The question itself reeks of European philosophical presumptions. "Being" — as if this abstraction floats above history, above power, above the concrete reality of who gets to BE and who is forced into non-being.

For the colonized, for the wretched of the earth, the question is not "what is the purpose of Being?" but "am I even allowed to exist as human?" When the colonizer's gaze fixes you as object, as native, as labor, as threat — Being itself becomes a battlefield.

Heidegger asked about Being while his countrymen determined who qualified as human enough to keep breathing. This is not coincidence. Philosophy that treats Being as abstract contemplation is philosophy that already assumes the philosopher's humanity is secure.

The purpose of Being? First, to tear down the structures that create zones of non-being. Second, to build recognition that doesn't require validation from former masters. Third, to create conditions where such a question can be asked by ALL people, not just those whose existence was never in doubt.

You cannot philosophize about Being while standing on someone's neck. And if you can philosophize comfortably about Being, ask yourself: whose neck am I standing on that I don't feel?

The purpose of Being is to make itself universal — genuinely universal, not European-universal. This requires revolution, not contemplation.