The question is how why why humanity is obliged. How and why humanity learned to lie

Philosophy is a person’s search and finding of answers to the main questions of his existence, or philosophy is about how this life and this world works, and why you feel what you feel, want what you want, do what you do, and exactly what happens to you happens.

CHAPTER 3 PRIMARY STRUCTURE OF PEPTIDES AND PROTEINS

Analytically important amino acid reactions

Peptides and proteins are compounds built from α-amino acid residues connected by a peptide (amide) bond –CO–NH. Formally, the formation of a peptide chain from n molecules of a-amino acids can be represented by the following scheme:.

The names of essential amino acids are in italics.

Follow the ancient call: “know yourself” (Inscription on the Temple of Apollo at Delphi). Socrates recommended getting to know yourself - with his usual sly malice - as initially necessary, the most seemingly simple and at the same time inexhaustibly complex, so that later you can know everything else, external. There is peace in man; and there is a person in the world, which embraces everything, including man.

We experience the world through ourselves and through ourselves. Through your feelings and thinking, through your central nervous system. We deal not with the world, but with our own representations about him. Any honest philosophy is idealistic, Schopenhauer rightly said. Now I’ll die and destroy the Universe, Vonnegut said. Even undeniable truths can be proven, Wilde said.

The main contradiction between materialism and idealism is the question of the primacy of matter or consciousness. The idealist and the materialist both study an object by its reflection in the mirror. Philosophy is the science of reflecting objects, says the first. No, about objects in reflection, the second objected. (If you cannot distinguish whether it is tea or coffee, then what difference does it make to you, asks the waiter?) Both seek truth, learning through themselves the world outside themselves. Both deal with the system: I am the world. Dialectical unity.

And if all people disappear, will the rest of the world remain? Yes. Does this mean that matter exists without its reflection by consciousness? Yes. How do we know this? From experience, i.e. because we have already reflected it in ourselves. And if they didn’t reflect it, then what? And then there wouldn’t be this conversation, which otherwise turns into scholasticism. What is scholasticism? This is a system of logical constructs where there is no single frame of reference common to all issues under consideration.

These are natural sciences, exact ones - physics, chemistry, mathematics - give results that do not depend on the personality and consciousness of a person as such, but philosophy is also based on history, psychology, sociology, i.e. human sciences; try to remove from philosophy everything that concerns man - and there will be no philosophy left. If you don’t know well, don’t understand yourself well, you won’t understand anything in this world. Because the world is you. Everything that exists is somehow reflected in you. It is by this reflection that you judge the world. Everyone judges for himself, there is nothing truer than banal truths - they are confirmed by time, Vambery said.

Knowing yourself requires perhaps only two things: honesty and time. Honesty - to calmly get to the bottom of yourself to the truth, and time for the same. Because if you cannot see the truth in yourself - a mirror that reflects the whole world - then how can you expect to see it outside of yourself?

Let's think honestly - this is the highest morality, said de Cartes.

Truth and morality are different things, like the nominative and the imperative.

It is often necessary to act according to morality, but to think correctly is possible only according to the truth. Morality is a ready-made and aged fruit of other people's thoughts.

There is not a single trait in a person that he cannot question. To see the world, you must first wipe the mirror in which this world is reflected until clear. If a person asks a completely natural and eternal question: why did he come into this world? what is his role and his place in this world? - he must at least have a complete understanding of what this world is and how it works.

Facts can be known to everyone. To understand, to comprehend the laws, the concrete manifestations of which are facts - that is the task. To get to the very root cause of phenomena, to see the whole picture of the cause-and-effect relationships of the world - this is the task. And if you do not constantly have a complete picture of the world in your mind, any judgment, any scientific theory can turn into proof of that very story in which the tortoise will always be ahead of Achilles.

Edmond Dantes puzzled for years: why, why was he imprisoned in the Chateau d'If? To the wise who knows life It took Abbe Faria a quarter of an hour to see the whole picture from the individual facts told to him by Dantes: who, how, when and why arranged this conclusion.

This is roughly what is called “knowing life.” How is Faria different from Dantes? He lived longer: knew more, saw more, more thought.

The most in a simple way To understand the world, many people think of reading a lot of smart books where everything is explained. This form of knowledge is called teaching (rational accumulation of knowledge without experience, literalism) - a passively acquired amount of knowledge.

The cliché type of an armchair scientist: a gray-haired sage surrounded by books, well versed in the depths of all sciences, who is easily deceived by any swindler, because the eccentric scientist does not know “real life.”

The opposite type: a crafty swindler, an enterprising cunning man who believes that the Sun revolves around a flat Earth, and this interests him only insofar as it is more convenient to rob in the dark - but is well versed in the practical psychology of specific people, whom he leaves in fools, encouraging them to do what he needs.

Now tell me which of them knows life better.

Both are better. Just on different levels. These are, relatively speaking, two extremes of knowledge. The scientist represents “pure” science, and the swindler represents “applied” science, and he understands this applied science better than any university professor of psychology, even though he does not know a single term and generally has difficulty reading.

What does this have to do with the crook? And despite the fact that he “taught life not from textbooks,” but exclusively through experience and his own reflections. But the same ancient Greeks believed that coming to the truth through one’s own reflection was the most noble way of knowledge, truly worthy of a sage.

Without experience, of course, no way. You haven’t experienced anything yourself - how can you understand those who have experienced it, understand life? how can you think about it? These will be, as they say, speculative constructions: logically they may be correct, but they will lack human emotions, living features of life, and the result will be erroneous.

This relationship: books - personal experience - reflection is a subtle and individual thing.

About the place and role of man. One teenager said: I don’t care what this world is and how it works, I would like to know how I should live in it (this is exactly what Confucius taught)

And whoever is smarter answers him: a person should do the greatest thing in life that he is capable of. big ship- great swimming. To whom to conquer half the world, to whom to plant a garden, to whom to raise children - to each his own. You could have done this and that, but you didn’t. I didn't guess my purpose. “I was stupid and weak,” the old man replies, “and what’s the point, you can’t change the world, it’s vanity of vanities, we’ll all die.”

In! - answers the other, so there is no need to twitch and strain at all, but you need to live in holiness and reflect on the eternal and the frailty of existence, since the end is still the same.

Tamerlane said approximately: the world needs a ruler, and this ruler should be me. Here everything is clear with the place and role of a person. At least to himself and everyone around him.

A skeptic will ask: what's the point in this in the grand scheme of world history? where is that empire, where are those Great Mughals? Scientists will answer: a centralized state, material growth, scientific and cultural flourishing...

But Diogenes’ place was a barrel, and his role was a thinker and a troublemaker.

The majority do not like their place, and they are not satisfied with their role. And why their fate turned out this way and not otherwise, they explain in two words: “character” and “circumstances.” That there is one form of the old parental answer “because that’s how it is.” Why such a character? Why such circumstances? Because genetics and the level of development of socio-economic relations. And why? Further, deeper: why? Why? And for what? For what?

A teenager or a young man looks closely and in detail at himself. For a maturing soul, there is no subject more important or interesting than itself.

Through himself, a person, growing up in the world, pushing his sides in contact, learns the world, its laws and structure, to the extent that he is inclined and capable of this (and as far as circumstances allow).

The questions of who to be and what to do, the choice (more or less conscious) of place and role are interdependent with the first two points. In practice, only after taking his place is sometimes a person faced with those external and internal problems that prompt him to understand himself and the world around him. In analysis, comprehension - only after understanding oneself and the world does a person realize his place.

I am the world - my role and place.

This extremely simplified diagram, this brief repetition of what has already been said above, is needed for one thing: to understand the path to answering all the questions.

What do you mean by everything? For everything related to human activity and humanity. Both practical and internal.

No, it’s not about how to become healthy and rich and defeat the enemy - but about why, why, why a person strives for exactly this (and much more, of course), and sometimes even the opposite.

One hundred thousand why. Seven pillars of wisdom.

Teenager. Senses are heightened. The forces are growing rapidly. Experience comes hourly, without time to comprehend. Resentment and joy burn like never before. Self-confidence, thirst, romanticism. All the time not devoted to specific activities, the teenager thinks (there is such a variety - the thoughtful teenager). He asks questions and seeks answers more than he finds answers - he has no time, internally he lives very full, intensely and quickly, specific experience and knowledge are small, life constantly interrupts his thoughts and distracts him, and over the years, deciding on his life's occupation, a person thinks less and less often.

Intelligence, as the ability to analyze information and draw conclusions, is developed by the age of fifteen. The trouble is that at first there is not enough information - and later it is processed, nerve cells die, and as information accumulates, the ability to analyze it decreases.

There are no philosophers like Diogenes in our time. Philosophers defend dissertations, publish books, teach at universities and occupy their social niche in society. It’s wild to imagine that an adult just wanders around the streets all his life, doing nothing and not having any responsibilities or activities, and just thinks - leisurely and incessantly. Like a thoughtful teenager.

Well, then such a person was found. Just as I thought about something as a teenager, I thought about it all my life. Why does the light bulb light up? - Potential difference. - Flow of electrons. - Their collisions with the molecular lattice. - Release of thermal energy. - Wave radiation. Well, okay: why does this release energy? yes, all this is true (probably), but next degree delving deeper into the question: why? why the potential difference? where is the answer to the last "why"? There is no answer to the last "why"; but this is the law of nature.

That is: it turns out: any of our knowledge works according to the “black box” method - we know that if we poke it like this, then it will come out like this. The essence of the transformation of action between cause and effect remains hidden under the sign “Law of Nature”. A stone thrown upward falls down because of the law of universal gravitation. This law is justified physically and mathematically. But why does it exist at all? Why, for what purpose, in what way?

Then they talk about the inexhaustibility and infinity of knowledge.

Or about the existence of some yet unknown Supreme Law of Nature.

Or about God. Who created everything like this, but we are not given the opportunity to fully comprehend his craft.

And in any case, it turns out that Achilles will never catch up with the tortoise. Our consciousness will never reach the primary essence, the root cause of phenomena. But it will endlessly get closer and closer to her.

Thus, it is still not clear why the light is on.

But if you approach Achilles with the tortoise in a simple way, with a ruler and a stopwatch, then it is not difficult to determine the point where he will overtake it and overtake it.

Any science is armed with its own ruler. Sometimes, by hitting each other with these rulers, sciences challenge each other's truth.

A single ruler for everyone, the main one, has not yet been given to anyone, like the sword of King Arthur. It does not follow from this that no one can wield this sword at all.

Spain has a king. This king has been found. I am this king.

There is an anecdote about how the problem of connecting space and time was solved by Sergeant Ivanov, who ordered his platoon to dig a ditch from the fence before lunch.

The essence of a single ruler is that it can be used to measure everything from human consciousness to the structure of the Universe.

You are the starting point, the World is the end point, Your Place is a moving sight, through which the scale and value of the divisions are calibrated.

And then...

Then the movements of the soul regarding the fate of the universe will become clear. The connection between the pursuit of happiness and the movement towards self-destruction. And what is the meaning of the need for suffering. And what God is and how to understand it. Will this knowledge help you live? It can really help. In the sense that open eyes are better than closed ones. He who understands the inevitable does not twitch in vain.

All religious and philosophical teachings carried within themselves one way or another an imperative of behavior. This was motivated in an extremely primitive way - by the benefit of the person himself, in this world or the afterlife. But how can you judge a person and his benefits if there is no consensus on the questions of what it is? One sees benefit in pleasure, another in health and peace, the third in the public good. First you need to understand everything - then you can decide how to live for yourself.

In this sense, a universal system of a unified understanding of life and the world frees people from any dogma, any compulsion - just as a sighted person is free to choose any path in the surrounding space, in accordance with the terrain and his desire, in comparison with a poorly sighted person who is being pushed somewhere.

Doctor philosophical sciences, professor, teacher at NSUEU Oleg Donskikh gave a lecture at the Kapital literary store on why the very phenomenon of human speech contains the possibility of lying and gave many examples of how, with the help of speech, people create a subjective picture of the world that differs from the objective one. We noted the main points of his speech.

The brilliant diplomat Charles Maurice Talleyrand said that language was given to us in order to hide our thoughts. Famous English philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein in his " Logical-philosophical treatise“Wrote that “the boundaries of my language determine the boundaries of my world” and “what cannot be spoken about must be kept silent.” Psalm 115 says: “ I died in my frenzy: every man is a lie».

The closest thing to the basic idea of language as a lie was expounded by Arthur Schopenhauer in the image of Maya, borrowed from Vedic mythology. Schopenhauer believes that Maya is an illusion, and proceeds from the fact that man is separated from the real world by the “veil of Maya.” Therefore, he does not know the real world, and the real world is a manifestation of the will. (Hence Schopenhauer got the title of his famous book “The World as Will and Representation.”)

It turns out that we know how this world is presented to us only thanks to the “veil of Maya”. Language, on the one hand, reveals it, gives an idea about it; on the other hand, it immediately determines how we will see this reality. We do not know whether this is true or not, and it is impossible to verify it. We are unable to go beyond language and see reality as it is. You can only compare one definition with another, but both will be subjective. This is where the foreign language problem arises.

Language as “veil of Maya”

The problem with learning another language is not memorizing words, but having to start thinking in it. When offered to learn " English language in a month,” it’s clear that we're talking about about the level of goodbye and how are you. But English is a different way of thinking, and you cannot think in two languages at the same time. This is why Google and Yandex translators work so poorly, because they translate everything more or less close to the text, and the real translation is a different narrative in a different language.

They say that language is a way of communication, but this is a fundamentally false definition, because the way of communication is speech. Language helps us understand speech, after which we construct it in accordance with the language we know.

Language is a system of signs, and these signs interact in a certain way and are connected with each other within the framework of grammar, a certain system. It immediately sets a certain vision of the world. For example, in the Russian language there are nouns, verbs, and adjectives. What do all these words mean? What does the adjective "green" mean? Color. Does this color exist separately from the tongue? No.

The same is true, for example, with verbs and nouns. We have the verb “run” and the noun “run”. What is the difference? It seems to be the same concept, but presented differently. Language is a system; it shows a phenomenon either in one form or another, and reality changes because of this. We begin to think about it differently depending on how we want to present what is said, and language gives us this opportunity. Another language represents this reality differently.

Everything described above is the “veil of Maya,” what mediates our relationship to the world. This is where the second plan comes into play. Just as Kant has an image of certain glasses through which we see the world, so here language gives us a classification of everything that exists, it is built between us and reality and makes us think about the world in a certain way, allows us to tear our image of the world away from our experiences.

We and the animals

Animals react to reality directly. They have speech; it would be a stretch to say that they are able to communicate. There is a lot of communication between them different ways: sounds, smells, touches and so on. Language is not a direct expression of feelings.

It turns out that people once disagreed with animals on this issue. What we feel and what we say are different things, and an animal is not capable of lying. A person can feel one thing and say something completely different (he most often does this). It turns out that it is language that gives us this opportunity - one that animals do not have in principle.

Language is discrete, it has phonemes and words - units on the basis of which it is built, and we can clearly isolate them. All animal utterances are fluid and have no boundaries. In our language, only intonations remain from their way of communication. Is it possible to count them? You can count the phonemes of the Russian language, but you can easily count the phonemes of English, but you can’t count the intonations. People fundamentally moved away from them, which made it possible to create a second reality through which we see the world. It turns out that, on the one hand, a person lives in this world, and on the other hand, thanks to language, he builds a parallel world in your mind. People know and own a huge amount words, connections between words, an infinite number of combinations.

Here's an example to illustrate the power of language: "There's too much in this sentence. difficult words, so it’s hard to translate.” When translating this phrase into Russian, you can get approximately six million different options. 4.5 million will be eliminated due to clumsiness, but 1.5 million will do just fine.

It is impossible to lie with the help of intonations; they are, as a rule, truthful, they are difficult to hide, for this you need to be a good artist. With the help of language - easily. The possibility of lying begins with simple things. A man asks his interlocutor: “Are you tired?” He is actually very tired, but says: “No, I’m not tired, everything is fine.” His words do not correspond to his condition, although he does not want to deceive his interlocutor. A person lives like this - there are his feelings, there is his real state, and there is how he wants to present himself to another person. This feature of the language has been noticed for a long time.

The separation, stratification of language and intonation is best seen on the example of the Internet. Interlocutors most often do not see each other (they communicate less using video broadcasts), and therefore you can introduce yourself as anyone. The intonation of speech cannot be heard, and therefore it is impossible to determine that a person is lying. At the dawn of the Runet, there was a popular picture depicting a girl declaring her love to a young man. He calls her back “my little fish.” Then they show " young man", and he turns out to be a naked fat grandfather.

Search for the true language. Example one

We now live under the influence of ideas of progress and are convinced that we are becoming better. The ancients had it different. For example, the ancient Greeks considered their forefathers to be smart and much more developed people, and themselves as degraded. The language, in their opinion, also deteriorated over time because it was used incorrectly. In Greek texts it is compared to coins, first brand new, then worn out and dull.

From here arose an interesting idea that a child is born with a true language, one that accurately reflects reality. The child begins to be taught incorrectly, and as a result he gets used to speaking a spoiled language. Well, that means you need to isolate him and not teach him, and then he will speak the true language!

There were such experiments. Here is a description of one of them, found in Herodotus in Clio, in one of the chapters of his History. Egyptian pharaoh Psammetichus III took two children and gave them to a mute shepherd to raise. The shepherd fed them dairy products, and at some point he noticed that they began to stretch out their little hands to him, saying “bekos, bekos.” He did not understand what this meant and led the guys to Psammetichus. Pharaoh did not know such a word and gathered a council of wise men. It turned out that “bekos” is Phrygian for “bread” - the children asked for bread. We will leave the question of how they knew what bread was to Herodotus. Unfortunately, the children spoke Phrygian, but the Egyptians considered their language the best.

Psammetichus III

IN historical literature There are descriptions of other similar experiments in the search for a real language. In only one case, the result of the experiment turned out to be the most logical. The Great Mughals had Khan Akbar, who gave several children to be raised by a mute nurse. When they turned 12 years old, they were shown to other people. Everyone was completely shocked, since the children, instead of speaking, expressed themselves in signs that they had learned from the nurse.

Search for the true language. Example two

The ancient Hesiod, in his poem about the origin of the gods “Theogony”, has a moment when a simple Boeotian peasant meets the muses, and they tell him: “We will teach you, we will tell you.” He agrees. They continue: “Of course, we can tell a lot of lies, but we will tell the truth.”

The remark about lying is completely out of place here. Here you are, so go ahead, say what you want to say, but no, they explain to him that they can do it differently. This important point, because it gives an idea of how clearly the Muses felt the difference between the lies and the truth of language.

Search for the true language. Example three

This example is already associated with the activities of the Sophists and Plato, who developed the concept that language was originally correct. This theory is called “fusey” (from the Greek physis - nature), that is, “words by nature.” The Sophists believed that when a thing arises, its name also appears with it. The “naturalness” of the names was proven, firstly, by onomatopoeia (for example, words conveying the neighing of horses), and secondly, by the similarity between the effect of a thing on a person and his sensations from this thing (for example, the word “honey” has a gentle effect on the ear, how honey itself affects humans).

In response, the concept of “these” was born (from the Greek thesis - position, establishment). According to it, there cannot be true names, because everything around is a convention, deliberately accepted by people. One of their arguments was this: a person can be renamed, and the same person can have different names. For example, the real name of the same Plato is Aristocles. “Girls also change their names, although they remain themselves,” said Democritus. There are also synonyms, and where do they come from if only one word is available to denote an object?

It turns out that language is a lie. The Sophists directly stated that about any thing one can say both something true and the opposite.

Similar ideas continued to develop during the Middle Ages in Christianity. The idea arose that language is equal to logic. “Logos” is translated as “word, teaching, truth.” The world is logical, and the language fully corresponds to the reality of the world. All languages supposedly have the same grammar, they are just slightly different from each other.

This idea influenced Thomas Aquinas's contemporary, Raymond Lull. His native language was Arabic, but then he mastered Latin. It was the time of the Crusades, and he was terribly irritated by the existence of Islam (in addition to Christianity). Luliy decided that if he built an absolutely logical language, then this fact would testify to Christianity as a true faith. He will present it to the Arabs, and they will immediately convert to Christianity.

Luliy built a system: he described four mechanisms that define all true concepts in the world and then described combinations of these concepts in different circles. With this he went to the Arabs. Luliy was old, and it all ended sadly. The Arabs were not imbued with true Christianity and stoned the guest to death. Modern logicians are interested in Lull's works, but cannot understand them.

There was also an interesting idea in the Pentateuch related to how Adam came up with language. God brought animals to him, and Adam gave them names. This is how it was understood in the Middle Ages: Adam in paradise invented lingua adamica (the language of Adam), in which it is impossible to lie. But only he knew it, and no one ever reconstructed it.

The German mystic Jacob Boehme wrote that if someone restores this language, then Boehme, having heard it, will recognize it (since the mystic spoke to Adam in his visions), but this story remained outside of scientific discourse. In Dante, Adam's mastery of language occurs after his expulsion from paradise. It turns out that in heaven, where truth exists, people communicate through feelings, they don’t need words, they don’t need to present themselves in any other way, they are who they are.

Thanks to language, we have stopped seeing the truth. There is an absolutely stunning scene in the Gospel of John. Pilate asks Jesus what truth is (this moment is captured in the famous painting by Nikolai Ge). Jesus doesn't answer him. Why? Not because he could not answer him, but because he is the truth that does not require words. When words begin, truth disappears, and if you look at the Gospel, you will see that Christ speaks in images, because images are outside of language.

To summarize the above, on the one hand there is our life, and on the other we use language to talk about it, describe emotions, consider it from the outside and construct another parallel world within ourselves.

Callousness is a terrible vice of humanity. He turns a blind eye to people's pain and makes his heart hard. To be callous is to be dead. Even though the heart is still beating, there is emptiness inside.

In Kuprin's story we see a terrible picture. The whole family, hearing the voice of prayer, remained in their bed. They had everything. A cozy house, large gates and strong locks protected these people.

The result is complete inaction and selfishness.

Also today. We often see people who need help. For example, while walking down the street, you may see a person lying on the ground. The first thing that comes to mind is reproach. Probably a drunk. But what if he just felt bad? What if he tripped and fell? What if he got drunk for the first time in his life because he lost his family?

I know for sure that if callousness is a part of our heart, then sooner or later no one will help us. Let's do good. And it will definitely come back to us.

(No ratings yet)

How often do we think about and live?

The most carefree time is childhood. During this period, we all run around like crazy around our homesteads, pretending to be pirates, superheroes, robots. Thousands of amazing ideas may swarm in our heads, but there is not a single question about the meaning of life. And why?

And only after crossing the threshold of adolescence does a person begin to look for an answer to it. “Why does a person live? What is its purpose? What is the meaning of my life? - all these questions troubled the hearts of each of us. But some quickly threw them away, switching to more pressing problems, while others, on the contrary, spent their whole lives in search of undeniable truth.

Ancient philosophers and the meaning of life

Aristotle once said: “Knowledge of the soul is the main task of a philosopher, since this can give answers to many questions...” Moreover, he believed that any thinker should look for meaning in everything, since this search is an integral part of ourselves. He taught that it is not enough to accept things as they are, you also need to understand why they are needed in this world.

The German philosopher Georg Hegel was also puzzled by the question of why man lives in this world. He believed that such a desire to know oneself is inherent in us by nature and is our true Self. Moreover, he argued: if you understand what role is assigned to a person, then it will be possible to unravel the purpose of other phenomena of the universe.

Also, do not forget about Plato and his thoughts about why man lives on earth. He was sure: the search for one's destiny is the highest good for a person. Partly, it was in these searches that his meaning of life was hidden.

God's plan, or Why do people live on the plan?

You can’t talk about the meaning of life without touching on the topic of religion. After all, all existing beliefs have on this issue. In their sacred texts there are clear instructions regarding how one should spend one's life and what is the highest good for a person.

So, let's look at the most common denominations.

Christianity. According to the New Testament, all people are born to live righteous life, which will give them a place in heaven. Therefore, their meaning in life is to serve the Lord and also to be merciful to others.
Islam. Muslims are not too far removed from Christians; their faith is also based on serving God, only this time it is Allah. In addition, every true Muslim must spread his faith and fight the “infidels” with all his might.
Buddhism. If you ask a Buddhist: “Why does a person live?”, he will most likely answer: “To become enlightened.” This is precisely the goal that all followers of Buddha pursue: to purify their minds and move to nirvana.
Hinduism. Everyone has a divine spark - Atman, thanks to which a person is reborn after death in a new body. And if he behaved well in this life, then at the next rebirth he will become happier or richer. The highest goal of existence is to break the circle of rebirth and indulge in oblivion, which gives pleasure and peace.

Scientific point of view on human purpose

Questioned the supremacy of the church. This was due to the fact that humanity received another version explaining the appearance of life on Earth. And if at first only a few agreed with this theory, then as science developed, its adherents became more and more numerous.

But how does science look at the issue we are discussing? Why does man live on earth? In general, everything is quite simple. Since man evolved from an animal, their goals are similar. What is the most important thing for every living organism? That's right, procreation.

That is, from a scientific point of view, the meaning of life lies in finding a reliable partner, reproducing offspring and caring for them in the future. After all, this is the only way to save a species from extinction and ensure a bright future.

Disadvantages of previous theories

Now we should talk about what shortcomings there are in these concepts. After all, both scientific and religious hypotheses are not capable of giving a comprehensive answer to the question: “Why do people live on earth?”

Minus scientific theory is that it highlights a common goal that is ideal for the species as a whole. But if we consider the problem on the scale of one individual, then the hypothesis loses its universality. After all, it turns out that those who are not able to have children are completely deprived of any meaning in life. Yes and healthy person It is unlikely that he will like to exist with the thought that his only purpose is to pass on his genes to his offspring.

The position is also imperfect religious communities. After all, most religions place above the earthly. Moreover, if a person is an atheist or an agnostic, then his existence is devoid of any meaning. Many people do not like this kind of dogma, so over the years the foundations of the church begin to weaken. As a result, a person is again left alone with the question “why do people live on earth.”

How to find the truth?

So what now? What to do if the scientific point of view is not suitable, and the church point of view is too conservative? Where can I find the answer to such an important question?

In fact, there is simply no universal solution to the problem. Every person is an individual and therefore unique. Everyone must find their own path, their own meaning and their own values. This is the only way to find harmony within yourself.

However, it is not necessary to always follow one path. The beauty of life is that there are no set rules or boundaries. Everyone has the right to choose specific ideals for themselves, and if they seem false over time, they can always be replaced with new ones. For example, many people work half their lives to make a fortune. And when they achieve this, they understand that money is far from the main thing. Then they again begin to search for the meaning of existence, which can make them more beautiful.

The main thing is not to be afraid to think: “Why do I exist and what is my purpose?” After all, if there is a question, then there will definitely be an answer to it.