Any Transcendental Objective Meaning to Human life is both Illusory and destructive.

For this debate, con was not required to provide any specific meaning, but chose to do so anyway, keeping that in mind, let's look at exactly what was required by con and what con also added to his BOP by giving a specific example. Firstly Con's BOP seems to me to be 1. Con must give some reason to presuppose why ANY transcendental meaning to life was not destructive or illusory. 2. Rational justification for holding that a transcendental meaning is in any way probable or likely, thereby not making it an illusory prospect. 3. (Added BOP) Why Con's particular objective transcendental meaning is any more likely than any other. 4. (Added BOP) Provide adequate reasons to presuppose we have an objective transcendental meaning to life (Con's specific one).Give Before I address Con's position directly, I must make one quick 'rebuttal' or point. Con seems to have skipped an entire word in the debate, that being objective, I encourage everyone to read his opening with the word objective in mind, my second post will deal in detail with 1, 2, 3, and 4. An objective transcendental meaning to human life, is as written in the first post, a meaning that 'objectively' holds to all those who are members of the human race. Transcendental implies above or beyond ourselves thereby negating subjective meaning, also objective negates purely subjective meaning. To the human race, means not simply 'life' or 'living', but to the life cycle of the human in all its diversities and change. Illusory My BOP involves 2 parts, proving that a transcendental objective meaning (TOM) is Illusory and then proving it is destructive. Illusory I will begin with illusory, as an evolved species, one with no prior existence or cognition, the attempt to transcribe an objective meaning is intuitively hard to do. We do not have one religion, one goal or even one aspect of our personalities, our diversity via natural selection implies that all we are, are material and finite beings created through the random mutations and precision selection of a material process. The BOP then must come down to, is it probable we do have a (TOM) in our existence? I hold that it is absurd to believe an ant, or a dog has one, for the simple reason, that intuitively, scientifically and without argument, there is no reason to believe that they should, do or can even if we prescribe one ad-hoc. Now, one might say 'we are different', we are conscious rational agents with the ability to think and feel. True, but not exactingly precise, humans are not all cognitive beings. Some are born with no brain, some are severely disabled, some are even sociopaths with no feelings. To prescribe a reason to presume a TOM for the abilities of conscious behaviour is not to prove or make probable a TOM for humans, but rather to presume one for beings with those attributes. Therefore that attempt would fail to prove the debate title, that is 'to human life', in all its diversities. As Sartre argued, we begin without essence, come up through this world and create ourselves against it, we create our purpose and meaning, we then attempt to find ourselves. There is no guide or meaning that holds through, that as the title states, transcribed above us. And so, another point of contention, we simply cannot even know it if it was true, therefore illusory. In conclusion, I argued four points for illusory. 1. We are finite, material beings create through a non-cognitive process. 2. Human life is so diverse, the probability of a TOM is further complicated. 3. The lack of agency in our existence makes it even more improbable. 4. We couldn't know it, even if we had it. Destructive. My second point is a general point, why is any TOM destructive. It is destructive because it is a limitation on the freedom of decision and by that a limit on the responsibility of our choices. We pride the concept of responsibility for actions because ultimately the choice of our actions are our own. Some appeal to coercion, influence and propaganda to explain the causality of their action, because we seek to understand the root of our choices. It is no doubt self-evident that we have influences and reasons to act/not-act. Our choices therefore are negated once we admit we either had no choice, or hold no responsibility, a TOM, implies both. It restrains the choices we can and do make, by imposing a limit and a barrier between ought to do and do not do, because the action in and of itself does not lead to the meaning. Even supposing that in our lives we must choose to be happy and free as somehow an objective meaning, is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that ANY meaning, in and of itself implies less responsibility and less freedom. It allows us to appeal to this transcendental meanings as being responsible for our course of actions. A business man who undercuts and steals, appeals to simply 'playing the game', the soldier, appeals to his commanding officer. The house wife appeals to tradition. These are just samples of 'pushing' the responsibility of our choice away from the agent and onto the nature and context of the choice. To me, it is evident that a TOM is far more sinister and limiting that 'free and lovely', it is not security blanket, but a prison. We cannot punish the agent who claims the TOM is responsible for his course of action, nor can we say that he acted in anyway other than his purpose. It takes away from the individuality of decision and progress and automates our lives to follow a set conclusion, rather than allow it to be expressed through the freedom we desire and obtain when we ourselves come to fruition. 1. It limits our freedom of choice. 2. It negates our essence and subjective purposes. 3. It destroys agent responsibility. In conclusion, I have very simply outlined exactly why a TOM is detrimental, for a number of specific reasons, in my rebuttal I will deal with Con's replies to his BOP and his rebuttal of mine.