obliquely. These ideas also echo the work of one of the founding figures of the Austrian school of economics, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, who argued in The Positive Theory of Capital that the roundabout way is long, but it is the only way to reach the goal of a high level of well-being. He who wishes to have more must first produce the means of production (“Produktionsumweg”). Obliquity is easier to pronounce.
Individual Purpose and Shared Purpose
This raises a further question: to what extent is having a purpose important? What does purpose have to offer us individually, collectively, and professionally that would add value to our lives?
The concept of purpose invites debate precisely because of how fuzzy it is. As we have seen above, the idea takes different shapes and forms depending on the context.
Some of the points of contention around purpose include the question of whether a purpose is imposed on us from the outside or something that we create on our own. The purpose of, say, a hammer is to drive nails. It is conceived and designed with a specific goal in mind. Indeed, it can be used for other purposes. In this case, we can say it’s being misused. If the hammer breaks, it stops being functional and loses its purpose.
Analogically, do humans have purpose in the same way as, say, plants, animals, or tools? Do we find ourselves in this world with a predefined purpose we ought to fulfill? What about the shared purpose of families, communities, companies, and countries?
Depending on your beliefs, you may hold that humans have a particular purpose in life. For Aristotle, it is to live in accordance with reason because we are rational animals, and to achieve a state of flourishing and happiness.
For others, it may not be all that clear that we have a predefined purpose that we ought to seek or fulfill. Instead, they approach life as a series of unfolding events through which we gain a rich experience of the world around us, acquire knowledge, and live a good life to the extent possible. And that’s it.
The implicit assumptions that might fuel this debate lie not in whether having a purpose is a good thing, but in whether it is created by us or to be discovered. Not only that, but while the notion of purpose might be clear in principle, it takes on a different dimension at the individual level, within small groups, or in larger communities.
What if the real problem is not whether we ought to have a purpose, but the tension that arises between predefined and self-created purposes when these levels intersect?
For Sinek, when we know the why, it is easier for us to make decisions, adapt during times of change, navigate uncertainty with more ease, and pursue projects and experiences that will contribute to our general well-being. This applies to individuals as well as groups.
At an individual level, whether you believe you have a purpose and whether you see that purpose as predefined is ultimately a matter of personal choice. Even when you believe you have a purpose, this is pursued for yourself, to achieve a personal state of mind, attitude, and well-being.
When you seek or create meaning, as a byproduct you might end up inspiring others and contributing to society. But primarily, it is aimed at attaining a state of being. It would make more sense, then, that you are intrinsically motivated to seek or create a purpose. If you are not intrinsically motivated, you might feel a general sense of malaise or unease.
Purpose as a Process
By contrast, when a group of people are involved, whether a family or an organization, the why takes on a different dimension. Here, purpose is influenced by a relational dynamic. When several people are concerned, agreeing on a shared purpose while respecting each person’s own aims is a challenge.
When starting a business, it is easier, because the founders can decide on the why in a way that aligns with their own values and purpose. Subsequently, they can seek to attract employees and clients who align with their purpose.
In families or family businesses, especially during second or third generations, things can be more complex. This is not surprising: we do not choose the circumstances of our birth. The older generation, having achieved success (based on a “what”), are keen to share the “how” with the next generation. This presents a predefined purpose on individuals that may or may not share the same “why”, leading to the malaise mentioned earlier.
Sinek distinguishes between two ways to influence people’s behavior: by inspiring them or by manipulating them. Those who inspire are capable of articulating the why. They create a culture and an environment with clear guiding principles, build trust with others, give people the space to innovate, make decisions without fear, and contribute to the community or organization. Manipulation, on the other hand, implies a lack of trust between individuals. Those affected would be less inclined to contribute meaningfully and more concerned with avoiding mistakes than with doing their work well.
By starting with the why, those who inspire implicitly approach purpose as a process rather than as a fixed goal or key indicator to be met. They also appear to recognize that the why is personal and best pursued obliquely. It is an ongoing process of discovery that differs across individual, shared, and collective contexts.
“The case for individual freedom rests largely on the recognition of the inevitable and universal ignorance of all of us concerning a great many of the factors on which the achievements of our ends and welfare depend.” –Friedrich von Hayek
