How is the definition of work motivated? For most dynamical variables in classical physics, I can understand how one may have decided to introduce them as a result of some "incompleteness" in Newton's laws of motion. For example:

*

*One would like to say that applying a force to an object over time "gives" it something, so momentum must be introduced as
\begin{align} \mathbf p = \int _0 ^t \mathbf F(t') dt', \text{ or as some quantity such that }\mathbf F = \frac{d\mathbf p}{dt}. \end{align}

*It is useful to describe forces that result in changes in angular velocity $\mathbf{ \omega = v \times r}$, so that leads to the definition of angular momentum and torque.

*For some forces it is convenient to say that they serve to make a system approach some stable state, no matter what their initial condition is. Take a spinning top, for example. No matter how you spin it, it will always approach higher "stability" by falling onto the table. The definition of potential energy in the equation $\mathbf F = -\nabla U$ emphasizes the idea of increasing "stability", or decreasing potential, when a force acts on something.

These examples all involved some kind of physically obvious observation (exerting a force gives an object something, forces sometimes rotate things, some forces make things more stable), to which the response was to model the idea using Newton's laws. One can even do something similar with kinetic energy, by using the definition of work, by saying that a change in kinetic energy is just an alternate form for the work done on some object.
But there's something about work which just does not feel motivated at all to me. The work done on an object moving along a path $\gamma$ is defined as
\begin{align} W = \int _\gamma \mathbf F \cdot d\mathbf r, \end{align}
but I simply do not see how this is a quantity which "needed" to exist. Of course it is a very useful quantity, but I'm still having some trouble understanding what it really means intuitively.
Internet definitions (and even textbook ones) don't help much; often either kinetic energy is randomly defined from which the definition of work follows, work is randomly defined from which the definition of kinetic energy follows, or (my least favourite) a circular definition is employed, where energy is defined to be the ability to do work, and work is defined as the energy transferred to an object.
So what is the real meaning of the term "work", before even discussing anything about energy?
(I should clarify that I do not necessarily want to know the historical motivation for the definition of work. I am aware that sometimes things just "turn up" in physics because of experimentation with numbers, etc. I suppose I'm wondering what the "constructivist" approach to the definition of work is.)
 A: The motivation for me is all that ancient tools to facilitate moving things as levers, pulleys or gears.
It is clear that something keeps constant in the trade off between displacement and force. That constant receives the name of work.
A: Work is the thing that makes kinetic energy Galilean invariant. Suppose you have a ball with mass $m$, on a spring ($k$), compressed a distance $L$.
That system has energy, in terms of kinetic ($T_i$) and potential ($U_i$):
$$ E_i = T_i + U_i = 0 + \frac 1 2 k L^2$$
Then you release the spring, and the balls rolls of with velocity $u$, so that:
$$ E_f = T_f + U_f = \frac 1 2 m u^2 + 0 $$
with $u^2 = L^2k/m$ so that:
$$ \Delta E = E_i-E_f = 0 $$
(Note that you can write $u = \nu L$, where $\nu$ is the period of the spring/mass-oscillator).
In terms of forces, of course, the force $kL$ was applied through a distance $L$, so the work done by the spring was:
$$ W = \int_0^Lkxdx = \frac 1 2 kL^2 $$
Now do that in a frame moving at $v$:
$$ E'_i = T'_i + U'_i = \frac 1 2 m v^2 + \frac 1 2 kL^2 $$
and release the spring:
$$ E'_f = T'_f + U'_f = \frac 1 2 m (v+u)^2 + 0$$
$$ E'_f = \frac 1 2 mv^2 + \frac 1 2 kL^2 + mvu $$
Now:
$$ \Delta E' = E'_i - E'_f = mvu $$
This may be distributing. It's clear why momentum conservation survives a Galilean boost (as it's linear in velocity), but energy appears problematic.
Where did $mvu$ come from?
It's work. Because the spring is moving, it is applying a force over a much greater distance than $L$. The force is applied over a distance of:
$$ d = L + \frac 1 4 \frac v {\nu} $$
and the work done is the moving frame is
$$ W = \frac 1 2 k L^2 + mvu $$
A: The fundamental forces in newtonian mechanics, namely gravity and columb forces depend on distance instead of time, thus it becomes sensible to write $F=mv\frac {dv}{dx}$ instead of $F= m\frac {dv}{dt}$
The following images are from my personal notes, I couldn't copy and paste the text due to some issues Apologies for that.




