according to evolution by natural selection evolutionary functions (and dysfunctions) are fixed by whatever it is that increases ones relative fitness (gives one the disposition to survive longer than and reproduce more offspring than other members of ones population). but clearly... that has poor application to sociology and ethics (which is why sociobiology really is so fraught quite aside from the 'just so' explanations that come too cheap and really are unfalsifyable much of the time).

> One can generalize and say that it is to advance life, in general.

But yeah... I quite like that...

Meaning and thought are properties of intelligent / intentional agents. Things aside from this (marks on the page etc) only have meaning insofar as they derive that from intelligent / intentional agents. So I guess I think... That there aren't mind-independent facts about what it is that our lives are supposed to mean independently of what it is that we find meaningful about our lives. I suppose one might appeal to meaning that depends on an intelligent designer... There are epistemic problems, however, with how it is that we are supposed to access that... So... We seem to be left with whatever it is that we find meaningful.

Dennett has this thing about how human beings are the nervous system of the planet. Able to spot danger from afar (e.g., meteors) and do something about it. We can use our cognitive capacity for good or for harm... What things do we find good and meaningful and worthwhile? Peoples answer to that varies but there do seem to be points of commonality.

'Mans search for meaning'
Brilliant book. Written by an analyst who is considering why some of the holocaust victims used to throw themselves on electric fences compared to why some of the holocaust victims used to... get through and keep going. people who they cared about / felt connected to. that seemed to be the difference. terrific reading for people interested in such things... the variety of things that people say make their lives feel meaningful...