At universities and studios we are told for who to design, to concern about the target, the production methods, the budget, the time line, the cultural back ground (sometimes) and so on…
I have yet not heard any interesting answer about why to design?
I do not mean the usual banal answer “to satisfy contemporary needs” which always forgets to understand that we create our own (tertiary needs) according to nature our needs are pretty simple.
Then if we look many designers/architects are concern with quantity.
( they want to build and to produce, does not matter that much for who, where and when)
Others are concern with fame: anything that makes them popular is good, it does not matter what as far as the project rises interest. ( design fairs are the peak of this approach).
Others are concerned with ego: especially architects have the small god desire. In this approach what matters is the development of a personal language and theory.
What we should be concerned about, improvement based on human standards and quality, is not really popular amongst designers. Because it does not sell.
Because to be publish one needs something catchy, possibly that involves a superficial influence from another discipline ( maths, philosophy, music…).
One last question remains. I read once an observation of Wittgenstein which stated: “one needs to be a good man in order to be a good philosopher”.
I wonder if we believed that in order to be a good architect one needs to be a good man,
how many (star)architects would remain above a level of decency?