If you deny that terms like meaning are ego dependent there’s nowhere else to go with the discussion.
What is the meaning of a hydrogen atom becoming a helium atom somewhere inside the Sun?
If you assert a meaning, it should be universal, and we know that the way you mean it, or the way that Existentialism meant it, it was centered around the human experience, which makes it self-centered and anthropocentric.
Meanings are heavily associated with various religions and their version of the purpose of human existence. That’s what it means - it’s a mostly theistic term.
The definition of falseness when impossible to show validity. That one. All religious claims are false and human intelligence established that fact a very long time ago.
As a biological byproduct, emotions are more similar to sweat rather than to logic or reason. They probably have a functional purpose, or more likely they are discarded neuro-chemical excretions, or both.
A philosophy attempting to comprehend the universe has to be independent of such incidental factors as the waste of a biological being at some far away corner of the cosmos.
That’s why Existentialism is obsolete.
We don’t know that yet. It’s possible that intelligence and awareness are intrinsic qualities of matter and energy.
Not at all. We don’t care how frustrated Newton was about his failure to prove his occult beliefs. Newton has to be separated from the truth he discovered because truth is independent of humans.
That’s borderline religious talk and truth is incompatible with religion. A positive psychological state is always preferable, of course, but the factor of human existence should not bias philosophical questions. Otherwise the endeavor becomes something like an Oprah talk show.
And that’s why Existentialism is obsolete.