>>17943464 (OP)
not objective in the If*ckinglovescience sense.
we can't know anything mind independently. knowledge requires a knower. everything exists for knowledge, that's why idealism is the correct meta-physics.
"meaning" is also kind of a bullshit term (like objective). sciencefags aren't asking about semantics and language, they want an existential meaning, like a teleology.
and the idea of a human purpose is actually interesting. but there's different levels to it. to me, sciencefags and platonists are all-or-nothing about it. either rabbi yeshua gave you a purpose, which isn't subjective somehow, or else total nihilism. I think Aristotle and Kant had a more correct view about purposes in nature.
a final cause is almost retrocausation in a sense because the goal determines the appropriate means to that end. and so there probably are different human goals at different levels of the organism. like the appetitive/vegetative organism has goals in it's metabolism, to persist and maintain itself, reproduce itself, etc. like how the purpose of the heart is to pump blood. like a functional view. and we have more rational goals. we only have to assume these are hypothetical imperatives, because this is where a lot of the controversy is. the debate between Hume and Kant and whether there are rationally inappropriate goals. sciencefags do not care at all about any of this though.
