By "purpose", I mean an objective final goal to be reached (i.e. the purpose of nutrition is to ensure survival) as different from "meaning" (i.e. subjective purpose, significance or relevance attributed by an individual). In the context of purpose, it is not unreasonable to ask some questions:
"Why did this person act this way instead of another way?"
"Why do different humans feel different things in different situations?"
"Why has society evolved the way it did, and not another?"
We know that when we perform an action, it usually has an underlying reason and a final purpose. In fact, we know, from experience and investigation of our past and present, that life in general does things with a certain purpose. We know the "How", and we feel confident to ask the "Why?". HOWEVER, in this case, we can only ask "Why?" because we know the "How". The problem with the Why question shows its limitation when we are concerning ourselves with the fundamental questions and principles. Let me give an example:
PERSON 1: Why do I have these physical traits and not others?
PERSON 2: Well, reproduction works such and such, crossing-over such and such, mutations such and such, which gave rise to your particular traits, and not others; actually, it was a quite random process.
PERSON 1: Yeah, alright, that's HOW I have these physical traits... But WHY do I have them?
There is an evident miscommunication. Person 1 is failing to see that the "Why?", in this case, merges into a "How". This situation happens when we are dealing with the fundamental principles of something, getting closer and closer to the building blocks of life - there exists "randomness" in the fundaments, which, by definition, do not have a purpose or orientation - there is not a "survival purpose" for you to have those traits, but rather you having those traits or another set of traits might influence your "survival". What triggers such a solid process as evolution by natural selection is the random mutation and genetic variation along generations; in fact, the origin of life from non-life (abiogenesis), if it occured, was a matter of (very low) probability. Thus, what we perceive in our macroscopic world behaves by totally different rules than those applied when we investigate the fundamental principles of something, where non-deterministic rules seem to apply. In likeness to the birth and existence of human beings, nothing points towards the existence of a mind, or purpose, behind atoms and molecules moving around in space, which make up all matter. While investigating themes such as this, I came about a number of questions which I consider to be poor questions:
Why does the Universe exist?*
Who is the Creator of the Universe?
What is the Purpose of Life?
Where will I go after I die?
*Some people pose this question in the form "Why is there something instead of nothing?", which is equivalent in this case. I am not critisizing the curiosity for "how" the Universe came to exist, but rather the fact that many times this question pressuposes a purpose for the Universe to have originated.
These questions already pressupose something a priori: a deity, an ultimate purpose for life to exist, something which continues after death, etc. One of the great pleasures that I take in life is to know and understand the universe that I live in as it is - therefore, I will take all necessary steps not to fool myself. If by pressuposing a certain set of answers, we fail to come up with a TRUE answer, we will certainly make up a FALSE one. I suggest different questions:
What gave rise to the Universe/How did the Universe came to be?
How did life form? Was there any purpose in the formation of life?
Is there anything that survives after death? Is there any good, demonstrable reason for me to believe such a thing?
By asking the broadest question possible, we decrease the probability of fooling ourselves into believing something with no good reason or into making up answers that are either false or have no solid support to stand on their own.
If we are willing to discover and understand the Universe, we should ask the broadest question possible - one that pressuposes nothing and simultaneously doesn't rule out anything.
It may seem that, within my philosophy, I am almost anti-philosophical, in the sense that I don't appear interested in the deep questions about being. In fact, I am - however, I am more concerned with the practical questions of the world, the ones who can be objectively investigated by logic, reason and science. Science, throughout history, has exposed the faults and limitations of the human mind in understanding the Universe. That is why, in my limited opinion, one of the main roles that philosophy plays in modern times is not that of a compass pointing towards the final destination, but that of a counselor, helping humanity sail through the sea of uncertainties and conflicts.