dehumanize

This film is the collision of philosophy and morality, but both of them only have an effect on people. The mainstream understanding is: philosophy is the philosophy of morality, and morality is the morality of philosophy. Like the physical boundary experiment, the doomsday basically brings both of these to zero, in this case, I think it is wrong to overemphasize the pull on one hand, because the current does not apply to the doomsday at all, these must be pushed to the beginning, survival It should be mentioned first, even if it destroys humanity!
Leaders, dictatorship or democracy, leaders are indispensable! The first two leaders were mentors. He was dictatorial and cold-blooded. Tyrants could describe him vividly. Ying Zheng was an appropriate template. The first time, the first time without him, the leader is a necessity, like air, you can't feel him, but he is necessary, and it is a group, he is not good, but indispensable; Second, a bad leader can cause internal disintegration. The third time, the leader became the heroine and the french fries man. The former is too ideal and the latter is easy to meet. In my opinion, they are not good leaders because there is no hope! They go to different extremes! As far as I can see, a good leader must be a mix of the three, rational, able to give up when sacrifices are needed, ideal, have a vision for the future, follow suit, and know how to adjust properly! Li Shimin is a good template!
I designed the fourth experiment: the tutor decided to choose one of the two at random. He is the rule maker, so if a pair of lovers are separated, given their love, a place will inevitably be vacated. At this time, the substitute is naturally the tutor himself. He is the leader of course, and since he can survive on his own for a year, it shows that he is competent enough to be a leader and lead everyone to survive with the shelter as the center! Then it's time to rebuild the annihilated humanity!

View more about After the Dark reviews