中文
English

A worker's reflection: Where exactly is the meaning of life?

2024-07-07

 

Grass two dishes

Grass two dishes

follow

This article is from Cao Er Ni, with the original title of "Where is the Meaning of Life: Reflections on a Working Person within a System". The title is from Visual China


Article Summary

This article is the author's reflection on the meaning of life. As he faces the confusion of life, he gradually realizes that there is no standard answer to life. He discussed the essence of human beings and primitive drive, and proposed ways to break free from primitive drive.


• •    The essence of human beings is a living entity that possesses both natural and social attributes


• •    The development of human social attributes is to meet the needs of natural attributes


• •    The way to break free from primitive drive is to pursue personal happiness and self actualization

Where exactly is the meaning of life? When I wrote this line, my heart was filled with a sense of powerlessness and lack of confidence. This proposition is too big, and I think I haven't figured it out very clearly yet, and it's likely to be difficult to fully understand it throughout my life. But it has been troubling me for a whole four years. I have been anxious, lost, insomnia, depressed, unable to find the direction of life, and countless times woke up in the middle of the night with palpitations.




Now, after years of repeated friction and torment between reality and spirit, I finally see a glimmer of hope in the cracks of life, as if I have found an exit from this ideological abyss. I have decided to muster the courage to write it down. Why say muster up courage?




Because, like most of you, I think too much and do too little in my daily life. Life is full of laziness, and I have experienced a strong addiction to words. However, if I really want to put my ideas into practice, it is as difficult for me as asking you to quit your phone. It requires a lot of courage. In addition, I am a pure male science and engineering student, and many of the viewpoints in the article are based on my own thinking and lack scientific research. They are purely personal opinions and cannot be guaranteed to be completely correct (this question itself is not absolutely correct). In the eyes of experts, it is inevitable that it appears to be a show of skill. Please forgive me and do not criticize me if you do not like it.




For the convenience of understanding in the following text, let me introduce myself first. I was born in a poverty-stricken village in a poverty-stricken county in a poverty-stricken city in the north about 90 years ago. The total number of men, women, old and young in the village is less than 100. I am the first key undergraduate 985 master student in the village's nearly 100 years of construction, and a proper small-town swot. I am currently working within the system of a first tier city, as a grassroots leader with an annual salary of over 40000 yuan, and my life is considered relatively comfortable.




I first fell into a profound contemplation of the meaning of life at the age of 32. At that time, work was not smooth, family conflicts were constant, and my body was suffering from serious allergies. One night, I suddenly woke up and felt that time was passing by quickly. I was constantly aging, and it seemed like I had achieved nothing.




Since then, the anxiety about the passing of life has often accompanied me. I can always feel a deep sense of oppression and restraint, feeling that the current life is not what I want. Life is so short, and I am not willing to spend it like this. However, I do not have the courage to break free, or I do not have a clear understanding of the life I want. I began to think, why do people live and how should I spend this life?




After nearly 20 years of education in science and engineering, I naturally thought that these problems were like solving differential equations, with a definite general solution. Or at least there will be a clear answer that fits the current era, telling me what is right, but in reality, it is not. For Chinese people, the mainstream way of life seems to be to strive for promotion and wealth, but you can also put it another way - to serve the people and realize personal value.




But why do I want to get promoted and become rich? What is personal value? It seems that no one can provide a reasonable explanation. The key is that many people are struggling in such a race, seemingly not experiencing happiness, and only feel infinite regret at the moment of death. We seem to have been instilled with the concept from a young age that we should be good people, but in fact, we don't quite understand why. We just feel that this way of life is right.




But this kind of life doesn't make me feel happy, at least now I feel that if my life goes through like this, I don't feel satisfied. But when I stopped and gathered the courage to think about another way of life, I realized that no philosopher had ever given a standard answer to this question. Not only does it not exist now, but looking back 5000 years, it also does not exist. Not only did it not exist, but history was filled with various viewpoints, some of which even completely opposed each other.




This discovery immediately left me, a straight male in science and engineering, at a loss. It turned out that I had been walking the path of having a standard answer for the first 30 years of my life, and once I found out that there was no standard answer, I didn't know how to go. Loneliness, confusion, and fear make me feel at a loss for an instant. What is the meaning of life? How should I choose?




1、 What is a person?




In order to understand the meaning of life, we first need to understand what a person is. Or rather, what is the essence of our existence? A cow, a horse, an ant, we roughly know the meaning of their existence, because their meaning is what we give them.




But we can never know the initial essence of human existence, because humans have not yet been able to break through the limitations of species on intelligence. What can currently be achieved is to describe the characteristics that are closest to the essence of the phenomenon, that is, "human beings are living beings with both natural and social attributes." Let's take this superficial understanding as the essence.




In this sense, fundamentally speaking, humans are still animals, and the vast majority of people are driven by their natural attributes, which are instincts, throughout their lives. For animals, the meaning of life is nothing more than survival and reproduction. When there is no food or water, they migrate and fight for opportunities to survive. After eating and drinking enough, they become estrous, mate, reproduce, and ultimately die under the stimulation of hormones. The ultimate goal of their lifelong activities is nothing more than to pass on their genes, which is the basic way for organisms to fight against death.




People are also like this. They learn, work, and strive towards higher levels of society, even risking their lives to harm the interests of others. The reason for this is simply to have access to more social resources, gain more mating rights, resist more environmental risks, and even hope that future generations can avoid risks and enjoy wealth forever under their own grace. All of this is to better pass on their genes and fight against death. In fact, not only animals, but also plants, this seems to be a behavioral paradigm engraved in the genes of every living organism.




But people are different, they also have social attributes. The most direct example is that animals do not commit suicide, while humans do. Human suicidal behavior is not naturally bestowed, but rather stems from the influence of acquired society. Throughout the long process of historical development, humanity has established a brilliant civilization. For example, political systems, cultural arts, natural sciences, social organizational models, and so on are all social attributes of human beings.




But let's think about it, how were these civilizations established? Or rather, why do we establish these civilizations? Overall, the four words can be summarized as demand orientation. What needs? Natural attribute demand! Here, let me first present the viewpoint that human social attributes essentially serve natural attributes, and social attributes are just one of the manifestations of natural attribute civilization.




Human civilization began with the use and creation of tools, but human social organization emerged before the use of tools. It seems that as long as living in groups, there will be social organizations and division of labor, such as wolf packs, horned horse packs, and even ants. This primitive group organization and division of labor pattern is engraved in the genes of social animals, and is the best way for social animals to ensure the continuity of their population genes after long-term struggles with the natural environment. This is particularly important for understanding human behavior.




This organizational model has its positive side, which is that it can maximize the efficiency of this group. Those who are good at commanding can become leaders, those who are good at fighting can become warriors, and those who are good at reproduction can reproduce, which is equivalent to the most primitive professional division of labor.




But there is also a negative side, which is that individuals who are not good at fighting and lack leadership skills often have to be eliminated or even die, which is the cruel aspect of primitive division of labor. However, with the continuous advancement and development of historical processes, humans have learned to use tools, and the rapid increase in productivity has led to explosive population growth. Under the primitive drive of genetic inheritance, a population must do two things well:




One is to optimize the organization of productivity in order to obtain more production benefits and feed more population, which is the origin of natural science. The second is to allocate production income well, otherwise it is easy to cause group chaos and ultimately disappear.




At this point, the original organizational and division of labor models were no longer sufficient to meet the requirements, so people established a more complex social organizational model on this basis, which is the political system. From the initial monarchy and dictatorship to the later collective leadership system, including multi-party and one party systems, as well as the derived concepts of right and wrong, morality, law, and so on, they are all just extensions of the continuous optimization of social organization division of labor.




The above discusses the original driving forces of political system and natural science, but human social attributes not only include political system, but also many other aspects. The most obvious thing is culture and art, and where does culture and art come from? This thing seems to have nothing to do with the continuation of genes for half a penny. If the emergence of political systems can promote the development of productivity and enable humans to better fight against death, then the absence of culture and art does not affect the progress of productivity or the transmission of genes. Why do we still create art? This does not seem to conform to the law that human social attributes serve natural attributes. In fact, many philosophers in history have considered the causes of art.




One is the theory of imitation: Democritus believed that art is an imitation of nature. He said that we learned to weave and sew from spiders, to build houses from swallows, and to sing from birds like swans and orioles. Aristotle further believed that imitation is a human instinct. He pointed out that all literature and art are imitations, with only three differences: the medium used for imitation is different, the objects taken are different, and the methods used are different.




These statements affirm that art originates from objective nature and social reality, containing a naive materialist perspective with progressive and reasonable content. However, this statement only touches on the surface of things and does not reveal their essence. This statement also attributes imitation to human nature and fails to find the creative intention behind imitation, thus failing to explain the fundamental reason for the emergence of art. It turns out that in terms of philosophical issues, the ancients were only superficial.




The second is game theory: the 18th century German philosopher Schiller and the 19th century British philosopher Spencer proposed that artistic or aesthetic activities originated from the game instinct possessed by humans, which is manifested in two aspects: on the one hand, because humans have excess energy, and on the other hand, they apply this excess energy to activities without practical utility or utilitarian purposes, reflecting a free game.




This statement affirms that people can only have excess energy to engage in games, artistic and aesthetic activities, if they are not forced by life, that is, only when they meet the basic material needs of clothing, food, housing, and transportation. However, the claim that art originated from games, solely from a biological or psychological perspective, is detached from human social practice, so it still cannot uncover the true mystery of the birth of art.




The third is the theory of "expression": its main theoretical basis is to emphasize that art should express itself. The core of Italian aesthetician Croce's aesthetic thought is "intuition is expression". Croce believed that the essence of art is intuition, and the source of intuition is emotion. Intuition is expression, so art is ultimately the expression of emotion.




The famous Russian writer Lev Tolstoy believed that art originated from the need to convey emotions. He once said that in order to convey the emotions one has experienced to others, a person awakens these emotions in their heart and expresses them with some external symbol, which is the origin of art.




In addition, there is also the theory of "witchcraft", which believes that art originated from witchcraft. Representative figures include the famous British anthropologist Edward Taylor, the famous American aesthetician Thomas Monroe, and the Finnish art historian Sean; The theory of "labor" holds that art originates from labor practice, with representative figures including Russia's Plekhanov and French structuralist scholar Althusser.




However, in the author's opinion, all of these so-called ancient sages' thoughts on art are purely nonsensical nonsense! After talking for a while, I couldn't explain where art came from.




Since ancient times, there have been three immortal traditional scholars in China - those who uphold virtue, perform meritorious deeds, and speak up. Originating from the Zuo Zhuan, it is said that "the Supreme Court has established virtue, followed by achievements, followed by words, although they have not been abolished for a long time, this is called immortality." Art is no different from literature, or rather literature is a part of art. The essence of establishing virtue and art through words is still derived from the primitive drive of genetic transmission.




However, this type of gene is not what is called a biological gene, but is similar to what Laozi said, "Those who die but do not die will have a long life." It is a transmission and continuation of spirit, and another way for humans to fight against death. All these saints, including Confucius, Hegel, Wang Yangming, and others, wrote books, preached, and imparted knowledge to solve the difficulties of the times, or to establish their hearts for heaven and earth, and to establish their lives for the people. However, their essence is to continue the genes of individuals or ethnic groups to meet the need for resistance to death.




Seeing this, some people feel that the above discussion is too pessimistic and negative, attributing all human activities to the primitive driving force of gene transmission. Human natural and social attributes, and even literature and art, are ways to fight against death, or that humans live to fight against death. If that's the case, can people still be called humans? Or is it still a person we understand in layman's terms? If we are driven tool people with no self at all, then life is nothing but nothingness? Is there a way for us to rediscover ourselves or break free from the primitive drive of "fighting against death"?




2、 Philosopher's Reflection




Life is meaningless and meaningless. The essence of our existence is to intentionally or unintentionally confront death, which is truly a sad discovery. Numerous philosophers in history have engaged in contemplation from different perspectives and levels, and have provided their own solutions to find the meaning of life, thereby opposing this nihilism.




The most direct answer given by Danish philosopher Kolkegore is to deny that the world is rational, meaning that there is no phenomenal or essential world in the world, and therefore no universal truth. As mentioned earlier, the existence of people or all living beings is to fight against death, and Korkegor does not acknowledge it. He believes that each of us is a lonely individual, so the so-called truth is only subjective truth. In Korkegor's view, to find the meaning of life, one must have faith, and this faith is also irrational and unreasonable. He opposes beliefs based on rational weighing, which are all false beliefs. Instead, one must face faith and take a leap forward.




Unlike Kierkegaard, the German philosopher Schopenhauer, after reading Schopenhauer's worldview, I was surprised to find that his understanding of the world almost perfectly matched my own. This discovery made me so excited that I almost burst into tears. Schopenhauer believed that the world is void because people live under the drive of desire, and the source of this desire is the will to survive, which coincides with the author's view of fighting against death.




So what is Schopenhauer's method of getting rid of nihilism? It mainly includes two aspects, one is abstinence, and the other is aesthetics. To be honest, when I saw Schopenhauer's two prescriptions, I was quite disappointed. I thought I could find the answer from this sage, but I didn't expect the answer he gave to be so weak and pale.




Firstly, let's talk about abstinence. Abstinence is actually rejecting the continuation of genes in order to combat the primitive drive of "fighting against death". This is essentially no different from suicide, as abstinence is just a delayed version of suicide. But Schopenhauer does not approve of suicide, believing that it is a surrender to the primitive drive of "fighting against death". If we commit suicide, we will lose. But he didn't understand why abstinence is not true? Perhaps he has already figured it out, but lacks the courage to admit it.




Speaking of aesthetics, he believes that when appreciating works of art, people will temporarily forget themselves, thereby achieving a state of transcendence and inner peace. However, according to the author's viewpoint, the essence of art is to seek emotional identification and transmission, essentially seeking a spiritual continuation that is no different from genetic transmission, and the driving force is still the "death confrontation".




Let's take a look at Nietzsche. He was originally a fan of Schopenhauer, but later went his separate ways due to different philosophical ideas. Firstly, Nietzsche did not believe that life is nihilistic, but his negation of nihilism was not based on a rational analysis perspective. He believed that the reason why people fall into nihilism is because humans always fantasize about a world on the other side. All human behavior and activities in the current world are temporary and illusory, and all right and wrong can only be determined when they reach the other side, which is the real world.




Nietzsche denies this claim, believing that there is no other world, so humans are not nothingness. Moreover, in order to combat this nihilism, he believed that humans should unleash their vitality, fully bloom themselves, live themselves as superhumans, and control their own lives in this world. Obviously, Nietzsche's view of nihilism is not the same as the nihilism discussed in this article. He did not fundamentally involve the primitive drive of nothingness, and here it serves as a reference.




There is also a French philosopher named Sartre. Firstly, Sartre acknowledges that human existence is void, but humans do not need to overcome this void because it is the fundamental survival situation of humans. We must constantly take action to actively shape the possibilities of our lives.




After flipping through it, the author found that even when faced with the meaning of life, these great philosophers were unable to provide a logically consistent standard answer. Their thinking could only be shallow at a certain corner, or avoid discussing the main contradiction. The answer they gave seemed strong, but in reality, they were stubborn, and behind their stubbornness was a sense of powerlessness.




Moreover, philosophers themselves may not have realized that their actions against nihilism are inherently nihilistic. Why do you say that? Because being trapped in nihilism is negative for humanity, not conducive to the transmission of ethnic genes, that is, not resistant to death. Therefore, philosophers who want to fight against nihilism are fundamentally to fight against death, and humans who fight against death are passive and nihilistic.




This conclusion makes people feel hopeless. It seems that there is a high-dimensional creature that, at the very beginning of creating life, set a fundamental command in the genes of the living organism. All behaviors that violate this command will eventually return to it, and all human struggles cannot break free from the norms of this fundamental command. For hundreds of thousands of years, this high-dimensional creature has been silently watching humans, like machines, dumbfounded and obediently following this behavioral paradigm to rise and fall. Occasionally, some self proclaimed intelligent old men may jump up and ponder for a while, but ultimately, they will let out a long sigh and join the army of humans advancing aimlessly.




So, life has no meaning. So what should I do? If I fully comply with the original drive of "death resistance", how will I spend this life? Is this really what I want?




3、 Adapting to the primitive driving force of life




If one completely abandons oneself and conforms to the primitive drive, or according to the definition of "success" in our mainstream social value evaluation system, then one's life is likely to be spent in this way: first, strive to earn the most money and build a more solid material foundation; Secondly, strive to advance towards the higher echelons of society and acquire more social resources; The third is to mate with as many people as possible and have many, many children.




To achieve the above three points in practical life, it is necessary to master two skills: one is to do things, and the other is to be a good person. The better you do these two points, the more successful you will be. There's nothing new about this, it's just a clich é d argument, but the author still has some insights to share.




Firstly, regarding work, it can directly affect the development of productivity, which means mastering a skill that contributes to the continuation of this ethnic group. 50 years ago, this was a very high threshold because at that time the cost of information transmission was very high. The rarer the skill, the higher the cost of transmission. Obtaining information often required opportunities of favorable timing, location, and people. Only a few lucky people had the opportunity, so mastering a skill was enough to make you "successful". The more scarce the skill, the more "successful" you were.




But now with the advent of the information explosion era, the cost of information transmission is getting lower and the value of skills is also getting lower. To rely on skills to widen the gap with others, people need to put in much more effort than 50 years ago. It's not that you can't create value anymore, but that the difficulty of creating more value than others has increased. Because the number of people participating in internal competition has increased, society has progressed, but people are even more tired. Living in the "blessings" of 996 and 007 every day cannot find any sense of happiness.




Speaking of being a person, it means dealing with interpersonal relationships. In other words, it means making people around you accept and like you. This thing does not directly affect productivity, but it is particularly affordable in a top-down social system. For some people with average work skills, it is almost the only magic weapon for their upward progress. Many capable people disdain those who are good at being a good person, but upon careful consideration, it is not easy to be a good person.




There are many ways to handle interpersonal relationships well, but in China, if you want to get along well, it actually requires a lot of time, energy, and even dignity.




Speaking of which, most of us can only focus on one side in both doing things and being a good person, and we can only do it carelessly. Those who can truly balance these two aspects and bring them to the extreme can basically compete to a higher level in this ethnic group. This kind of life is like raising Gu, a group is like a laboratory, and the living beings inside are constantly breaking through the internal competition like raised Gu insects, allowing those who can better adapt to this value evaluation system to become kings. Next, develop subdivision rules that are more suitable for this value evaluation system, in order to continuously improve, consolidate, and optimize this gene delivery model.




Someone said, can I escape this ethnic group? Is this enough to break away from the mainstream value evaluation system? All you can think of is that high-dimensional organisms have already thought of it. In addition to the fundamental command of "death resistance", high-dimensional organisms have also extended another command based on this, which is the insecurity of acting alone. An individual, whether actively or passively leaving a social organization, will instinctively experience anxiety and insecurity.




Taking the current system in which the author is located as an example, people say that jobs within the system are stable and there is no need to worry about unemployment. But what you don't know is that there is a more painful punishment within the system than layoffs, which is marginalization. Within the system, if a person is marginalized, it is undoubtedly a judgment that they are a failure. This judgment can create an insecurity of being abandoned by the group, and the deeper you participate in the mainstream value evaluation system, the more severe this insecurity becomes, which is an instinct.




It seems that all the roads are blocked, which is the principle that that high-dimensional creature has set for us, the original driving force of "death confrontation". In this sense, the more population the ethnic group is, the better it conforms to the primitive drive, and it is also the least self-awareness tool of the human group. For example, in the Confucian cultural circle, it can be said that it is far ahead in terms of "being a good person, promotion, wealth, and reproduction".




However, this principle that benefits the entire population is extremely difficult for individual individuals, and the process can even be painful. Moreover, due to the constant existence of primitive drives, human desires are almost infinite, and our entire lives will be limited to constant pursuit and internal competition, which is arduous for the vast majority of people.




You may not even know why you need to participate in internal competition, but under this primitive drive, you have to actively participate. Otherwise, in the mainstream evaluation system derived from primitive drive, you are a failure and a loser. The Infinite Longevity Sutra states that one is born to suffer, while the Bible states that every person is born with original sin, and the process of life is the process of redemption. So, suffering seems to be a curse that every insect cannot escape.




But can I ask: why am I born to suffer? Why am I born to redeem myself? This life is so short, I don't want to just be a tool person, let alone feel that my life is not worth it at the moment of death!




4、 How to get rid of primitive drivers




French writer Romain Rolland said that there is only one kind of heroism in the world, and that is, after recognizing the truth of life, one still loves it. We acknowledge that the activities of life originate from primitive drives, but we cannot despair about it, but we must strive to find ourselves. No matter what measures are taken, my principle is only one: make yourself happy! It's about transitioning from what I need to do to what I want to do. If I am happy and Gao Wei is also happy, congratulate him. If he is not happy, let him go to play with his mother!




Having understood this principle, the meaning of life seems to have become somewhat clear. What should be done specifically at the operational level? Let's look back at the methods proposed by the philosophers mentioned earlier: Cole Kegel said we should have devout faith, Schopenhauer said we should have abstinence and aesthetics, Nietzsche said we should bloom with vitality, and Sartre said we should let nature take its course. Are these methods feasible? This varies from person to person, and different people can choose one or a combination of several based on their actual situation. Here, based on my own experience, I will briefly analyze the situation.




Firstly, we must survive and ensure that our basic needs are comfortably met, such as safety and health. This requires us to have a certain economic foundation, for which we need to participate appropriately in social competition under the mainstream value evaluation system. But this kind of competition should not continue indefinitely. Of course, if you are naturally fond of competition and can derive happiness from it, that is another matter.




But I think for most people, participating in competition is a painful process. Just think about the process of Gu Bu biting each other. So, if your current basic needs have been met, then you need to think about whether continuing to bite other insects until you die is the result you want. If not, then stop accepting the influence of the original drive, slowly move away from the center of the bite, find a relatively safe place, and watch them bite, so that you can more easily obtain happiness.




Secondly, is it necessary for us to have children? The demand for reproduction among people stems from the primitive drive of "death confrontation", reflected in the vigorous sexual needs of humans; Secondly, it stems from insecurity and is reflected in the concept of raising children and preventing aging in daily life; Thirdly, I am naturally fond of children. The first point is not a concern. Smart humans have invented various contraceptive measures, which can allow people to enjoy the pleasure of sex without having to bear the consequences of pregnancy.




Secondly, does raising children have an anti-aging effect? It can be said that there are still many ways to prevent aging, but in today's highly specialized division of labor, there are many ways, and raising children is just one of them. And if we only look at the role of anti-aging, having one child in a person's lifetime is enough. For safety reasons, having at most two is already enough to meet your retirement needs.




The third point is another matter. If you are born with a fondness for children, you can reproduce indefinitely, provided that you can bear the consequences. So, if you currently have no children or already have one, then you need to think about whether it is necessary to continue having children. If not, then stop accepting the influence of the original drive and take contraceptive measures. As for the clich é d saying that having more children brings more blessings and having a son is necessary, let it go to hell. These are all lies fabricated by the filial and virtuous descendants of that high-dimensional creature! Happy Laozi is the most important!




Finally, go to great lengths to pursue happiness! If you are not born to enjoy competition or having children, congratulations, you will have plenty of time to enjoy life! Some people say that enjoying life requires a lot of money, so I still have to go and bite other insects. I can only say, brother, you haven't fully realized yet. Your idea is still based on the mainstream value evaluation system. For example, if you think that having yachts, luxury cars, villas, or private planes is the way to enjoy life, it is actually the smoke bomb created by that bastard in high-dimensional biology for us.




There are many ways to be happy, and the kind of happiness you refer to is called comparative happiness, which is the happiness you feel because you have something others don't have, but you can never be the first in the world. Therefore, if you are used to getting happiness from comparison, it is difficult for you to truly feel happy.




We can change the way, for example, the world is so big, don't you want to go and see it? Do you feel uncomfortable listening to so much beautiful music? Don't you have any hobbies or interests of your own? Immersed in hobbies and interests, aren't you happy? Are you not happy when you mobilize all your senses to feel this world, to feel a world that others cannot perceive? If while you are doing these things, you can also find some like-minded friends to share your happiness with, wouldn't your happiness double?




This is the meaning of life! Not feeling regret when you die is the meaning! In summary, it is similar to the approach given by Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, but we do not need to completely abstain. We want to achieve happiness and enjoy life by satisfying the instinctual desires set by high-dimensional organisms, but we don't need to follow their principles to constantly reproduce and achieve gene transmission, emphasizing non violence and non cooperation!




Some people say that if that's the case, there will be fewer and fewer people who pursue themselves, and they will eventually be eliminated, while the group of tool people who follow the primitive drive will forever roll in. I want to say, they are willing to take you and let him take it. As for whether they will be eliminated in the end, is it important? You will have been dead for eight hundred years by then, you care so much about him!


一个打工人的思考:人生的意义到底在哪里?

本文来自:草二皿,原文标题:《人生的意义到底在哪里 ——一个体制内打工人的思考》,题图来自:视觉中国


文章摘要
这篇文章是作者对人生意义的思考,他在面对生活困惑时寻找答案,逐渐发现人生没有标准答案。他讨论了人的本质和原始驱动,并提出了摆脱原始驱动的方式。

•  人的本质是同时具备自然属性和社会属性的生命体

•  人类社会属性的发展是为了满足自然属性的需求

•  摆脱原始驱动的方式是追求个人快乐和自我实现

人生的意义到底在哪里?当我写下这行字的时候,内心充满了无力感和不自信。这个命题太大了,我自认为还没有想得很清楚,而且大概率终其一生也很难彻底弄清楚。但是它已经困扰了我整整4年时间,我曾经为它而焦虑、彷徨、失眠、抑郁,找不到人生的方向,无数次半夜惊醒,心悸不已。


如今,经过数年现实与精神的反复摩擦和蹂躏,我终于在生活的缝隙中看到了一丝曙光,似乎找到了走出了这个思想深渊的出口,我决定鼓起勇气把它写下来。为什么要说鼓起勇气呢?


因为我跟大部分的您一样,平时想得多做得少,生活中充满惰性,平时过过嘴瘾觉得自己挺厉害,但真的要把想法实实在在地付诸实践,对我而言,就像让您戒掉手机一样困难,需要鼓起很大的勇气。另外就是本人是纯纯的理工男,文中的很多观点都源于自己的思考,缺乏科学考证,纯属个人观点,不保证完全正确(这个问题本身也没有绝对的正确性),在专家看来难免显得班门弄斧,请各位看官多多包涵,不喜勿喷。


为了便于下文理解,先自我介绍一下。本人90年前后出生在北方某贫困市的某贫困县的某贫困村,全村男女老少加起来不到100人,我是该村建村近100年以来第一个重点本科985硕士生,妥妥的小镇做题家。如今在某一线城市体制内工作,基层小领导,年薪40W+,日子算是小康。


我第一次陷入对人生意义的深刻思考,是在32岁那年。当时工作不顺,家庭矛盾不断,身体又患上了严重的过敏症,某天夜里突然惊醒,我突然感觉到时光在飞快流逝,我无时无刻不在老去,而我似乎一事无成。


从那以后对于生命流逝的焦虑感便时常伴我左右,我总能感受到一种深深的压抑和束缚感,觉得当下的生活并不是我想要的,人生如此短暂,我不甘心就这样度过,但是我又没有勇气挣脱,或者我自己对于自己想要的生活也没有很清晰的认识。我开始思考,人到底为什么活着,我应该怎样度过这一生?


接受了近20年理工教育的我,天然地以为这些问题就像解微分方程一样,会有一个确定的通解。或者至少会有一个符合当前时代的明确答案,告诉我怎样才是对的,然而事实上并没有。对于中国人而言,主流的活法似乎就是努力升官发财,当然你也可以换一种说法——为人民服务,实现个人价值。


但是,我为什么要升官发财?什么是个人价值?好像也没有人能给出合理的解释。关键是很多人在这样的赛道下卷生卷死,似乎并没有体会到幸福,到死的那一刻才感觉到无限遗憾。我们好像从小就被灌下了这样的概念,就是要做人上人,其实自己也不是很明白为什么,只是觉得这样生活才是对的。


但是这样的生活并不能让我感到快乐,至少现在我觉得,如果我的一生就这样度过了,我并不觉得满足。可是当我停下脚步,鼓起勇气开始思考另外一种生活模式,才发现这个问题竟然没有一个哲学家给出过标准的答案。不但现在没有,再往前回溯5000年,也没有。不但没有,而且历史上充满了各种观点,有的观点甚至完全相互对立。


这个发现让我这个理工直男顿时陷入了茫然,原来我人生的前30年一直都在走有标准答案的路,一旦发现没有标准答案,我竟然不知道该怎么走了。孤独、茫然、惶恐,一瞬间让我不知所措,人生的意义到底是什么?我到底该怎么选择?


一、人是个什么东西?


为了搞清楚人生的意义在哪里,我们首先要搞清楚人到底是个什么东西。或者说,我们的存在的本质是什么?一头牛、一匹马,一只蚂蚁,我们大概知道它存在的意义,因为他们的意义是我们赋予的。


但是对于人类自己存在的最初的本质,我们永远无法知晓,因为人类还没有办法突破物种本身对智慧的限制。当前能做到的,只能是对最接近于本质的现象的特性进行描述,那就是“人是一个同时具备自然属性和社会属性的生命体”,我们姑且把这个粗浅的认识当作是本质吧。


从这个意义上的本质来说,人还是一个动物,绝大部分人一生都在被动物的自然属性,也就是本能所驱动。对于动物而言,生命的意义无非是生存和繁衍。在没有食物和水源的时候,去迁徙、去搏斗,争夺生存下去的机会,在吃饱喝足之后,在激素的刺激下发情、交配、繁衍,最后死去。其一生活动的终极目标,不外乎将自己的基因传递下去,这是生物体对抗死亡的基本方式。


人也是如此,人们学习、劳动、向社会的更高层进取,甚至为此不惜钻营擦边损害他人利益,原因不外乎是掌握更多的社会资源,以获得更多的交配权,抵御更多的环境风险,甚至期望子孙后代千秋万代都能在自己的恩荫下规避风险,永享富贵,所有的一切都是为了更好地将自己的基因传递下去,以此来对抗死亡。其实不止动物,植物也是如此,这似乎是刻在每一个生命体基因里的行为范式。


但是人又有所不同,人还有社会属性。最直接的例子是动物不会自杀,而人会。人的自杀行为绝不是自然赋予的,而是来源于后天社会带来的影响。人类在漫长的历史发展过程中,建立起了辉煌的文明。比如说政治制度、文化艺术、自然科学、社会组织模式等等,这些都是人的社会属性。


但是我们想想,这些文明是怎么建立起来的?或者说我们为什么要建立这些文明?总的来说,四个字可以概括——需求导向。什么需求?自然属性需求!这里先把下面论述的观点抛出来:人类的社会属性本质上都是服务于自然属性,社会属性不过是自然属性文明的表现方式之一。


人类的文明从使用和创造工具开始,但是人类的社会组织出现在使用工具之前。貌似只要是群居就会有社会组织和分工,比如狼群、角马群,甚至是蚂蚁。这种原始的群体组织和分工模式,刻在了群居动物的基因里,是群居动物在与自然环境长期斗争后寻找到的保证族群基因延续的最佳方式,这一点对于理解人类行为特别重要。


这种组织模式有其积极的一面,就是可以最大化地发挥这个群体的效率,善于指挥的去当领导,善于战斗的去做战士,善于生殖的去繁衍,相当于最原始的专业化分工。


但是也有消极的一面,就是那些不善于战斗,又没有领导才能的个体,往往只能被淘汰甚至死亡,这就是原始分工残酷性的一面。但是随着历史进程的不断推进和发展,人类学会了使用工具,生产力的快速提升,导致了人口的爆发式增长。在基因延续的原始驱动下,一个族群必须要做好两件事:


一是做好生产力的组织优化,以便于获取更多的生产收益,养活更多的人口,自然科学便是由此而来。二是做好生产所得的分配,否则容易引发群体混乱,最终消亡。


这时原始的组织和分工模式都已经不足以满足要求,于是人们在此基础上建立了更为复杂的社会组织模式,就是政治制度。从最开始的君主独裁制,到后来的集体领导制,包括多党制、一党制,以及由此衍伸而来的是非观、道德、法律等等,都不过是社会组织分工的不断优化的衍伸品。


以上论述了政治制度以及自然科学的原始驱动力,可是人的社会属性不仅有政治制度,还包括许多其他的内容。最显而易见的就是文化艺术,文化艺术又是从何而来呢?这玩意儿似乎跟基因延续半毛钱关系都没有,如果说政治制度的出现可以促进生产力的发展,进而让人类更好地对抗死亡,那么没有文化艺术也丝毫不影响生产力的进步,也不影响基因的传递,那我们为什么还要创造出艺术这个东西呢?这似乎并不符合人的社会属性服务于自然属性的规律,其实关于艺术的起因,历史上很多先哲有过思考。


一是模仿学说:德谟克利特认为艺术是对自然的模仿,他说从蜘蛛我们学会了织布和缝补,从燕子学会了造房子,从天鹅和黄莺等歌唱的鸟学会了唱歌。亚里士多德更进一步认为,模仿是人的本能,他指出所有的文艺都是模仿,只有三点差别,即模仿所用的媒介不同、所取的对象不同、所用的方式不同。


这些说法肯定了艺术来源于客观的自然界和社会现实,其中包含着朴素唯物主义的观点,具有进步的合理的内容,但是这种说法只触及了事物的表面,而没有揭示事物的本质。这种说法还把模仿归结于人的本性,没有找到模仿背后的创作意图,因此未能说明艺术产生的根本原因,原来在哲学问题上,先贤也不过如此,流于肤浅。


二是游戏学说:18世纪德国哲学家席勒和19世纪英国哲学家斯宾塞提出,艺术活动或审美活动起源于人类所具有的游戏本能,它表现在两个方面,一方面是由于人类具有过剩的精力,另一方面是人将这种过剩的精力运用到没有实际效用、没有功利目的的活动中,体现为一种自由的游戏。


这种说法肯定了人们只有在不为生活所迫,也就是只有在满足了衣食住行的基本物质生活需要的条件下,才可能有过剩的精力来从事游戏即艺术活动和审美活动。但是,艺术起源于游戏的说法,仅仅从生物学或心理学的角度出发,脱离了人类的社会实践,所以仍然不能揭开艺术诞生的真正奥秘。


三是“表现”学说:其主要理论基础就是强调艺术应当表现自我。意大利美学家克罗齐美学思想的核心是“直觉即表现”,克罗奇认为,艺术的本质是直觉,直觉的来源是情感,直觉即表现,因而艺术归根结底是情感的表现。


俄国著名作家列夫·托尔斯泰认为艺术起源于传达感情的需要。他说过,一个人为了要把自己体验过的感情传达给别人,于是在心里重新唤起这种感情,并用某种外在的标志把它表达出来,这就是艺术的起源。


此外,还有“巫术”学说,认为艺术起源于巫术,代表人物有英国著名人类学家爱德华·泰勒,美国著名美学家托马斯·门罗以及芬兰的艺术史学家希尔恩;“劳动”学说,认为艺术来源于劳动实践,代表人物有俄国的普列汉诺夫和法国结构主义学者阿尔都塞。


但是,笔者认为,以上所有的这些所谓的先贤关于艺术的思考纯属隔靴搔痒的扯淡!说了半天,也没解释到艺术到底从何而来。


自古以来中国便有传统士人之三不朽者——立德、立功、立言。最早源于《左传》:“太上有立德,其次有立功,其次有立言,虽久不废,此之谓不朽。”艺术和文学没什么不同,或者说文学是艺术的一部分,立言立德立艺术,其本质还是源自于基因传递的原始驱动。


只是这种基因并不是生物上所谓的基因,而是类似于老子说的“死而不亡者寿”,是一种精神的传递和延续,是人类对抗死亡的另一种方式。包括孔老夫子、黑格尔、王阳明等等所有的这些圣人,之所以著书立说,传道授业,表面上是为了解决时局之困,或者说为天地立心、为生民立命,但是其本质上是延续个人或者族群的基因以对抗死亡的需求。


看到这里,有人觉得以上论述未免太悲观消极,把人类所有的活动都归结于基因传递的原始驱动,人的自然属性和社会属性,甚至是文学艺术都是对抗死亡的方式,或者是人活着就是为了对抗死亡。如果这样说,人还能称之为人吗?或者说还是我们通俗意义上理解的人吗?如果我们就是一个完全没有自我的被驱动的工具人,那人生不就是一场虚无吗?我们有没有办法找回自我,或者摆脱“对抗死亡”的这种原始驱动呢?


二、先哲的思考


人生是虚无的没有意义的,我们存在的本质就是在有意或者无意地对抗死亡,这着实是一个令人悲哀的发现。历史上无数哲学家都曾在不同角度和不同层面展开过思辨,并给出了自己的解决方案来找到人生的意义,进而对抗这种虚无主义。


丹麦哲学家科尔凯戈尔给出的最直接的答案就是,否定世界是理性的,也就是说世界根本不存在什么现象世界和本质世界,也就不存在什么普遍真理。像上文所述的人或者所有生命体的存在就是为了对抗死亡,科尔凯戈尔一律不承认。他认为:我们每一个人都是孤独的个人,因此所谓的真理也只有主观真理。在科尔凯戈尔看来,要找到人生的意义就要有信仰,而且这种信仰也是非理性的,是没有道理的,他反对那种基于理性的权衡的信仰,这通通都是假信仰,而是要面对信仰,纵身一跃。


与科尔凯戈尔不同的是德国哲学家叔本华,看过叔本华的世界观之后,笔者竟然惊奇地发现,他对世界的认识与笔者几乎完全契合,这个发现让我激动得几乎老泪纵横。叔本华认为世界是虚无的,因为人都活在欲望的驱使之下,而这个欲望的来源就是求生意志,与笔者认为的对抗死亡不谋而合啊。


那么叔本华给出的摆脱虚无主义的方法是什么呢?主要包括两个方面,一是禁欲,二是审美。说实话,看到叔本华的这两个药方,笔者还是挺失望的,本来以为能从这位先哲这里找到答案,没想到他给出的答案,还是那么无力而苍白。


首先说禁欲,禁欲其实就是拒绝基因延续,以此来对抗“对抗死亡”的原始驱动,这与自杀其实在本质上没有什么不同,禁欲只不过是延时版的自杀。可是叔本华不认可自杀,认为自杀是对“对抗死亡”原始驱动的屈服,如果自杀,那我们就输了。可是他没想明白,禁欲又何尝不是呢?可能他已经想明白了,只是没有勇气承认。


再说审美,他认为对艺术作品进行审美的时候,人会暂时忘记自我,从而让人达到一种超然的状态,做到内心的平和。可是,按照笔者的观点,艺术的本质是寻求情感认同和情感传递,本质上是寻求一种精神延续,这种延续与基因传递并无不同,驱动力还是那个“死亡对抗”。


再来看看尼采,尼采本来是叔本华的迷弟,后来又因为哲学思想不同而分道扬镳。首先尼采并不认为人生是虚无的,但是他对虚无主义的否定并不是基于理性分析的角度,他觉得人们之所以陷入虚无主义,是因为人类总是幻想有一个彼岸世界,人类在当前世界所有的行为活动都是暂时的,是虚幻的,而所有的是非功过只有到了彼岸世界才有定论,彼岸世界才是真实的世界。


尼采否认这种说法,他觉得没有彼岸世界,所以人并不是虚无的。而且,为了对抗这种虚无主义,他认为人类应该释放生命力,尽情地绽放自己,把自己活成超人,自己来主宰自己这一世的生命。显然,尼采认为的虚无主义跟本文论述的虚无主义不是一回事,他并没有从本质上涉及到虚无的原始驱动,这里姑且作为一种参考。


还有一位法国哲学家,叫萨特。首先萨特承认人的存在是虚无的,但是人并不需要克服这种虚无,因为这是人的根本生存处境,我们要不停地去行动,去积极地塑造我们生活的可能性。


翻来覆去看了一圈,笔者发现面对人生意义,这些伟大的哲学家也无法给出逻辑自洽的标准答案,他们的思考只能在某一个边边角角浅尝辄止,或者避开主要矛盾不谈,给出的答案看似坚强,实则倔强,倔强的背后是满满的无力感。


而且,哲学家们可能自己都没有发现,他们对抗虚无主义的行为本身就是虚无的。为什么这么说呢,因为陷入虚无主义对人类而言是消极的,不利于族群基因传递的,也就是不抵抗死亡的,所以哲学家想要对抗虚无主义,根本上还是为了对抗死亡,而对抗死亡的人类又是被动的、虚无的。


这样的结论让人感到绝望,冥冥中似乎有一个高维生物,在创造生命的最初始,就在生命体的基因中设定了一条根本指令,所有违抗这条指令的行为,到最后都会回到这条指令上来,人类所做的所有挣扎,都无法跳出这个根本指令的规范。几十万年来,这个高维生物,就这么静静地看着人类,像一台台机器一样,呆呆地、乖乖地沿着这个行为范式生生灭灭,可能偶尔会蹦几个自诩聪明的老头子,抓耳挠腮地思考一会儿,最终还是垂手长叹,加入人类浑浑噩噩前进的大军。


所以,人生没有意义。那我到底该怎么办呢?如果完全顺应“死亡抵抗”的原始驱动,我将怎样度过这一生?这真的是我想要的吗?


三、顺应原始驱动的人生


如果完全放弃自我,去顺应原始驱动,或者说按照我们这个社会主流价值评价体系对于“成功”的定义,那人的一生大概率会这样度过:一是努力赚最多的钱,打造更坚实的物质基础;二是努力向社会的高层进取,掌握更多的社会资源;三是尽量多地跟不同的人交配,生很多很多孩子。


具体到实际生活的可操作层面,要想做到以上三点,就必须要掌握两方面的技能,一是做事,二是做人。这两点做得越好,就越“成功”。这没什么新鲜的,都是老生常谈的论调,但是笔者还是有些体会想要陈述一下。


首先关于做事,做事是可以直接作用于生产力的发展的,说白了就是要掌握一门对这个族群延续有贡献的技能。这在50年以前是一件门槛很高的事情,因为那时候信息的传递成本非常高,越是稀缺的技能,传递的成本越高,获取信息往往需要天时地利人和的机遇,只有极少数幸运儿才有机会,所以当时掌握一门技能足以让你“成功”,技能越稀缺,你越“成功”。


但是现在随着信息爆炸时代的来临,信息传递的成本越来越低,技能的价值也就越来越低,要想依靠技能拉开与其他人的差距,人需要付出的努力要远远大于50年前,并不是你创造不出价值了,而是你创造比别人更多的价值的难度变大了,因为参与内卷的基数变大了,所以社会进步了,人却更累了,每天生活在996、007的“福报”中却找不到一丝幸福感。


再说做人,就是处理人际关系,说白了就是让周围的人都接纳你,喜欢你。这玩意儿并不直接作用于生产力,但是在自上而下的社会体系中却特别吃得开,对于某些做事水平一般的人,这几乎是其向上进取的唯一法宝。很多有能力做事的人,对善于做人的人不屑一顾,其实仔细想想做人做得好其实也不容易。


处理好人际关系有很多种方式,但是在国内,你要想混得游刃有余,其实需要耗费大量的时间、精力,甚至是尊严。


话说回来,我们大部分人在做事和做人两个方面都只能偏重一方,而且做得也只能算马马虎虎。真正能把这两点兼顾,并且都发挥到极致的人,基本上都能在这个族群竞争到较高的层级。这样的生活,就像是养蛊,一个族群就像一个实验室,里面的生命体就被像豢养的蛊虫一样,在内卷中不断突破,让更能适应这个价值评价体系的人做王。再来制定更适应这个价值评价体系的细分规则,以此来不断完善、巩固和优化这个基因传递模式。


有人说,我能不能逃离这个族群呢?这样是不是就能跳出这个主流价值评价体系?只能说你能想到的,高维生物早都想到了,高维生物除了“死亡抵抗”这一条根本指令,还在此基础上衍伸出另一条指令,就是单独行动的不安全感。一个个体,不管是主动地还是被动地离开社会组织,都会本能地产生焦虑感和不安全感。


以笔者当前所在的体制内为例,人们都说体制内工作稳定,永远不用担心失业。但是你不知道的是,体制内有一种比裁员更让你痛苦的惩罚,就是被边缘化。在体制内,如果一个人被边缘化了,那无疑是判定了这个人是个失败者,这种判定会让人产生被群体抛弃的不安全感,而且你参与主流价值评价体系越深,这种不安全感就越严重,这是一种本能。


似乎所有的路都被堵死了,这就是那个高维生物给我们定死了的原则,“死亡对抗”的原始驱动。从这个意义上来说,人口越多的族群,就是顺应原始驱动越好的族群,也是最没有自我意识的工具人族群,比如说儒家文化圈,在“做人、升官、发财、繁衍”这几方面可谓遥遥领先。


但是,这个对于整个族群有利的原则,对于一个个具体的个体来说是极其不易的,其过程甚至是痛苦的。而且由于原始驱动始终存在,人的欲望几乎是无限的,我们一生都将限于不停的追寻和内卷当中,这对于绝大多数人而言都是辛苦的。


就是你甚至完全不知道为什么需要参与内卷,但是在这种原始驱动下,不得不主动参与进来,否则在原始驱动衍伸而来的主流评价体系中,你就是个失败者,就是个loser。《无量寿经》说人生来就是受苦的,《圣经》上说每个人生来就有原罪,人生的过程就是赎罪的过程。所以,受苦似乎是每一条蛊虫无法逃避的魔咒。


但是,我能不能问一句:凭什么我生来就是受苦的?凭什么我生来就是赎罪的?这一生这么短暂,我不想只做一个工具人,更不想到死的那一刻感到这辈子过得不值!


四、如何摆脱原始驱动


法国文学家罗曼罗兰说,世界上只有一种英雄主义,那就是在认清了生活的真相以后,依然热爱生活。我们承认生命的活动源于原始驱动,但是我们不能就此绝望,而是要努力找回自我。不管采取什么措施,我的原则就只有一条,让自己快乐!就是从我需要做,转变成我想要做。如果我快乐的同时,高维生物也开心,那恭喜他,如果他不开心,那就让他找他妈妈玩儿去吧!


想明白了这个原则,人生的意义似乎有些清晰了。那具体到实际操作层面应该怎么做呢?我们再回过头来想想前面提到的几位哲学家给出的方法:科尔凯格尔说要有虔诚的信仰,叔本华说要禁欲和审美,尼采说要绽放生命力,萨特说要顺其自然。这几种方法可不可行?这个见仁见智,不同的人可以根据自己的实际情况,选择其中一种,或者综合选择其中几种。在此,笔者结合自身体会,分情况简要分析。


首先,我们必须活下去,而且要让自身的基本需求得到比较舒适的满足,比如说安全、健康。这就需要我们具备一定的经济基础,为此我们需要适当地参与主流价值评价体系下的社会竞争。但是这种竞争不应该是无限进行下去的,当然,如果你天生就喜欢竞争,并且能从竞争中得到快乐,那另当别论。


但是我想对于大部分人而言,参与竞争是痛苦的过程,想想蛊虫相互撕咬的过程你就知道。所以,如果你目前的基本需求已经得到了满足,那你就要思考一下,如果继续与其他蛊虫撕咬下去,直到你死去,是不是你想要的结果。如果不是,那就停止接受原始驱动的影响,慢慢从撕咬的中心离开,寻找一个相对安全的地方,看着他们去咬就好了,这样你更容易获得快乐。


其次,我们是不是有必要生孩子?人们对于繁衍的需求,一是源于“死亡对抗”的原始驱动,体现在人类旺盛的性需求;二是源于不安全感,体现在养儿防老的生活理念;三是天生就喜欢小孩子。第一点不足为虑,聪明的人类已经发明了各式各样的避孕措施,可以让人们在享受性爱带来的快乐的同时,不用承担怀孕带来的后果。


第二点,养儿有没有防老的作用?可以说很大程度上还是有的,但是在专业化分工如此发达的今天,防老的方式有很多种,养儿只是其中的一种选择罢了。而且如果仅仅从防老的作用来看,一个人一生有一个孩子足以,如果为了保险起见,最多两个,已经足以满足你的养老需求。


第三点另当别论,如果你天生就喜欢小孩子,那你可以无限地繁衍下去,前提是你能承受这个带来的后果。所以,如果你目前没有孩子,或者已经有一个孩子,那你就要思考一下,是不是有必要继续生孩子。如果不是,那就停止接受原始驱动的影响,做好避孕措施。至于那种多子多福、一定要生儿子这种陈词滥调就让它见鬼去吧,这都是那个高维生物的孝子贤孙编造出来骗人的鬼话!老子快乐最重要!


最后,玩命地去追求快乐!如果你不是天生喜欢竞争,不是天生喜欢生孩子,那么恭喜你,你将有大把的时间享受生命!有人说,享受生命需要很多钱,那我还是得去跟其它蛊虫撕咬啊。只能说,兄弟你还没有开悟啊。你这个想法,还是建立在主流价值评价体系之下,比如说你觉得有游艇、豪车、别墅、私人飞机,这才叫享受生命,其实这就是高维生物那个王八蛋给我们创造出来的烟雾弹。


快乐有很多种方式,你说的这种快乐叫比较快乐,就是你拥有别人没有的从而感到的快乐,但是你永远不可能做到世界第一,所以你如果习惯于从比较中得到快乐,那你很难得到真正的快乐。


我们可以换一种方式,比如说世界这么大,你不想去看看吗?那么多优美的音乐,你听着不舒服吗?你就没有点自己的兴趣爱好吗?沉浸在兴趣爱好之中,你不快乐吗?你调动你所有的感官去感受这个世界,感受别人感受不到的世界,你不快乐吗?如果在你做这些事的同时,还能找到一些志同道合的朋友,有人跟你分享快乐,那你的快乐不会加倍吗?


这就是人生的意义!你死的时候不感到后悔就是意义!总结起来,其实跟叔本华和尼采两位大哥给出的方式大同小异,但是我们没必要完全禁欲。我们要通过满足高维生物给我们设定的本能欲望来得到快乐享受人生,但是我们又没必要完全顺着他的原则去不停地繁衍而实现基因传递,主打一个非暴力不合作!


有人说,如果这样的话,追求自我的这类人就会越来越少,最后会被淘汰,而顺应原始驱动的那群工具人将会永远卷下去。我想说,他们愿意卷你让他卷去呗,至于最后会不会被淘汰,很重要么?到时候你都死了八百年了,你管他那么多!


本文来自:草二皿

本内容为作者独立观点,不代表虎嗅立场。未经允许不得转载,授权事宜请联系hezuo@huxiu.com
如对本稿件有异议或投诉,请联系tougao@huxiu.com
正在改变与想要改变世界的人,都在 虎嗅APP


Read0
share
Write a Review...
推荐文章
1  /  187