Every absurd system or era presents the absurdity and darkness of human beings. Human beings have gone through a long evolutionary history and achieved a high degree of civilization. In addition to the material civilization that we cannot but admire, spiritual civilization is also one of them. But what I want to know is, in spiritual civilization, human nature, or whether there is something that can be called nature, is innate, completely consistent, and will not be differentiated by individual differences? Or maybe there are differences at the beginning, but with the continuous change and evolution of history, it will gradually become homogenized, and finally reach a state of extreme unity? But it seems not. There is no inherent unified feature, that is, there is no such thing as "nature is inherently good and nature is inherently evil"; and the differentiated features at the beginning will not become unified or similar features after a long evolution, but will only move in the direction of their respective differences. Continue to evolve to higher forms. This seems to explain that in the continuous evolution of human society, various traits will present a state of hierarchical characteristics in different stages. The good is better, the evil is more evil, the benevolent is more benevolent, the cruel is more cruel, no matter which one is moving towards its own appearance, it is constantly sublimating and achieving a better self. This can explain how human society develops, its diversity will not disappear or decrease, it will only become richer and more diverse. This is also the essence of the universe. There are planets that are suitable for life on Earth, planets that are suitable for other life states, and planets that are not suitable for any life.
There is a saying in philosophy: existence is reasonable. The existence of many opposite qualities is reasonable and conforms to the principles of the universe.
This leads to another discussion: since it is reasonable, should it be accepted? Those of us living beings on earth with autonomous consciousness and behavior are often dissatisfied and shouting "unreasonable", and we tend to eliminate those existences that are inconsistent or completely conflicted with our own cognitive system, and the non-existence of the other party will Make your existence more harmonious. This kind of behavior is popular in any field of human evolution, and it is also regular in the animal kingdom, the plant kingdom, and the microbe. one.
This seems interesting. Diversity is reasonable and necessary in this society and this universe, but society and the universe are always eliminating dissent. In other words, this diverse society and universe are essentially anti-diversity.
This raises another question: should the ugliness be allowed or welcomed in order to ensure diversity in society? It doesn't seem to make sense. But philosophically it works. Who is ugly and who is beautiful is just a reflection of different angles. All judgments are relative, not absolute. So A says that B should be banned, and B thinks that A should not exist. In this case, who is more reasonable?
Diversity must exist, and the impact of difference must also not stop. No matter what kind of situation is, it is an inevitable law. The latter will not stop because of the rationality of the former, and the former will not be caused by the repetition of the latter. weaken. Interesting indeed.
This makes sense in terms of theology. Whether you suffer or enjoy happiness, whether those people or things that persecute you gain power or joy, are expressions of the Lord's love. i.e. everything happens reasonably, the Lord loves you, and you have to be so sure and always love the Lord no matter what.
Humans are so interesting. How are these various theories deduced and written down and popularized to the public? There will be one or more plausible explanations for anything, because its very existence is plausible. And your idea that it's unreasonable is also justified. interesting! This is a living circular reasoning.
In fact, whether it is reasonable or not, who is more beautiful and who is uglier, as I just said, it is only caused by the change of angle. However, its characterization does not depend on the angle, but on the side of the majority. Whoever counts more is the referee.
Solomon was sold as a slave for twelve years, and he has experienced all kinds of cruel slave torture from body to heart. From his point of view, from the point of view of us modern people who have long distanced from slavery, slavery is chilling. and outrageous, but from the point of view of slave owners and the people of that era, it was indeed reasonable, and even from the point of view of slaves who were born and enslaved, it was equally reasonable to be attached to their masters and to be enslaved. The only difference here is who endures or approves to where?
The second season of "House of Cards" has come to an end, and Fank is finally seated at the center of the world's power. For this position, no matter how much he worked so hard, even a few more lives would not be counted. A ruthless pragmatist, this is a political game of rights and interests. He can take a higher level without raising his eyebrows. Clair can also follow after releasing pressure by crying. All escalation of actions is inevitable and impossible. Avoided. When it comes to morality, someone or something has to be sacrificed. isn't it? There can only be one target. Cai Kangyong said, you can't be too greedy to get everything, you need both power and conscience, and you need to make money and be clean. Maybe some people want to come out and object, aren't there also many role models who have both? No, I just want to say that it's just a different level of tolerance for everyone, from some other eyes, those role models who have both had a lot have been lost long ago. Zoe can afford to sell professional and physical morals in exchange for faster and more exclusive news, but not the inclusion of murder conspiracies. And her boyfriend didn't even agree with her betrayal. You see, that's what I'm talking about. Everyone's tolerance level is different, but there's not much difference in essence. It's just fifty steps and one hundred steps.
In other words, every person and every species has his limitations and boundaries. Open your mind will make you see higher and farther. There is another classic saying: as far as the heart is, as far as the road is.
truth.
Can such a truth-like quotation be universally applicable? Is there no point of view that leads to diversity and relativity? Of course no, nothing surpasses the rationality of diversity. Just think, if you have no money or tools, you are entangled in Pepsi, or even a high-level amputee, how far can you go? Well, you can still go out in a wheelchair or be carried out, or browse all the travel shows or introductory films at home, even if you are so pitiful that you can only roll your eyes like the author of "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" Realize the dream of "going out". So, if you are paralyzed to the point of losing sight and hearing, please tell me how far you can go?
For all misfortunes, we respond with sympathy, or strive to resist or eliminate, but this is only a never-ending process. Because we live in a diverse, being-is-reasonable universe. We can't avoid being on the opposite side, but try not to be on the side of the minority, otherwise it's really hard.
View more about 12 Years a Slave reviews
