Because it is true, or someone believes it to be so.
Because it carries explanatory power - something we all strongly desire.
You might call those reasons “purposes” - if so, I don’t disagree. But the truth or falsehood of an idea transcends any “purpose” someone may have for speaking it. This is the academic posture: to dispassionately evaluate truth claims without fearing the speaker.
Yes I understand that the naive position may be used as a default position for understanding ideas, and that is fine.
That doesn't stop us from acknowledging the fact that ideas and worldviews have strong ties and are intermingled enough that they almost always warrant an underlying motivation whether that be a noble search for truth or a way of digging further into denial.
Because it is true, or someone believes it to be so.
Because it carries explanatory power - something we all strongly desire.
You might call those reasons “purposes” - if so, I don’t disagree. But the truth or falsehood of an idea transcends any “purpose” someone may have for speaking it. This is the academic posture: to dispassionately evaluate truth claims without fearing the speaker.