I believe that everyone at some stage of his life, always want to explore the philosophical thinking of life, want to debate with others on life issues, so as to witness their own years.

But when it comes to philosophy, when it comes to life, people around me or in an irrelevant tone, teasing said :" want to do so much, can eat? Insinuating that one should return to the operating mechanism of the real world, and obeying the economic rules and following the rules, is the concrete representation of fulfilling one's life.

The accumulated doubts about life cannot be given vent to, but are repressed again and again in my heart. As time goes by, eventually there will be a crisis of overflow and dike collapse, which may be out of control at that time. How to properly solve the problem has become a common and important topic. This may be the reason why gap year has become popular among young people in recent years.

Under the frequent collision between the trend of individual freedom and the contemporary social system, people are always looking forward to a space to breathe, to get away from the hustle and bustle of the air, to abandon all the fetters in front of them, to indulge in looking for their own real desired lifestyle.

However, zhuang you can not just swim in the empty, once in the process of the lack of debate on life issues of philosophy, in vain to run through the clock records, then at the end of the journey, will have nothing, fall into a greater confusion.

Based on this, if in such a way of life against the train of thought, there is a fellow traveler, with their own aimless talk Syria, no stake in the chat about life, about the value of life. It doesn't matter if we are just passing through, because the philosophical debates aroused in the process have already been imprinted in each other's heart. It is the nourishment that irritates life, the element of growth that everyone deserves and must have.

The film tells the story of two strangers who met by chance, Jule and Jan. On the journey of sharing the rv, they talked about their doubts about the country, society and even life on earth, and made the most sincere yet fierce argument to share with each other. At the same time in the exchange of life experience in the process, cultivate the tacit understanding of the future of life together, feelings in this breeding, finally decided at the end of the journey, together to start a new journey of life.

Of course, I always think that the ending may not need to match two people together, after all, the most important person in life, is often not the one beside, may not need to rely on together for life, to affirm the importance of each other. It might be more meaningful if it could be interpreted in a more burned image.

Here is a summary of the interesting debate between the two men in the film for your reference:

In Europe, there is a high proportion of people living alone, and there is a government conspiracy to expand consumption.

Because the materials required by group living can be Shared, only by living alone can the consumption share be expanded. At the same time, based on the mentality of loneliness, the consumption behavior will be induced to make up for the spiritual emptiness and further consolidate the operation of the entire consumer market. To some extent, it also means that the current capitalist system is deliberately created, rather than from nature.

Competition is an important element of capitalism.

Is it nature or nurture? The behavior of the animals shows that when the young lions grow up, they will naturally expel the old male lions, which proves that there is a competitive element in the nature of animals. Or the homicidal axe found on the ancient human remains of "the iceman of oz", which is enough to prove that the primitive human beings were established in a competitive environment.

But is it true that only the strong survive in the environment? In the various species of life presented, it should be more "survival of the fittest"! Obviously, human nature is not only competitive, but also conceals the motivation of cooperation. Cooperation can make it possible for people to improve collectively and live in a comfortable co-existence mode.

It is under the premise of cooperative hunting that human beings create the ethnic group with artistic civilization, so that resources will not be scarce. (if it were not for the motive of cooperation, Jule would not give Jan a lift, and the profound road love between them would not have developed.)

It is true that what exists in the animal kingdom is the law of the survival of the strong, but human beings are different from animals, which is the process of the development of civilization. Given a Shared vision, it is up to us to choose whether we want to move from a competitive "survival of the strong" to a cooperative "survival of the fittest."

It is a pity that human civilization has been evolving for thousands of years, but it has never been able to bridge the gap between selfishness and competition.

Between sex and love, it is similar.

Sex depends on the innate instincts of animals, which rely on the sense of smell to find each other's scent and then act in a sexual way. Love, on the other hand, is not necessarily based on sex, but on the meaning of life.

Is it instinctive sex that matters? Or does the love of the heart come first? Maybe it depends on how evolved you are. Most people first obey the instinct of animals, seek for objects through the call of sex, then fall out when they touch each other's hearts, and return to the cycle of smelling the corresponding breath again.

Fourthly, is the duty of loyalty in marriage metaphysical or fabricated?

One theory is that monogamy was invented in Christianity to avoid overpopulation. In fact, from the perspective of human society, it is impossible to bind a single sexual relationship with marriage. When the desire to explore each other disappears, marriage will become a bondage to each other. It is difficult at all to bind each other by the sanctity of marriage.

However, whether marriage can be sacred or not, in fact, maybe there is no need for a metaphysical norm at all. As long as the two people in the marriage share a common goal (such as raising children), the sanctity of marriage will naturally connect with each other, and no one can take it away from them.

The above arguments are, to put it bluntly, a vigorous debate between "human instinct" and "beyond human nature". The reason for the stalemate of the opposite proposition, because everyone wants to in the process of twists and turns, the principle of human commonality. But few have questioned the question, "why is there such a thing as universality between humans?"

If it is true that human beings are different from each other, isn't it true that the pursuit of universality theory is to seek for fish out of wood?

Take the love between Jule and Jan in the movie as an example. Are they the call of the wild? Or is it a rational choice? Given the rules of a relationship, the two would have made love in the first place. But apparently did not, both sides till the end, maintain ambiguous feelings.

This is the love pattern between the two of them. It is unique and cannot be duplicated, only because they are Jule and Jan and not others.