She honestly believes there is a higher purpose to life than chasing simple pleasures and benignly pursuing happiness. A greater, nobler purpose for humanity. A metaphysical calling. A crusade of sorts. So be it then, but I obviously do not agree with her pretentious assessment. A higher purpose to life may indeed exist, but a case—however dubious—can likewise be made for the presence of UFOs, Dark Matter, and parallel universes to our own. Which is to say I don’t know for sure and neither does she. It’s all conjecturing, positing, postulating, theorizing, or any other word you can dredge up that signifies sophisticated thinking sans any proof to support a point of view. The whole idea is subjective in nature, thus let’s leave it at that. But a problem arises when individuals of her ilk vaingloriously attempt to inject objectivity into an innately subjective equation. The two are not compatible and shall forever remain so. That disconnect is plainly wrong and should never be tolerated, yet expecting her to graciously accept this logical explanation would be as futile as trying to fend off an enraged, charging bull elephant with a pea shooter.
Fred's Soapbox 