From my personal opinion, the ending of the movie where the professor is still going to die is much stronger than the professor's motivation to regain his life after repenting. If the professor didn't want to die in the end, it would be ridiculous. It's normal to say something like "knowledge is the fault" in the movie. The higher a person's ideological realm is, the deeper the cognition of things will of course be (ideological realm is not equal to the level of knowledge, people with knowledge but no thinking are too common in today's society). And the deeper the cognition of things, his focus is often directly on the essence of things, which is unacceptable in secular society, or unacceptable in political society. Unfortunately, in the current world, at least in this On the earth, it is precisely a large political and social assembly. Similarly, the professor's point of view is to ask one: "From birth, we have only experienced a series of pains, troubles, illnesses, heartbreaks, desires, worries, decay, old age, disappointment, fear... At the end of death, what is the value of our life in this world? Where is the meaning?" When it comes to the word "meaning", how many people have seriously thought about it now? Maybe you have thought about it, but you dare not say it, because as soon as you say it, there will be a lot of idiots around, and there are people who pretend to be idiots who are not idiots to laugh at you, so that you can't bear the worldly ridicule and attack, so China In other words, the research on serious issues in the whole world is becoming more and more lonely, and the result of loneliness is naturally decline.
Does life have meaning? I would answer that it doesn't make sense. But actually, this "meaningless" is meaningless, so I'm still alive. If Schopenhauer's sentence "it's not so much the love of life, but the fear of death" is correct, I think it can explain why so many people in the world live in confusion and confusion. Of course, it must be politicians, or people with politicians-like mentality, who will be the first to oppose such words. Many times we oppose others, not because others are wrong, but to cover up our confusion and fear that we don’t know what is right or wrong. For example, was Schopenhauer wrong? He was wrong, why was he wrong? Well, you prove him wrong with books that can be piled higher than Mount Everest, but is your pile of books higher than Mount Everest right? Of course, you said that I could also cite a bunch of other works to prove your wrong. Well, then I'll ask Schopenhauer to come out and forget it... Does the result of this situation make sense? ——After all, we return to the original state.
In fact, saving a person who doesn't want to die may be able to show your virtues, and saving a person with a deadly heart (the pseudo-desperate is not among them) may not show your greatness. It is best to go with things as they are—or rather, conform to your own perceptions and thoughts. Although such a situation can create conflicts between people: such as duels between individuals and wars between groups.
Qian Zhongshu also said: "Maybe we are just a bargaining chip for time consumption, and living a lifetime is just a sacrifice for the years of that lifetime." I think this is a reasonable sentence, but this society will not regard it as a famous saying. If you want to ask why, hehe, then I can only answer, does it make sense? what do you say?
Does life need meaning? do you need? Don't you need it? what do you say?
In the end, I don't know if Schopenhauer laughed or not. Anyway, if I wanted to laugh, it was another matter if I didn't laugh.
View more about The Sunset Limited reviews
