Being or maybe being, makes the topic absurd all of a sudden. What kind of person is a real person, and what is a fiction? Why do you love the person you love when he can be replaced?
People can sympathetically and even move to accept that a person who has lost a partner will never fall in love with others for life, but they cannot recognize that the person who has fallen in love is a robot that does not have an independent mind. However, why love?
Physical reasons, physical reasons, psychological reasons, and then what? Do you think there is a reason why it cannot be analyzed? That is because science is not yet developed enough.
I have never accepted that love is a product of interaction. Love is always one-sided. Falling in love with someone must be because he has fulfilled some aspect of your expectations; and you love him and he loves you only in every little interaction that reduces or delays the element of love fading away.
So, does the one who loves have to be a person, does it have to be a person who exists in reality?
The answer is of course no.
And of course, if the loved one is non-human, it must not be able to give some of the responses in the human model. But the difference is no greater than the difference between each individual mode of the human model.
But this is still sad, because it is abnormal and does not meet the various standards of most people. On the other hand, this is also a kind of blasphemy against one's own race. Although this is not a mistake outside of morality.
So, to sum up the above, one must have foresight, understand oneself and then face the future. Just like this movie, it teaches us that long-term pain is worse than short-term pain, and we should never underestimate our sense of dependence. It will definitely happen if we miss a step and turn into eternal hatred. Be careful and be careful again.
I remembered that I had discussed the issue of "existence is reasonable" with the first teacher in the university. Now that I think about it, the reason it is impossible to reach a consensus is that we have completely different understandings of what is "reasonable". His reasoning at least includes reasoning and reasoning, and it is not easy for me to directly declare how immoral I am in my theoretical activities out of politeness.
So what I'm trying to say is that sometimes it's useless to be careful. Because there are some things that you know you can't control when you start, but you often don't realize that such a start is actually a necessity. As a person who believes in and forgets fatalism most of the time, I still think that fate is just a law, a process that can be deduced like a formula, whether it is an individual or a universe.
So sometimes, it is not so much to be glad that you follow reason, and the happiness of ignorance and irrationality is the real happiness.
View more about Be Right Back reviews
