The thoughts in the brain grow wildly, overflowing the film, but they are useless, and get crumbly sentences, wrongly condensed in the text - gibberish, words that don't make sense. The term human nature is too broad and must be discussed within a certain scope. Examining the specific details, uh, it seems like this... Human nature! human nature! The omnipotent abstract concept has been swallowed into the sea of language, and I don't know what clearer meaning is left. The word algorithm is just seen, just use it casually, that is, from the perspective of evolution theory, determinism, and game theory, people are a mechanism or algorithm that perceives and intervenes in their own living conditions. A certain self-preservation and self-development purpose, pointing to the algorithm of survival, morality is also one of the algorithms. This is a phenomenon worth investigating about the dog not being killed immediately. And that sentence: "A barking dog doesn't bite." There seem to be a lot of details to dig out, but really, every movie has countless details to interpret. I think the horror scenes in the show are better shot, or because I haven't watched a horror movie for so long, and my guts have deteriorated. It's that the scene when they enter the room to find something is a little bit infiltrating, as if something jumped out immediately. In Doomsday Survival, algorithms based on each person's genes, personality, mobility, mental mechanism, etc. will do their inherent things. From this deterministic investigation, the so-called meaning is only in the practicality of how to better survive. In this case, it is a luxury to talk about morality, unless someone has this kind of moral algorithm (mechanism), the strongest survival instinct Will make everyone's algorithm use for self-preservation. What I want to say is that different lifestyles do correspond to different strategies (algorithms). All things considered, all human activity boils down to something practical. Therefore, the meaning of human can only be found in practicality, self-preservation, self-development, and the purpose implicitly revealed by the theory of evolution. And if you don’t consider it from practicality, you can only live in a kind of error, hallucination, mistake, and deception to find the meaning of life. I reject this rare confusion, but the meaning of practicality is not good. Things, there is no special meaning to live in itself, it is nothing but the pursuit of happiness in an experience. Shit, it's absurd (disgusting) and painful (incompetent) to live, logic can't make it practical without destroying everything. I can see that Continental philosophy always seems to avoid this kind of practicality, and their logic will lead to a mystical experience. I can be said to be a mystic at heart, because I think it is very inexplicable that he is alive. , the world is mysterious and unknown, but I vaguely feel that this way is too coincident with my restless heart , combined with I am crazy or perish, so it needs to be suppressed by analytic philosophy and science. In fact, logic, science, and philosophy cannot reject theology, because human ignorance is not enough to fully establish atheism. Natural gods are incomprehensible whether they are conscious or unconscious, or there are other mysterious things. Of course, mysticism is not only about these things, but as far as I understand it, it means to understand the mysterious things as much as possible, and it is more irrational. I think that living is a mysterious thing. In fact, in my opinion, all human understandings of the world are not very different. They are all trying to understand the world through their own understanding ability, with different emphases. And if you don't take this approach to the mystery, you will only approach utilitarianism, pragmatism, or insist on other abstract morals and truths, and logic has eaten back all sacred things, including itself, and swallowed all rules, so there are only two ways. , one is closer to mystery, and the other is practical. Expanding the so-called mystery is also a kind of practicality. So, what's the point? To borrow Wittgenstein's saying: meaning is usage, of course it seems to refer to language? And I use it to refer to all human activities. Whenever you ask about the meaning of life, there is a need for practicality that needs to be met. Oh! Is this life! ! ! Love cannot be interpreted in this way, it can be described by logic, but love cannot be dissolved in logic, all personal experience cannot be dissolved in logic, so to experience, to act, to do what you want to do, this is what logic tells me, To live, to truly live, and perhaps to be happy. Many moral and ethical lives are also realized in this specificity. They are not absolute, but they are the real me and correct for those who believe that people should live an ethical life, although this may be different from other people who do not have such beliefs. People don't matter. Judging right and wrong seems to be ineffective. It can objectively describe people's activities that are dominated by various beliefs. As for who wants to fight for who's belief, this is something that has been going on in reality. There is no so-called neutrality, and no attitude is an attitude. Having said what these represent, the surging desire will tell you that, as Schopenhauer said, reason serves the will. If you are rational enough, it is nothing more than that you have a will towards rationality, and rationality serves as a function for the innate will. All that many people ask for is that reason should properly restrain desire. "I drove and waited for the rain to come and wash us away, but there was no rain, the weather was clear, it shouldn't be good, and I waited, but nothing happened, and for the first time in my life, I felt alone, Here we are, two relatively silent strangers, Brian and I both love this place, brigade The pavilion, the beach, they are still the same, but only the house is left, I don't know what will happen next, I don't know how long I will live, but I know I will be alone. "You can only know what you will do in a specific situation only if you really experience a scene. A little change in factors is enough to change the result, but there are generally routines to be found - people do not kill themselves for their own sake, There is beneficial selfishness, but there is no pure altruism. There seems to be a bad abridgement about our country. I searched online and couldn't find it, but according to the comments, it was found, and sure enough, this director is a bit...
View more about Carriers reviews
