Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Does form follow function?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 TheCallofCthulhu
Joined: 9/26/2010
Msg: 1
Does form follow function?Page 1 of 2    (1, 2)
"It is the pervading law of all things organic, and inorganic,
of all things physical and metaphysical,
of all things human and all things super-human,
of all true manifestations of the head, of the heart, of the soul, that the life is recognizable in its expression, that form ever follows function. This is the law."
Luis Sullivan

I figure while this will help with some answers to what exist and what does not exist.

So does form follow function?

Cheers to those bold enough to answer to the law of the universe.

averagehippie
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 2
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/13/2010 9:14:23 AM

So does form follow function?

No.

Example A.

Nipples on male humans.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 3
view profile
History
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/13/2010 10:43:28 AM
Sometimes form follows function. But sometimes function follows form. Utilitarianism isn't the only way to go.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 4
view profile
History
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/13/2010 12:54:37 PM
Sounds as though this fellow Luis Sullivan got caught up in romanticizing a few imagined similarities in some things, and extrapolated this series of observations into his "law."
As when many scientists, historians, or other professionals get excitedly caught up in their OWN little version of the "unified reason theory" of the universe, I say
"Bollocks."
I don't understand why the OP would think that this concept/idea would help with "some answers to what exist and what does not exist." Even if "form always follows function" WERE a valid "law," it wouldn't relate in any way to what is or might or might not be real.
Anyway, as to the "form follows function" thing, I was first introduced to it as an ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN concept, from back in the fifties, I think. As far as I'm concerned, that someone had to PUSH people to PURPOSELY make their design forms follow function, that required PUSHING proves that to is NOT a natural law at all. It is a logical thing to try to ACHIEVE, by effort, though. A form that follows it's function tends to be more efficient and easier to use than one that does not.
So anyway, law of the universe? Nonsense. I think mister Sullivan is in love with hearing himself postulate. In public, too. A bit on the naughty, peculiar side, if you ask me, and you did, so there you are.
 TheCallofCthulhu
Joined: 9/26/2010
Msg: 5
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/13/2010 1:36:25 PM
Perfectly on topic :) and thank you for the replies. The old form follows function "thing". Any examples of fuction following form?
 TheCallofCthulhu
Joined: 9/26/2010
Msg: 6
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/13/2010 1:40:11 PM
We can throw chaos into the topic too. :) It tough to have form without chaos a person could assume.
 TheCallofCthulhu
Joined: 9/26/2010
Msg: 7
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/13/2010 2:21:09 PM
"I don't understand why the OP would think that this concept/idea would help with "some answers to what exist and what does not exist." Even if "form always follows function" WERE a valid "law," it wouldn't relate in any way to what is or might or might not be real" I haven't figured out the quote functuion yet Igor, pleasure to meet you. Bear with me a bit as I get familiar with this forum. :)

Chaos by definition does not exist. How about an event as defined by Einstein, a point in space real or not? The number one by definition is and is not a number. And the first two number of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number

the math to the phrase fff?

My nipples are sexy... the leg bone of a whale?
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 8
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/13/2010 2:51:01 PM
Cases where function follows form are too numerous. Any time anything is used in a way it wasn't designed for is an example. From a little boy using the leg of a Barbie doll for a ray gun, to a chop stick used to scratch under a cast, to the myriad uses of duck tape.
 TheCallofCthulhu
Joined: 9/26/2010
Msg: 9
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/13/2010 2:58:49 PM
"Cases where function follows form are too numerous. Any time anything is used in a way it wasn't designed for is an example"

Thanks halftimedad. Isn't that called a redesign?
 TheCallofCthulhu
Joined: 9/26/2010
Msg: 10
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/13/2010 3:10:04 PM
I wanted to throw this out to and see how it falls. :)

an event is to chaos as function is to form.

That's my quote.
 TheCallofCthulhu
Joined: 9/26/2010
Msg: 11
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/13/2010 4:02:43 PM
Regarding any chicken and egg questions....the answer is the egg. What laid the egg? Something that wasn't quite a chicken but real close to being one. ;)
 societalblessing
Joined: 10/15/2010
Msg: 12
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/13/2010 9:12:13 PM
The question reminds me of the essence vs existence debate- which is more fundamental. If form always follows function then the form of 'male' follows from the function of 'male.' As it stands functioning as a male depends on the social world that the male finds itself in, including what is defined as male. The form of the individual precedes its function. I having the form of male thus function according to that society's norm for 'males.'

Though this framework is debatable, since form is defined prior to the future function of the individual, it adds to the debate given that function, in this case, is a human conception or how the human sees the form set before it. To remove this subjective tendency it helps to define the form of a thing after the function of a thing is described An example is the function of a door- opening/closing, separating spaces, aesthetic taste, etc and then finding the form of the door implied within that door's function.

It is difficult to conceive the form of an object without first describing its function, so it seems that function precedes form. However, it is highly probable that a function often follows from the form of the object a la Shaq....
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 13
view profile
History
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/14/2010 3:04:36 AM
FYI, in the theory of evolution, things evolve, based on their current design, which means that in evolutionary theory, function follows form.
 TheCallofCthulhu
Joined: 9/26/2010
Msg: 14
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/14/2010 7:26:59 AM
Great responses!

I would like to add: nature is order
what is that order?

and vestigial organs are fun to think about also.

ah
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 15
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/18/2010 10:04:04 PM
Perfectly on topic :) and thank you for the replies. The old form follows function "thing". Any examples of fuction following form?

Okay... lessee. BJS? The female mandibular organ assumes the primary male reproductive organ ("muscle") in shape, i.e. form, in order to perform the function. This is when women put the "fun" back into "function" for men.

I, for one, can't unerstand this form follows function and vice versa thing. What is the meaning of this? Why is it important? If it explains why things exist and why they don't, surely it is not the only philosophy that explain the existences or non of things?

How do you describe a thing that does not exist, even in concepts, or fantasy? What form do they take, and is that form the function of something?

What is this all about?

Why is this important?

What's the BASIC reason to talk about this, aside from someone having asked this question?

I suspect some mediaeval philospher thought of this and it was picked up for it served the philosophically correct politics of the time. Maybe not mediaeval, but ancient. Or classic. Or pre-historic.

I even dare to say that form follows the function is NOT the only possible opposite of function following form. I would say that in most cases, neither follows the other.

For instance: I bump my toe in the doorframe, and I scream in pain. What follows what? Which would you define as form, and which as function?

Page 23 follows page 22. Which is the form? Which is the function?

I even challenge that page 23 exists only because page 22 exists. It is not a given that existence of page 23 is undeniable purely due to the form following function or the other way around.

A male squirrel will chase a female squirrel until such time that the female lets him catch up and then they perform a sexual function.

So the function follows the form? Or is the form (male squirrel) following another form (female squirrel) and then they are followed by a function, which is a form? I.e., a form of love? Love exists even in squirrel's brains, don't kid yourself those squirrels don't feel amorous love, don't tell me they are just animals that revel in the joy of sex.

I am asking the OP now:

Why did you ask this question? What is the significance of the answer of "yes" or "no" to "Does form follow function?"? What difference would either answer make in any other thought or endeavour of man?
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 16
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/18/2010 10:26:28 PM
What are vestigial organs? I demand to know.

Nature is order what is that order? Well, duh. That order is nature.

I like your hippie questions. They are hip.

I have a few hippie questions, too.

Is reality inherently wrong?

Are the planets edible, and if yes, are they parve and/or vegan? After all there is something in the sky called The Vega. If you tell me that Vega is not Vegan, then I'll bring the wrath of Io on you.

How many vestal virgins are there? (The correct answer is 16.) Or, more correctly asked, WERE there. Don't ask.

Is mankind doomed, or just semi-doomed?

When is the first wovel said by early man?

And when is the first vowel said by the same?

Does the towel come before the vowel? Give some examples.

Who makes whom? God man, or man God? And what are the four basic principles that support this theorem?

When is the next coffee break?

Who will win the debate at the end, of magic mushrooms vs. ganja?

In vino veritas. Which mediaeval king made this phrase world famous?

Does form follow function? Or does function follow form?

Pick the only answer:

1. Form follows function.
2. Function follows form.
3. Little Johnny.
4. Form does not follow function.
5. Function does not follow form.
6. Some of the above.
7. All of the above.
8. None of the above.
9. Only 3 and 5.
10. Only 2 and 5, or else but not "and" not 3 or not 6.
11. Both of 7 and 8 at the same time but not at the same respect.
12. It's a draw. Sorta thing, anyhows.
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 17
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/18/2010 10:58:59 PM
It's just the way it works. The fetus has the "potential" to be either male or female, regardless whether it is XY or XX; it's the hormone testosterone that creates the differentiation. And that hormone gets produced in greater amounts if the fetus carries that Y chromosome

Just as men have nipples, women have the "equipment" to be men as well; it's just not developed because of the lack of hormone when developing.


This is absolutely true. With the introduction of the overproduction of oestrogen-mimicing substances, some fish species will change their sex, in their ADULTHOOD, from female to male, or from male to female, some individual fish doing it more than once. (This is not a joke, sorry, it's scientific fact.) (Whatever a fact is. A fact is a fact, it can't be just scientific, once it's already a fact.)

So it really ain't X and Y chromosomes that determine the sexual function (or in my case, the sexual dysfunction) of the individual.

That is precisely why males have nipples. A fish that became female from male, would look absolutely ridiculous without nipples. Sort of like the duck=billed platypus to early Euroopeans on early Australia. Those discoverers laughed for days after seeing a platypus. The only thing that saved the platypus from instant extinction due to European man's sense of humour is the awful stench the female produces when she's in heat. And tell me when it's not hot in Australia. "Where women glow and men chunder."

This also explains the "sheep" jokes. If there were no stench, we would laugh at "platypus" jokes now.

Guys, I am extremely tired, hence this amount of incredible gibberish. Please, if one of you is still awake, call the ambulance on me and ask them to hit me on the head really hard, or tie me up and shove me under the bed. No worries, Mrs. Psiribrinski will fish me out of there with a broom. Next monday, when it's not her day off. Won't be the first time, won't be the last.

If the ambulance guys have got no rope, tell them I keep the duck tape in the bottom drawer, on the left, right beside my spare nipples.
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 18
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/18/2010 11:02:37 PM
Okay, I'll try to drag myself to bed. It's been fun, OP, please don't mind me, I had no right to criticise you for your having asked the questions you asked. Apologies, because no offence was intended.
 Fishalways
Joined: 9/22/2009
Msg: 19
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/19/2010 4:11:12 AM
I will wade into this one. Being that Sullivan is more accurately talking about architecture here, as he is one of the masters of modern architecture, on par with Wright, in my humble opinion. He does appear to be attempting to apply this ideal on a more broad philosophical scale however. A scale that I am not certain is effective.
He is describing the aesthetic that results from something that is designed to function. For example, a stair is designed to perform a very specific function, if it fails to function as a stair, it's form is irrelevant no matter how beautiful. Conversely, a stair that is simply a stair has a beauty in it's own right as a result of it's function.
How would this be applicable to the universe on all scales? Everything functions in the universe as it is going to function. Some forms are pleasant, some are not. Some function very well, some barely function at all.
I suppose if you feel the universe, and all things in it have some underlying purpose then you can say all things have a function, therefore everything is an emergent from its form. If you are more of an absurdist, like myself, you see things that simply have no purpose other than existence. This is where Sullivan and I part company. With regards to architecture I think this is an absolute requirement with regards to design. I design buildings to be used. If my designs don't function, the form they take is irrelevant. This was his architectural philosophy also. I simply don't accept all things have a function beyond existing. If you define function as broadly as such, then the ideal is consistent. If not, it fails.
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 20
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/19/2010 7:11:31 AM
Thanks, fishalways. That put a large questionmark out of my mind.

I am still having trouble with the assignment of "philosophy" to Sullivan's statement.

I have problems accepting it as philosophy, for when Sullivan says "form follows function" and it is put into the context of what he meant, it becomes a tautology. Of course form follows funciton, if you look at it that way. If something is useless, then its form is necessarily wrong, i.e. its form renders it useless. This is not philosophy, it is not genius. It is naming something a five year old child can see.

Not all obvious things are tautologies, and not all tautologies are obvious. But all tautologies are useless from a practical sense, and all tautologies are useless from any sense other than their role and function in logical deductions. With this I mean that if someone names a theorem, and it looks ridiculous or unprovable, then the only way to prove it is to reduce the elements of a theory with only logically sound transformations into a tautology, to prove the truth of the original theorem. THIS is the only acceptable useful function of a tautology, in philosophy or in other human endeavours.

To build a following on a man who uttered a tautology is a dangerous example. I can say "trees are green or not green" or I can say "Sullivan uttered a tautology or else he did not utter a tautology" and I become world famous, as per the example of Sullivan. Suddenly the world is populated by world famous people only, since tautologies abound, and they are rather very easy to manufacture. So everyone is famous, which means everyone is outstanding, which means that the word "outstanding" has lost its meaning.

I warn those who think Sullivan was a visionary that their stance potentially creates destruction of our cultural and social structures, at least in part, and therefore I ask the same people to please reconsider their stance on this matter.

Oh, and I had a good night's sleep, thanks for asking.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 21
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/19/2010 7:32:34 AM


All fetuses start out as girls, which is why men have nipples, so it's not really a good example.


I have heard this theory before and have repeated without thinking about it but the sex of the foeti is determined by the sperm at conception...surely logic dictates that you cannot start out XX (female) then hormones change you to an XY (male).

You are either 1 or the other.


Not necessarily, because final gender specification in the fetus doesn't occur until several weeks into the pregnancy and, until that time, you would be hard pressed to tell the gender from a simple visual inspection. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that either is possible up until the right genes turn on at the right time. In the meantime, the fetus is potentially either. The fact that hermaphroditism can occur indicates that there can be "mistakes" or miscues in the process. It certainly indicates that it isn't an either/or thing.

Additionally, not all vertebrates gestate the same way. Crocodilians rely on temperature to determine the sex of their offspring and not genetics.
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 22
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/19/2010 7:53:18 AM
"Therefore, it makes perfect sense that either is possible up until the right genes turn on at the right time. "

This makes sense only if it is true that XX and XY chromosome pairs are immaterial in the gender determination. This, in turn, is true only if male sexual organs capable of full male sexual function in reproductive capacities can develop on an embrio which contains ONLY XX chromosome pairs in all its cells.

This is a question which can be decided only by observation.

A true hermaphrodite is not capable of poducing offspring, in the role of female or male just the same.

I suggest that we accept, FOR THE SAKE OF THIS DISCUSSION ONLY, that a male is one which can perform successfully in the role of a male in a sexual reproduction, and a female is one which can perform successfully in the role of a female in a sexual reproduction.

A visual inspection is not a proof of "anything can happen later on", as you stated. The opposite is not true either, but your claim is clearly false. If it were true, it would follow that a human embrio could potentially develop into a pig or a rat, since prior to the fifth day past insemination, visual inspection can detect no difference between human embrios, pig embrios and rat embrios. While philosophically speaking it is possible, no empirical evidence has been shown that this would actually happen. So visual inspection showing no differences does not make the embrio indeterminant for gender, as much as for species; other things that we can detect ARE determinant, for instance the chromosome pairs XX or XY in the cells of the embrio.
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 23
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/19/2010 7:57:35 AM
"Therefore, it makes perfect sense that either is possible up until the right genes turn on at the right time. "

What I meant to say was that it is possible and I believe it true, that the right genes can NOT turn up for a female if the human embrio contains in all its cells XY chromosomes. The XY excludes even the possibility of such genes to turn on at any time, since those genes are not included in the genome, and what's not there, can't turn on.

I would say, however, that men have nipples coz X, singly or doubly as a chromosome, is sufficiently responsible for making the embrio develop nipples. This does NOT mean the embrio is female, it just shows that the genes responsible for nipple development reside on the X chromosome, or, maybe, on any of the other chromosomes, outside of XX and XY pairs.

After all, non-mammals have XX and XY choromosome pairs, yet they don't have nipples.

The protein sequence for nipple creation could be located anywhere, really, on any chromosome, except for sure not on the Y chromosome, that is what we can say on the matter with any degree of certainty from where we sit, ie., having the education and knowledge we each on this forum have on the topic of genetics.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 24
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/19/2010 9:40:27 AM

This makes sense only if it is true that XX and XY chromosome pairs are immaterial in the gender determination. This, in turn, is true only if male sexual organs capable of full male sexual function in reproductive capacities can develop on an embrio which contains ONLY XX chromosome pairs in all its cells.


True enough, however, I did not say that chromosome structure was immaterial to gender determination. What I said was that gender determination occurs at a specific point in gestation. Therefore, rather than have one form for males and one form for females, it is easier and more efficient from a developmental standpoint to start from a base form and work out from there. That's where the genetics kick in. It has the coding for when to turn on what for that final specified gender.


A visual inspection is not a proof of "anything can happen later on", as you stated.


Poor choice in words on my part. Again, genetics provides the coding for the process. However, male/female dimorphism occurs at a particular stage of fetal development. In the earlier stages, the sex organs are identical for both genders. The logic behind that should be obvious enough.


A true hermaphrodite is not capable of poducing offspring, in the role of female or male just the same.


Which does nothing to answer the question of why it occurs in the first place. Which would suggest that the developing fetus is developing from a basic architecture. It seems entirely plausible that, in the case of a hermaphrodite, there has been a miscue in the process.


but your claim is clearly false. If it were true, it would follow that a human embrio could potentially develop into a pig or a rat, since prior to the fifth day past insemination, visual inspection can detect no difference between human embrios, pig embrios and rat embrios. While philosophically speaking it is possible, no empirical evidence has been shown that this would actually happen. So visual inspection showing no differences does not make the embrio indeterminant for gender, as much as for species; other things that we can detect ARE determinant, for instance the chromosome pairs XX or XY in the cells of the embrio.


Entirely spurious since that is not what I said or implied. The discussion was about gender. A human embryo and a pig embryo are completely different. However, they do share similar morphologies.


After all, non-mammals have XX and XY choromosome pairs, yet they don't have nipples.


Especially since mammalia are defined in part by their ability to breast feed their offspring.


I would say, however, that men have nipples coz X, singly or doubly as a chromosome, is sufficiently responsible for making the embrio develop nipples. This does NOT mean the embrio is female, it just shows that the genes responsible for nipple development reside on the X chromosome, or, maybe, on any of the other chromosomes, outside of XX and XY pairs.


Makes sense.


The protein sequence for nipple creation could be located anywhere, really, on any chromosome, except for sure not on the Y chromosome, that is what we can say on the matter with any degree of certainty from where we sit, ie., having the education and knowledge we each on this forum have on the topic of genetics.


Read not biologists or embryologists.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 25
view profile
History
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/19/2010 10:50:09 AM
RE Msg: 25 by FoshFish:
I am still having trouble with the assignment of "philosophy" to Sullivan's statement.

I have problems accepting it as philosophy, for when Sullivan says "form follows function" and it is put into the context of what he meant, it becomes a tautology. Of course form follows funciton, if you look at it that way. If something is useless, then its form is necessarily wrong, i.e. its form renders it useless. This is not philosophy, it is not genius. It is naming something a five year old child can see.
"Form follows function" is a concept born out of the love for utilitarianism of the early 20th Century Western world, which was the world of Louis Sullivan. Science and technology had developed inventions that had been incredibly useful, like the petroleum-based combustion engine, which led to mass industrialisation. Thus, science and technology had changed things so much, they had seemed to indicate that soon, we would be cured of all diseases thanks to modern medicine, that poverty would soon cease to exist due to mass production of food, that war would disappear in the face of more scientific methods of resolving conflict such as democracy. It did seem to many that the advantages of science and technology were so overwhelming, that it only made sense to make them the only true consideration in all areas, and in architecture as well. Thus, many believed that the best way to design such buildings were according to scientific principles that dictated the best ways to design buildings according to their function. Thus, "form ever follows function".

Louis Sullivan pointed to the birds and other species of the world for example, that birds have wings because they enable one to fly, that even in nature, "form ever follows function".

However, we have now been with the benefits of following science for over 100 years. We now have the evidence of the last 100 years to determine the truth of this hypothesis, and we now know this hypothesis has clearly been wrong in enough cases for it to have been falsified. As much as we try to eliminate all diseases with modern medicine, we now can see that evolution will ensure that new diseases will always develop. We now can see that democracy does not lead to the end of war, as many democratic countries such as our own, have been almost constantly engaged in one war or another in the last 100 years, and war seems set to continue with our countries for at least another 40 years. Poverty is still with us, even in countries such as our own, where we have butter mountains that go unused. Even when it comes to nature, we can see that all sorts of evolutionary developments are there mostly just for show, such as peac0ck feathers, which are mostly just to attract a mate. So it becomes clear, that in nature, and in our attempts to solve our problems, that although science and technology have improved our lives, they have not achieved the goals they were set.

Science and technology are still very useful. They are simply not the panacea that we set them out to be.

The same is true of "form follows function". While it is a useful paradigm, that if you want to design a car, it makes sense to first design a good chassis, and only then decide to adapt it for beauty, the truth is that an ugly car doesn't sell well, no matter how much more mileage we get out of it. The human mind requires beauty and aesthetics just as much as function, and quite often, we will sacrifice function for form.

But why not? What advantage is there in having anything other than the function?

The answer is in the question. If function was a necessity, then we'd have only function, because nothing would work without it, and then, we wouldn't even ask the question at all, because nothing else would exist. So, to have the question, to have the idea, means that the alternative is possible, that one can use a semi-dysfunctional car or building, and still get things done.

However, what then IS necessary for us to continue using a car or other object? That which allows us to keep the car or building being used. The essential problem is dynamism, that needs change all the time. The brain doesn't recollect long-term goals as much as short-term goals. So while a functional car will give one lower costs in the long run, the most immediate concern, is one's short-term goals, if one gets something from the car this moment, such as the pleasure one gets from looking at a beautiful car.

The same is true of many things:

1)Pleasure in sex is unnecessary for having children. But without it, many of us would probably avoid sex to avoid having to deal with the difficulties of raising children. Sexual pleasure ensures that one has a short-term goal to focus on, that keeps us doing the things that get us to the long-term goal.

2) An ugly ex-hooker is probably the best in bed. But most guys would prefer a good-looking woman who is not that good at sex, because you have to want to be around her BEFORE the sex, and that requires you have something to keep you around, like the pleasure of looking at beauty.

3) A beautiful house is not functional either. But a house requires regular maintenance, or it breaks down, and can no longer serve its function. It takes a while before dry rot or damp destroy the supporting beams to the extent that the house becomes unliveable. But a damp patch on the wall ruins a beautiful house. So beauty in a house motivates one to keep the house in good condition, which keeps the house able to continue to be used.

4) Evolutionary traits, like peac0ck feathers are not directly functional. Their only use is to attract mates. But that keeps the species going.

5) Even then, there are probably better ways to attract a mate than having colourful feathers. However, by the time a peac0ck has come up with a better one, all the best females could be taken. So time constraints come into it, judge what will keep the species going.

Thus, it is more accurate to say:

Form ever follows that which encourages us to keep the form in existence.

"Function" is ONE part of that, for a large reason for owning a car, is that it goes somewhere. But then again, if you are homeless, and your car is out of petrol, it's not any good for transport, but it will keep a roof over your head, so why not just live in that till you get yourself a new place? So "function" is NOT the main consideration, but why you need the function in the first place, to have a reason to continue to have the form to exist.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Does form follow function?