The first point that needs to be made is that love, affection, is definitely not love. There is an essential difference between the two. Including the word "love" used by the Chinese, its purpose is not clear. "Love" and "Qing" should be two words. In fact, the use of emotions can be said to be very broad. Family affection, friendship, and love (here refers to affection) are all called affection, but I personally do not recommend dividing affection so clearly, because sometimes there is really no such deep demarcation between these affections. For example, in "Oedipus the King" in the ancient Greek play, the relationship between the son and the mother should have been family, but it developed into love. Contemporary fathers and sons, mothers and daughters have a good relationship and prefer to call each other brothers, friends, and best friends. I don't think such a situation should be called moral decay. In fact, as long as you study a little about what emotion is, you will no longer have such doubts. And the reason why feelings and "love" are different, I think the biggest difference lies in the purpose. Try to recall the use of the word "feeling": how a person thinks when he says the word "feeling" to you, or expresses the word "feeling" in behavior. Let’s start with friendship: When a person approaches you and offers to make friends, what he really wants is, in most cases, friendship—a feeling that fills loneliness. In other words, he needs you. We can translate this scene like this: I'm a little lonely by myself, so can you be my friend? The same applies to an old friend whom you haven't seen for many years. When he mentions "feelings" to you, he still needs you most of the time: he may want to borrow money from you, or he may be feeling lonely recently, but whether it is Material needs are still spiritual needs. The so-called feelings are actually a kind of need and a kind of request! In the same way, looking at family relationships, some people say that many parents are selfless for their children, and they have never attempted anything in return. But I believe that most of the people here are sensible people, and they will not really take their parents' efforts as a matter of course. We are all waiting for the opportunity to repay our parents from the bottom of our hearts. The purpose of saying this is to prove that parents can do a lot for their children regardless of loss and without asking for anything in return, and they will not make any demands on their children, but in a certain area of their hearts, they really have not tried. Payback? We are old and supportive, orphans are near. Even if we don’t say some words, we should learn to understand others a little bit as we grow older. And there is absolutely no need to take the transaction of feelings too much. In the final analysis, the development of human civilization has been inseparable from the fetters given to each other. On the basis of emotion, any He's dedication is premised on return, and this is the truth of the feelings I think about. Seeing this, I believe that someone must want to open up. But it doesn't matter, what I want to explain next is giving without expecting anything in return, which is love. I believe that many people are now exploring "true love" and looking for the so-called "love". Here, I will quote a Jewish explanation I saw on Bilibili to clarify what "love" is: when we say "love fish" and "love a person", the "love" in this are quite different. The former is biased towards "feelings", that is: I don't give the bait to the fish to feed it, but to catch it and finally be satisfied with me. Isn't this the "payment premised on return" mentioned above. Just like many views on love nowadays, girls dress up boys well, and boys buy desirable gifts for girls. After all, it's just a joke that modern people like most: I'm just greedy for his body. This is relatively frank, and those who are not frank may wish to recall what they really thought in their hearts when they did similar actions. Seeing this, we don't have to be too hostile to scumbags and scumbags, because in essence these behaviors are actually the same. Perhaps we should also envy the superb skills of the scumbags and scumbags, who can achieve the same goals as us in a relatively short period of time. But "love" is different: wholeheartedly hope that the other party can live a better life, and all efforts are based on the purpose of making the other party benefit. This kind of thing is sacred, and although I said earlier that "you don't have to take emotional transactions too much", to confuse them with love is to tarnish "love", just as true philosophers do to skepticism Like the contempt of others, I also think it is irresponsible and lazy to confuse love with affection. Again: there are essential differences between the two. Having said that, it can explain many phenomena encountered in life. Take the family relationship as an example: our parents have feelings for us, so they will pay involuntarily, but in the final analysis, the purpose of these sacrifices is to make us repay one day. Friends who want to fight, please recognize the reality. Chinese people like to talk about the crow feeding back and the sheep kneeling feeding, but we should also realize that the use of these two words is: someone hopes you can do the same, which is the foundation of these two words. However, correspondingly, the real "love" exists in these bits and pieces of getting along. Take a more extreme example: doting. Don't criticize this behavior first, and ask reasonable friends to think about the use of doting: When our parents "doted" on us, did they really think about whether we could "dote" back in the future. no, this When the word is put forward, many people should realize that their excessive pampering behavior will have a negative impact on the growth of children. Now there are many self-consciousness, the princess is sick and tender because of this strong "Love"? No one is a fool. They don't know how bad pampering can have on children, but they can't help but pamper the "angels" in their minds. It is undeniable that this kind of giving without asking for return is "love", and no matter how strong the color is, it is also "love". This is why when I define "love", I use "giving without expecting anything in return" rather than "wanting to make the other person good". From this perspective, some people will think: Isn't it better to be "tough on you" than to spoil. Here we have to look at the purpose of "being harsh on you": being beaten by society can also be called being harsh on you by society, but even after understanding these behaviors, no one will confuse this kind of harshness with the strictness of our parents against us, fool Will say to the society: I want you to love me fiercely. Don't think too much, society wants to beat you up, that's really just for fun. And if it is the kind of strictness that holds "even if you hate me in the future, I will make you better", then it is "love" without a doubt. Because when this idea was born, he had no intention of returning anything, and he really stood on our point of view and paid for me. It can be seen that the essence of "severe love" and "pampering love" is still: giving without regard to return, the difference is nothing but a matter of degree, and no kind of love is completely admired. Excessive sternness leads to resentment, and excessive indulgence inhibits growth. Our ability to experience love must be based on our understanding of these behaviors, otherwise we may go to extremes and become a doting "eldest lady" or a rebellious "lone ranger". This is also the foundation of a new understanding of "love", that is: true love is to be accepted by the other party. I do not deny this point of view, but it is also undeniable that this point of view is also based on: giving without repayment, this foundation. And, I still insist, love is love, and excessive love is still love! I write such a long essay here because when I appreciate "Violet Evergarden", there are too many barrages that I think are too narrow to affect my taste of other people's understanding of this "Bible". There is an endless discussion about whether the Major's "love" for Wei Mei or "care like the elders". Like relationships, no matter father's love, mother's love, opposite-sex love, friend's love, or even interracial love, I still don't advocate that "love" must be divided into such a box. Love is love, and it is what a person sincerely wishes to give for the other person. The difference between them should be "feelings", so why do you have to make so many unnecessary disputes within "love"? The Major sympathized with Wei Mei as a "war machine" from the bottom of his heart. This is the basis of affection, and it is also the basis of love. In the last battle he took Wei Mei with him, I He believes that this kind of thinking cannot be abandoned: He also hopes that Wei Mei can play a role in the war, and the purpose is to win. It must not be thought of as: I just want to take her with me, which, while it may seem romantic, is definitely confusing the truth. And the request he made to Zhong Zuo before the action was the expression of his "love" for Wei Mei. Does he do this with thoughts like "it would be nice to live with her in the future" or "I can't let my daughter get hurt" and things like that? In other words: He can show his mercy to all the children displaced by the war, and isn't the unrequited deed for the children based on this mercy love. But Wei Mei is different from the other children, there is still a bond between the two of them. Major gave Wei Mei's name, took care of Wei Mei, and bought Wei Mei's gifts, all of which have long made Wei Mei a part of the major's world. Love is selfless, but it is also fragile. Maybe one day it will be gone if it is gone. But with emotional fetters, it will become like a situation of being disconnected. Even if Sister Wei doesn't need the major one day, the major will never let go of the hand that grabs Sister Wei easily. This is not love, this is love, but it is beautiful and desirable.
View more about Violet Evergarden reviews
