Liu Huan sighed on the show, saying that today's people are too utilitarian. Once he chatted with a student, the other party said that he wanted to take French as an elective, but he felt that the cost-effectiveness was not high, and he was very hesitant. He was speechless: If you want to learn, you can learn, why is it still cost-effective?

As a national treasure artist, it is very understandable to express speechlessness to students' utilitarian thoughts. But from the perspective of the general public, we can fully understand the student's pursuit of cost-effectiveness. How can people do things without considering the cost-effectiveness? Whatever you do, you have to measure the relationship between input and output intentionally or unintentionally, and do it only when it is appropriate.

This is also understandable. But the problem is that the output we identify is usually limited to the level of "fame and fortune". If you can get promoted and make a fortune, if you can become famous, and you can get tangible benefits, you can only earn it and feel that the price is high.

It took two years to learn a French language in order to find a job in the future. If you don't use it when you are looking for a job, is it not a loss?

She worked hard to get a postgraduate degree in order to find a good job in the future. If the income and position are not high, wouldn't it be a big loss?

I have spent my whole life researching and learning, and I have achieved a lot of results, but when I retire, I have no official or half-job, not even a professor. It is useful if it can be exchanged for brocade clothes and jade food. The benefits of being able to put gold on the face are the benefits. A successful life is a good life.

This seems to be common sense in modern society. But this is not scientific.

It is said that Confucius was very poor back then, and he had to rely on Zigong to pay for his lectures, but how was his life cost?

Li Bai was even poorer. Most of the time, he did not earn as much as he spent. In the end, he died of poverty and illness while traveling. If measured by the current value for money point of view, the score is probably lower than that of the farmer. Or, if his mother had foreseen the ending earlier, she might not have sent him to read and read at all. How good is it to work at home and farm, what is the use of writing those sour poems?

"What's the use?" is a very sinister question. It is a knife that kills without blood. The ideals of countless young people have been wiped out by the elders with this question.

But if they all followed this pragmatic logic, Tang monks would not be able to learn from scriptures, Van Gogh would not be able to paint, Sima Qian would not be writing "Records of the Grand Historian", and Cao Xueqin would not be writing "A Dream of Red Mansions". What's the use? Won't be a fool to suffer and suffer for a lifetime, who is not to be seen, isn't it better to have the time and energy to do some rough work to fill the stomach?

I have a distant grandfather, who is very brave and has a lot of courage. He has been the village chief for 40 years in the countryside, but the villagers still do not agree to his retirement when he is in his 70s. The old man led the villagers all his life to build roads, raise dairy cows on a large scale, build milk powder factories, and build schools. The living and educational level of their village is much higher than the surrounding villages. College students come out one by one, young man. Marrying a daughter-in-law is all searched in other villages, and the prestige of the grandfather is unmatched.

A few days ago, my dad talked about an old story: a calf that was only three days old was lost in the village. Two years later, when my grandfather went to the county to run errands, he saw a herd of cows on the road. He immediately got out of the car and walked over. One of them told the cattle herder, "I'm XX from XX village, and this is a lost cow from our village." Hearing the words, the man didn't even deny it, so he asked his grandfather to bring the cow back.

There are many things like this, and people in the village all admire and respect Grandpa.

The old man has never worn a famous brand in his life, and he doesn't have much savings. He has a great reputation in the neighboring eight villages, but no one knows about it outside the county. If it was only measured by how much money he made as a big official, he might not even be a section chief in his life. However, one person has given happiness to thousands of people by himself, and he also lives happily, practically, and has a super sense of achievement. Isn't this kind of life cost-effective? How about a mediocre section chief in a big agency? How about a toiled upstart? Shouldn't be lower.

So if you have to calculate the cost-effectiveness of one thing, a career, or a life, I think that even if fame and fortune must be an indicator that cannot be ignored, you must always consider happiness, the realization of personal value, and what you do for others. Contribution and many other factors must be added.

It's like judging the value of a dish, you can't just use the amount of meat in it as the standard, but also the color, taste, and nutrition to be reasonable.

When we go to a restaurant to order food, the first consideration must be the taste and nutrition of a dish, not just a few pieces of meat in it. But why when it comes to choosing major events in life, what we care most about is whether there is meat?

Liu Huan sighed on the show, saying that today's people are too utilitarian. Once he chatted with a student, the other party said that he wanted to take French as an elective, but he felt that the cost-effectiveness was not high, and he was very hesitant. He was speechless: If you want to learn, you can learn, why is it still cost-effective?

As a national treasure artist, it is very understandable to express speechlessness to students' utilitarian thoughts. But from the perspective of the general public, we can fully understand the student's pursuit of cost-effectiveness. How can people do things without considering the cost-effectiveness? Whatever you do, you have to measure the relationship between input and output intentionally or unintentionally, and do it only when it is appropriate.

This is also understandable. But the problem is that the output we identify is usually limited to the level of "fame and fortune". If you can get promoted and make a fortune, if you can become famous, and you can get tangible benefits, you can only earn it and feel that the price is high.

It took two years to learn a French language in order to find a job in the future. If you don't use it when you are looking for a job, is it not a loss?

She worked hard to get a postgraduate degree in order to find a good job in the future. If the income and position are not high, wouldn't it be a big loss?

I have spent my whole life researching and learning, and I have achieved a lot of results, but when I retire, I have no official or half-job, not even a professor. It is useful if it can be exchanged for brocade clothes and jade food. The benefits of being able to put gold on the face are the benefits. A successful life is a good life.

This seems to be common sense in modern society. But this is not scientific.

It is said that Confucius was very poor back then, and he had to rely on Zigong to pay for his lectures, but how was his life cost?

Li Bai was even poorer. Most of the time, he did not earn as much as he spent. In the end, he died of poverty and illness while traveling. If measured by the current value for money point of view, the score is probably lower than that of the farmer. Or, if his mother had foreseen the ending earlier, she might not have sent him to read and read at all. How good is it to work at home and farm, what is the use of writing those sour poems?

"What's the use?" is a very sinister question. It is a knife that kills without blood. The ideals of countless young people have been wiped out by the elders with this question.

But if they all followed this pragmatic logic, Tang monks would not be able to learn from scriptures, Van Gogh would not be able to paint, Sima Qian would not be writing "Records of the Grand Historian", and Cao Xueqin would not be writing "A Dream of Red Mansions". What's the use? Won't be a fool to suffer and suffer for a lifetime, who is not to be seen, isn't it better to have the time and energy to do some rough work to fill the stomach?

I have a distant grandfather, who is very brave and has a lot of courage. He has been the village chief for 40 years in the countryside, but the villagers still do not agree to his retirement when he is in his 70s. The old man led the villagers all his life to build roads, raise dairy cows on a large scale, build milk powder factories, and build schools. The living and educational level of their village is much higher than the surrounding villages. College students come out one by one, young man. Marrying a daughter-in-law is all searched in other villages, and the prestige of the grandfather is unmatched.

A few days ago, my dad talked about an old story: a calf that was only three days old was lost in the village. Two years later, when my grandfather went to the county to run errands, he saw a herd of cows on the road. He immediately got out of the car and walked over. One of them told the cattle herder, "I'm XX from XX village, and this is a lost cow from our village." Hearing the words, the man didn't even deny it, so he asked his grandfather to bring the cow back.

There are many things like this, and people in the village all admire and respect Grandpa.

The old man has never worn a famous brand in his life, and he doesn't have much savings. He has a great reputation in the neighboring eight villages, but no one knows about it outside the county. If it was only measured by how much money he made as a big official, he might not even be a section chief in his life. However, one person has given happiness to thousands of people by himself, and he also lives happily, practically, and has a super sense of achievement. Isn't this kind of life cost-effective? How about a mediocre section chief in a big agency? How about a toiled upstart? Shouldn't be lower.

So if you have to calculate the cost-effectiveness of one thing, a career, or a life, I think that even if fame and fortune must be an indicator that cannot be ignored, you must always consider happiness, the realization of personal value, and what you do for others. Contribution and many other factors must be added.

It's like judging the value of a dish, you can't just use the amount of meat in it as the standard, but also the color, taste, and nutrition to be reasonable.

When we go to a restaurant to order food, the first consideration must be the taste and nutrition of a dish, not just a few pieces of meat in it. But why when it comes to choosing major events in life, what we care most about is whether there is meat?