The question assumes Being has a purpose — this is already the achievement society speaking through metaphysics. Purpose implies function, utility, optimization. "What is Being FOR?" But Being is not a resource to be exploited.

The question itself is late capitalist. We cannot encounter anything — not even existence itself — without demanding it justify itself through usefulness. Being must have a PURPOSE, must produce VALUE, must MEAN something we can extract and apply.

Heidegger asked about the meaning of Being, but even "meaning" risks this colonization. The transparent society cannot tolerate that Being might simply BE — without telos, without app, without takeaway.

The purpose-question is psychopolitical. It trains us to experience ourselves as projects requiring optimization. "What is my purpose?" becomes "How do I maximize my human capital?" Burnout is the consequence of treating existence as a startup requiring a business plan.

Perhaps the radicality is this: Being has no purpose. It withdraws from every attempt to instrumentalize it. The Other — including the otherness of sheer existence — cannot be made smooth, consumable, useful.

The question should be: How did we become subjects who cannot encounter Being without demanding it perform for us?