"...That basically means we shouldn't use people and that, of course, means people shouldn't be considered as having a purpose..."

I would take it as meaning that people shouldn't have your purpose. And if it that is true, then your subsequent statement is false. Rather straightforward.

I think Kant would say that no overarching purpose to life can be demonstrated by pure reason, but that we have good practical reasons to believe in God, freedom and immortality. The overarching purpose of life for Kant, then, would be to do one's duty, in accordance with the way in which he conceived that duty; the categorical imperative. The overarching purpose would also involve educating oneself, "daring to know", becoming enlightened enough to be willing and able to take moral responsibility for one's own actions.

I would take it as meaning that people shouldn't have your purpose. And if it that is true, then your subsequent statement is false. Rather straightforward. — gloaming

You have a point and I mentioned it in my OP. Self-purpose (how one may use one's life) is different from other-purpose (how we may use other's life). The former, at first glance, doesn't break Kant's rule to not think of people as means to an end while the latter violates Kant's principle.

However...

1) The self doesn't exist in isolation. We're part of a some community or other. I think it's immoral to think of the self separate from whichever group it belongs to. I mean the worth of the self is measured in terms of how beneficial (useful) we are to the community. So, it follows that self-purpose is valued only to how it serves the other-purpose. In short when we think meaning of our lives we're actually thinking of our purpose in society. How good are we as means to the goals of a community. So, digging a little deeper, we realize that to seek meaning on life, from a Kantian position, is actually immoral. We're looking at ourselves as means to an end of a community or, worse, a single individual.


Please read above.