Only when the Democrats lose has the country been divided. — Hanover

You seriously don’t think Trump is divisive?

I think he means that relative to Stalin & Mao, Hitler was a pussycat.

This politically correct culture, with its obsession with identity politics, race, encouraging discrimination against white heterosexual males, etc. is a modern leftist propaganda and has nothing to do with the truth. — Agustino

"Encouraging discrimination against white heterosexual males" is propaganda and false?

Can you give an example of this discrimination?

The good thing about Trump, as opposed to many other Republicans, is that he's not afraid to be conflictual with Democrats when he must. For example, about the importance of God in American public discourse, etc. — Agustino

Yup, Trump is a shining exemplar of Christian ethics. Just kidding. But hey, at least now we can say Merry Christmas again. Yay!

Are you familiar with Max Weber’s iron cage ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_cage )?

What do you think of the following quote: I do not only see the rose, the rose also sees me. — TimeLine

In a word, anthropomorphic. Maybe on a deeper level, that we appreciate the rose for its beauty and meaning rather than its rational value.

I like the one of Michelle a lot. Not too crazy about the Obama rendition.

Buddhists claim that life is suffering because we are ignorant of our true nature. Emptiness is our true nature, so they claim, and because we are ignorant of this nature, or rather don't realize it, we suffer due essentially to grasping onto that which can't be grasped. Why can't anything be grasped? Because everything is empty.

the tree being the final cause of the seed is not real for science — gurugeorge

Are you able to explain why? beyond claiming that a purpose or goal isn't a thing in science.

We can look for the final cause or the efficient cause.
— praxis

"We" can in the language of common sense, but science can't, it acknowledges only efficient cause as real. (Although as I said, there are some noises to reintroduce quasi-Aristotelian concepts back into science, but it's a fairly recent development.) — gurugeorge

It’s Aristotle’s language, not the language of common sense. Are you trying to say that Aristotle had common sense? I’m sure he did.

Review the example that I offered to help you understand. Claiming that a seed causes a tree is no more real (or in your language ‘meaninful’) than it is to claim that a tree is the final cause of a seed.

A scientific investigation could begin with the hypothesis that the purpose of a birds wings is flight, for example, and the scientific method could be applied to this teleological supposition.
— praxis

And if it is applied, it will necessarily cancel out the teleological "supposition" and replace it with an explanation based wholly on efficient causes. — gurugeorge

We can look for the final cause or the efficient cause. For a seed, the final cause might be a tree. The efficient cause of a tree might be a seed.

The only thing being canceled out here is your nonsense.

The way you say "real purpose" tells me that what you mean by "real teleology" is having a meaningful ("real") goal as opposed to a meaningless ("as if") goal.
— praxis

Yes, and "real" has nothing to do with "authority." — gurugeorge

A charismatic leader doesn't even need to be an authority, they can merely appear as one to fool the gullible into swallowing their oh so "real" narratives.

Pseudonym thought the same thing - but it's a strawman — gurugeorge

You expect me to read your discussion with Pseudonym to figure out how claiming an authority figure is related to the meaningfulness of an overarching narrative is somehow a logical fallacy?

the point is to get your meaning from a story about the Universe that's true, that shows that and how you are knit into the Universe's fabric, so that you feel at home and are justified in feeling at home, not just pretending or putting on a brave face and a brittle smile.

The leading metaphysics of the day doesn't offer that comfort. — gurugeorge

Metaphysics doesn't offer this. Meaning in life is comprised of much more than metaphysics. Maybe that's your primary misunderstanding.

What distinguishes a teleological explanation is that it explains phenomena by the purpose it serves rather than by assumed causes.
— praxis

Yes, so that can't be a scientific explanation; a scientific explanation JUST IS an explanation in terms of causes, NOT purposes. — gurugeorge

You seem to have an odd notion of what science is. It's merely a structured way of studying the natural world. A scientific investigation could begin with the hypothesis that the purpose of a birds wings is flight, for example, and the scientific method could be applied to this teleological supposition.

the point is, so long as one is strictly following the materialist/mechanistic metaphysical point of view that distinguishes modern science from the older scientific understanding that was based on classical philosophy, there can be no real purpose. — gurugeorge

The way you say "real purpose" tells me that what you mean by "real teleology" is having an meaningful ("real") goal as opposed to a meaningless ("as if") goal.

From the beginning, philosophy has sought truth and not meaning. Adhering uncritically to some grand narrative, no matter how meaningful it might be to you, is not what philosophy is about. Indeed philosophy can be an unpleasant undertaking when it unravels cherished narratives. It can lead to nihilism, in this way. But as I've said from the beginning, nihilism is just a phase that can be worked through. We can for ourselves find purpose that aligns with our values, join with others to be part of something greater than ourselves, and develop a coherent narrative. It was never God who died, it was the Authority Figure who died. The guru is dead.

In the field of biology, an example of an intrinsic teleological claim might be that the purpose of a birds wings is for flying. This is "real" or valid teleology.
— praxis

Not for science it isn't, there is no real or valid teleology for science at all. I've just explained to you, teleological talk in science as it stands today is just a convenience, a manner of speaking, a compressed explanation, etc. Since I've been through this several times already with you, and more recently with Pseudonym, I'm not going to repeat myself. — gurugeorge

Please don't repeat yourself again. Try explaining what you're trying to communicate with sufficient reasoning. A flat denial doesn't explain anything.

You say teleology in science is a "compressed" explanation. Yet another one of your idiosyncratic terms that makes it difficult to communicate with you. Are you doing this on purpose? Anyway, technically all explanations are compressed as no explanation can account for everything, so it's only a matter of how compressed. Any teleological explanation is going to be "compressed." Compression, or the lack thereof, is not what distinguishes a teleological explanation. What distinguishes a teleological explanation is that it explains phenomena by the purpose it serves rather than by assumed causes. Any explanation that does this is a "real" teleological explanation. It may or may not be a valid explanation but it will nevertheless be an actual teleological explanation.

Invalid or nonsensical is not the opposite of real in this context. — gurugeorge

You're the only one who knows what you mean by "real" in this context. Though given your inability to explain what you mean, maybe even you don't know. You did just write, "there is no real or valid teleology for science at all," which suggests that the terms 'real' and 'valid' are commensurate in your mind.

... people generally want the same values to be an integral part of reality AND an integral part of themselves, so that they are bound to, at home in, the world around them. — gurugeorge

You're right about the binding aspect, indeed the etymology of the word 'religion' goes back to religare (to bind), but you appear rather confused about what is being bound. The function is to bind the group or tribe in common values and goals through rituals, icons, etc, and a coherent narrative. In the vast majority of human history being part of a group was a matter of life and death. Being an integral part of a group increased the odds of gene propagation, so in terms of evolutionary psychology, it's a successful adaptation. Ultimately, the goal of our desire for meaning and the grand narratives it inspires is gene propagation.

Maybe it will clarify if you can explain why your apparent view that Aristotelian teleology is "real" rather than "as if."
— praxis

That sentence doesn't make sense as it stands. I'll presume you're asking me to explain why I think Aristotelian teleology (if true) would be a form of real teleology rather than an "as if" teleology?

The reason would be that Aristotelian teleology understands final cause, purpose, function, as intrinsic to nature, whereas when teleological concepts are used in biology, for example, it's just a manner of speaking (that's what I mean by "as if"). — gurugeorge

Teleology is the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by assumed causes. In the field of biology, an example of an intrinsic teleological claim might be that the purpose of a birds wings is for flying. This is "real" or valid teleology. An example of invalid or nonsensical teleology might be something like claiming that mountains exist for the purpose of sking because we know that mountains didn't come to exist for that purpose.

Right, the metaphysical form of naturalism is synonymous with scientific materialism.
— praxis

No, scientific materialism is one form of metaphysical naturalism, it's not "synonymous" with it, it's a subset or sub-type of it, one form of it. — gurugeorge

The other types of naturalism that you've mentioned, if I recall correctly, are of their own type, not subtypes of metaphysical naturalism.

I meant that a fully satisfactory story about the Universe has to be complete, and ultimately grounded in self-evidence. — gurugeorge

Religious narratives are far from offering a complete account for everything in the universe. They don't need to. They just need to be meaningful.

Why is an overarching narrative necessary to ground our values?
— praxis

Because values partly pertain to the world around you that's not-you, yet values you merely create for yourself have no necessary connection to the world that's not-you. — gurugeorge

You're not explaining why an overarching narrative is necessary to retain values. You're only saying that an individual's values may not jive well with the world around them. That is obvious and unenlightening.

you said something about "real" teleology.
— praxis

Yes, as contrasted with the "as if" teleology I was talking about several posts back when we were talking about teleology. — gurugeorge

Maybe it will clarify if you can explain why your apparent view that Aristotelian teleology is "real" rather than "as if." Or should I just assume that you subscribe to Aristotelian teleology and therefore it is real for you?

Metaphysical naturalism is synonymous with scientific materialism.
— praxis

No it's not, and I just explained how it's not. Scientific materialism is one form of naturalistic thinking. — gurugeorge

Right, the metaphysical form of naturalism is synonymous with scientific materialism.

For non-mechanistic forms of naturalism, meaning and value are intrinsic to the Universe, such that nature doesn't just happen to be the way it is, it's the way it is for a reason (a reason that's ultimately self-explanatory or self-evident in a deep way, thus making the whole intelligible through and through). — gurugeorge

But the whole isn't intelligible through and through, in any narrative. This is anthropomorphism. Meaning can't be intrinsic to the universe without an intelligence or subjective experience.

Obviously religious people don't believe their religions are works of fiction. — gurugeorge

Also obvious that they don't know if their religion is true. That's why faith is required.

For a religious worldview, or a non-mechanistic type of naturalism, "is" and "ought" are very much linked, you ought to precisely because the world is a certain way. — gurugeorge

Even many of Hume's contemporaries didn't think this problem was much of a problem.

They [values] don't magically disappear, rather it's that they don't have any roots in the way reality is. — gurugeorge

Why is an overarching narrative necessary to ground our values?

No, I just said no in the very passage you quote. But perhaps the "phrasing" was too "unique" for you ;) — gurugeorge

No, you didn't just say no, you said something about "real" teleology. I was attempting to determine what you mean by that. This would be the part, in the civilized discourse that you profess to value, where you see my misapprehension and, in the good faith that civil discourse demands, correct my mistaken interpretation by explaining your meaning.

(I'm beginning to wonder if you think I'm a religious believer? It seems like you're arguing as one might argue against a religious believer. Just because I have some kind, positive things to say about religion, and I don't think the standard rationalist counter-arguments to the classical arguments for God are as slam-dunk as rationalists tend to think they are, doesn't mean that I am myself a believer :) ) — gurugeorge

How does one argue against a religious believer? If you're suggesting that your arguments are irrational I will not argue against that claim. But seriously, your primary position is apparently anti-materialist.

By the way, I'm not religious and I don't subscribe to the philosophy of materialism, should I assume that I'm a believer?

Naturalistic and mechanistic/materialistic are pretty much synonymous in this context, are they not?
— praxis

No, as implied by the word "alternative." — gurugeorge

Oh, you mean like 'alternative facts'. Metaphysical naturalism is synonymous with scientific materialism.

It doesn't need to be true. It only needs to be meaningful.
— praxis

Well that's just where we disagree. People trust that science is true. — gurugeorge

If you're trying to say that people trust the scientific method, sure, it proves to be a generally reliable method.

You mentioned yourself that some sort of naturalistic understanding of the world could replace a "specifically religious stance" and avert a drift into nihilism.
— praxis

Yes I think that's possible, but it couldn't be the current mechanistic/materialistic version of naturalism. — gurugeorge

How do you believe that metaphysical naturalism differs from materialism?

BUT, again, these kinds of alternatives would only be a viable counterweight to nihilism if they were true. — gurugeorge

Religious or metaphysical beliefs don't need to be true to be meaningful. For a simple example, a work of fiction, that we know is fiction, doesn't need to be true to be meaningful.

According to the google search I just did there are 4, 200 religions in the world. Many of them have vastly different and irreconcilable metaphysics. If truth were essential how could there be so many and how could they exist side by side? If one were true then others must be false.

Today evolution is generally regarded as fact and even though it contradicts at least one of the major religions many choose to simply not believe it. They don't care what the actual truth is, or rather they don't value truth as much as they value the meaning derived from their belief system.

That the Universe is intrinsically meaningless is a logically necessary implication of the materialist/mechanistic worldview,
— gurugeorge

I don't understand your logic here. What is the thing you're looking for like? What properties would a 'meaning' have that you're finding absent in materialism? — Pseudonym

In a word: values. For some strange reason, he doesn't seem to believe that values exist once a materialist/mechanistic worldview is adopted. They just magically disappear.

Perhaps you're just deliberately being a dick? The possibilities are endless. — gurugeorge

I stated quite clearly that my interest is in trying to understand what you're saying and your unusual language interferes with that aim. I've given no reason for you to doubt this.

civilized discourse normally proceeds under the assumption of charity of interpretation — gurugeorge

I've demonstrated generous effort in my attempts to decipher your unique phrasings.

you don't have to subscribe to intelligent design in order to understand examples of what must necessarily be construed as "as if" teleology on the basis of a materialistic/mechanistic understanding of nature, as examples of real teleology. — gurugeorge

You seem to distinguish 'real' teleology from 'as if' teleology by whether or not there exists an intelligent designer, yes? An intelligent designer is real teleology and 'as if' is merely the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes. If so, the problem here is that this leads to an eternal regress. If there is an intelligent designer, where did they come from? Were they designed or did they come to exist through some natural mechanistic process? If the designer was designed, who designed the designer of the designer...

It seems to me these are just different ways of looking at causal relationships: one with conscious intention and the other without, neither is more real than the other.

What I'm saying is that if you are thoroughly consistent in following a mechanistic/materialistic understanding of the world, then nihilism is the logically necessary conclusion. There's no other option. That doesn't mean a specifically religious stance is the only counter, it just means that as the religious basis for viewing the world fades, and so long as nothing else (e.g. no other religious type, or no alternative naturalistic understanding of the world) replaces it, then we're going to drift into nihilism. — gurugeorge

You appear to contradict yourself within this paragraph by claiming that a mechanistic/materialistic understanding of the world necessarily results in nihilism and then saying that some sort of naturalistic understanding of the world could replace a "specifically religious stance." Naturalistic and mechanistic/materialistic are pretty much synonymous in this context, are they not?

And then, as I said, I don't think you can "freely construct" any old alternative over-arching narrative and have it take hold. — gurugeorge

Have you by chance heard of Scientology?

Of course you can "freely construct" any old story about the universe, but the fact that you've constructed it doesn't make it true. — gurugeorge

It doesn't need to be true. It only needs to be meaningful.

in fact, people thinking the materialistic/mechanistic view of the universe is true is precisely what's driving the drift to nihilism. — gurugeorge

That's a simplistic theory, not a fact.

I agree with you on the positive aspect of not relying on external authority, if by that you mean unquestioning reliance on authority. That's definitely a gain, but it's not really relevant to the main point. — gurugeorge

The freedom to discover or construct our own narratives and meaning in life is irrelevant to your main point? If I'm not mistaken, your main point centers around your claim that once religious belief erodes, due to scientific discoveries that contradict religious doctrine, like evolution, for example, there's no possible over-arching narrative that makes any sense of a material universe.

You mentioned yourself that some sort of naturalistic understanding of the world could replace a "specifically religious stance" and avert a drift into nihilism.

It's not usually considered a sign that you're winning an argument when you twit people for their manner of expression ;) — gurugeorge

I'm not interested in winning an argument. I'm interested in what you're trying to say and your language is getting in the way of that. Perhaps you obfuscate by design? That you persist in it despite my teasing is a sign, of something.

To the extent that many naturalists/materialists think that teleology has been disproven - actually that never happened, it's just another bit of rationalist boosterism. — gurugeorge

No one can currently disprove the existence of an intelligent designer or whatever.

As far as I can tell we haven't had any movement in this discussion, which to my mind centers around your claim that once religious belief erodes, due to scientific discoveries that contradict religious doctrine, like evolution, for example, there's no possible over-arching narrative that makes any sense of a material universe.

My position is that the ONLY difference is that we are free, or freer, in modernity to find/construct our own narratives because there is no longer a reliance on an external authority. And to be clear, any such narratives don't need to be based on a "material universe."

We are free to adopt an over-arching narrative from popular science fiction, as Open-minded Opossum describes in the post above. Depressing but cheeriness is not a requirement.

At this point, you might try to form a convincing argument that shows why we can't discover or construct an 'over-arching narrative' for ourselves.

what is the "stressor"? It appears to me, like all you are saying is that there must be a cause of anxiety (stressor), but since that stressor can't be identified, let's just assume that the brain is the cause anxiety. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think anything has the potential to be a stressor in the sense that practically anything can be associated with something negative or fearful. Look at agoraphobia, for example, agoraphobics can withdraw to smaller portions of their own homes.

Of course, the brain isn't the only component involved in inexplicable anxiety. A panic attack can be chemically induced, for instance. Also, caffeine can make a person anxious. No one is suggesting that the brain is the only cause. However, the brain is what experiences and interprets interoceptive sensations. A jolt of adrenalin could be felt as thrilling or terrifying. The base internal sensations are essentially the same. It is only the context and our conditioning that is different. This is a very important difference because stress, when taken as a challenge, can enhance performance, and stress taken as a threat prepares the body for injury, sacrificing performance.

Now let's take this unreasonable anxiety and see if we can expose it. It cannot be created by thoughts in the brain, because there are no beliefs about any impending events, good or bad. If an impending event was apprehended by the brain, then a judgement could be made concerning this event. But no such impending event is apprehended, and that's why the anxiety remains unreasonable. This is how I would classify unreasonable anxiety, anxiety which is not supported by the brain's judgement of something impending. It cannot be the brain which is creating this anxiety because the anxiety is completely unreasonable to the brain, and the brain's response to that anxiety is one of confusion. — Metaphysician Undercover

The brain is sometimes referred to as a 'prediction machine'. On a subconscious level it's continually predicting what will happen next, based on the situation and memory, in a kind of a Pavlovian conditioned response. A stressor, or something that causes anxiety, doesn't need to be an explicit memory. That's why in many situations anxiety may have no apparent cause and seem unreasonable and be maladaptive. So this is brain activity, conscious awareness of this activity is after the fact, though only a fraction of a second behind.

Maybe that was poorly phrased. I should have said that thoughts can lead to anxiety without any external stressors. Conversely, high arousal and unpleasant affect could induce anxiety and anxious thoughts.

My understanding is that emotion, including the anxious variety, is basically comprised of interoception (nerves connected to internal organs), our conditioning, emotion concepts, and thoughts, and of course whatever is going on in the world around us.

I think anxiety is a heart based condition rather than brain based. — Metaphysician Undercover

That would seem to depend on the kind of anxiety you're referring to. A prey animal may get anxious after catching the scent of a predator, but it's not going to imagine getting attacked and eaten or its children becoming orphans or any other mental simulations that may heighten its anxiety. Ruminations that bring anxiety don't require any external stimuli.

In the sense that heart sensations and rate are part of the interoceptive network emotions could be seen as heart based.

I can tell what effect sugar has on emotions by consuming it myself. The affect sugar induces is nevertheless just internal sensation which doesn't necessarily trigger fear or panic.

I've had panic disorder when I was younger and I would be the first to agree that the first thing anyone should do to overcome the condition, or just to generally get hold of their emotions, is to focus on diet and exercise. After all, the purpose of emotions is to regulate energy.

The body is in every way and manner a complete, holistic, living embodiment of the Mind. Anxiety can spring as much from a poor diet as from rigid thinking. — Rich

Well, no, not really. A poor diet can result in excess energy or high arousal, such as from refined sugar or too much caffeine, but it takes a mind and it's concepts and past experiences or conditioning to turn the internal perception of high arousal into fear or panic.

It takes a human mind and its concepts to fear things like death, or imaginary things like ghosts or whatever. We can even learn to fear fear, or rather fear our interoceptions of high arousal in particular conditions.

The eyebrows look a bit oddly artificial.

To be honest I didn’t even know it was a tradition. And to be fair, no one is taking cues from me. I’m not the leader of the free world.

Today, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Trump flies to Florida and plays golf rather than partaking in 'a day of service'. I suppose we shouldn't read anything into that.

linguistic meaning is something that develops spontaneously over generations, and to the extent that any values are involved at all, they're unconscious and derived from things like differential reproductive fitness, status seeking, etc. — gurugeorge

You're getting closer to accepting that "linguistic meaning" is based in values, it appears.

Metaphorical teleology isn't teleology. All uses of teleological concepts in science are necessarily metaphorical, or shorthand, because science cannot possibly deal with teleology, only material or efficient causes and mechanistic explanations.

As I keep telling you, that's built in to the very idea of science as a way of looking at the world, as distinct from religious or mythological explanations (which are all about teleology). — gurugeorge

Maybe try to think of it this way. If there were evidence of God's existence, like if he started appearing around the world and doing things that only a God could do, then his goals could be speculated on and studied scientifically, right? Indeed some claim that science was first developed to for this purpose, essentially to study God.

A more practical example is AGI (artificial general intelligence). AGI will likely present the most serious teleological questions our species will ever know, because within a couple of decades our survival could depend on it.

the very meat of science as a distinct enterprise WAS the bracketing, the methodological shelving, of teleological questions. — gurugeorge

Using my magic decoder ring translated this to: the substance of science was the methodical abandonment of teleological questions.

Hmm.

It's not like the comment exists in isolation. He's made other well-known comments that suggest a racist attitude.

I agree that he used offensive language. However, what he said wasn't racist. — Thorongil

It may be expressing an attitude that is generally racist. That's a disturbing thought for someone in his position, affecting policies, national attitudes, etc. I believe that's why so many people are perturbed about it, except for Richard Spencer and the like.

Ugh, alright.

Linguistic meaning isn't "based on values" it's a natural phenomenon that just grows. — gurugeorge

Whether or not meaning is a natural phenomenon that just grows, this says nothing about your claim that meaning isn't based on values. Are you assuming that values are unnatural and don't "grow"? Is it that you consider the interpretation that meaning is based on values, the analysis itself, unnatural? and that having made this analysis there's no longer room for growth? In any case, in the very next breath you accept my claim, stating "I suppose you could say it's "based on values" in a particular sense."

This is a big nothingburger so far, but thanks for the opportunity to use the word nothingburger. I've been so wanting to try it.

No, you can't ask teleological questions in science. The nearest thing would be the kind of reverse-engineering you get in evolutionary explanations, but of course that's just convenient shorthand for a bunch of complex mechanistic processes analyzed in other sciences. It's "as if" teleology. — gurugeorge

Of course it's metaphorical in biology. How could it not be?

For science, everything must necessarily be clickety-clack, from top to bottom, because that's all science looks for (material/efficient causes). — gurugeorge

I don't know what you mean by "clickety-clack" or "from top to bottom." Rhythmic, and thorough or hierarchical?

If you're saying that science requires evidence, why does that prevent it from asking teleological questions?

Frankly, I'm skeptical if your 'clickety-clack, as if' explanation is worth deciphering.

Teleology, as I expect you know, is a reason or explanation for the purpose or goal of something. Clearly, science can give reasons and explanations for the purpose or goal of something. So what purposes or goals are you curious about? If you define a goal or goals we can go from there.

It happened years ago and I don't know if she reported it. I'd ask but she's out. If I recall, she told the story in the general context of it being an example of what women have to deal with. She had other stories but that was the worst.

I was at a nude beach with a woman once and we noticed, to our astonishment, a guy walking down the shoreline towards us nude and masturbating. Either he got a thrill out of doing that or it was some sort of invitation. Fortunately, he didn't get too close before turning around. Though technically illegal, he could have been fined and put on a sex offender list, to my mind this falls under 'the right to bother', as referred to in the Deneuve letter on page 7 of this topic. The former example with the guy in the car, that's force and assault, even though he didn't touch her.

The worst story I can remember my wife telling was of a guy running her to the side of the road with his car while she was riding a bike and then masturbating in front of her. Freaky, and probably not the sort of thing any dude needs to worry about.

No, you can't ask teleological questions in science. — gurugeorge

Try it. See what happens. It's safe, I promise.

I, myself, before I was 25 years old, had been a victim of female misbehavior... — JustSomeGuy

Just out of curiosity, why do you suppose it stoped after 25? You moved to a better neighborhood? Started working out?

No. You can have linguistic meaning in a material world, and science can be based on that, but you can't have meaning (with a capital 'M' as it were) in the sense of a kind of meaning that could counter nihilism - that is, the meaning of something's having a place in an over-arching narrative, or a telos, a purpose. — gurugeorge

What you continue to not acknowledge is that aesthetics, "linguistic meaning," and capital M meaning is all based on our values. Values are expressed in 'right or wrong' evaluations, aesthetics, and in religious traditions. There's no vast gulf between these modes.

Science leave out all questions of telos by design — gurugeorge

We're free to ask teleological questions, form hypothesizes, test, and so on. I don't know why you feel constrained in this way.

I should note that there's another important sense of Meaning, which is more related to mysticism - a sort of aesthetic arrest, suspension in the moment, nonduality, silence, "peace that passeth understanding" - although it can occur even in the midst of stress and action - etc., and that's a very important "thing" in this world, but it's non-conceptual. — gurugeorge

You appear to have formed a concept of it okay, even going so far as calling it a "thing."

"Not to slut shame, but let's slut shame the fuck out of her anyway". — Akanthinos

Again, the point is that she should know better. We should all know better, in my opinion. I recognize that many in this country don't know better. A good step forward may be to move towards knowing better. That's my takeaway from the Deneuve denouncement.