The meaning of life

The meaning of life

Yu. Shestopaloff

A note: This article was automatically translated from the earlier published Russian version at proza.ru/2016/05/16/1660. The translation is not perfect, but it conveys ideas of the paper reasonably well, while distorting some language subtleties.

In the end, life will end. Biologically, I roughly know why. But today we are not interested in physiology, but in the meaning of life as such, and including its final part, when the realization comes that now everyone has arrived and the train is not going any further. The journey called life is over. And it’s probably worth preparing for this event. To some extent, to sum it up. How objective such a final assessment will be depends on the personality of the “auditor,” and most likely in most cases it will not be truthful, because people normally tend to flatter themselves, somewhat embellishing their actions. And that's okay. As you know, “a cat follows its own tail...”.
Is it necessary to reveal your soul to other people? I don't think so. How are they better than you personally, that they have earned the right to confess or absolve someone? Not really. In this regard, I was always surprised by Rousseau, who in his old age repented of his sins. What for?! To ease the soul, to try to atone for sins through an act of repentance? No need, it’s all an illusion. People are not creatures to whom you should publicly reveal your soul. There is a very small number of individuals who can really listen and sympathize, advise, and even, if necessary, console. But these people are a rare exception to the rule. If you know such people, you are very lucky. And the rest can only try to comprehend their life on their own, or not bother themselves with such complicated questions at all, which is what the majority do.
Organizationally, it makes sense to always keep your affairs in order. That is, if I’m gone a little later this evening, it shouldn’t bring my loved ones and others any particular trouble, either morally, financially, or organizationally. For example, joint accounts and deeds for ownership of material assets, such as real estate, are a good way to avoid the hassle of inheritance. It is clear that such advice is not suitable for everyone; just remember the fate of King Lear. There are also other things that also require, if not an entire completion, then at least bringing some stage to the end. You need to think about this too. And this should be done not when the pressure comes, but in advance. Somerset Maugham wrote his book "Summing Up" more than twenty years before his death. And rightly so. Writing such a book is just one of those things that should be completed before the brain begins to think worse. And this will happen if you have to live to an old age. Few people maintain clarity of mind until the end of their days.

Alternative options

Although I prefer not to touch religion, in this case it is not possible to avoid the issue, since many religions offer their own options in terms of the meaning of life, spiritual comfort, forgiveness of sins, and well-established burial rituals and respect for the memory of the deceased. Those who are satisfied with religious dogma in terms of the questions raised can breathe a sigh of relief and not read further. But for people like me, who don’t believe in fairy tales due to the structure of their brains, there are no ready-made solutions, and the eternal questions of being and death must be solved by yourself. The attitude towards religion is in many respects really determined by the structure of the brain, which has little to do with education and upbringing. I have two very good friends, workers. One is Austrian, the other is our man. Common sense in judgment on all issues is surprisingly clear. They think simply and very effectively; nothing superfluous, they get straight to the point, directly. Of course, they don’t believe in any god. I don't need religion either. I know (I emphasize - I KNOW, this is not a BELIEF, as atheists are sometimes presented) that there are no supernatural forces, I know how life arises, how it develops, evolves, and I can roughly imagine how it can disappear. In this regard, for me, by and large, there are no secrets - at the level that interests me. In fact, everything is arranged quite simply. It probably helps that I do some research in biology, and specifically in issues of growth, reproduction and evolutionary development. Many details are unknown, but in general terms it is clear how life arises, how it develops, disappears, and why.
But even if I had not studied biology, I think that, like my friends, I would not have a question about the plausibility of religious myths. The brain just wouldn't accept it. It would have shrugged it off and said something like, “Stop doing this nonsense, don’t be ridiculous.” And it’s not even that I had to really strain and think in order to decide on my attitude towards religion and other similar “doctrines.” It was intuitively clear from the very beginning what was what. Now my clarity on these issues is at the level of “what is the volume of a three-dimensional cube.” It is clear that the length of the face in cube. Moreover, this is so clear and transparent “through and through” that there can be no other options IN PRINCIPLE. In this regard, I am like the Spaniard that John Crow writes about in his book “The Epic of Latin America.” He realized with his own mind that there is no God. I think I understand perfectly how he thought. Dear kindred soul! He was burned as a heretic. I wouldn’t want to repeat his fate in this regard. Although, if the question comes to an edge... I've lived for a long time, seen something, understood something. You can't catch everything. And for people like me, changing oneself, one’s essence, is the last thing to do. It will get you anyway and won’t let you live in peace. It's better to go to the fire. Burn, you goats, be glad that you took it. What to take from you.
I think the ability to accept religious dogma is related to several evolutionarily developed physiological characteristics. One of them is the repetition of actions that at some point brought success. The famous Austrian biologist Konrad Lorenz wrote about this, mentioning his domestic goose. It, once entering the house in a certain way, rather meaningless in terms of optimality, elevated the route to the level of a ritual. Once the goose violated it, it was horrified, returned, and repeated everything “as it should be.” This ritual and ceremonial component of our behavior is, in our subconscious mind, protection from unknown misfortunes, from everything unclear and incomprehensible. Think for yourself, what else could such a weak creature as a human do? Repeat and repeat what once brought success. Few bright minds could come up with something more original and constructive, but there are few such “heads”, and to be convinced of this, it is enough to look around with an unbiased look. In fact, when encountering something incomprehensible, a person himself instinctively looks for something on which to “ground” this incomprehensible, and then the ability to repeat rituals, developed by evolution, comes into play. The Aztecs, and many other Indians, sacrificed people to idols, and even several a day (you can read one of the best books on this subject that I have ever read - Bernal Diaz, "The Conquest of New Spain", written by Cortez's Lieutenant. What kind of people they were!..) The entrails were then given to the animals, and the rest they ate themselves. (The Indians, these “noble savages,” as they are represented by various Fenimore Coopers, were in fact quite often cannibals. They fattened prisoners for slaughter like pigs, in cages.) Others sacrificed animals, for example, the ancient Greeks. In Arizona, settlers during droughts quite recently killed rattlesnakes and hung them on fences - someone advised them that this was a sure way to combat drought.
The editors of scientific journals accept articles with certain external typical attributes without going into the essence, and the source of this behavior is the same instinct that led Arizonans to hang rattlesnakes on their fences. People try to make connections between unrelated phenomena, just to catch on to something, which is where prejudices come from. They passionately want to see cycles where there are simply oscillations - all from the same desire for certainty, to secure repeatability, to become attached to something, in order to protect themselves in their imagination from an unclear and therefore frightening future, to find at least some support. Prayers, icons, holy relics, and everything like that, it’s all about the same thing - about the inability to understand the incomprehensible and the instinctive desire to protect yourself from it by ritual repetitions of some actions; it doesn't matter whether they make sense or not. It is repetition that is primary; it is in it that evolutionarily man and other animals found salvation.
Here are the people, the “kings of nature.” As my father used to say, “mind not in excess” - and he was right. This is who we are, homo sapiens. In fact, we are still a long way from real rationality and reasonig; at least to the overwhelming and dominating (everyone and everything) majority. But here we are. What we have, by that we should be happy.
The above applies to most people. A person with a practical mindset will not believe in fairy tales, since he has both feet on the ground. Such people will not accept these stories, since they are capable of perceiving objective reality in the interrelation of numerous factors tied to objective reality, and there is simply no place for fairy tales to insert themselves there. And with others, the ability for abstract thinking plays a cruel joke when they take this kind of concept on faith, without critical analysis, as a given, as an initial postulate, and “dance” from it. In this regard, it doesn't make much difference whether they lied to me plausibly about changing to another metro line in Paris just to have fun, or they lie about more fundamental things. In both cases, we are talking not about knowledge, but about faith. (As for the wrong directions in the Paris's subway, by the way, I almost believed it, but something in the answer or the personality of the joker still alerted me, and I did not succumb to the provocation, although I could have.)
The path of Sommerset Maugham is interesting. In his own way, he reached the point of denying religion, although he was raised for several years in the family of a priest, his uncle. The problem with most people is that they have the mental capacity to grasp abstract concepts, but not the intelligence to analyze them critically and objectively. Many do not even ask the next logical question after the postulate about the existence of God - who then created him? Where did this come from? But this is an elementary question that should immediately fall from the lips of a person who, on an intuitive level, has an idea of "cause-and-effect" relationships.
Once upon a time, like many, I wondered how such an interesting thing as life arose. But gradually I found the answer to this question, thanks to the knowledge of dialectics - meaning philosophical teaching - and the natural sciences. (But even if I didn’t know any of this, I wouldn’t accept religion, I know this for sure - just the natural common sense wouldn’t allow it, it would rebel.) But I understand that not everyone can follow the same path, for a variety of reasons, including such an insidious thing as the ability for naked abstract thinking, without reference to reality, while some answer to the question is still needed. And many, without particularly bothering themselves, “close” the answers to myths, fairy tales, religious doctrines, etc. They feel calmer this way, it suits them, and sometimes - for them - it may not be so bad. And sometimes for society. Well, as they say, good luck. (Although, I think, good people would be good even without religion and do useful things. And for bad people, on the contrary, religion is not a hindrance to commit atrocities. Again, you can always confess,repent and receive remission of sins.)
Just don't persecute those who don't believe in fairy tales. Christ called for love. Well then, love me. I treat you normally, because I understand why this happened, and somehow I even sympathetic for it - completely sincerely. Although I also know that many have no need in my sympathy on this matter - “blessed is he who believes, he has warmth in the world.” In fact, life is more difficult for people like me, because you have to figure everything out on your own, nothing is by faith. It is enough for a believer to console himself by saying “God gave, God took away,” or “God wills it this way,” but I myself need to comprehend everything, understand why this happened, get to the bottom of it, connect everything and with this understanding act and live on. And this is a difficult path, thorny, with many mistakes and disappointments. The truth is not obtained at once, it is not revealed immediately, in its entirety, but only through iterations and increments, each of which requires a large expenditure of energy. But it’s more interesting to live this way - you interact with life and the world directly, without intermediaries, one on one. It’s also a very precious and valuable thing, although it’s not suitable for everyone. Not for everyone.

About the essence of life

Having paid tribute to the necessary preface, let us turn to the meaning of life and the criteria for its evaluation. We humans are as much a part of nature as mice, rabbits, and amoebas. The essence of our evolutionary development is survival, procreation. One day the younger son was having fun, commenting on my story about a visit to a supposedly highly scientific office: “Gentlemen! A question for you. What does E. coli want most? (microbe) E. coli wants most, in the end... That's right!. . Multiply!" And this is the most natural function of a living organism. And we must dance from this, from the natural. We, humans, have a more developed ability than other creatures to reflect the world around us, objective reality, to see relationships at a higher level than is available to other animals. The existence of humanity in itself has no biological purpose. They simply managed to adapt to the environment and survive in the fierce competition for existence. For what? Yes, for no reason - to survive, reproduce, and continue the species through their offspring. The fact that humanity survived is a coincidence, an accident.
Many will find it difficult to come to terms with this idea, since ideas and ideals are considered to be an integral part of human existence. They are designed to spiritualize our lives and make it meaningful. At the same time, it is implicitly, as if taken for granted, that the meaning is contained precisely in idealizations (the latter, by the way, can take many forms - from mystical to scientific). But, in my opinion, this is already a superstructure over the essence, over the foundation. But the superstructure is effective, which forces and motivates many people to great works and achievements, but also to terrible crimes and destruction. The main thing here is that the ideas do not fall into the hands of those who “have no king in their heads”; but, unfortunately, most sowers of ideas are counting on exactly this.
But let's continue. And then people mastered certain natural niches, multiplied, spread across the planet, and when it became crowded or there was a lack of resources, they began to fight tooth and nail for resources, already among themselves. And therefore, it is quite natural that throughout our entire evolution, healthy instincts aimed at survival are embedded in us - otherwise we would not exist. And the most natural behavior is to follow these instincts, which is what all animals do. But in this regard, a person has a potential advantage (although it can easily turn into a big disadvantage), since he can add to this a conscious and subconscious perception of the world that is more complete than that of animals - both in the time dimension and in space. And therefore, the evolution of humanity at some moments, in some individual aspects, gradually began to acquire new qualitative features that can be called progress. Progress often had positive aspects, since it contributed to the survival of humanity as a whole or a large group of it. Knowledge of the objective nature of the world is a positive phenomenon, because it contributes to our survival. But survival is different from survival. You can survive by destroying your own kind. Or you can maintain balance with the environment and survive together by uniting and cooperating with others. Here's how to look at this matter. There are ethnic and religious groups that have proclaimed the prosperity of their group as the only significant goal, for the sake of which they can do anything with the rest of the “idiots” and “subhumans,” up to and including their wholesale extermination, turning them into slaves or soap, etc. Such a destructive position clearly does not serve the cause of human progress. Having destroyed everyone else, the group members will not stop and will continue to destroy each other, since they do not know how to do anything else (much like the generals of Alexander the Great after his death - by the way, essentially he died from drunkenness, which weakened his immune system; alcohol is a terrible thing, like, however, any biochemical dependence; and the best way to protect yourself is not to succumb to provocations and run away from it like the plague). Having destroyed the diversity of human life and the forms of its organization, such guardians of “race purity” will simultaneously destroy many more useful things, along the way, without even really thinking about it. And from here follows a fairly simple practical conclusion. You just need to look at what is actually happening around you and try yourself and help others to keep it in moderation. If your ethnic group is under threat of destruction or oppression, you need to protect it and help it survive. But, on the other hand, there is no need to attack and destroy another ethnic group, or other groups, if they do not pose a threat to the existence of your ethnic group - now or in the future. Measure. Everything in moderation, including moderation. Or, as D.V. Safronov likes to repeat, “everything in this world is poison and medicine at the same time, and only measure makes one another.”

Thus, we come to the first criterion. If life followed the natural healthy instincts inherent in us by nature and aimed at preserving the species (taking into account what was said above about groups, measure, and the progress of mankind), if, along with personal interests, concerns about the family, we did not forget about the public interests that work for the same purpose, then such a life seems correct to me. It can be conscious, but for this you need to mature, and this takes time. More often it is a life built on following good examples and one’s healthy, good and balanced nature. Instincts, if you like. And I know such people. (Literally yesterday I was visiting one of them.) That is, we must try to make life good both for ourselves and for others. Balanced. There is no need to sow evil for the sake of evil, but there is also no need to turn the other cheek when one is already burning from the blow. And you don't have to be a prude. When the situation requires it, you can “cut in”. Keeping a balance is very difficult. It is much easier to go to extremes. But you can live well only by maintaining balance. And this is the same as doing a traverse along a ridge. If anyone hasn't tried it, you can take my word for it - it's not easy. And technically - let's say - such a life can be organized by setting sequential and parallel goals, as well as strategic and tactical planning. It’s also not an easy task, but it can and should be learned, and throughout your life - both because life changes all the time, and because this is a skill that you can study all your life, and still you won’t be able to cover everything.

The second criterion relates to knowledge of the world. You can optimize your life if you have an adequate understanding of the environment in which you live. Understanding the world is not an end in itself, but a means to creating a balanced, good life. How can you optimize something if you have no idea where you are, or have a wrong idea? So if we sincerely tried to understand life, the world around us, and convey knowledge to others, then everything is fine on this side. How it turned out in the end is not so important. Everyone has their own ceiling of capabilities, and in this regard, there is no need to evaluate yourself through the eyes of others. Here everyone is their own judge, but if possible, such self-assessment should be more or less objective, otherwise what is the point in it? Like Vysotsky: “I came out in height and face, thanks to my mother and father. I got along with people - I didn’t push around, I didn’t push. I didn’t bend my back, I walked straight. And I didn’t blow my mustache, and I lived as I lived, and I helped my head with my hands.” " This is how a person assessed himself. Just. And it seems to be true. That's how it should be. Well, the means of knowledge are another matter. Here everyone has their own arsenal, although there are quite effective standard “works”. But that's a separate conversation. The main thing is to get to the essence in this process, not to stop, and not to think that someone can give a final answer. Do not make yourself an idol - not for an hour, not for your life, not for a minute. All people make mistakes, and there are no infallible truths when it comes to such subtle matters as morality and worldview.

The third criterion is self-realization. The abilities and potential inherent in us by nature must be realized in such a way that it contributes to personal development, the survival of one’s group and the human race, and progress. How to prioritize these tasks depends on the situation. When your country is bombed with radioactive bombs, as in the case of the Serbs, your survival and the protection of your group takes priority; There are simply no resources left for anything else. It has let go a little, you can and should take a broader look. And one more thing - self-realization involves setting goals. Without this nothing will work.
Self-realization is a serious thing, and you need to treat it responsibly - both to yourself, and to your ancestors, and to your descendants. Throughout the course of evolution, certain instincts were embedded in us, which guide us through life, no matter how much we extol conscious efforts. The latter can correct our essence, but do not define it in any way. The foundation of our personality is already laid in us from birth, passed down from our parents and numerous generations of ancestors, and powerfully determines our behavior and our aspirations. This state of affairs is natural, it is determined by nature, and if our nature does not run counter to social norms, then not only should we not resist it, but on the contrary, we should help it. And the natural aspirations of those that are harmful to society and contradict the natural nature of man, like various perversions, must be limited, and for this there are certain institutions, including jurisprudence, prisons, public opinion, etc. In modern society, however, public opinion plays an increasingly lesser role, being replaced by the “opinion” of the media, which serves the interests of those in power and is essentially supported by them, and often even owned. But this is by the way. There is no need to go against your nature (if it is not antisocial in nature), you need to trust your “gut” and respect it, because it is we ourselves, and we need to be in harmony with ourselves. Otherwise, internal contradictions will not allow you to live - both literally and figuratively.
Of course, circumstances vary, and real life is based on compromises of various kinds. But in any case, self-realization should have an important priority, and maybe even the most important one. The reason for this high priority is simple. If we lose ourselves, we lose everything else, because then it ceases to have meaning. You can do something worthwhile only and exclusively on the basis of a developed, realized personality. What a person is, so are her deeds. A wretched personality will not accomplish great accomplishments, but will produce only the wretched results of unenviable deeds. Sometimes you can hear from people that they voluntarily gave up on themselves and their interests for the sake of their children, or for the sake of something else. In my opinion, this is a big mistake. And often fatal. Without realizing yourself, you will actually do little for your children. The best, most effective educational tool is personal example. Everyday, discreet, but real, without embellishment or retouching. People, and children are no exception, appreciate this, even if they don’t realize it. And the reason is that not only traditionally, but also evolutionarily, this is exactly how training and education took place.
The need for self-realization cannot be suppressed. Some people can twist themselves into a ram's horn, but in the end this will only cause harm - both to them and to others. And the stronger the unfulfilled aspirations, the more harm there will be. In this regard, a clear example is provided by the unrealized desire for procreation. As long as there are attractive women around who satisfy the built-in selection criteria for procreation, they strive for them. There are no nice ones - the instinct will be directed towards those who are. There are no women - the instinct will be transferred to the image. There is no image - a likeness, a hint, an imagination, but this instinct must still be grounded on something, it must be realized, and how is a matter of possibility. For some, this state of affairs may look terrible, the mere thought of it can break the heart, but this is how it works, this is how nature works, and only thanks to this the human race, and the entire animal world, did not disappear overnight. But the same is true with other instincts, including self-realization. It just rushes from within, forces you to follow this particular path, and many, for the sake of stereotypes, suppress it within themselves. But don't. Many people value actions based on results, that’s how they’ve been taught. But in terms of self-realization, the result is not as important as many people think. This is how it will work out. This is exactly the case when the presence of movement is the main thing, and the goal simply sets the direction of the movement and helps it to be realized. Something like, “I have to do this because I can’t help but do it.”
Let me give you an example. There is a significant scientific discovery. In fact, at a fundamental level, the mystery of the origin of life and living matter has been revealed, many hitherto incomprehensible phenomena associated with the origin, growth and reproduction of living beings and plants, and in general the entire organic world, from viruses to whales, have been explained. But science today is work, a means to earn a piece of bread. Scientists today are a dime a dozen, and accordingly the quality of the scientific environment is mediocre, since even there are always few smart people, but the average level is set by the masses. Naturally, no one pays attention to the discovery, because to understand it, a certain level of vision and suitable conditions are required, and this is difficult. And yet, I continue to work on it for years. I publish articles and write books. Realizing that it is difficult, if not impossible, for the average person to “get to the bottom of it,” I follow the path of developing methods for applied problems based on discovery. If someone is pressed, maybe then they will pay attention. There seems to be a need for such methods. Let's see. In a good way, there is so much hassle with this matter that anyone else in my place would have given up long ago. In principle, it is enough for me that I made this discovery. I don’t need recognition as such - I can roughly imagine what people are like. But, on the other hand, you understand that the discovery must also be conveyed so that it does not disappear without a trace. Most likely, namely this fall to obscurity of this discovery will happen, but what depends on me must be done. What is more in such a desire - instinct or awareness of the need to bring the matter to a certain stage, when with a fairly high probability it will not disappear without a trace - it is difficult to say. Both are present, and even a third; for example, opinions expressed by others help developing the research further. But something comes from within, which does not allow me to abandon the study and do more interesting things than endless attempts to publish results in readable journals and notify this humanity about a discovery that, judging by its attitude, it does not deserve. And this something is the need for self-realization, as well as the awareness of some responsibility for this to oneself, one’s ancestors and, to some extent, to society, maybe not this one, but to the future?.. When will the General Law of Growth be rediscovered, while I have already discovered it? So self-realization cannot be ignored. Well, you can’t step on the throat of your own song! You can't expect anything other than harm from this. This means we also need to learn to understand ourselves and listen to our inner voice, and be able to resist external pressure when it tries to drown it out, to convince us that someone smart and all-knowing knows better than us what we really need to do.
It is useful, in my opinion, to approach life and affairs from the point of view of probability. For sure, with one hundred percent of probability not much happens, everything can go wrong. But usually we have the power to maximize the probability of some event or outcome. And this is also not a small thing. I will not be able to ensure that the General Law of Growth is accepted by the scientific community as a valid scientific theory. But I can, within my capabilities, maximize the likelihood of this event. And so with many other non-obvious matters. The amount of efforts sooner or later turns into a new QUALITY. Here it is important to evaluate how realistic it is to achieve the desired result, and dance from it. Although sometimes, as in my example with the General Law of Growth, the desired result (acceptance of the discovery as a confirmed scientific theory) is obviously unattainable. Not because the discovery was incorrect - everything is fine with it, but due to the fact that at this stage of the development of science and public consciousness, people for the most part have not matured enough to understand such things - on the one hand; and on the other hand, they have not yet been pressed so tightly that the General Law of Growth could be needed. Suppose that the customer offered me to solve a complex problem on the terms that they would pay only if I solved it, and the problem does not seem particularly interesting to me. Given the same probability of success as in the case of the General Law of Growth, I definitely would not take on such a project - why would I work for free? But in the case of the Growth Law, the motivations are different, and therefore I do it for nothing, and even spending my money.

And finally, the fourth item on our agenda. Unfortunately, state institutions and the entire environment today are especially zealously engaged in atomizing society in every way, dividing people in every possible division line, alienating them from each other - children from parents, husband from wife, brother from brother, and so on. The authorities are afraid of any association of people that may even in the slightest degree pose a threat to it. And this happens everywhere, in all countries. As a result, for the sake of petty momentary interests, the social structure of society, social and family ties are destroyed. But the unity of people is the most natural thing. After all, it is only thanks to his social nature, and solely as a result of this, that man has developed. And now, consciously and unconsciously destroying this foundation, the authorities of many countries, and in fact the rich who own countries and governments, are thereby destroying the foundation of any progress - social, scientific, political, etc. (In general, One of the main problems of capitalism is that under it, society will most likely be controlled by people who are greedy, greedy, immoral, antisocial, individualists to the core, ready to do anything for the sake of enrichment and power. In other words, complete scumbags.) Simpler people, for example those, who still have tribal relations, are not caught in such treatment, and as a result, such groups prosper, and also due to the disunity of people of other groups who accept these attitudes. It is natural and correct to resist these sharply negative and destructive trends for society. And if in our lives we somehow contributed to the natural social aspirations of human nature, then we did the right thing, and we can take this as credit for ourselves. If we strived for good, deep relationships with children, and did what we could for this, and as best we could, then everything is fine. It probably could have been better, but the main thing is that we sincerely wanted it and did what was in our power. And the same thing applies to relationships with parents. If at some point it “gets to us” that the time has come for a “changing of the guard”, and now it’s time to finally turn the responsibility in the other direction and take on the responsibility of providing parents with a decent old age, and we really, with desire and understanding of the characteristics of old age did it, then everything is fine too.

These criteria, in my opinion, basically exhaust the question of comprehending and evaluating one’s life. Everything else are additional things that depend on the specific situation. And these four criteria, in my opinion, more or less fully define the nature of man and human society as a product of biological and social evolution. If we tried to understand life in its entirety, if we followed the known natural laws, knowledge, were able to sufficiently self-realize, and tried to strengthen social ties and the social nature of society, often contrary to the ideology of condoned individualism, implanted by the governmnets today, then we lived a normal life , and our conscience can be calm. If something else works out, great. But not necessarily.
Some people imagine the meaning of their life as achieving certain goals. It can be done this way, if someone is satisfied with such a vision. It is simpler, more understandable, and the social environment teaches us to do this. But here you need to understand that goals are derivatives of the more fundamental concepts that we discussed above, and awareness of this, by the way, will help to better understand and formulate goals. But you shouldn’t “get hung up” on achieving goals, that is, approach your life with a binary assessment: achieved the goal - life was a success; didn’t achieve it - everything went to dust, they say, my whole life is down the drain. It doesn't work that way. Life is a multidimensional phenomenon, with many subspaces, and it is unlawful to apply a single criterion to such complex phenomena.

About additional criteria and their essence

What we talked about above is the basis, the foundation. But on this foundation they erect various, seemingly secondary, structures, which they often try to pass off as the foundation itself. One such construct is patriotism. Associated with commitment to some group or country and the desire to benefit in this regard, in principle it is not a bad concept. However, the problem is that patriotism is often used by the authorities for purposes that do not benefit the people themselves. Simply put, the people are being deceived into patriotism, and then, excuse me, they are deceived. We need to understand the world as it really is. But in reality, brainwashing usually occurs, and as a result, people have an incorrect picture of the world order in their heads, and accordingly they make wrong decisions, which only worsen the situation. Here is what D.V. Safronov says about this:
“I’m watching TV and one bad trend alarms me. The image of reality that is drawn to us is more and more different from reality itself. Previously, this difference was also there, but it was an ALLOWABLE ERROR, a transformation error, but now lies and self-interest have made this image dangerous a fairy tale that has nothing in common with real life. And the further we go, the greater the discrepancies. But information is the mother of decisions. FALSE INFORMATION generates FALSE DECISIONS, and FALSE DECISIONS generate dangerous, incorrect actions and their consequences. This is probably why the actions of politicians are increasingly inadequate.
I finally understood why it was always easier for me to talk and negotiate with PRACTITIONERS than with humanities and theorists. The image of reality in the minds of practitioners differs from reality itself by an ALLOWABLE error, while in the heads of humanists and theorists this image of reality has nothing in common . with reality itself MAY not have."
But here is the idea expressed by John Glubb, an intelligent man (for many years he was a commander of the army of Jordan), in his essay (Glubb J. (1977) The fate of empires and search for survival. William Blackwood & Sons Ltd.) He wrote about English: "If we are considering the history of our own country, we write at length of the periods when our ancestors were prosperous and victorious, but we pass quickly over their shortcomings or their defeats. Our people are represented as patriotic heroes, their enemies as grasping imperialists, or subversive rebels. In other words, our national histories are propaganda, not well balanced investigations." ("When we talk about the history of our country, we write at length about the periods when our ancestors prospered and won, but we hardly mention their shortcomings or defeats. Our people are presented as patriotic heroes, and their enemies as imperialist invaders or rebels engaged in subversive activities. In other words, our national history is propaganda, not verified, balanced research.")
And, in fact, always and everywhere, people are “deluded” into patriotism by some small group, most often the rich, with the aim of profiting, through their people in power, if they do not themselves constitute the power apparatus. Who gets hooked, some itches in one place in search of adventure, and they need a reason, some were forced, some were intimidated, and even the herd instinct works powerfully (we are herd animals!), but in the end another war or coup is brewing, or an armed conflict, a lot of people die, the rich get rich, the government satisfies its aggressive, hegemonic and other ambitions, and everything returns to normal. From one side to the other, it’s all about the same thing. The underlying motives may be more just, or less, but in the end it all comes down to one thing - a few rise well on the sacrifices made, on the shed blood, and the rest will be shown the fig and will again continue to twist them into a ram's horn. Look around now - Africa, even northern, even central, Iraq, Ukraine - everything is about the same thing. The names are different, the essence, the methods are all the same. So think about whether you need to succumb so unequivocally to patriotic slogans and sign up as a patriot. So, according to my classification, patriotism is a superstructure that each government builds as it pleases. Whether someone wants to buy into this and the accompanying attributes - yes, please, it’s your business. I'm just expressing my opinion.
When I was accepted into the pioneers, and I came home in a tie, my father was sewing something and at the same time talking with a friend who had stopped by. At the message about my pioneering present, he calmly looked at me, and then, turning to his friend, said: “Here, they are raising Pavlikov Morozovykh,” to which his friend readily assented. (Pavlik Morozov was a propaganda hero who delated to authorities his own father.) My father expressed his opinion, and then I had to figure out what was what. But only I knew that my father did not throw words into the wind, and if he said so, he had reasons for it. This is how I reacted to his words. How you feel about mine is your business.
We could talk about other fairy tales and myths of our time, but this would go beyond the stated topic. The main thing I wanted to say is that you understand - there is a foundation on which the human community stands, and what constitutes the basis of personality, and there are superstructures on this foundation, which, by a strange, but very symptomatic, coincidence of circumstances, are somewhat reminiscent of not even a baited hook, but a naked spinner. And when approaching the assessment of your life, one must first of all comply with the foundation, which forms the basis of human relationships, and not with the superstructure, and especially not with fairy tales and myths. And with this we will end a short excursion into the meaning of life and continue life journey - sometimes painful, sometimes instructive, sometimes funny, but always unique; and the only one that we are given to accomplish.

The author expresses gratitude to G. Grunichev and D. V. Safronov. The topic of the article was proposed by G. Grunichev. After writing, the thoughts expressed were discussed with D.V. Safronov. This discussion certainly contributed to the improvement of the content.