MANY of us would say the question is subjective. I have heard about people who couldn’t think of anything besides journeys. Seems it is very well clearly they live for to witness the world. Another man is so devoted to his career and works so hard that he is said in Russian to be ‘lived by his job’. But, sure, these are not the real reasons of being. If not we had created ourselves, then job or journeys are fake reasons, which we just to imagine, kind of self-deceit. Then, let us leave aside relativist’s arguments as well. They say there isn’t such a thing as objective cause in principal. To me, once people can interact and understand each other, they act in common space. Yes, on the other hand, the interaction traversing with distortion in any way. This is scientific fact to be being taught in universities in business communication course. The distortion is called in there ‘boom’. Communication boom being capable sometimes to corrupt information completely but it may not. Doesn’t existing of the distortion prove absence of objectivity. This only affirms once again that there is nothing absolutely pure in nature. Purity is so unnatural thing that if a person drunk some distilled water, which is relatively pure, he would die soon. And all our best is talking about sixty-percent objectivity, seventy-percent objectivity and so on. Thus let us discuss objective reason of being at that having in mind presence of communication boom urging to judge but be humble. So, what is the objective aim of living?

Separate living? The thought that in each life there is its own sense is very human thought. But for God, if he is, or for the nature the problem scarcely feels like for a person. It has been million times mentioned, that human life is short, that our consciousness is weak even as against our own technical possibilities. Our scientists invented nuclear energy and gene engineering threaten kill us because this level of knowledge to overlap far our moral, impeccability of our methods of social establishment, ability to understand the world and other people and our ability to think forward two, three or more moves. We can focus on human limitations by searching around us in whom these disadvantages reflects at a maximum. Pay attention on a fruit fly, which is all-time favorite sample of different researches. It lives less than a day, needless to say it whops for his life only to give birth to a new progeny. Quite obviously that sense is only in life of all flies – not in separate things. And what is the difference between us and theirs? Our brain is analogue of introduce another fang or sensitive nose, in one hundred times better but from the same class. All this, for certain, is questionable but there are a lot of facts that easily settle in this conception. For example, we know from biology that it is nurtured well only generative cells in our organism. Then, separate lives frequently perishing by senseless and unpredictable way. It suffice to remember that person who bent over the board of ship to look after fish and was stroke straight into his head. He was dead. I think there is one meaning of being for all people. It difficult to say what it is. Perhaps we should excel the inanimate at that saving all advantages of life and give way something rather more excellent. It is a question of the bait.

In concern with politics we can get ahead further. Aim of personal life due to all, about what we have said, supervenes from common meaning of life. This means to my mind that right political system is that on one side fosters connection and understanding between people, cooperation between them on the other side such a political system should help all people to draw new horizons equably and gradually by all given means. In this light most of theories of economical liberalism and political conceptions of the same spirit emerge archaic. The case is that they lean on individualism and inequality among people and judge by animal inclinations of human nature, first of all, greediness and passion to contest. Liberalism draws an idea of equality of all cavils at the law, but it has never been real equality in practice. The conception of human rights isn’t bad but the problem is that the concept isn’t sufficient and obscure. A certain ‘reworked’ socialism maybe is more appropriate model of society for the future.

Если вы нашли ошибку, пожалуйста, выделите фрагмент текста и нажмите CTRL+ENTER.