"Purposelessness," as some sort of "bedrock idea" seems to me to be more a historical - philosophical moment, starting with the decline of idealism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries...

It seems to me like the most common scientific response to largely philosophical claims about the essential and apparent meaningless and purposelessness of "the world" has been to shrug, say "well that's just philosophy," and to go right on assuming purpose exists in theories. Only is biology does this become a flash point. Physics and chemistry don't deal with things that seem to have purposes and the social sciences don't seem to take the "no purpose" claim seriously (how could they?) — Count Timothy von Icarus

Don't believe me; compare the democracy index with the academic standings. — Vera Mont

That is what is implicit in Aristotle's 'telos', and conversely the rejection of telos or teleological principles, implies 'purposelessness'. — Wayfarer

what you mean in this context by "purpose"... — 180 Proof

Note the connection between reason and purpose, which was implicit in earlier philosophy, now called into question in everything, hence the nihilism of much of modern thought. — Wayfarer

We'll see that in about a year. — baker

Such doubt only arises when reason is abstracted and treated as if it were independent from our being in the world. — Fooloso4

Kastrup on Rovelli — Wayfarer

Does religion perpetuate and promote a regressive worldview? — Art48

It is customary to blame secular science and anti-religious philosophy for the eclipse of religion in modern society. It would be more honest to blame religion for its own defeats.

Religion declined not because it was refuted, but because it became irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid.

When faith is completely replaced by creed, worship by discipline, love by habit; when the crisis of today is ignored because of the splendor of the past; when faith becomes an heirloom rather than a living fountain; when religion speaks only in the name of authority rather than with the voice of compassion – its message becomes meaningless. — Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

Prejudices are what fools use for reason. — Voltaire

I spit on all notions of aristocracy, no matter how you try to dress such a category up, to make such seem clean and attractive. — universeness

Thus, my metaethics is Ethical Naturalism (i.e. "good" is agency (i.e. capabilities – virtues, habits – for nonzero sum caring for the functional defects of self, others & commons) optimized by praxes of preventing and reducing harms & injustices, respectively); my normative ethics is Negative Hedonic Utilitarianism (i.e. "right" judgments and conduct which prevent or reduce harm); and my applied ethics is Negative Preference Consequentialism (i.e. "right" policies-practices which prevent or reduce injustice). — 180 Proof

It seems a bit like projecting one's own tastes as matter of fact masked in the form of an intuition. Likewise, if there really are non-natural moral facts (that are something akin to platonic forms), then what faculty do we have to intuiting them? It seems, to me, like we don't. — Bob Ross

... re-situate the basis of objectivity within intersubjectivity. Not just human intersubjectivity but the intra-agential relations within non-human nature. — Joshs

Neoplatonism? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Stupidity: n, thinking philosophy can be found in a dictionary. :wink: — unenlightened

The fact that quantum physics appears to undemine the concept of objectivity — Wayfarer