A step in the right direction, to be sure. Now for a theoretical course correction... While valuation is not the task of empirical science per se (and indeed,

A step in the right direction, to be sure. Now for a theoretical course correction... While valuation is not the task of empirical science per se (and indeed, even the choice to pursue science is itself a result of valuation), the view that value and ends aren't rationally knowable, that they are somehow "pre-rational" or "extra-rational" or even "irrational" (Hume famously said that rationality serves the passions) only holds if you reject telos, and this is something the materialist metaphysical doctrine does axiomatically. But if human beings have a nature, then the end or ends of human nature are a defining part of that nature. Human nature is then what determines what is good for human beings and what furthers human flourishing; in short, what results in human happiness. Indeed, it is human nature that is the foundation for any truly defensible objective morality, because without it, we are left with nihilism or relativism or subjectivism or whatever. To reduce rationality to the methods empirical science is not only incoherent, but it is to take a narrow, castrated view of rationality that condemns whole swathes of reality (such as the axiological) to unintelligibility. If the author were to revise his metaphysical views to include telos, I think he would be in a position to make sense of value rather than consigning it to some realm of unintelligible priors. This is where the blog post becomes confusing. On the one hand, value seems to be construed as something outside of rationality. Then we speak of "intrinsic" values which frankly begins to sound like the beginning of an awareness that human nature is a determiner of such things, though still mired in a subjectivist perspective. Then the author speaks of things as if they were objectively valuable which seems to contradict what he said earlier. How can you criticize the hamster wheel of productivity on subjective grounds? Maybe the workaholic loves the hamster wheel. You need human nature to show that workaholism is bad for human beings. It is important here to recognize that telos is not a matter of conscious intent. This is a common misconception (though telos is involves here as well). Telos that toward which something is ordered, especially causally. Indeed, without telos, efficient causality itself becomes unintelligible and scientific explanation itself becomes impossible. You could not explain why striking a match, for instance, predictably results in fire and not something else like confetti falling from the ceiling or the sudden appearance of an elephant.