This idea is not good enough for him to figure it out, and it is amazing to have this idea when someone is pointed at it with a gun. Lee asked the audience how much his life was worth, and the answer was that the stock price fluttered. I don't know how big the stock is. If it is a large-cap stock, such a flutter is quite moving.
What this plot points out is the old topic of the value of life and the status quo of people's indifference to life. How much a person's life is worth may itself be a false proposition. Just as the philosopher Bergson said that time is a continuous stretch, while seconds, minutes, hours, days, and years are artificially delineated, not the attributes of time itself. The scale of money itself is not an attribute of life itself. Life is not used for transactions, but for realization. People can only be goals, not tools. This is a discussion of the essence of life in a philosophical sense. However, these artificial scales are not meaningless. In the course of litigation, in the insurance industry, medical industry and other industries, artificially setting a price on life is a necessary condition for the operation of the protection industry and even the entire society. If life is not marked with an affordable price, according to the characteristics of human risk aversion, infinite risk must be matched with infinite return, and what is the world's return is infinite? No. Therefore, people will not do things that may lead to the death of some people but are of great significance to mankind as a whole. People are afraid to build airplanes, ships, houses, spaceships, and so on.
Secondly, people are social people, and people are not isolated. Resources are limited, and money, as a medium of resource exchange, symbolizes the scarcity of resources. If a person's life is priceless, then a person's life's possession of resources can also be unlimited, and it is impossible for a society to invest unlimited resources in a person. Therefore, from this perspective, human life cannot be priceless.
Then the question is whether "life is priceless", a proposition that cannot be realized in reality and has no practical significance, can it be true? I think it can’t be true, because since you are already measuring life with the scale of money, no matter whether the result of the measurement is valuable or priceless, you have fallen into the realm of discussion instead of talking about ideals, otherwise you will not Use money as a weight and measure. It must be faced with real problems that will link life and money together. Since it is a realistic problem, a proposition that cannot be realized in reality and has no practical significance is naturally false.
Another thing that makes me most sad is that the only appeal of the two victims of this film and "Terror Live" is to make the responsible party admit their mistakes. The way for the weak to seek revenge is to seek inwardly. If they can't change the world, they can change their mentality. More precisely, they are not revenge, but just asking for an argument. They know that they are powerless to change the world, so they can only retreat and pursue inner balance, and only ask for an apology from the other party, similar to Ah Q; the way of revenge for the strong is to seek outside and change the world instead of changing their own mentality, because "Superman" "They are the makers of ethics rather than the ones who follow them. "Superman" has reached a state of "whatever they want". What they think and do is moral and correct. What they have to do is to integrate their own values. Output, rather than seeking to correct oneself inwardly, the revenge of the strong is similar to Jack Ma’s investment in Yum→_→. Revenge must start with the people, things, and things that the other party cares most about, not the people, things, and things that they care about the least, such as conscience, let alone the things that they care about most. Asking the other party to admit their mistakes seems to be a simple appeal. It shows the protagonist's honest quality and also highlights the capitalist's crimes. However, this is essentially a dispute of tongues and emotions, and it does not help solve the problem in the slightest. The request for an apology just proves the protagonist loser's quality, and also highlights that it is not the capitalists who are too cunning, but that some people are too stupid and naive. Since you are determined to fight for two deaths, you have to look like one fights for two deaths, and it is not enough to solve the problem if you don't kill and warn one hundred. In the final analysis, a person's way of revenge also reflects a person's pattern.
View more about Money Monster reviews
