when you have 21 minutes to speak, two million years seems like a really long time. but evolutionarily, two million years is nothing. and yet in two million years the human brain has nearly tripled in mass, going from the one-and-a-quarter pound brain of our ancestor here, habilis, to the almost three-pound meatloaf that everybody here has between their ears. what is it about a big brain that nature was so eager for every one of us to have one?
well, it turns out when brains triple in size, they don't just get three times bigger; they gain new structures. and one of the main reasons our brain got so big is because it got a new part, called the "frontal lobe." and particularly, a part called the "pre-frontal cortex." now what does a pre-frontal cortex do for you that should justify the entire architectural overhaul of the human skull in the blink of evolutionary time?
well, it turns out the pre-frontal cortex does lots of things, but one of the most important things it does is it is an experience simulator. flight pilots practice in flight simulators so that they don't make real mistakes in planes. human beings have this marvelous adaptation that they can actually have experiences in their heads before they try them out in real life. this is a trick that none of our ancestors could do, and that no other animal can do quite like we can. it's a marvelous adaptation. it's up there with opposable thumbs and standing upright and language as one of the things that got our species out of the trees and into the shopping mall.
now -- (laughter) -- all of you have done this. i mean, you know, ben and jerry's doesn't have liver-and-onion ice cream, and it's not because they whipped some up, tried it and went, "yuck." it's because, without leaving your armchair, you can simulate that flavor and say "yuck" before you make it.
let's see how your experience simulators are working. let's just run a quick diagnostic before i proceed with the rest of the talk. here's two different futures that i invite you to contemplate, and you can try to simulate them and tell me which one you think you might prefer. one of them is winning the lottery. this is about 314 million dollars. and the other is becoming paraplegic. so, just give it a moment of thought. you probably don't feel like you need a moment of thought.
interestingly, there are data on these two groups of people, data on how happy they are. and this is exactly what you expected, isn't it? but these aren't the data. i made these up!
these are the data. you failed the pop quiz, and you're hardly five minutes into the lecture. because the fact is that a year after losing the use of their legs, and a year after winning the lotto, lottery winners and paraplegics are equally happy with their lives.
now, don't feel too bad about failing the first pop quiz, because everybody fails all of the pop quizzes all of the time. the research that my laboratory has been doing, that economists and psychologists around the country have been doing, have revealed something really quite startling to us, something we call the "impact bias," which is the tendency for the simulator to work badly. for the simulator to make you believe that different outcomes are more different than in fact they really are.
from field studies to laboratory studies, we see that winning or losing an election, gaining or losing a romantic partner, getting or not getting a promotion, passing or not passing a college test, on and on, have far less impact, less intensity and much less duration than people expect them to have. in fact, a recent study -- this almost floors me -- a recent study showing how major life traumas affect people suggests that if it happened over three months ago, with only a few exceptions, it has no impact whatsoever on your happiness.
why? because happiness can be synthesized. sir thomas brown wrote in 1642, "i am the happiest man alive. i have that in me that can convert poverty to riches, adversity to prosperity. i am more invulnerable than achilles; fortune hath not one place to hit me." what kind of remarkable machinery does this guy have in his head?
well, it turns out it's precisely the same remarkable machinery that all off us have. human beings have something that we might think of as a "psychological immune system." a system of cognitive processes, largely non-conscious cognitive processes, that help them change their views of the world, so that they can feel better about the worlds in which they find themselves. like sir thomas, you have this machine. unlike sir thomas, you seem not to know it. (laughter)
we synthesize happiness, but we think happiness is a thing to be found. now, you don't need me to give you too many examples of people synthesizing happiness, i suspect. though i'm going to show you some experimental evidence, you don't have to look very far for evidence.
as a challenge to myself, since i say this once in a while in lectures, i took a copy of the new york times and tried to find some instances of people synthesizing happiness. and here are three guys synthesizing happiness. "i am so much better off physically, financially, emotionally, mentally and almost every other way." "i don't have one minute's regret. it was a glorious experience." "i believe it turned out for the best."
who are these characters who are so damn happy? well, the first one is jim wright. some of you are old enough to remember: he was the chairman of the house of representatives and he resigned in disgrace when this young republican named newt gingrich found out about a shady book deal he had done. he lost everything. the most powerful democrat in the country, he lost everything. he lost his money; he lost his power. what does he have to say all these years later about it? "i am so much better off physically, financially, mentally and in almost every other way." what other way would there be to be better off? vegetably? minerally? animally? he's pretty much covered them there.
moreese bickham is somebody you've never heard of. moreese bickham uttered these words upon being released. he was 78 years old. he spent 37 years in a louisiana state penitentiary for a crime he didn't commit. he was ultimately exonerated, at the age of 78, through dna evidence. and what did he have to say about his experience? "i don't have one minute's regret. it was a glorious experience." glorious! this guy is not saying, "well, you know, there were some nice guys. they had a gym." it's "glorious," a word we usually reserve for something like a religious experience.
harry s. langerman uttered these words, and he's somebody you might have known but didn't, because in 1949 he read a little article in the paper about a hamburger stand owned by these two brothers named mcdonalds. and he thought, "that's a really neat idea!" so he went to find them. they said, "we can give you a franchise on this for 3,000 bucks." harry went back to new york, asked his brother who's an investment banker to loan him the 3,000 dollars, and his brother's immortal words were, "you idiot, nobody eats hamburgers." he wouldn't lend him the money, and of course six months later ray croc had exactly the same idea. it turns out people do eat hamburgers, and ray croc, for a while, became the richest man in america.
and then finally -- you know, the best of all possible worlds -- some of you recognize this young photo of pete best, who was the original drummer for the beatles, until they, you know, sent him out on an errand and snuck away and picked up ringo on a tour. well, in 1994, when pete best was interviewed -- yes, he's still a drummer; yes, he's a studio musician -- he had this to say: "i'm happier than i would have been with the beatles."
okay. there's something important to be learned from these people, and it is the secret of happiness. here it is, finally to be revealed. first: accrue wealth, power, and prestige, then lose it. (laughter) second: spend as much of your life in prison as you possibly can. (laughter) third: make somebody else really, really rich. (laughter) and finally: never ever join the beatles. (laughter)
ok. now i, like ze frank, can predict your next thought, which is, "yeah, right." because when people synthesize happiness, as these gentlemen seem to have done, we all smile at them, but we kind of roll our eyes and say, "yeah right, you never really wanted the job." "oh yeah, right. you really didn't have that much in common with her, and you figured that out just about the time she threw the engagement ring in your face."
we smirk because we believe that synthetic happiness is not of the same quality as what we might call "natural happiness." what are these terms? natural happiness is what we get when we get what we wanted, and synthetic happiness is what we make when we don't get what we wanted. and in our society, we have a strong belief that synthetic happiness is of an inferior kind. why do we have that belief? well, it's very simple. what kind of economic engine would keep churning if we believed that not getting what we want could make us just as happy as getting it?
with all apologies to my friend matthieu ricard, a shopping mall full of zen monks is not going to be particularly profitable because they don't want stuff enough. i want to suggest to you that synthetic happiness is every bit as real and enduring as the kind of happiness you stumble upon when you get exactly what you were aiming for. now, i'm a scientist, so i'm going to do this not with rhetoric, but by marinating you in a little bit of data.
let me first show you an experimental paradigm that is used to demonstrate the synthesis of happiness among regular old folks. and this isn't mine. this is a 50-year-old paradigm called the "free choice paradigm." it's very simple. you bring in, say, six objects, and you ask a subject to rank them from the most to the least liked. in this case, because the experiment i'm going to tell you about uses them, these are monet prints. so, everybody can rank these monet prints from the one they like the most, to the one they like the least. now we give you a choice: "we happen to have some extra prints in the closet. we're going to give you one as your prize to take home. we happen to have number three and number four," we tell the subject. this is a bit of a difficult choice, because neither one is preferred strongly to the other, but naturally, people tend to pick number three because they liked it a little better than number four.
sometime later -- it could be 15 minutes; it could be 15 days -- the same stimuli are put before the subject, and the subject is asked to re-rank the stimuli. "tell us how much you like them now." what happens? watch as happiness is synthesized. this is the result that has been replicated over and over again. you're watching happiness be synthesized. would you like to see it again? happiness! "the one i got is really better than i thought! that other one i didn't get sucks!" (laughter) that's the synthesis of happiness.
now what's the right response to that? "yeah, right!" now, here's the experiment we did, and i would hope this is going to convince you that "yeah, right!" was not the right response.
we did this experiment with a group of patients who had anterograde amnesia. these are hospitalized patients. most of them have korsakoff's syndrome, a polyneuritic psychosis that -- they drank way too much, and they can't make new memories. ok? they remember their childhood, but if you walk in and introduce yourself, and then leave the room, when you come back, they don't know who you are.
we took our monet prints to the hospital. and we asked these patients to rank them from the one they liked the most to the one they liked the least. we then gave them the choice between number three and number four. like everybody else, they said, "gee, thanks doc! that's great! i could use a new print. i'll take number three." we explained we would have number three mailed to them. we gathered up our materials and we went out of the room, and counted to a half hour. back into the room, we say, "hi, we're back." the patients, bless them, say, "ah, doc, i'm sorry, i've got a memory problem; that's why i'm here. if i've met you before, i don't remember." "really, jim, you don't remember? i was just here with the monet prints?" "sorry, doc, i just don't have a clue." "no problem, jim. all i want you to do is rank these for me from the one you like the most to the one you like the least."
what do they do? well, let's first check and make sure they're really amnesiac. we ask these amnesiac patients to tell us which one they own, which one they chose last time, which one is theirs. and what we find is amnesiac patients just guess. these are normal controls, where if i did this with you, all of you would know which print you chose. but if i do this with amnesiac patients, they don't have a clue. they can't pick their print out of a lineup.
here's what normal controls do: they synthesize happiness. right? this is the change in liking score, the change from the first time they ranked to the second time they ranked. normal controls show -- that was the magic i showed you; now i'm showing it to you in graphical form -- "the one i own is better than i thought. the one i didn't own, the one i left behind, is not as good as i thought." amnesiacs do exactly the same thing. think about this result.
these people like better the one they own, but they don't know they own it. "yeah, right" is not the right response! what these people did when they synthesized happiness is they really, truly changed their affective, hedonic, aesthetic reactions to that poster. they're not just saying it because they own it, because they don't know they own it.
now, when psychologists show you bars, you know that they are showing you averages of lots of people. and yet, all of us have this psychological immune system, this capacity to synthesize happiness, but some of us do this trick better than others. and some situations allow anybody to do it more effectively than other situations do. it turns out that freedom -- the ability to make up your mind and change your mind -- is the friend of natural happiness, because it allows you to choose among all those delicious futures and find the one that you would most enjoy. but freedom to choose -- to change and make up your mind -- is the enemy of synthetic happiness. and i'm going to show you why.
dilbert already knows, of course. you're reading the cartoon as i'm talking. "dogbert's tech support. how may i abuse you?" "my printer prints a blank page after every document." "why would you complain about getting free paper?" "free? aren't you just giving me my own paper?" "egad, man! look at the quality of the free paper compared to your lousy regular paper! only a fool or a liar would say that they look the same!" "ah! now that you mention it, it does seem a little silkier!" "what are you doing?" "i'm helping people accept the things they cannot change." indeed.
the psychological immune system works best when we are totally stuck, when we are trapped. this is the difference between dating and marriage, right? i mean, you go out on a date with a guy, and he picks his nose; you don't go out on another date. you're married to a guy and he picks his nose? yeah, he has a heart of gold; don't touch the fruitcake. right? (laughter) you find a way to be happy with what's happened. now what i want to show you is that people don't know this about themselves, and not knowing this can work to our supreme disadvantage.
here's an experiment we did at harvard. we created a photography course, a black-and-white photography course, and we allowed students to come in and learn how to use a darkroom. so we gave them cameras; they went around campus; they took 12 pictures of their favorite professors and their dorm room and their dog, and all the other things they wanted to have harvard memories of. they bring us the camera; we make up a contact sheet; they figure out which are the two best pictures; and we now spend six hours teaching them about darkrooms. and they blow two of them up, and they have two gorgeous eight-by-10 glossies of meaningful things to them, and we say, "which one would you like to give up?" they say, "i have to give one up?" "oh, yes. we need one as evidence of the class project. so you have to give me one. you have to make a choice. you get to keep one, and i get to keep one."
now, there are two conditions in this experiment. in one case, the students are told, "but you know, if you want to change your mind, i'll always have the other one here, and in the next four days, before i actually mail it to headquarters, i'll be glad to" -- (laughter) -- yeah, "headquarters" -- "i'll be glad to swap it out with you. in fact, i'll come to your dorm room and give -- just give me an email. better yet, i'll check with you. you ever want to change your mind, it's totally returnable." the other half of the students are told exactly the opposite: "make your choice. and by the way, the mail is going out, gosh, in two minutes, to england. your picture will be winging its way over the atlantic. you will never see it again." now, half of the students in each of these conditions are asked to make predictions about how much they're going to come to like the picture that they keep and the picture they leave behind. other students are just sent back to their little dorm rooms and they are measured over the next three to six days on their liking, satisfaction with the pictures. and look at what we find.
first of all, here's what students think is going to happen. they think they're going to maybe come to like the picture they chose a little more than the one they left behind, but these are not statistically significant differences. it's a very small increase, and it doesn't much matter whether they were in the reversible or irreversible condition.
wrong-o. bad simulators. because here's what's really happening. both right before the swap and five days later, people who are stuck with that picture, who have no choice, who can never change their mind, like it a lot! and people who are deliberating -- "should i return it? have i gotten the right one? maybe this isn't the good one? maybe i left the good one?" -- have killed themselves. they don't like their picture, and in fact even after the opportunity to swap has expired, they still don't like their picture. why? because the reversible condition is not conducive to the synthesis of happiness.
so here's the final piece of this experiment. we bring in a whole new group of naive harvard students and we say, "you know, we're doing a photography course, and we can do it one of two ways. we could do it so that when you take the two pictures, you'd have four days to change your mind, or we're doing another course where you take the two pictures and you make up your mind right away and you can never change it. which course would you like to be in?" duh! 66 percent of the students, two-thirds, prefer to be in the course where they have the opportunity to change their mind. hello? 66 percent of the students choose to be in the course in which they will ultimately be deeply dissatisfied with the picture. because they do not know the conditions under which synthetic happiness grows.
the bard said everything best, of course, and he's making my point here but he's making it hyperbolically: "'tis nothing good or bad / but thinking makes it so." it's nice poetry, but that can't exactly be right. is there really nothing good or bad? is it really the case that gall bladder surgery and a trip to paris are just the same thing? that seems like a one-question iq test. they can't be exactly the same.
in more turgid prose, but closer to the truth, was the father of modern capitalism, adam smith, and he said this. this is worth contemplating: "the great source of both the misery and disorders of human life seems to arise from overrating the difference between one permanent situation and another ... some of these situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others, but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardor which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice, or to corrupt the future tranquility of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse for the horror of our own injustice." in other words: yes, some things are better than others.
we should have preferences that lead us into one future over another. but when those preferences drive us too hard and too fast because we have overrated the difference between these futures, we are at risk. when our ambition is bounded, it leads us to work joyfully. when our ambition is unbounded, it leads us to lie, to cheat, to steal, to hurt others, to sacrifice things of real value. when our fears are bounded, we're prudent; we're cautious; we're thoughtful. when our fears are unbounded and overblown, we're reckless, and we're cowardly.
the lesson i want to leave you with from these data is that our longings and our worries are both to some degree overblown, because we have within us the capacity to manufacture the very commodity we are constantly chasing when we choose experience.
thank you.
潘石屹《为什么创业》励志演讲稿为什么演讲稿（2） | 返回目录朋友们大家好，我是潘石屹。
今天，我们正处在一个最为深刻的社会“突变”当中。从古到今，变化是唯一不变的规律。但是，最近这5-XX年的变化影响非常巨大、非常迅速，超过以往上百年的变化。所以，我把这种变化叫做“突变”。基因的突变会改变生物本身的进化规律，社会的突变会颠覆现有的发展规律，让人类社会实现飞跃。
从表面来看，这种“突变”的表现是：互联网的迅猛发展改变了人与人、人与物之间的关系。但从深层次来看，这种“突变”是颠覆性的、根本上的变化。在这里，我想用两个词语：“旧秩序”和“新秩序”来描述这种变化。我把变化前称为旧秩序，把变化后称为新秩序。打个比方，这就如同英文的基础是26个母，由这些母组成了单词，又由这些单词形成了浩如烟海的句子、文章等等。现在这个基础改变了，26个母变成了16个母，我们以往学习到的单词、语法、文章都被颠覆了，重新洗牌了，我们的知识和经验都需要重新学习。
旧秩序和新秩序究竟有什么冲突和差别呢?最根本的差别是价值观的变化，其它的变化都建立在此之上。
在旧秩序中，一个常用的词是“我的”，比如我的汽车、我的房子等等，人们考虑问题、做事情往往是以自我为中心，从个人利益、局部利益出发。信息的不畅通导致了人与人之间的隔阂。
在新秩序中，一个常用的词是“我们”，它代表着一个更大范围的群体，共享服务构成了新秩序中最为重要的价值观，你中有我、我中有你，离开了别人，我们将一事无成，甚至连生活都不能自理。
在旧秩序中，森严的等级维持着不平等的社会体系，所以“关系”也就成了最宝贵的资源。一个官二代和“屌丝”能一样吗?
在新秩序中，人人平等建立起了一种新的平衡，所以才能和智慧是最宝贵的财富。看看我们身边那些通过互联网创业成功的人，看看他们的知识背景，就会得到答案。
在旧秩序中，有许多环节，组织结构是金塔状的。我曾经问一家全球最大的工业公司的老板，从他到最基层的员工有多少个等级。他告诉我有22级。我们可想而知，这种结构一定会导致效率低、成本高。
在新秩序中，很多中间环节被消灭了，组织结构是网状的，这样效率提高了，成本降低了。
在旧秩序中，时间的单位是小时、天、月。
在新秩序中，时间的单位是秒、毫秒、微秒。
在旧秩序中，速度的单位是汽车速度、飞机速度。
在新秩序中，速度的单位是光速。
在旧秩序中，人与人之间存在偏见。
在新秩序中，人与人之间没有偏见。
……
旧秩序正在土崩瓦解、日益枯竭，新秩序已经初见端倪、迅速成长。如此巨大的变化，引起的冲突和碰撞也将是前所未有的。边界变得越来越模糊，不论是个人的、团体的、机构的，还是民族的、宗教的、地域的、国家的范畴都在发生变化。这个冲突才刚刚开始，借用网络上的一句流行语来形容就是：“根本停不下来”，这种变化是任何人、任何力量都无法阻挡的。
创业和创新，就是顺应了这样的大势。“大众创业，万众创新”也绝不是一个口号，而是顺应时代突变的反映。而真正的创业者必须是一个创新者，单纯的复制和模仿是没有任何意义的。
这个时代的创业，和我们当初万通六君子时代的创业，已经完全不同了。我认为，这个时代的创业需要具备以下几个条件：
第一，从初衷上，要有分享和服务意识，要能够通过自己的创业，直接或者间接的为他人、为社会服务，不要局限在个体或者少数人的利益上。
第二，从方法上，要深刻理解和运用互联网，减少中间环节、降低成本、提高效率、减少浪费。旧秩序中的创业，更多是资本密集的、傻大黑粗的。新秩序的创业，要更轻盈，用最小的力气撬动最大的资源。
第三，从模式上，创业和创新就是要做和以往完全不一样的事情。旧秩序就像一件破旧的衣服、一栋破旧的大楼，如果我们今天想做的事情，是为它做一些修修补补的无用之功，那势必是没有前途和未来的。
第四，创业者面对复杂的局面和快速的变化，要有敏锐的洞察力、判断力，要有足够的智慧和勇气。在以往的创业中，“关系”是举足轻重的，不光在中国，从英国、法国的贵族文化来看也是如此，在旧秩序中“关系”是可以继承的社会资源。但是，对于今天的创业者来说，“关系”已经变得无足轻重了。
在如此的巨变中，一家具体的公司显得微不足道。犹如在大海上的一叶小舟，要顺势而为，但不能偏离方向，方向就是不断为社会去创造新的价值。企业为社会创造的价值就是产品。什么样产品，才不会成为积压在仓库里的产品呢?答案是创造美的产品，因为人心和市场都会被美的光芒所吸引。放眼望去，那些成功企业创造的产品，无一不是在为我们的生活增添美感。比如苹果公司的产品。苹果公司就是soho中国的榜样。
实际上，soho中国有两个：一个是“过去的soho中国”，它的发展战略、产品定位、市场表现，通过过去几年的财务报表得到了体现;另一个是“全新的soho中国”，它保留了“过去的soho中国”的创新基因、发展模式、积累资产，但更与行业发展、经济发展有关。
去年，我去复旦大学交流，他们的老师和同学们研究后发现，soho中国的利润率比苹果公司的还要高。他们问我为什么?我说只有两个：创新。正是这些创新建筑为soho中国创造了价值和健康的财务报表。
通过这些思考，未来soho中国主要产品和业务会聚焦在一个新的办公形态——soho3q上。soho3q将是一个崇尚分享理念的平台，一个用户互相服务的平台，一个让人敞开胸怀的平台，一个让每个创业者、创新者产生共鸣的平台。
《为什么大部分人喜欢稳定》励志演讲稿为什么演讲稿（3） | 返回目录同学们，老师们：
什么叫稳定?稳定不是平衡，稳定也不是持久，稳定的科学定义是对外界干扰的抵抗能力强大。
换言之，稳定不关乎状态的好坏，只关乎是否能保持原来的状态，哪怕这个状态并不那么理想。
上图中三个小球是三种“平衡”的状态。左边这个小球是“稳定”的，如果它被挪动一定距离，只要这段距离不是太远，它都能恢复原状;中间这个小球无所谓稳定不稳定，如果它被挪动一定距离，它可以在新的地方安居乐业;右边的这个小球是“不稳定”的，哪怕轻轻地碰一下，它也会一路滑落，再也回不到最初的地方。
为什么左边的小球稳定呢?因为它的能量最小。它处在所有可能的位置中最低的那个位置，所以重力势能最小。一旦它被扰动，只可能被扰动到重力势能更高的地方，因为没有比它现在的位置重力势能更低的地方。这样，只要外界干扰一去除，在重力的作用下，小球就会自动回到原来的平衡位置，所以我们说它是稳定的。它不需要任何外部能量，单靠自己的重力就能保持在现在这个位置。
右边的小球是不稳定的，一点点风吹草动就能让它万劫不复。从左边到右边，它需要付出大量的努力，才能到达现在的这个位置。为了保持这样的位置，它还必须持续地输入外部能量抵抗任何可能的扰动。换言之，它必须枕戈待旦，一直抗争不止，否则，就会从这个位置滑落。
我想说什么呢?这跟人们喜欢不喜欢稳定有什么关系呢?
如果你觉得自己稳定，自己不需要任何努力就可以保持住现在的位置，那是因为你就处在“最小能量”状态。你不努力，你也不会下落，也没有什么后果，那并不是因为你不会下落，只是因为你已经到极低点了，附近根本没有更低的地方可以下落了。
也许你会说：怎么会这样呢?我比很多人都强，不可能在最低点。没错，所以我说的是“极低点”，而不是“最低点”。
“所有动物生而平等，但有些动物比其他动物更平等。”也许你的极低点，比很多人的极高点还要高。也许你意识不到，你生来就有的，却有可能正是别人苦苦追求的。也许你会明白，你拼命追赶的，不过是别人的起点。
我不是一个“成功学”的鼓吹者，我也不觉得“向上爬”就一定是好的，我更不觉得“人往高处走，水往低处流”这句话是有道理的。
我只是觉得，这样的“稳定”无形之中是一个牢笼，是一个束缚。哪怕你自己想出去看看，有时候也会被自己的重力压垮，自己又把自己拉回到原来的位置。
“稳定”意味着失去了改变的可能性，不管这个改变是好的还是坏的。“稳定”有好处，因为它杜绝了变坏的可能;但“稳定”也有坏处，因为它把变好的可能也一并屏蔽了。是利大于弊，还是弊大于利，需要你自己掂量。
我个人觉得，人生的路那么宽，又有那么多的可能，有意或无意地把自己束缚在“稳定”的这一洼盆地里，或多或少有坐井观天之嫌。多走走，多看看，扯起风帆去看看真正的大海，哪怕需要多付出很多的力气，哪怕有遇到风暴的可能，也胜过舒舒服服地躺在“稳定”的避风港里。
当有一天，你挣脱了“稳定”的枷锁，克服了自己的懒惰和惯性，一番苦战之后，终于站在了不稳定的极高点上。也许你会觉得，剩下的人生就是一片坦途了。
但人生并不是二维的，你要面对的问题有太多太多。
也许你会发现，一个方向的峰顶，只不过是另一个方向的谷底，前面的路还有太长太长。
终于有一天，你发现，原来真正的生活是这样的——起起伏伏，曲曲折折，有时陷入谷底，有时又柳暗花明。
知道了生活的现实，却依然愿意走出“稳定”的小绿洲，踏上那荆棘满地却又风景如画的路途，我觉得这才是真正的勇敢和乐观。
我的演讲完毕，谢谢大家。
人为什么而活着？演讲稿为什么演讲稿（4） | 返回目录各位新同学：
在这隆重的开学典礼上，我想就“人为什么而活着”这一话题，与你们谈谈自己的感受和感悟。
现在都在讲“顶层设计”。但我个人认为，有些同志所讲的“顶层”往往还不到顶层，是二、三层甚至四、五层以下的设计。而“人为什么而活着”这可能是值得每一个人从小到老整整思索一生的顶层问题。
人为什么而活着，本质上是人应该有什么信仰。当今世界上公认有三大宗教：基督教信仰上帝，认为人与生俱来就有原罪，只有上帝才能拯救自己。伊斯兰教信仰真主，认为今生虔诚信仰真主，后世就是天堂。大乘佛法认为，小乘佛法修度自身，大乘佛法修度众生。
真正的共产党人信仰什么？1945年党的七大的闭幕词中，毛主席就曾鼓励全党：“一定要坚持下去，一定要不断地工作，我们也会感动上帝的。这个上帝不是别人，就是全中国的人民大众。”从根本上说，中国共产党人的信仰就是人民，即全心全意相信人民、依靠人民、为了人民，也就是说人民是共产党人心中的“上帝”。在阶级或有阶级的社会里，普通劳动大众始终占社会的绝大多数，绝大多数人的利益、意愿、意志和力量是创造历史的真正动力，最终决定历史的发展方向。这是历史唯物主义的真谛。信仰人民，这一信仰高尚而光荣，是社会的现实和历史的真实，而不是社会和历史的虚幻。无论是革命战争年代，还是社会主义建设、改革年代，无数中国共产党人用自己的汗水、热血甚至生命，为着民族的独立解放，国家和人民的繁荣富强，默默实现着这一信仰。
对于共产党人来说，信仰人民就是信仰马克思主义。马克思主义诞生于亿万人民群众的实践，揭示了人类历史发展的根本规律和最终归宿。真正的共产党人信仰马克思主义并使人民群众觉悟，去带领大家一起奋斗，我们就能最终实现马克思、恩格斯所说的每个人的自由而全面发展这一美好的社会即共产主义社会。从一定意义上讲，信仰马克思主义和人民，这才是顶层和终极的信仰。我们不反对个别同学信奉某种宗教。但是，共产党员必须遵守党章，信仰马克思主义，为着人民。
以私有经济为基础的社会的基本经济、政治及文化制度本质上是为极少数人服务的，它希望绝大多数的普通民众持有“拯救自己”、“虔诚信仰”、“修度自身”这样的价值理念以为极少数人压迫、剥削绝大多数人的社会制度的长治久安服务。因此，私有经济为基础的社会的基本经济、政治及文化制度与它所提倡的价值理念是不一致的。而社会主义国家的基本经济、政治及文化制度是为着全体人民的，它需要共产党员和政府工作人员践行全心全意为人民服务的宗旨。这也就是说，社会主义国家的基本经济、政治及文化制度与它所提倡的价值理念是一致的。当然，现在一些共产党员和政府工作人员说一套，做一套，有的甚至贪赃枉法，这并不能说明我国基本经济、政治及文化制度与它所倡导的价值理念不一致，相反，这是一些人脱离、背离乃至背叛了党和政府的宗旨所致。以xx同志为总书记的党中央提出加强党的纯洁性建设就是要努力解决党面临的这一严重问题。
前几年，我从网上看到这样一篇对话“一篇彻底改变美国同事对毛泽东看法的文章——《纪念白求恩》”。这是一位赴美创业的华人与其美国同事的对话。这位赴美华人的同事是一位虔诚的基督徒，他开始对中国共产党人所做的事极不理解，甚至极为反感。这位华人对其美国同事说：“来美国前，我认为美国是个自由世界。但我到了美国之后才发现美国是个宗教信仰至上的国家。美国人民坚信这片土地是被上帝挑选的，美国人民是首先被上帝挑选的宠儿。为此美国人民自豪骄傲，热爱这个国家。尤其是我看到那些徒步行走的传教者们，穿着朴素简单，吃最简单的食物，他们眼睛里是真诚朴素坚定的，他们让我想起了中国老电影里的共产党员。中国原来也有这样的一群人，忘我，无私，为了信仰可以承受一切苦难，可以献出生命。不同的是，美国的传教者们是在上帝的指引下，而中国的共产党员们是在共产主义信仰下，更具体地说，在毛的指引下。”经过近两个月的艰难对话，其美国同事回答：“我想我有点被感动，如果这一切是真的。”当其美国同事看了这位赴美华人推荐给他的毛主席的《纪念白求恩》英文版后，这位美国人说：“我很震惊。如果你不告诉我这是毛写的，如果我把里面所有共产主义或意识形态眼去掉，如果有人在我面前朗读，我会以为我在聆听上帝宣讲。毛说的这些，和我曾经在教堂听到过的几乎完全一样”；“我真的非常感谢你。你让我看到了不一样的毛，我想我开始尊敬他了。我更感谢的是，我突然心变得很开阔了，我觉着整个世界的门在朝我打开，共产主义和毛已经不再是我心里的障碍，我更了解了中国，我非常高兴，我可以拥抱这些，我想就可以拥抱一切。”如果哪位对此感兴趣，可以上网搜寻一下。
在一定意义上说，共产党人全心全意为人民服务的宗旨与基督、伊斯兰和佛教教义有相通之处。但是，不论是哪种宗教，总是教导信徒放弃对现实幸福的追求，而求诸内心修炼，以达安于现实的苦难；而马克思主义是教导人民群众通过实践和变革，运用客观物质力量改变不合理现实，以实现现实幸福。一个是求诸内心，一个是求诸行动，前者是宗教信仰，后者是科学信仰，二者不应混淆。
按照马克思主义哲学的时空观，宇宙无边无际，时间无始无终。我们每一个人都是在无边无际和无始无终的一个特定的时空交叉点上来到人间。从一定意义上说，人类在我们这个地球上的诞生是必然的，而每个人在这个地球上的出生却是必然中的偶然。我们每个个体生命能够作为地球的万灵之长的一分子，在茫茫宇宙中我们在这个地球上生活百年左右，这本身就很值得庆幸、骄傲和珍惜了。想通这一点，就是一位乐观主义者，就不会皱着眉头过日子。但仅弄清这一点还远远不够。从一定意义上讲，人活着是形式，人为什么而活着、怎样活着才是内容。弄清人为什么而活着、怎样活着才有意义和价值，这才更为重要。要弄清人为什么而活着，还应厘清什么是人，即弄清我们现实的人是从哪里来，处于何种状态，会往哪里去，在这世上的百年间应该怎样生活，做些什么，留下点什么。
首先，人是不同于纯粹自然界且不同于自然界中其他生物的“类”存在物。人是自然界演化到一定历史阶段的物质运动的特殊形态的产物，是唯一由于劳动而摆脱纯粹动物状态的“类”的存在。人是我们现在已知生命的万灵之长，与其他所有动物不同，决不仅仅是为了满足吃好、睡好等生理需要，它能逐步地认知并能能动地改造世界。正因为人是唯一由于劳动而摆脱纯粹动物状态的“类”的存在，所以，我们一定要以劳动为荣。当然，随着时代的发展起步，劳动的外延也在不断扩大。只有以劳动为荣，每个人乃至于整个人类，才能不断进步和发展。人活着，决不能以不违纪不违法为底线，而应有更高的精神追求，这就是要有正确的理想信念。什么是正确的理想信念？对于中国共产党人来说，就是现行党章中所说：“中国共产党党员必须全心全意为人民服务，不惜牺牲个人的一切，为实现共产主义奋斗终身。”为着人民的利益而活着而奋斗，这就是共产党所特有的“一个高尚的人，一个纯粹的人，一个有道德的人，一个脱离了低级趣味的人，一个有益于人民的人。”这样的人，人民就会永远把他装心上、记下来。
第二，人是由全部社会成员组成的集合体中的“每一个”个人。人总是具体、现实的人，总是存在于一定的时空和每个时代个人的实际生活过程与活动中。每个单个个人，都有自己特定合理的需求与利益，每个人通过自己力所能及的劳动和整个社会尽可能地帮助使这些必要的需求得以满足。但人类社会有着人类生存发展的共同利益，如需要一个良好的生态环境。而我们现在看到的却是有的国家和群体乃至个体，为了攫取巨额财富或奢靡生活，在拼命地掠夺资源、污染环境。这就是典型的损他国、损他人、损后人而利己。“每一个”个人所组成的社会和由特定社会组成的国家应该要求每一个个人和每个国家都应该有集体主义精神和国际民主思想。仅提倡正面的东西而不反对反面的东西，正面的东西就不可能持续和发展，最终则是无法实现的美好的乌托邦。
第三，人主要是指“现在式”存在的人，但也兼指“过去式”和“未来式”存在的人。一方面，我们当代人不能仅把自己当作具体、现实的人，而把“老祖宗”当作抽象、虚幻的人，否则就会陷入历史虚无主义。人类文明是历史的产物，是代代传承的结果。没有“过去式”的人的浴血奋斗、艰苦创业，就没有我们今天的幸福生活和继续创业的物质基础。我们今天建设中国特色社会主义事业，更要发扬革命传统，“不忘老祖宗”。从特定意义上说，以“过去式”的人为“本”，就是要尊重历史，珍惜前人给我们所创造、积累的物质和精神财富，决不能“崽卖爷田心不痛”。另一方面，我们当代人也决不能仅把自己当作具体、现实的人，而把子孙后代当作抽象、虚幻的人，这会淡化可持续发展的理念，断子孙路。我们既要在前人创造的物质和精神财富的基础上继续艰苦奋斗、改革创新，为后人创造和积累更多的物质、文化财富，同时又要保护环境、珍惜资源，重视承接历史。
第四，中国共产党人所倡导的为人民服务中的“人”是指最广大的人民群众，而不是指一切人更不是其中的少数人。在阶级或有阶级存在的社会里，个人总是隶属于一定的阶级或阶层，绝大多数的最广大人民群众的根本利益是完全一致的，而极少数人的根本利益则是与绝大多数人民群众的根本利益相对立的。如果以这极少数人的根本利益为本，就必然会牺牲绝大多数人民群众的根本利益。xx、xx同志多次强调，以人为本就是以最广大的人民群众的根本利益为本，这一点十分重要。在阶级或有阶级社会里，我们为最广大人民群众和他们的根本利益服务，是为了将来能为一切人和他们的根本利益服务而过渡。当然，这需要一代接一代长期、艰苦的奋斗，而决不能重犯20世纪“大跃进”时急于过渡的错误。
为进一步弄清人为什么而活着，让我们对比看看有的人与革命先烈们的不同活法吧。
有的人把活着本身当信仰，奉行的是好死不如赖活着的哲学，为了活着甚至不惜作叛徒、汉奸、卖国贼。而曾任中共第五、六届中央政治局常委的蔡和森同志1931年6月间被原先负责中央保卫工作的叛徒顾顺章出卖，在狱中他受尽了酷刑，最后他的四肢被敌人用几个粗大的长钉钉在墙上，敌人还用剌刀把他的胸脯戳得稀烂，他仍坚贞不屈。牺牲时年仅36岁。
有的人把吃好喝好当信条。而东北抗日联军主要领导人之一杨靖宇同志和他领导抗联部队对日寇坚持了长达九个年头的艰苦卓绝的武装斗争，使得数十万日军不能入关，创造了惊天地、泣鬼神的斗争业绩，有力配合了全国人民的抗日战争。后来，他被叛徒丁守龙出卖、被日本侵略者杀害。侵略者丝毫无法理解杨靖宇在完全断绝食物的条件下能坚持抗战一年之多，最终解剖杨靖宇遗体，看到的却是“胃里连饭粒都没有”，只有野草、树皮和破棉絮。牺牲时年仅35岁。
有的人为金钱而活着。而以救国救民、变革社会为己任中国共产党早期农民运动的主要领导人之一、海陆丰农民运动和革命根据地的创始人彭湃，出生于有名的富有人家。他当众把自己家族分得的田契全部烧毁，并宣布“日后自耕自食，不必再交租谷”后投身革命。1929年8月24日因叛徒白鑫出卖后英勇就义。牺牲时年仅33岁。
人生自古谁无死，留取丹心照汗青。历史是公正的。凡是个人理想信念行动与历史进步方向相一致的，他的生命就融进了历史，获得了永生；凡是个人的理想信念行动与历史进步方向相悖的，这就是历史的歧路，直至被历史所淘汰。党和新中国永远铭记着蔡和森、杨靖宇和彭湃等同志。在新中国成立60周年之际，蔡和森、杨靖宇和彭湃同志入选100位为新中国成立作出突出贡献的英雄模范人物。出卖他们的叛徒却永远被历史钉上了耻辱柱。
有人贪赃弄权甚至不惜作叛徒、汉奸、卖国贼从而“享受人生”，并认为这些劣迹和罪过将会随着自己的逝去和时间的风尘而变成雪泥鸿爪甚至永远无从知晓。我们承认，随着时间的流逝和人事的沧桑，一些历史细节将可能会被永远湮没甚至是歪曲篡改，殊不知，从历史唯物主义出发，观其大略常常无需繁多琐碎的历史细节，社会实践是检验真理的唯一标准，其所作所为在历史中所起的作用将无任何可能逃遁历史对其的审视，越是重要人物和重大事件的功过是非，人民和历史会最终将其辨析并记载得清清楚楚。
人为什么而活着？说到底，是个信仰和世界观问题。有了正确的世界观，才有正确的人生观、价值观、生死观、权力观、地位观、苦乐观等等。正确的理想是生活光辉灿烂的太阳。我们共产党人决不能在革命时期一个信仰，勇于牺牲，而在执政和建设时期是另外一种信仰，大捞金钱。
要树立正确的世界观，就必须破除“人不为己，天诛地灭”的信条。人之初，性本善还是性本恶？这曾争论了几千年，还会长期争论下去。持人性善者认为，人的自然本性是善的或向善的，只要唤醒所有人的良知，依靠人的善的本性，就可以建立一个理想的社会，无须建立一个健全的社会制度来管理。从古到今持人性恶论者则认为，人的自然本性是自利，国家设计出严格制度防范人为获取私利危害他人即可；但也有的人认为，既然人的本质是自利，那么作为特定阶级和集团代言人的本质也是自利者，他们在行使权力时亦会制定出有利于自己特定利益的政策和法规，以强迫别人执行。因此，人剥削人、人压迫人的社会制度天然合理、万古长存。这实质是想把弱肉强食的丛林法则引入人类社会并固化。亚当·斯密的理论假设人就是理性的经济人，也就是说人的本质都是自私的、利己的。性的善恶，这是道德范畴的东西。毛主席早在1943年就指出：“道德是人们经济生活与其他社会生活的要求的反映，不同阶级有不同的道德观，这就是我们的善恶论”；“当作人的特点、特性、特征，只是一个人的社会性——人是社会的动物，自然性、动物性等等不是人的特性。人是动物，不是植物、矿物，这是无疑的、无问题的。人是一种什么动物，这就成为问题，几十万年直至资产阶级的费尔巴哈还解答得不正确，只待马克思才正确地答复了这个问题。即说人，它只有一种基本特性——社会性，不应说它有两种基本特性：一是动物性，一是社会性，这样说就不好了，就是二元论，实际就是唯心论”；“自从人脱离猴子那一天起，一切都是社会的，体质、聪明、本能一概是社会的”，“人的五官、百体、聪明、能力本于遗传，人们往往把这叫作先天，以便与出生后的社会熏陶相区别。但人的一切遗传都是社会的，是在几十万年社会生产的结果，不指明这点就要堕入唯心论”。这就告诉我们，无论善还是恶，都是当时人们经济生活与其他社会生活的要求的反映。迄今为止的考古发现证明，人类的历史至少已有二百万年，人的一些生理特征则是这几百万年其祖先基因遗传的结果，但这都是人们现实社会性或历史社会性的反映。在人类社会历史的长河中，从来就没有抽象的人性和社会性，而只有具体的人性和社会性；在阶级或有阶级的社会里，人性和人的社会性又往往具有阶级性。历史上马克思之前的思想家们关于人性和人本质是什么的看法和观点，基本上是沿着人性的善恶性质和人性异于其他动物的方面特点来思考的。而马克思主义提出人的本质在其现实性上是一切社会关系的总和的观点，把人的本质放在一定的社会中来考察，从而指明了正确的思考路径。人有善恶之分，甚至在一个人的身上既有善又有恶的表现。但这都不是人的本质或天性，而是一定的社会关系的反映或体现。所以，我们既不主张性本恶，也不主张性本善。在原始共产主义社会里，人们之间本质上是一种相互协作的关系，这是由当时的生产关系的总和所决定的。人们的自私心理，是随着原始共产主义社会解体、奴隶社会这个人类历史上第一个私有制社会的诞生而诞生的。这一观念的诞生，在人类社会的相当长的时段内，具有它的进步性一面，但随着历史的发展和进步，它的局限性和腐朽性一面便逐渐充分显现出来。它不是人类历史上从来就有的，因而也不会是永恒的。随着人类社会的逐步全面的进步，随着公有制的最终全面的确立，人们的自私心理在人类历史的长河里，则必然会最终被消除，这就是在更高层次上的否定之否定。现代生物学并没有找到被公认的充分证据，证明人性是天生自私的，就如同人的皮肤色素是遗传而不可改变的一样。观察动物界不难发现，不是所有的动物在任何时候、任何情况下都表现为自私的，恰恰相反，许多动物有很强的群体性和利他性。比如，森林中蚂蚁群遇到火灾时会迅速集结成球，滚过火区，集结在球体表面的蚂蚁都会“壮烈”牺牲。小小的动物蚂蚁尚且如此，我们这一万物之灵长的人类更能如此。我个人认为，人至少可以分为三种：第一种人很自私。“一事当先，先替自己打算”。第二种人可能常怀公心，经常考虑国家、人民、民族的命运，但在公私发生冲突之时，有时可能把个人利益放在第一位。第三种人就是具有共产主义品格的人特别是合格的共产党人。这样的人并不是没有个人利益，但当公与私发生矛盾时，公永远是第一位的。从这种意义上讲，他们是大公无私的。我们那么多先烈为了党和人民的事业献出了自己的生命，你能说这些人的本质都是自私的吗？人的本质是自私的观点，实质是私有制观念的产物，应该说同时也是维护私有制的理论基础。我们决不赞成人的本质都是自私的观点。如果这种观点成立，至少你无法解释伟大的母爱，也根本无法理解我们几千万的先烈为了自己的理想和我们的今天幸福生活而进行的英勇奋斗和作出的壮烈牺牲。决不要小看人的本质是自私的观点，正是这一观点，正在强烈地腐蚀部分干部群众；也就是这一观点，把我们的一些人甚至党的高级干部送进了监狱。我们知道，在传统经济体制下，在强调集体利益和国家利益的同时，确实有忽略个人利益的现象。但我们在建立社会主义市场经济的过程中，也决不能重蹈西方极端个人主义、享乐主义和拜金主义的覆辙。
正确的世界观又要求我们必须树立坚定正确的理想信念。我们承认，世界历史决不会“一帆风顺地向前发展”，而且“有时向后作巨大的跳跃”（列宁语）。但我们也更加坚信，历史的大道无论怎样曲折，最终必然通向共产主义。邓小平说过，“过去我们党无论怎样弱小，无论遇到什么困难，一直有强大的战斗力，因为我们有马克思主义和共产主义信念”，这“是我们的真正优势”。在世界社会主义运动处于低潮之时，我们更需要坚定对马克思主义的信仰。这时的信仰就更显得“金贵”。这时的信仰，就更能识别、考验、锻炼一个人。信仰正确和坚定，就是“真金”，真金不怕火炼。有没有这一信仰，大不一样。对各级领导干部来说，失去了这一信仰，极有可能害人害己。苏东剧变后，一些人完全丧失对马克思主义信仰。在他们看来，“国将不国了”，马克思主义在中国垮台是迟早的事。不少人在捞，认为不捞白不捞。信仰的堤坝一旦溃决，牢房的铁门便会打开。
正确的世界观还要求我们必须言行一致。口头上背诵马克思主义词句，行动上谋一己私利，这也决不是什么“僵化”、“教条”，在本质上，只能是对马克思主义的脱离、背离甚至是背叛。口头上说一套，行动上另外一套，这是人民群众最为反感的作风。这也是苏共垮台的根本缘由之一。我们必须在学习、工作和生活中认真践行正确的理想信念和党的全心全意为人民服务的宗旨。
喜马拉雅山国不丹从20世纪70年代就提出了国民幸福指数（gnh）的概念，现在又重新引起不少学者和国家的关注并把它与gdp相并列、相比较。XX年7月8日，美国企业研究所所长阿瑟·布鲁克斯发表文章指出：“占领华尔街的抗议者看似是一群悲惨的可怜虫，事实上，他们也许比那些坐在办公室嘲笑他们的中庸派更加幸福。因为他们很多人都固执地坚守信仰。”当然，不同的人会有不同的信仰和幸福观即幸福指数。但是，同学们，有了坚定正确的世界观，我们就会有着正确的方向、远大的志向、广阔的胸襟，就能勇于解放思想，敢于担当历史的责任，激发改造社会和创造世界的激情，为着国家、民族的前途和命运勇于接受各种困难的磨砺和挑战，浑身从内到外散发出真正的阳刚之气，谱就大写的人生，不会囿于小我而精心构建自己的小人生和小家庭；就会真正能够做到自尊、自爱、自信、自强、自立，苦学多思，深入实践，扎实苦干，坚韧不拔，顽强拼搏，勇于创造，而不是一曝十寒，知难而退，迷迷茫茫，得过且过；就会有着应有的社会正义与良知，而不是社会不良现象的漠视者、旁观者或简单批评者；就会有着更加乐观积极的人生态度，把理想主义、现实主义和英雄主义完满地结合起来，容易聆听和接受别人的意见，不断调整和改进自己的实践方向，而不是怨天尤人，自我怜悯，悲观消极，无所事事；就会增强互助合作精神和集体意识，与同学互帮互学、相互交流、共同探讨，不断激发起心中新的求知欲望，并走近普通工农群众，触摸时代的脉搏，倾听人民的呼唤，而不是封闭温室，沉默寡言，孤陋寡闻或孤芳自赏；就可能经受住各种风浪的考验，使自己成长为党、国家和民族的有用之材直至栋梁之材。
胡总书记在XX年7月23日作了一个十分重要的讲话。他在讲话中明确指出，我们面临前所未有的机遇，也面对前所未有的挑战；来自外部的风险前所未有。我们要掂出这一讲话的分量，认清自己肩上的责任，决不辜负党、国家和人民的殷切期望。