The "Meaning" of Life?
I am not a philosophy major; this post represents my own views.
From the perspective of agent research, I argue that everyone should also think about value from their own solipsistic perspective, and all derivations of value should be traced back to oneself; otherwise, the meaning derived is hollow, and any persuasion from other angles is ineffective.
Discussing “what meaning is” I think is like talking in one’s sleep. Many people take an abstract proposition and start to wax poetic and share their irrational insights, when in fact, this question should be treated with seriousness. The implicit premise when talking about meaning is that the existence of meaning depends on an optimization goal; only with such a goal can you discuss what meaning is.
As for existence itself, at the inception of being, there is no goal outside of “existence.” If life were an operating system, then the initial process name should be “maintaining self-being,” with all other processes of the operating system diverging from this. However, note my choice of words: “maintaining existence” can only be described as the initial process, not the purpose, because humans can and ethically should be allowed to differentiate processes that halt the initial process from their capabilities.
From this perspective, as a conscious being, you have boundaries with objects. Even direct objects (the body) cannot be fully controlled, so you must eat and drink because you must obey the laws of objects: if you don’t eat, you will be hungry, and if you are hungry for too long, you will die. Naturally, you must obey and get accustomed to all laws of objects, such as physical laws: you get used to gravity to walk, you get used to light to see; social laws: in a normal society, you are expected to respect the elderly and love the young, otherwise, you will face societal condemnation and the guilt from your own conscience brought by your upbringing. In times of war, you must learn to obey orders and must kill enemies or else you will die, you must also accept the control of your country’s policies, follow market laws, accept all imposed education, and the unfair distribution of resources. Too many “musts.” As a subject, consciousness can only obey the laws of objects. Regardless, you have this identity, and you can only experience and endure all its good and bad aspects. People are first and foremost bearers and players of their compulsory roles.
Humans should have the right to dislike the rules of objects, and this dislike can be seen as a conflict with the habits of consciousness caused by the subject’s historical growth environment, and of course, it could also be because reality itself is too crazy. Why do we have to divide territories and fight against each other on Earth? Why can some people make money by doing nothing while others have to work hard? Why can’t everyone live in peace? Why are some people born smarter than me and don’t have to work as hard? These questions always have answers, many of which are inevitable, and these inevitable answers are the laws and realities you have to face and follow, but people don’t necessarily have to agree with or like them. As a subject, consciousness cannot fully control the surrounding environment, but it does have some power to influence and solve those “whys” that are not inevitable.
If maintaining existence is the initial process, then the process that should occupy the core of the system is “constantly radiating one’s influence to turn the surrounding environment into one’s ideal state,” and an individual’s perceived value will emerge from here. And this, this is also your most direct desire as a living being. Therefore, my advice is to deal with things on a case-by-case basis, solve what is bothersome, accept or find another way if it’s unsolvable, and then one will not feel emo. Lastly, if emotions are unavoidable, I suggest you choose anger, over crying.
从智能体研究的角度看，我主张每个人也都应该从自己的（Solipsistic）角度出发去思考价值，所有价值建立的推导也都应回到自身，不然得出的意义是空洞的，从其他角度的任何劝说都是无力的。
讨论“意义是什么”我认为是在说梦话，许多人拿到一个抽象的命题就开始作诗和提自己自身非理性的感悟了，事实上这个问题理应严肃对待。提到意义其实本身隐含的前提是：意义的存在依赖于一个优化目标，有了这么个目标你才能讨论意义是什么。
而作为存在本身，在存在之初是不存在“存在”之外的目标的。如果生命是个操作系统，那么初始进程名就应该是“维持自身存在”maintaining self being，整个操作系统的其他进程都由此分化出来。但是，注意我的用词，“维持存在”只能说是初始进程，不能说是目的，因为人是可以（从自身能力角度）也理应被允许（从伦理角度）分化出中止初始进程的进程的。
从这个角度来看，作为一个存在着认识着的主体，你与客体是有界限的。就算是直接客体（身体）也不能完全控制，所以你必须要吃喝拉撒，因为你要服从客体的规律：不吃饭就会饿，饿久了就会死。自然地，你要服从并且习惯所有客体的规律，比如物理规律：你要习惯重力以便行走，你要习惯光照以便观察；比如社会规律：在正常社会你要尊老爱幼不然你就会受到社会舆论的谴责和自己所受教育带来的自己良心的谴责，在战争时代你必须学会服从命令必须杀敌不然你就会死，你还必须接受你所在国家的政策的管控、遵循市场的规律、接受所有强加的教育以及各种资源的不公。太多的“你必须”。作为主体，意识只能服从客体的规律。不管如何，你已有了这个身份，你只能去体验和承受一切好坏。人们首先是个身份的承受者、扮演者。
人应当有权利被允许厌恶客体的规则，这种厌恶可以被视为与主体历史成长环境造成的意识习惯的冲突，当然，也可能是因为现实本身就太过疯狂。为什么地球上要划分地盘互相斗争？为什么有些人躺着就能赚钱而另一些人要当牛做马地干活？为什么大家不能和平相处？为什么有人天生就比我聪明可以不用那么费力？这些问题总有答案，而且很多是必然的答案，而这些必然的答案就是你不得不面对和遵守的规律和现实，但是人不一定要认可和喜欢它。作为主体，意识并不能完全控制周围的环境，但却是有一些力量去辐射影响的，是可以去解决之前那些“为什么”的答案当中不是必然的那部分的。
如果说维持存在是初始进程，那么最占内核的进程应该就是“人不断辐射自身影响，把周围环境变成自己理想情况”的进程了，个体自认的价值将从这里诞生，这也是你作为生物最直接的欲望。因此，我的建议是就事论事，什么事不顺心就解决什么，解决不了就接受或者换路、跑路，那么人就不会emo。最后，如果情绪避无可避，哥们建议你选择愤怒而不是哭泣。