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.
朋友們大家好，我是潘石屹。
今天，我們正處在一個最為深刻的社會“突變”當中。從古到今，變化是唯一不變的規律。但是，最近這5-XX年的變化影響非常巨大、非常迅速，超過以往上百年的變化。所以，我把這種變化叫做“突變”。基因的突變會改變生物本身的進化規律，社會的突變會顛覆現有的發展規律，讓人類社會實現飛躍。
從表面來看，這種“突變”的表現是：網際網路的迅猛發展改變了人與人、人與物之間的關係。但從深層次來看，這種“突變”是顛覆性的、根本上的變化。在這裡，我想用兩個詞語：“舊秩序”和“新秩序”來描述這種變化。我把變化前稱為舊秩序，把變化後稱為新秩序。打個比方，這就如同英文的基礎是26個母，由這些母組成了單詞，又由這些單詞形成了浩如煙海的句子、文章等等。現在這個基礎改變了，26個母變成了16個母，我們以往學習到的單詞、語法、文章都被顛覆了，重新洗牌了，我們的知識和經驗都需要重新學習。
舊秩序和新秩序究竟有什麼衝突和差別呢?最根本的差別是價值觀的變化，其它的變化都建立在此之上。
在舊秩序中，一個常用的詞是“我的”，比如我的汽車、我的房子等等，人們考慮問題、做事情往往是以自我為中心，從個人利益、局部利益出發。信息的不暢通導致了人與人之間的隔閡。
在新秩序中，一個常用的詞是“我們”，它代表著一個更大範圍的群體，共享服務構成了新秩序中最為重要的價值觀，你中有我、我中有你，離開了別人，我們將一事無成，甚至連生活都不能自理。
在舊秩序中，森嚴的等級維持著不平等的社會體系，所以“關係”也就成了最寶貴的資源。一個官二代和“屌絲”能一樣嗎?
在新秩序中，人人平等建立起了一種新的平衡，所以才能和智慧是最寶貴的財富。看看我們身邊那些通過網際網路創業成功的人，看看他們的知識背景，就會得到答案。
在舊秩序中，有許多環節，組織結構是金塔狀的。我曾經問一家全球最大的工業公司的老闆，從他到最基層的員工有多少個等級。他告訴我有22級。我們可想而知，這種結構一定會導致效率低、成本高。
在新秩序中，很多中間環節被消滅了，組織結構是網狀的，這樣效率提高了，成本降低了。
在舊秩序中，時間的單位是小時、天、月。
在新秩序中，時間的單位是秒、毫秒、微秒。
在舊秩序中，速度的單位是汽車速度、飛機速度。
在新秩序中，速度的單位是光速。
在舊秩序中，人與人之間存在偏見。
在新秩序中，人與人之間沒有偏見。
……
舊秩序正在土崩瓦解、日益枯竭，新秩序已經初見端倪、迅速成長。如此巨大的變化，引起的衝突和碰撞也將是前所未有的。邊界變得越來越模糊，不論是個人的、團體的、機構的，還是民族的、宗教的、地域的、國家的範疇都在發生變化。這個衝突才剛剛開始，借用網路上的一句流行語來形容就是：“根本停不下來”，這種變化是任何人、任何力量都無法阻擋的。
創業和創新，就是順應了這樣的大勢。“大眾創業，萬眾創新”也絕不是一個口號，而是順應時代突變的反映。而真正的創業者必須是一個創新者，單純的複製和模仿是沒有任何意義的。
這個時代的創業，和我們當初萬通六君子時代的創業，已經完全不同了。我認為，這個時代的創業需要具備以下幾個條件：
第一，從初衷上，要有分享和服務意識，要能夠通過自己的創業，直接或者間接的為他人、為社會服務，不要局限在個體或者少數人的利益上。
第二，從方法上，要深刻理解和運用網際網路，減少中間環節、降低成本、提高效率、減少浪費。舊秩序中的創業，更多是資本密集的、傻大黑粗的。新秩序的創業，要更輕盈，用最小的力氣撬動最大的資源。
第三，從模式上，創業和創新就是要做和以往完全不一樣的事情。舊秩序就像一件破舊的衣服、一棟破舊的大樓，如果我們今天想做的事情，是為它做一些修修補補的無用之功，那勢必是沒有前途和未來的。
第四，創業者面對複雜的局面和快速的變化，要有敏銳的洞察力、判斷力，要有足夠的智慧和勇氣。在以往的創業中，“關係”是舉足輕重的，不光在中國，從英國、法國的貴族文化來看也是如此，在舊秩序中“關係”是可以繼承的社會資源。但是，對於今天的創業者來說，“關係”已經變得無足輕重了。
在如此的巨變中，一家具體的公司顯得微不足道。猶如在大海上的一葉小舟，要順勢而為，但不能偏離方向，方向就是不斷為社會去創造新的價值。企業為社會創造的價值就是產品。什麼樣產品，才不會成為積壓在倉庫里的產品呢?答案是創造美的產品，因為人心和市場都會被美的光芒所吸引。放眼望去，那些成功企業創造的產品，無一不是在為我們的生活增添美感。比如蘋果公司的產品。蘋果公司就是soho中國的榜樣。
實際上，soho中國有兩個：一個是“過去的soho中國”，它的發展戰略、產品定位、市場表現，通過過去幾年的財務報表得到了體現;另一個是“全新的soho中國”，它保留了“過去的soho中國”的創新基因、發展模式、積累資產，但更與行業發展、經濟發展有關。
去年，我去復旦大學交流，他們的老師和同學們研究後發現，soho中國的利潤率比蘋果公司的還要高。他們問我為什麼?我說只有兩個：創新。正是這些創新建築為soho中國創造了價值和健康的財務報表。
通過這些思考，未來soho中國主要產品和業務會聚焦在一個新的辦公形態——soho3q上。soho3q將是一個崇尚分享理念的平台，一個用戶互相服務的平台，一個讓人敞開胸懷的平台，一個讓每個創業者、創新者產生共鳴的平台。
同學們，老師們：
什麼叫穩定?穩定不是平衡，穩定也不是持久，穩定的科學定義是對外界干擾的抵抗能力強大。
換言之，穩定不關乎狀態的好壞，只關乎是否能保持原來的狀態，哪怕這個狀態並不那么理想。
上圖中三個小球是三種“平衡”的狀態。左邊這個小球是“穩定”的，如果它被挪動一定距離，只要這段距離不是太遠，它都能恢復原狀;中間這個小球無所謂穩定不穩定，如果它被挪動一定距離，它可以在新的地方安居樂業;右邊的這個小球是“不穩定”的，哪怕輕輕地碰一下，它也會一路滑落，再也回不到最初的地方。
為什麼左邊的小球穩定呢?因為它的能量最小。它處在所有可能的位置中最低的那個位置，所以重力勢能最小。一旦它被擾動，只可能被擾動到重力勢能更高的地方，因為沒有比它現在的位置重力勢能更低的地方。這樣，只要外界干擾一去除，在重力的作用下，小球就會自動回到原來的平衡位置，所以我們說它是穩定的。它不需要任何外部能量，單靠自己的重力就能保持在現在這個位置。
右邊的小球是不穩定的，一點點風吹草動就能讓它萬劫不復。從左邊到右邊，它需要付出大量的努力，才能到達現在的這個位置。為了保持這樣的位置，它還必須持續地輸入外部能量抵抗任何可能的擾動。換言之，它必須枕戈待旦，一直抗爭不止，否則，就會從這個位置滑落。
我想說什麼呢?這跟人們喜歡不喜歡穩定有什麼關係呢?
如果你覺得自己穩定，自己不需要任何努力就可以保持住現在的位置，那是因為你就處在“最小能量”狀態。你不努力，你也不會下落，也沒有什麼後果，那並不是因為你不會下落，只是因為你已經到極低點了，附近根本沒有更低的地方可以下落了。
也許你會說：怎么會這樣呢?我比很多人都強，不可能在最低點。沒錯，所以我說的是“極低點”，而不是“最低點”。
“所有動物生而平等，但有些動物比其他動物更平等。”也許你的極低點，比很多人的極高點還要高。也許你意識不到，你生來就有的，卻有可能正是別人苦苦追求的。也許你會明白，你拚命追趕的，不過是別人的起點。
我不是一個“成功學”的鼓吹者，我也不覺得“向上爬”就一定是好的，我更不覺得“人往高處走，水往低處流”這句話是有道理的。
我只是覺得，這樣的“穩定”無形之中是一個牢籠，是一個束縛。哪怕你自己想出去看看，有時候也會被自己的重力壓垮，自己又把自己拉回到原來的位置。
“穩定”意味著失去了改變的可能性，不管這個改變是好的還是壞的。“穩定”有好處，因為它杜絕了變壞的可能;但“穩定”也有壞處，因為它把變好的可能也一併禁止了。是利大於弊，還是弊大於利，需要你自己掂量。
我個人覺得，人生的路那么寬，又有那么多的可能，有意或無意地把自己束縛在“穩定”的這一窪盆地里，或多或少有坐井觀天之嫌。多走走，多看看，扯起風帆去看看真正的大海，哪怕需要多付出很多的力氣，哪怕有遇到風暴的可能，也勝過舒舒服服地躺在“穩定”的避風港里。
當有一天，你掙脫了“穩定”的枷鎖，克服了自己的懶惰和慣性，一番苦戰之後，終於站在了不穩定的極高點上。也許你會覺得，剩下的人生就是一片坦途了。
但人生並不是二維的，你要面對的問題有太多太多。
也許你會發現，一個方向的峰頂，只不過是另一個方向的谷底，前面的路還有太長太長。
終於有一天，你發現，原來真正的生活是這樣的——起起伏伏，曲曲折折，有時陷入谷底，有時又柳暗花明。
知道了生活的現實，卻依然願意走出“穩定”的小綠洲，踏上那荊棘滿地卻又風景如畫的路途，我覺得這才是真正的勇敢和樂觀。
我的演講完畢，謝謝大家。
各位新同學：
在這隆重的開學典禮上，我想就“人為什麼而活著”這一話題，與你們談談自己的感受和感悟。
現在都在講“頂層設計”。但我個人認為，有些同志所講的“頂層”往往還不到頂層，是二、三層甚至四、五層以下的設計。而“人為什麼而活著”這可能是值得每一個人從小到老整整思索一生的頂層問題。
人為什麼而活著，本質上是人應該有什麼信仰。當今世界上公認有三大宗教：基督教信仰上帝，認為人與生俱來就有原罪，只有上帝才能拯救自己。伊斯蘭教信仰真主，認為今生虔誠信仰真主，後世就是天堂。大乘佛法認為，小乘佛法修度自身，大乘佛法修度眾生。
真正的共產黨人信仰什麼？1945年黨的七大的閉幕詞中，毛主席就曾鼓勵全黨：“一定要堅持下去，一定要不斷地工作，我們也會感動上帝的。這個上帝不是別人，就是全中國的人民大眾。”從根本上說，中國共產黨人的信仰就是人民，即全心全意相信人民、依靠人民、為了人民，也就是說人民是共產黨人心中的“上帝”。在階級或有階級的社會裡，普通勞動大眾始終占社會的絕大多數，絕大多數人的利益、意願、意志和力量是創造歷史的真正動力，最終決定歷史的發展方向。這是歷史唯物主義的真諦。信仰人民，這一信仰高尚而光榮，是社會的現實和歷史的真實，而不是社會和歷史的虛幻。無論是革命戰爭年代，還是社會主義建設、改革年代，無數中國共產黨人用自己的汗水、熱血甚至生命，為著民族的獨立解放，國家和人民的繁榮富強，默默實現著這一信仰。
對於共產黨人來說，信仰人民就是信仰馬克思主義。馬克思主義誕生於億萬人民民眾的實踐，揭示了人類歷史發展的根本規律和最終歸宿。真正的共產黨人信仰馬克思主義並使人民民眾覺悟，去帶領大家一起奮鬥，我們就能最終實現馬克思、恩格斯所說的每個人的自由而全面發展這一美好的社會即共產主義社會。從一定意義上講，信仰馬克思主義和人民，這才是頂層和終極的信仰。我們不反對個別同學信奉某種宗教。但是，共產黨員必須遵守黨章，信仰馬克思主義，為著人民。
以私有經濟為基礎的社會的基本經濟、政治及文化制度本質上是為極少數人服務的，它希望絕大多數的普通民眾持有“拯救自己”、“虔誠信仰”、“修度自身”這樣的價值理念以為極少數人壓迫、剝削絕大多數人的社會制度的長治久安服務。因此，私有經濟為基礎的社會的基本經濟、政治及文化制度與它所提倡的價值理念是不一致的。而社會主義國家的基本經濟、政治及文化制度是為著全體人民的，它需要共產黨員和政府工作人員踐行全心全意為人民服務的宗旨。這也就是說，社會主義國家的基本經濟、政治及文化制度與它所提倡的價值理念是一致的。當然，現在一些共產黨員和政府工作人員說一套，做一套，有的甚至貪贓枉法，這並不能說明我國基本經濟、政治及文化制度與它所倡導的價值理念不一致，相反，這是一些人脫離、背離乃至背叛了黨和政府的宗旨所致。以xx同志為總書記的黨中央提出加強黨的純潔性建設就是要努力解決黨面臨的這一嚴重問題。
前幾年，我從網上看到這樣一篇對話“一篇徹底改變美國同事對毛澤東看法的文章——《紀念白求恩》”。這是一位赴美創業的華人與其美國同事的對話。這位赴美華人的同事是一位虔誠的基督徒，他開始對中國共產黨人所做的事極不理解，甚至極為反感。這位華人對其美國同事說：“來美國前，我認為美國是個自由世界。但我到了美國之後才發現美國是個宗教信仰至上的國家。美國人民堅信這片土地是被上帝挑選的，美國人民是首先被上帝挑選的寵兒。為此美國人民自豪驕傲，熱愛這個國家。尤其是我看到那些徒步行走的傳教者們，穿著樸素簡單，吃最簡單的食物，他們眼睛裡是真誠樸素堅定的，他們讓我想起了中國老電影裡的共產黨員。中國原來也有這樣的一群人，忘我，無私，為了信仰可以承受一切苦難，可以獻出生命。不同的是，美國的傳教者們是在上帝的指引下，而中國的共產黨員們是在共產主義信仰下，更具體地說，在毛的指引下。”經過近兩個月的艱難對話，其美國同事回答：“我想我有點被感動，如果這一切是真的。”當其美國同事看了這位赴美華人推薦給他的毛主席的《紀念白求恩》英文版後，這位美國人說：“我很震驚。如果你不告訴我這是毛寫的，如果我把裡面所有共產主義或意識形態眼去掉，如果有人在我面前朗讀，我會以為我在聆聽上帝宣講。毛說的這些，和我曾經在教堂聽到過的幾乎完全一樣”；“我真的非常感謝你。你讓我看到了不一樣的毛，我想我開始尊敬他了。我更感謝的是，我突然心變得很開闊了，我覺著整個世界的門在朝我打開，共產主義和毛已經不再是我心裡的障礙，我更了解了中國，我非常高興，我可以擁抱這些，我想就可以擁抱一切。”如果哪位對此感興趣，可以上網搜尋一下。
在一定意義上說，共產黨人全心全意為人民服務的宗旨與基督、伊斯蘭和佛教教義有相通之處。但是，不論是哪種宗教，總是教導信徒放棄對現實幸福的追求，而求諸內心修煉，以達安於現實的苦難；而馬克思主義是教導人民民眾通過實踐和變革，運用客觀物質力量改變不合理現實，以實現現實幸福。一個是求諸內心，一個是求諸行動，前者是宗教信仰，後者是科學信仰，二者不應混淆。
按照馬克思主義哲學的時空觀，宇宙無邊無際，時間無始無終。我們每一個人都是在無邊無際和無始無終的一個特定的時空交叉點上來到人間。從一定意義上說，人類在我們這個地球上的誕生是必然的，而每個人在這個地球上的出生卻是必然中的偶然。我們每個個體生命能夠作為地球的萬靈之長的一分子，在茫茫宇宙中我們在這個地球上生活百年左右，這本身就很值得慶幸、驕傲和珍惜了。想通這一點，就是一位樂觀主義者，就不會皺著眉頭過日子。但僅弄清這一點還遠遠不夠。從一定意義上講，人活著是形式，人為什麼而活著、怎樣活著才是內容。弄清人為什麼而活著、怎樣活著才有意義和價值，這才更為重要。要弄清人為什麼而活著，還應釐清什麼是人，即弄清我們現實的人是從哪裡來，處於何種狀態，會往哪裡去，在這世上的百年間應該怎樣生活，做些什麼，留下點什麼。
首先，人是不同於純粹自然界且不同於自然界中其他生物的“類”存在物。人是自然界演化到一定歷史階段的物質運動的特殊形態的產物，是唯一由於勞動而擺脫純粹動物狀態的“類”的存在。人是我們現在已知生命的萬靈之長，與其他所有動物不同，決不僅僅是為了滿足吃好、睡好等生理需要，它能逐步地認知並能能動地改造世界。正因為人是唯一由於勞動而擺脫純粹動物狀態的“類”的存在，所以，我們一定要以勞動為榮。當然，隨著時代的發展起步，勞動的外延也在不斷擴大。只有以勞動為榮，每個人乃至於整個人類，才能不斷進步和發展。人活著，決不能以不違紀不違法為底線，而應有更高的精神追求，這就是要有正確的理想信念。什麼是正確的理想信念？對於中國共產黨人來說，就是現行黨章中所說：“中國共產黨黨員必須全心全意為人民服務，不惜犧牲個人的一切，為實現共產主義奮鬥終身。”為著人民的利益而活著而奮鬥，這就是共產黨所特有的“一個高尚的人，一個純粹的人，一個有道德的人，一個脫離了低級趣味的人，一個有益於人民的人。”這樣的人，人民就會永遠把他裝心上、記下來。
第二，人是由全部社會成員組成的集合體中的“每一個”個人。人總是具體、現實的人，總是存在於一定的時空和每個時代個人的實際生活過程與活動中。每個單個個人，都有自己特定合理的需求與利益，每個人通過自己力所能及的勞動和整個社會儘可能地幫助使這些必要的需求得以滿足。但人類社會有著人類生存發展的共同利益，如需要一個良好的生態環境。而我們現在看到的卻是有的國家和群體乃至個體，為了攫取巨額財富或奢靡生活，在拚命地掠奪資源、污染環境。這就是典型的損他國、損他人、損後人而利己。“每一個”個人所組成的社會和由特定社會組成的國家應該要求每一個個人和每個國家都應該有團隊精神精神和國際民主思想。僅提倡正面的東西而不反對反面的東西，正面的東西就不可能持續和發展，最終則是無法實現的美好的烏托邦。
第三，人主要是指“現在式”存在的人，但也兼指“過去式”和“未來式”存在的人。一方面，我們當代人不能僅把自己當作具體、現實的人，而把“老祖宗”當作抽象、虛幻的人，否則就會陷入歷史虛無主義。人類文明是歷史的產物，是代代傳承的結果。沒有“過去式”的人的浴血奮鬥、艱苦創業，就沒有我們今天的幸福生活和繼續創業的物質基礎。我們今天建設中國特色社會主義事業，更要發揚革命傳統，“不忘老祖宗”。從特定意義上說，以“過去式”的人為“本”，就是要尊重歷史，珍惜前人給我們所創造、積累的物質和精神財富，決不能“崽賣爺田心不痛”。另一方面，我們當代人也決不能僅把自己當作具體、現實的人，而把子孫後代當作抽象、虛幻的人，這會淡化可持續發展的理念，斷子孫路。我們既要在前人創造的物質和精神財富的基礎上繼續艱苦奮鬥、改革創新，為後人創造和積累更多的物質、文化財富，同時又要保護環境、珍惜資源，重視承接歷史。
第四，中國共產黨人所倡導的為人民服務中的“人”是指最廣大的人民民眾，而不是指一切人更不是其中的少數人。在階級或有階級存在的社會裡，個人總是隸屬於一定的階級或階層，絕大多數的最廣大人民民眾的根本利益是完全一致的，而極少數人的根本利益則是與絕大多數人民民眾的根本利益相對立的。如果以這極少數人的根本利益為本，就必然會犧牲絕大多數人民民眾的根本利益。xx、xx同志多次強調，以人為本就是以最廣大的人民民眾的根本利益為本，這一點十分重要。在階級或有階級社會裡，我們為最廣大人民民眾和他們的根本利益服務，是為了將來能為一切人和他們的根本利益服務而過渡。當然，這需要一代接一代長期、艱苦的奮鬥，而決不能重犯20世紀“大躍進”時急於過渡的錯誤。
為進一步弄清人為什麼而活著，讓我們對比看看有的人與革命先烈們的不同活法吧。
有的人把活著本身當信仰，奉行的是好死不如賴活著的哲學，為了活著甚至不惜作叛徒、漢奸、賣國賊。而曾任中共第五、六屆中央政治局常委的蔡和森同志1931年6月間被原先負責中央保衛工作的叛徒顧順章出賣，在獄中他受盡了酷刑，最後他的四肢被敵人用幾個粗大的長釘釘在牆上，敵人還用剌刀把他的胸脯戳得稀爛，他仍堅貞不屈。犧牲時年僅36歲。
有的人把吃好喝好當信條。而東北抗日聯軍主要領導人之一楊靖宇同志和他領導抗聯部隊對日寇堅持了長達九個年頭的艱苦卓絕的武裝鬥爭，使得數十萬日軍不能入關，創造了驚天地、泣鬼神的鬥爭業績，有力配合了全國人民的抗日戰爭。後來，他被叛徒丁守龍出賣、被日本侵略者殺害。侵略者絲毫無法理解楊靖宇在完全斷絕食物的條件下能堅持抗戰一年之多，最終解剖楊靖宇遺體，看到的卻是“胃裡連飯粒都沒有”，只有野草、樹皮和破棉絮。犧牲時年僅35歲。
有的人為金錢而活著。而以救國救民、變革社會為己任中國共產黨早期農民運動的主要領導人之一、海陸豐農民運動和革命根據地的創始人彭湃，出生於有名的富有人家。他當眾把自己家族分得的田契全部燒毀，並宣布“日後自耕自食，不必再交租谷”後投身革命。1929年8月24日因叛徒白鑫出賣後英勇就義。犧牲時年僅33歲。
人生自古誰無死，留取丹心照汗青。歷史是公正的。凡是個人理想信念行動與歷史進步方向相一致的，他的生命就融進了歷史，獲得了永生；凡是個人的理想信念行動與歷史進步方向相悖的，這就是歷史的歧路，直至被歷史所淘汰。黨和新中國永遠銘記著蔡和森、楊靖宇和彭湃等同志。在新中國成立60周年之際，蔡和森、楊靖宇和彭湃同志入選100位為新中國成立作出突出貢獻的英雄模範人物。出賣他們的叛徒卻永遠被歷史釘上了恥辱柱。
有人貪贓弄權甚至不惜作叛徒、漢奸、賣國賊從而“享受人生”，並認為這些劣跡和罪過將會隨著自己的逝去和時間的風塵而變成雪泥鴻爪甚至永遠無從知曉。我們承認，隨著時間的流逝和人事的滄桑，一些歷史細節將可能會被永遠湮沒甚至是歪曲篡改，殊不知，從歷史唯物主義出發，觀其大略常常無需繁多瑣碎的歷史細節，社會實踐是檢驗真理的唯一標準，其所作所為在歷史中所起的作用將無任何可能逃遁歷史對其的審視，越是重要人物和重大事件的功過是非，人民和歷史會最終將其辨析並記載得清清楚楚。
人為什麼而活著？說到底，是個信仰和世界觀問題。有了正確的世界觀，才有正確的人生觀、價值觀、生死觀、權力觀、地位觀、苦樂觀等等。正確的理想是生活光輝燦爛的太陽。我們共產黨人決不能在革命時期一個信仰，勇於犧牲，而在執政和建設時期是另外一種信仰，大撈金錢。
要樹立正確的世界觀，就必須破除“人不為己，天誅地滅”的信條。人之初，性本善還是性本惡？這曾爭論了幾千年，還會長期爭論下去。持人性善者認為，人的自然本性是善的或向善的，只要喚醒所有人的良知，依靠人的善的本性，就可以建立一個理想的社會，無須建立一個健全的社會制度來管理。從古到今持人性惡論者則認為，人的自然本性是自利，國家設計出嚴格制度防範人為獲取私利危害他人即可；但也有的人認為，既然人的本質是自利，那么作為特定階級和集團代言人的本質也是自利者，他們在行使權力時亦會制定出有利於自己特定利益的政策和法規，以強迫別人執行。因此，人剝削人、人壓迫人的社會制度天然合理、萬古長存。這實質是想把弱肉強食的叢林法則引入人類社會並固化。亞當·斯密的理論假設人就是理性的經濟人，也就是說人的本質都是自私的、利己的。性的善惡，這是道德範疇的東西。毛主席早在1943年就指出：“道德是人們經濟生活與其他社會生活的要求的反映，不同階級有不同的道德觀，這就是我們的善惡論”；“當作人的特點、特性、特徵，只是一個人的社會性——人是社會的動物，自然性、動物性等等不是人的特性。人是動物，不是植物、礦物，這是無疑的、無問題的。人是一種什麼動物，這就成為問題，幾十萬年直至資產階級的費爾巴哈還解答得不正確，只待馬克思才正確地答覆了這個問題。即說人，它只有一種基本特性——社會性，不應說它有兩種基本特性：一是動物性，一是社會性，這樣說就不好了，就是二元論，實際就是唯心論”；“自從人脫離猴子那一天起，一切都是社會的，體質、聰明、本能一概是社會的”，“人的五官、百體、聰明、能力本於遺傳，人們往往把這叫作先天，以便與出生後的社會薰陶相區別。但人的一切遺傳都是社會的，是在幾十萬年社會生產的結果，不指明這點就要墮入唯心論”。這就告訴我們，無論善還是惡，都是當時人們經濟生活與其他社會生活的要求的反映。迄今為止的考古發現證明，人類的歷史至少已有二百萬年，人的一些生理特徵則是這幾百萬年其祖先基因遺傳的結果，但這都是人們現實社會性或歷史社會性的反映。在人類社會歷史的長河中，從來就沒有抽象的人性和社會性，而只有具體的人性和社會性；在階級或有階級的社會裡，人性和人的社會性又往往具有階級性。歷史上馬克思之前的思想家們關於人性和人本質是什麼的看法和觀點，基本上是沿著人性的善惡性質和人性異於其他動物的方面特點來思考的。而馬克思主義提出人的本質在其現實性上是一切社會關係的總和的觀點，把人的本質放在一定的社會中來考察，從而指明了正確的思考路徑。人有善惡之分，甚至在一個人的身上既有善又有惡的表現。但這都不是人的本質或天性，而是一定的社會關係的反映或體現。所以，我們既不主張性本惡，也不主張性本善。在原始共產主義社會裡，人們之間本質上是一種相互協作的關係，這是由當時的生產關係的總和所決定的。人們的自私心理，是隨著原始共產主義社會解體、奴隸社會這個人類歷史上第一個私有制社會的誕生而誕生的。這一觀念的誕生，在人類社會的相當長的時段內，具有它的進步性一面，但隨著歷史的發展和進步，它的局限性和腐朽性一面便逐漸充分顯現出來。它不是人類歷史上從來就有的，因而也不會是永恆的。隨著人類社會的逐步全面的進步，隨著公有制的最終全面的確立，人們的自私心理在人類歷史的長河裡，則必然會最終被消除，這就是在更高層次上的否定之否定。現代生物學並沒有找到被公認的充分證據，證明人性是天生自私的，就如同人的皮膚色素是遺傳而不可改變的一樣。觀察動物界不難發現，不是所有的動物在任何時候、任何情況下都表現為自私的，恰恰相反，許多動物有很強的群體性和利他性。比如，森林中螞蟻群遇到火災時會迅速集結成球，滾過火區，集結在球體表面的螞蟻都會“壯烈”犧牲。小小的動物螞蟻尚且如此，我們這一萬物之靈長的人類更能如此。我個人認為，人至少可以分為三種：第一種人很自私。“一事當先，先替自己打算”。第二種人可能常懷公心，經常考慮國家、人民、民族的命運，但在公私發生衝突之時，有時可能把個人利益放在第一位。第三種人就是具有共產主義品格的人特別是合格的共產黨人。這樣的人並不是沒有個人利益，但當公與私發生矛盾時，公永遠是第一位的。從這種意義上講，他們是大公無私的。我們那么多先烈為了黨和人民的事業獻出了自己的生命，你能說這些人的本質都是自私的嗎？人的本質是自私的觀點，實質是私有制觀念的產物，應該說同時也是維護私有制的理論基礎。我們決不贊成人的本質都是自私的觀點。如果這種觀點成立，至少你無法解釋偉大的母愛，也根本無法理解我們幾千萬的先烈為了自己的理想和我們的今天幸福生活而進行的英勇奮鬥和作出的壯烈犧牲。決不要小看人的本質是自私的觀點，正是這一觀點，正在強烈地腐蝕部分幹部民眾；也就是這一觀點，把我們的一些人甚至黨的高級幹部送進了監獄。我們知道，在傳統經濟體制下，在強調集體利益和國家利益的同時，確實有忽略個人利益的現象。但我們在建立社會主義市場經濟的過程中，也決不能重蹈西方極端個人主義、享樂主義和拜金主義的覆轍。
正確的世界觀又要求我們必須樹立堅定正確的理想信念。我們承認，世界歷史決不會“一帆風順地向前發展”，而且“有時向後作巨大的跳躍”（列寧語）。但我們也更加堅信，歷史的大道無論怎樣曲折，最終必然通向共產主義。鄧小平說過，“過去我們黨無論怎樣弱小，無論遇到什麼困難，一直有強大的戰鬥力，因為我們有馬克思主義和共產主義信念”，這“是我們的真正優勢”。在世界社會主義運動處於低潮之時，我們更需要堅定對馬克思主義的信仰。這時的信仰就更顯得“金貴”。這時的信仰，就更能識別、考驗、鍛鍊一個人。信仰正確和堅定，就是“真金”，真金不怕火煉。有沒有這一信仰，大不一樣。對各級領導幹部來說，失去了這一信仰，極有可能害人害己。蘇東劇變後，一些人完全喪失對馬克思主義信仰。在他們看來，“國將不國了”，馬克思主義在中國垮台是遲早的事。不少人在撈，認為不撈白不撈。信仰的堤壩一旦潰決，牢房的鐵門便會打開。
正確的世界觀還要求我們必須言行一致。口頭上背誦馬克思主義詞句，行動上謀一己私利，這也決不是什麼“僵化”、“教條”，在本質上，只能是對馬克思主義的脫離、背離甚至是背叛。口頭上說一套，行動上另外一套，這是人民民眾最為反感的作風。這也是蘇共垮台的根本緣由之一。我們必須在學習、工作和生活中認真踐行正確的理想信念和黨的全心全意為人民服務的宗旨。
喜馬拉雅山國不丹從20世紀70年代就提出了國民幸福指數（gnh）的概念，現在又重新引起不少學者和國家的關注並把它與gdp相併列、相比較。XX年7月8日，美國企業研究所所長阿瑟·布魯克斯發表文章指出：“占領華爾街的抗議者看似是一群悲慘的可憐蟲，事實上，他們也許比那些坐在辦公室嘲笑他們的中庸派更加幸福。因為他們很多人都固執地堅守信仰。”當然，不同的人會有不同的信仰和幸福觀即幸福指數。但是，同學們，有了堅定正確的世界觀，我們就會有著正確的方向、遠大的志向、廣闊的胸襟，就能勇於解放思想，敢於擔當歷史的責任，激發改造社會和創造世界的激情，為著國家、民族的前途和命運勇於接受各種困難的磨礪和挑戰，渾身從內到外散發出真正的陽剛之氣，譜就大寫的人生，不會囿於小我而精心構建自己的小人生和小家庭；就會真正能夠做到自尊、自愛、自信、自強、自立，苦學多思，深入實踐，紮實苦幹，堅韌不拔，頑強拼搏，勇於創造，而不是一曝十寒，知難而退，迷迷茫茫，得過且過；就會有著應有的社會正義與良知，而不是社會不良現象的漠視者、旁觀者或簡單批評者；就會有著更加樂觀積極的人生態度，把理想主義、現實主義和英雄主義完滿地結合起來，容易聆聽和接受別人的意見，不斷調整和改進自己的實踐方向，而不是怨天尤人，自我憐憫，悲觀消極，無所事事；就會增強互助合作精神和集體意識，與同學互幫互學、相互交流、共同探討，不斷激發起心中新的求知慾望，並走近普通工農民眾，觸摸時代的脈搏，傾聽人民的呼喚，而不是封閉溫室，沉默寡言，孤陋寡聞或孤芳自賞；就可能經受住各種風浪的考驗，使自己成長為黨、國家和民族的有用之材直至棟樑之材。
胡總書記在XX年7月23日作了一個十分重要的講話。他在講話中明確指出，我們面臨前所未有的機遇，也面對前所未有的挑戰；來自外部的風險前所未有。我們要掂出這一講話的分量，認清自己肩上的責任，決不辜負黨、國家和人民的殷切期望。
相關內容
潘石屹《為什麼創業》勵志演講稿
鄭強《你為什麼讀大學》勵志演講稿
馬岩松勵志演講稿：我們為什麼要談未來
《為什麼大部分人喜歡穩定》勵志演講稿
從農婦討薪到法官上書，為什麼總是求助於總理？演講範文
你為什麼不喜歡演講
TED英語演講稿：我們為什麼快樂？
TED英語演講稿：我們為什麼要睡覺
人為什麼而活著？演講稿
TED英語演講稿：為什麼節食減肥沒效果？