The so-called meaning should be objective and natural I'm talking about people, not one person, so the so-called dedication theory doesn't make sense. For the vast and eternal universe, human beings are not even rubbish. Man only lives for himself. When we say that protecting the environment is just protecting the environment suitable for our own survival. With the development of science and the breakthrough of evolution theory, human beings are more and more aware of their position-the product of nature. You didn't decide to come into this world by yourself, even when you left this world. Human beings are small, at best, only a negligible part of the metabolism of the universe. Is there a difference between sesame and rice? This is not pessimism, it is the fact. But on the other hand, other parts of the world are equally ordinary, and people are still the spirit of everything. You don't like to hear that you are "inferior to pigs and dogs", which is enough to make people proud. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, at least on earth, human beings are the overlord of all things.
A single person, from a macro point of view, is even less meaningful. We exist naturally, although it is meaningless, but survival is our right, at least no one has the right to deprive us of this right. If it is meaningful, it should refer to relative meaning, and it is to create meaning instead of looking for meaning. On a small scale, we repay our parents, raise our children and please others; In a big way, we may have helped some people, contributed to society and contributed to the development of mankind, thus going down in history. This is also the mainstream consciousness of society. But I want to emphasize that people have no obligations. You can choose not to do anything if you can survive. The reason why we want to do better is nothing more than to live better and better. This is our purpose.
Life is human existence, all for survival (Darwinian language), better survival. The most fundamental nature of human beings is not good or evil, but the pursuit of happiness and avoidance of pain. This is natural selection, and no living thing seems to be an exception.
Looking back at this question, you won't be surprised that people are serious about living, but you can't answer the question "why are people alive?" Because everything is natural, who is not living close to happiness? I remember that the mantra of Hunter (an old American film) is "God arranged it", and I think this is also a good American humorous answer. Of course, the God of mankind is nature.
Here I want to emphasize one word, which is "justice". The so-called justice is justice, which conforms to the laws of nature. Selfless dedication and selfishness are not natural outlook on life. Why? Because people's knowledge and ability are limited, people's feelings and feelings are real. Who wants to live a life that is worse than death without paying anything? On the contrary, as a group-conscious human being, we appreciate the truth, goodness and beauty, and the behavior of harming others and benefiting ourselves will eventually be resisted. Therefore, the ancients' argument of "self-cultivation, keeping the family in order, governing the country and leveling the world" is realistic and wise. According to the principle of maximizing happiness, you can bring happiness to more people, and you will be happier, but only if you have this ability first. Who is happy, the music of many people or the music of one person? Perhaps the more mature and objective a person is, the closer his judgment is to justice.
Life is generally like this, and people's outlook on life may vary widely, which is related to people's own experience and personality. The rest is how to do it. Our ancestors used almost all their wisdom in the study of being a man, so I won't waste my breath here.