Why people are the way they are

The argument that man is the most intelligent and wise creature with the most ability to change everything, no one can doubt, man is the head of all things, the leader of all spirits, is the master of the world, of course, this also can not be questioned. Because no creature can take the place of man, no creature can challenge the position of man. By this reasoning, man cannot be compared with other creatures. Humans who are not on the same level should exist in an ideal, happy, and beautiful state, with a form of existence far beyond that of other creatures, the most reasonable, safe, harmonious, and constant existence on earth, the ultimate of the good life we imagine.

For thousands of years of human civilization, we should have created for ourselves an impeccably wonderful world, and humans should be the happiest of creatures. Is that so? Almost everyone would deny the above description because the state that humans already are in is the opposite of the state they should be in, what kind of life are we living? Needless to say, each of us, who does not have a history of blood and tears that cannot be told? Who is truly satisfied with the reality of life?

Why are people the way they are? No one is above us to sway us, but we can't imagine that we treat ourselves this way. We define ourselves as the existence of life, and life means a short state before inevitable death, a state of existence that is neither long nor safe and stable. This short existence has no meaning in itself but is made even less stable by its own predestined death. We make our existence a difficult existence, which does not logically follow, but we make this extremely contradictory logic a fact. Rather than allowing us to avoid life and death, the result of our defining the logic of life and death is that we worry about life and fear death, live a difficult life, and die a painful death. Death not only takes the meaning of human behavior out of existence but also exposes us to the fear of death and a life spent in tension and oppression.

This is not because we are too stupid or because there is nothing we can do about it, but precisely because we are too smart and we think we can rely on our intelligence to avoid death to the maximum extent possible, with the result that the existence of death is emphasized even more and our existence becomes a struggle before the inevitable death. This concept of life and death not only monopolizes the spiritual context of our life but also turns our existence into an inevitable tragedy. This is tantamount to endless self-abuse for creatures that are bound to exist in the world so that one has to live in a torment of pain and fear. This is in contrast to other creatures, which are in no way free of such suffering. All creatures have existed for hundreds of millions of years, obviously not for the sake of painful survival and existence, much less because of the inevitable death, only we humans take this law of natural turnover as a fact of death that is difficult to accept and try to avoid. What is the purpose of this human intellectual invention, the result of which is to make us live more painfully and die more tragically?

The existence before death is called living, and our spiritual intelligence certainly does not let go of the control and processing of our living selves. We distinguish our living selves as individual beings, and the meaning of life is to separate people from a common state of existence into isolated individual existence, and the purpose of individual existence is the ethical preparation for the competition for survival. Because life cannot be shared but must exist independently, that is, as individual private beings, living beings will not have the same interests as each other, will inevitably become competitive, and will inevitably produce competition for survival. We invented existential competition, which is unique in the biological world. An endless competition for survival among similar species is so embarrassing to the laws of nature, which have operated for hundreds of millions of years, that the laws of nature simply cannot answer this ethical dilemma created by humans. The heterogeneous species are different to enliven existence and keep it in motion, but this deadly competition between the same species individually and independently collapses the logic of existence. Is this competition conducive to the existence of the species? What is the result of this competition for survival between conspecifics? It is self-extinction. This competition is destruction and reaction against the natural logic of existence, which is an act of self-destruction of the species.

What is the purpose of this self-separation and self-competition? It stems from an illusion of self-perception. After life has distinguished us into individuals, we are not sure who we are. Each person is an I, and each I is opposed to the other I. The opposition of this I to the other I is a feature of the earthly world. Imagine, do schools of sardines have each other? Do flocks of starlings have each other? Do grasshoppers, bees, and even viruses differentiate from each other, compete with each other, and attack each other? There are no destructive attacks and killings between organisms of the same species. Their instinctive behavior of fighting and biting is not at all the same concept as the ethical distinction between individual human beings, which has completely different ethical implications. What are we doing?

We are consciously, premeditatedly, and purposefully creating pain and disaster for each other; we are taking the defeat of others as our victory, the misfortune of others as our luck, and the death of others for our living. Logically, who are the others? What is the difference between the other and oneself? Is not one's self the other? The difference between victory and defeat, gain and loss, right and wrong, dead or alive ...... and so on reincarnate among us with equal probability, today it is me, tomorrow it is you, and the result is constant, that is, the pain that is constantly created and distributed to everyone with an average value, who can be excluded in the end?

Why do we, the wise ones, design ourselves and damage ourselves in this way? Whose fault is it that each of us has become the miserable person we are today? Whose sin is it? Can we pursue it?