{"id":201,"date":"2026-10-30T01:09:32","date_gmt":"2026-10-30T06:09:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/?p=201"},"modified":"2026-10-30T01:09:35","modified_gmt":"2026-10-30T06:09:35","slug":"a-dialogue-does-a-meaningful-life-need-to-be-anchored-in-the-highest-good","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/a-dialogue-does-a-meaningful-life-need-to-be-anchored-in-the-highest-good\/","title":{"rendered":"A Dialogue: Does a Meaningful Life Need to Be Anchored in the Highest Good?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Editor\u2019s Note:<\/strong> This dialogue originated from a recent lecture by Xiang Biao, the text of which was discussed by YZXK and Orcan\u00e8te. This discussion can also be subsumed under the broader question of \u201cDo we need God?\u201d, but a more precise phrasing would be: Does a meaningful life need to be anchored in the highest good? YZXK issued an affirmative manifesto, to which Orcan\u00e8te raised questions and skepticism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

YZXK<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

How should an individual attain salvation and lead a meaningful life? My core viewpoint is: if one is to resolve the question of the meaning of life rigorously and thoroughly, one must introduce an existence that transcends the secular world\u2014namely, God (or an absolute spirit)\u2014and Christianity can be said to be, as of now, the most systematic, rigorous, and thorough theological system. I arrived at this conclusion through personal experience, and Christian theologians have likely arrived at it long ago as well. It is merely that after undergoing a long-term social transformation of secularization and \u201cde-deification\u201d (atheization), human society has gradually forgotten the importance of faith to human life. In other words, God (or an absolute spirit) can serve as the eternal anchor of life, and the only reliable anchor of life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Xiang Biao\u2019s meaning seems to be that one should not anchor one\u2019s life in prevailing social norms\u2014that is, \u201cfalse anchors,\u201d such as KPIs, money, buying a house, getting married, having children, and so on\u2014but rather in concrete, personal life matters, such as keeping pets or maintaining relatively regular social activities, which may be called \u201csoft anchors.\u201d Indeed, \u201csoft anchors\u201d are better than \u201cfalse anchors,\u201d because at the very least they are things chosen consciously and autonomously by the individual, with genuine affective resonance, which is naturally better than uncritically accepted social standards. However, non-eternal existences cannot be mentioned in the same breath as eternal existences. At this point, we are compelled to ask a further question: Are these \u201csoft anchors\u201d the best anchors we can find? Is there truly nothing better? What about a firmer anchor, or even an eternal anchor? Such as truth, love, goodness, virtue, beauty, and so forth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Through continuous approximation, we will ultimately find an ultimate existence that encompasses all the aforementioned good things\u2014God\u2014an absolute, eternal shore where the anchor of life can be moored forever, because it is an existence that transcends the fluctuating real world and continues to exist eternally after our lives have ended. In the awe and service of God, we experience and realize the concrete life-forms of these abstract concepts such as truth, love, and virtue in life\u2014for instance, when everyone patiently and meticulously parses a concept during a discussion, or when one receives selfless help and support from an intimate friend in times of hardship, and so on. The existence of this absolute spirit is neither vacuous, nor merely abstract in form, nor forcibly imported; rather, it corresponds to rich, practical life content and exists within the psychological and spiritual structure of humanity. A solid anchor does not oppress individual will; on the contrary, it is the most stable cornerstone for constructing our lives and the foundation for realizing spiritual freedom. Without a solid theological foundation, so-called freedom will only degenerate into the random surging of desires and the tyranny of a rationality detached from lived experience. To summarize with a metaphor: if a \u201cfalse anchor\u201d is a stone that does not exist at all, and a \u201csoft anchor\u201d is a loose, soft foundation that could collapse at any moment, then God, representing an absolute spirit of \u201ctruth, goodness, and beauty,\u201d is a solid bedrock truly capable of supporting the entire edifice of life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet in the real world, those powerful anchors that submerge the individual are often not transcendent divine existences, but rather idols erected by the state or society, and it is inevitable that these things submerge the individual. The ancient story recorded in Exodus<\/em> has already admonished posterity: if one does not submit to Yahweh (God), one must submit to Pharaoh (the various idols of this world). Distinct from these worldly idols, God\u2019s existence is immanent within the structure of the human soul; it will never obliterate individual will.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, let me discuss concrete faiths. Buddhism is fundamentally anti-anchoring; it is \u201cunanchored\u201d in the absolute sense. Yet this style of passive world-denial also makes it insufficiently active in improving the real world, which is one reason I maintain reservations toward Buddhism. Christianity also has issues that need modernization (such as gender equality, etc.), but the most basic theological and moral principle system of Christianity (Protestantism) is largely correct, and is the most aligned with human nature and sound human development among the five major religions. I believe the individualization of religion is a natural trend aligned with human nature; after all, strictly speaking, the interpretation of the transcendent, eternal God should not be completely monopolized by a few pontiffs. For the infinite to have its interpretive authority monopolized by a finite entity is ultimately unreasonable. Religious faith is ultimately an affair for which each individual must be responsible; every person has both the right and the obligation to form their own interpretation of the God in their heart, provided they do not deviate from the basic principles of theology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I do not agree that \u201call religions are entirely equal\u201d or that \u201ca person can establish a so-called religion while disregarding the basic facts of human nature and fundamental theological principles.\u201d Pastafarianism (the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) was a satirical work created to parody Christianity, but its founders perhaps did not understand theology\u2014for example, they mistakenly believed that religion and science exist on the same plane, which reflects that their understanding of both religion and science was flawed. Religion is submission to the supernatural out of an acknowledgment of human ignorance in an absolute sense, whereas science seeks a state of the known in a relative sense, but this knownness is ultimately only relative, just as Pascal said: \u201cScience is the knowledge of our ignorance.\u201d In short, on the whole, Christianity is a serious religion with a relatively rigorous theological system, whereas things like Pastafarianism are contrivances produced after humanity lost the seriousness of faith; yet its founders themselves probably did not realize how severe a backlash this mockery of faith would have on human society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, I will explain the impact of the lack of religious faith and the absence of an eternal anchor on personal life and human society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First is personal life. The importance of faith to life has already been extensively elaborated above; the conclusion is clear: the more ultimate and eternal life\u2019s anchor is, the more solid the foundation of life\u2019s meaning becomes. Without an ultimate anchor, one might still manage to live, but the deepest perplexities of life can hardly be dispelled. If you are a person who takes life\u2019s questions seriously, then you probably will not lightly let go of this most fundamental question of life, merely taking a loose layer of soil as life\u2019s foundation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second is human society. In fact, observing the transformation of American society reveals that in the early period, when America was essentially a Protestant society, public security was excellent, the poor were few, people possessed an ample spirit of self-governance and mutual aid, and people\u2019s moral character was fine. Look again at the appearance of American society after the collapse of the religious spirit, especially California: public order has deteriorated, the gap between the rich and the poor has widened, and people have become colder and more devoid of the spirit of mutual aid. I had an intuitive perception of this when I was in the United States previously. Of course, even if America has degenerated to such a state, it remains one of the countries with the most solid moral foundations in this world, though that is another question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We can explain this problem with a theory of moral order: if we concede that the total amount of moral order in a society spontaneously decreases (if no one produces order), akin to entropy increase in nature, then in a society where the majority lacks wholesome faith, people will tend to adapt to the times or drift with the tide, rather than strive to produce moral order for society. Over time, the moral order of this society will disintegrate, manifesting as everyone looking out only for self-preservation while no one assumes social responsibility. This disintegration of moral order does not necessarily mean that the operation of society completely collapses\u2014government, markets, enterprises, public utilities, and families may still function\u2014but the mechanisms promoting social goodness have dissolved, and this total disintegration of moral consciousness pursuing goodness will ultimately lead society to a genuine collapse. The collapse of modern society may not necessarily manifest as economic and political collapse, but rather as the total death of the social spirit. This collapse, in turn, inevitably impacts the well-being of personal life, because personal life and social conditions have always been closely intertwined. Therefore, from a macroscopic perspective, a decrease in the total amount of wholesome faith in a society will inevitably cause a decline in the total amount of social moral order, the ultimate outcome of which is society\u2019s collapse in one form or another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Never naively assume that without people making genuine efforts to maintain society, the current social order and structure will exist forever; this is naive sleep-talk. The fundamental difference between a society valuing the \u201cis\u201d (the actual) and one valuing the \u201cought\u201d (the normative) is that a society valuing only the \u201cis\u201d sees only the immediate, visible social reality, chanting \u201cmaterialist\u201d rhetoric to adapt to the world, and abandons efforts to improve society; a society valuing the \u201cought\u201d (usually a society with faith) can transcend the visible, refuses to abandon righteous deeds realizing the highest good due to hardships in concrete social reality, and continually strives to realize a better society in which people live freely and virtuously. Therefore, in this sense, whether people have an anchor and what they use as the anchor of life are always intimately linked to the well-being of people\u2019s lives and the order of society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If humanity anchors in the highest good, it will ultimately attain the highest good; if humanity anchors in fleeting, adrift, or even illusory things, it will ultimately fall into disquiet and nihilism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Orcan\u00e8te\u2019s Response<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

This response or rejoinder broadly poses questions regarding the original text of YZXK (hereinafter referred to as YZ), without presenting many of my own personal viewpoints.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The form of this response is relatively circuitous; the reader will presently traverse back and forth between several distinct yet interrelated questions, continually backtracking to the original text. Naturally, I could have chosen a friendlier approach by organizing my response according to the internal structure of my questions (thereby scrambling the order of the original passages I quote). Yet quite clearly, this method of spoon-feeding the reader after fine processing on my part is a way of concealing the thought process and presenting only the final result\u2014often possessing an inductive or deceitful nature\u2014even if it is the overwhelmingly mainstream approach. Therefore, I choose to lay bare the thought process, even if this is an attempt to use two-dimensional text to present three-dimensional or even four-dimensional thought itself. The reader participating in the thinking is, of course, the most ideal outcome, regardless of whether the reader supports the original text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This discussion series\u2014including this response\u2014has a fundamental methodological premise: the distinction between the two levels of the individual and the collective; the latter is not a simple aggregation of the former. Certainly, one could say that a group of people running equals every individual in this group running ({X}run = x1 run & x2 run & x3 run & \u2026 & xn run); but when one says that a fatal crowd crush or stampede occurred in a stadium, this does not equal each spectator independently dying of crushing and then being summed into a fatal crowd-crush event. The collective has its own patterns. I need not elaborate on this methodological issue. If readers are interested in this question or have better insights, a separate discussion may be opened.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

How should an individual attain salvation and lead a meaningful life?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Regarding how an individual attains salvation, there is not much room for discussion. Because salvation through the Flying Spaghetti Monster for Zhang San, and salvation through God for Li Si\u2014the two salvations qua<\/em> salvation have no difference. If one must prove that salvation through God is a \u201chigher-quality\u201d salvation than salvation through the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then one must forcibly distinguish superiority and inferiority among individual life experiences\u2014or rather, one must insist that individual life experiences possess objective superiority and inferiority\u2014in which case, by the same token, there is no reason not to believe that the pleasure of eating savory tofu pudding is a \u201chigher-quality\u201d pleasure than that of eating sweet tofu pudding (or vice versa). If one cannot establish a hierarchy of superiority for all individual life experiences in the world, then the superior status of God over the Flying Spaghetti Monster can hardly be defended: the focus of defense will shift to what key difference exists between salvation obtained from God\/the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the pleasure obtained from eating savory\/sweet tofu pudding, such that the former possesses an objective distinction of superiority and inferiority while the latter does not. In fact, this position is indefensible.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Therefore, the room for discussion lies in how the collective<\/em> attains salvation. I speculate that YZ\u2019s original text reflects a phrasing habit in Chinese that, while prone to misunderstanding, is very common. If YZ indeed intends to discuss salvation with respect to the individual, then he needs to respond directly to the question raised in the preceding paragraph; my response would thus pause. If YZ is indeed using Chinese phrasing habits to discuss the salvation of the collective, then my response will proceed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Additionally, because \u201csalvation\u201d seems to presuppose certain premises that are presently unnecessary, I will substitute it with the term \u201canchoring\u201d where necessary below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    …an existence that transcends the secular world\u2014namely, God (or an absolute spirit)\u2014and Christian faith can be said to be, as of now, the most systematic, rigorous, and thorough theological system…<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. Why must a transcendent existence be the Christian God? Why can it not be some existence devoid of any anthropomorphic characteristics (such as a deistic god \/ rational god)? Here lie two questions: a) How can human beings confined to space and time know a God (thing-in-itself) that transcends space and time? Or to put it more bluntly, how do people prove that the God they introduce is not, in fact, precisely a deistic god? How do people prove that what they introduce is God rather than Satan? People cannot even prove this to themselves; they can only convince or pledge this to themselves. People have the freedom to believe (believe<\/em>), but they do not have the freedom to know (know sensu stricto<\/em>), because humans are not omniscient and omnipotent.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      Of course, one could take a step back and argue that Christianity, which believes in a personal God, possesses such and such advantages over the deistic god we are currently considering, and that among numerous religions, Christianity\u2019s institutionalization and theorization are relatively complete (leaving Buddhism aside for now), and hence Christianity is chosen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n

      …In the awe and service of God, we experience and realize the concrete life-forms of these abstract concepts such as truth, love, and virtue in life\u2014for instance, when everyone patiently and meticulously parses a concept during a discussion, or when one receives selfless help and support from an intimate friend in times of hardship, and so on. The existence of this absolute spirit is neither vacuous, nor merely abstract in form, nor forcibly imported; rather, it corresponds to rich, practical life content and exists within the psychological and spiritual structure of humanity…<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

        \n
      1. How does one prove that these diverse concrete forms of life originate from God or from faith in God? Or why do they not originate from a deistic god? Or from Satan, who lets us experience these seemingly beautiful things in this world only to suffer a greater disparity and more horrifying torment in hell later?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
        \n

        A solid anchor… is the most stable cornerstone for constructing our lives and the foundation for realizing spiritual freedom.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

          \n
        1. If faith in God as a solid anchor is the most stable cornerstone, the only way to make this assertion hold is to prove that God exists and that God is perfect; otherwise, logically, if God does not exist, there is no question of an anchor or cornerstone; if God is not perfect, there might exist other cornerstones that are more perfect or purely perfect (perfect simpliciter<\/em>) and thus firmer.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

          Of course, if one retreats a step in the argument and replaces the proposition of \u201cmost stable\u201d with \u201cmore stable,\u201d logically it is still necessary to prove that God exists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          \n

          God\u2019s existence is immanent within the structure of the human soul.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

            \n
          1. Is this proposition regarding the existence of God a conjecture or a conclusion? If it is a conclusion, how is it known?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

            If the proof of this proposition is that understanding God in this way coincides precisely with eternal truth (if God exists, He is eternally true), then it has only two options:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            a) The content of this proposition proves that God exists. That is to say, belief in God\u2019s existence is the proof of God\u2019s existence. This is a circular argument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            b) The form of this proposition proves that God exists. That is to say, the thought process about God\u2019s existence is the proof of God\u2019s existence. Then, this cannot avoid a logical contradiction: I think about the existence of God, and ultimately believe that God does not exist; therefore my thought process proves the existence of God, whereas my conclusion is that God does not exist\u2014the existence of God leads to the result of my believing that God does not exist. How is this explained?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            The existence of God cannot be proven through \u201cI think, therefore God is.\u201d Due to space limitations, this part may be discussed separately if necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            \n

            Religious faith is ultimately an affair for which each individual must be responsible; every person has both the right and the obligation to form their own interpretation of the God in their heart (provided they do not deviate from the basic principles of theology).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

              \n
            1. If everyone has the freedom to interpret God\u2014that is, I have the freedom to interpret God\u2014then why should I accept the so-called \u201cbasic principles of theology\u201d given to me by others? Of course, this question can be framed as: Who stipulates the \u201cbasic principles of theology\u201d?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

              If the \u201cbasic principles of theology\u201d do not come from stipulation, but from comprehension of God, then the question returns to (2a) and (5). If the \u201cbasic principles of theology\u201d do not come from stipulation, but from rational reflection (such as logical consistency), then the question returns to (2): Why not choose a deistic god?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n
              1. If everyone is responsible for their own God, then can I and many others believe that God has ram horns, transforms every night into the sex worker I pay for, and attempts to bring me closer to the kingdom of heaven through sex? If YZ and others sympathetic to Christianity consider this a violation of the \u201cbasic principles of theology,\u201d the question returns to (6). If such an interpretation is accepted, then any interpretation\u2014including other religions, KPIs, material wealth\u2014can be a personal reading of God, so long as each individual is willing to affirm it to themselves. In that case, preaching belief in God as an anchor has no substantive advantage over Xiang Biao\u2019s soft anchors or socially imposed KPIs. When people believe in KPIs, nuclear war, galgames, dual cultivation of Yin and Yang, and so forth, they are already believing in their respective gods.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
                \n

                Second is human society. In fact, observing the transformation of American society reveals… people have become colder and more devoid of the spirit of mutual aid.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

                  \n
                1. This section is perhaps empirically untenable.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                  First, whether the decline of Christianity is factual. The measurement of faith is a rather controversial technical issue; self-reporting and questionnaires are deeply flawed survey methods. Moreover, for so-called believers who have not reflected deeply on Christian doctrine (let alone lived like monks), do they possess a faith that is purely true (true simpliciter<\/em>)? Or rather, does the faith of these believers need to be distinguished from that of monks, such that there exist two different kinds of faith in God? If this distinction holds, then could those people who do not or rarely go to church, but occasionally drop by a church to rest in solitude and have \u201cOh my God\u201d constantly on their lips, be regarded as another category of believers? If different types of faith are distinguished in this manner, could the so-called decline of Christianity be explained as fluctuations between different types? Furthermore, the question traces back to (6): If people believe that although they do not attend church or pray before meals, everything they do is God\u2019s will (even if they themselves are not clearly conscious of this when surveyed), then by rights it should be concluded that they still believe in God (even if they are not fully autonomous). This further challenges the thesis of the decline of faith.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  Second, even if Christian faith is in decline, is it correlated with public security or other social problems? Coincidence\/simultaneity does not equal correlation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  Third, even if the decline of Christian faith is factual, and even if the decline of Christian faith is correlated with social problems, was it social problems that caused the decline of Christian faith? What evidence proves that the causality runs in the direction posited in the original text?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  If social problems caused the decline of Christian faith, then it seems social problems should be addressed first, awaiting the recovery of Christian faith in tandem. If one believes that results can be used to retroactively alter causes\u2014just as a leaking water pipe causes wall mildew, and one believes removing the wall mildew can restore the water pipe to soundness\u2014then one must demonstrate, through practice or at least theory, the possibility of this altering of cause through effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  YZXK\u2019s Response<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

                  Thank you to Orcan\u00e8te for the reply. Since this reply primarily poses questions regarding my essay on the \u201chighest good\u201d (namely, \u201cA Meaningful Life Needs the Highest Good,\u201d hereinafter referred to as \u201cthe previous essay\u201d) without presenting many of his own viewpoints, I shall reply to his reply as a further explanation of my previous essay and a correction of certain issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  First, my previous essay primarily expounded my viewpoint on the question of the anchoring\/salvation of individual human life, and at the end also discussed the relationship between people\u2019s lack of an eternal anchor and social conditions. The writing style of that essay was not very academic, and many places were quite colloquial, primarily because it began as a private reply, and perhaps also due to my personal writing style. I believe that discussions of life\u2019s questions or life philosophy ought to be empiricist, or rather, must take lived experience as the material for rational analysis; viewing life from a rationalist standpoint detached from lived experience cannot approximate life\u2019s answers. This is also the fundamental principle upon which my subsequent exposition is based.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  I will first explain Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, which primarily raise two doubts: \u201cwhether God exists\u201d and \u201ca personal God versus a deistic god.\u201d I reply as follows below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  First, the God I spoke of in the previous essay refers to a subjective existence constructed in the individual\u2019s inner heart representing the highest good, rather than an objective entity. Quite clearly, we cannot know whether a \u201cGod\u201d transcending this world exists objectively, due to the transcendent attributes contained in the definition of \u201cGod.\u201d Therefore, \u201cGod exists\u201d as expounded in the previous essay actually means \u201can individual needs an absolute existence (which may be called God)\u201d\u2014that is, within the psychological and spiritual structure of humanity, there is a need for a transcendent concept (which may be called God, or a deity, absolute spirit, etc.) to anchor him\/her in the highest good, endowing his\/her life with an eternal source of meaning: spending a lifetime comprehending and approaching the highest good. Hence, the phrasing of this question should not be \u201cDoes God exist objectively?\u201d, but rather \u201cDo we need a subjective existence of \u2018God\u2019?\u201d, which reflects the Pragmatist attitude that life practice should adopt. This judgment is based on the shared experience of many people who have lived meaningful lives, as well as connected to my personal experience; these cannot be derived through pure reason, because the methodology for investigating questions within the scope of life ought to be empirical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  Therefore, since we have introduced the existence of a \u201cGod\u201d into our psychic structure and taken it as life\u2019s eternal, absolute anchor, this \u201cGod\u201d naturally needs to be perfect. After all, its attributes are eternal and absolute, and it represents a highest good; thus it naturally possesses the attribute of perfection. We certainly would not need an imperfect \u201cgod,\u201d for this world is everywhere filled with imperfect things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  Then we arrive at the question of what kind of existence this \u201cGod\u201d is. In my previous essay, I did not distinguish between Christianity and \u201cDeism\u201d; this was my fault. Personally, I lean more toward Deism\u2014that is, I do not believe a personal God is necessary. As a perfect existence, the image of God is best understood as a formless, spiritual existence; an inferior understanding is as a personal existence (as traditional Christianity holds). As for \u201cPastafarianism,\u201d which imagines God as a \u201cFlying Spaghetti Monster,\u201d from the perspective of general human sentiment, this can only be counted as a religious performance art closer to parody\/pranking, lacking much seriousness of faith. Both US Federal Courts and the Dutch Council of State have ruled that \u201cPastafarianism\u201d is not a genuine religion; regarding it as an interest group is probably more appropriate. Different life experiences possess a certain hierarchy of superiority and inferiority; this is the premise of our discussing many questions. Otherwise, why would I spend so much time writing these essays rather than spending it all scrolling short videos? I think Orcan\u00e8te would likely agree as well that writing these texts is a life experience with a greater sense of meaning than scrolling short videos for the same amount of time. Just as neither of us would likely believe that listening to Beethoven\u2019s symphonies or Led Zeppelin\u2019s Stairway to Heaven<\/em> has no difference in life experience compared to listening to viral TikTok hits. Eating sweet or savory tofu pudding certainly also has differences in life experience, but there is no relatively universal consensus on superiority, and this judgment is not important.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  If we adopt an attitude of extreme relativism, could it also be argued that life and death have no distinction of superiority or inferiority in life experience? If that were the case, we would not need to discuss this theme of how life attains salvation today, because if life and death had no subjective difference whatsoever, the question of salvation would cease to exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  Next is the response to Questions 6 and 7. Regarding the \u201cbasic principles of theology\u201d mentioned in the previous essay, I was referring to a rational understanding of \u201cnatural law,\u201d which includes basic principles such as \u201cthou shalt not kill arbitrarily\u201d and \u201cthou shalt not commit adultery.\u201d Because the essence of religious faith is adhering to natural law, strictly speaking, Deism is more rational than revealed religions such as Christianity. However, because the basic principles of Christianity are already fairly rational and systematized, and coupled with its vast body of believers and relatively well-developed social support systems, it is also a quite reasonable option of faith. To add a point: if a belief system encourages acts of killing that do not conform to concepts of natural justice\u2014such as the arbitrary killing of pagans\/heretics or atheists\u2014then that faith can be deemed a bad faith\/cult. Killing in legitimate self-defense does not violate the \u201cbasic principles of theology.\u201d Because each person should be responsible for their own life, each person should also be responsible for their affairs of faith, but responsibility here naturally includes the duty to choose a good belief system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  Finally, in response to Question 8: Collective issues are indeed far more complex than individual ones. If one is to investigate whether Christian faith is in decline and the relationship between Christian faith and social problems, empirical research may perhaps be necessary. Yet if one applies everyday experience, one can infer that a possible causal chain exists between the decline of Christian faith and problems such as public security: a decline in the level of faith among a population leads to a decline in the average moral level of the population, leading people to be more likely to commit acts in violation of the law, and ultimately leading to the deterioration of issues such as public order. As for the reverse causal chain\u2014namely, whether the deterioration of public security leads to a decline in the level of Christian faith\u2014I cannot infer this through everyday experience. However, the principle of moral order in the previous essay is clear: maintaining a good society requires people to continuously produce moral order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  It should be clarified that neither the previous essay nor this text aims to proselytize Christianity, but rather to provoke reflection among everyone regarding religion (religion<\/em>), faith (faith<\/em>), and the ultimate questions of life. Finally, I would like to express one more point of my view: Relativism is exceedingly detrimental to having a meaningful life; it is not a wholesome value orientation. Precisely because of skepticism toward absolute standards of good and evil, the experience of life becomes a process of value nihilism. Relativism deprives life of its proper structure and strips lived experience of its value framework\u2014and this is precisely the trap into which far-left ideology, Wokeism, and postmodernism have led us. If one wishes to possess a meaningful life, one must reconsider the classical \u201cabsolute spirit\u201d and a value structure capable of guiding the direction of our lives at all times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  Orcan\u00e8te\u2019s Final Response<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

                  Thank you to YZ for responding one by one to every aspect of my questioning. I hereby provide a final unified response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  YZ\u2019s response to my previous questioning transferred part of the contradictions in the issues onto natural law and the critique of natural law; this part seems unsuitable for elaboration within a blog, and thus I do not intend to reply to it; simultaneously, I declare my personal position: I harbor no fondness for natural law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  As for another part of the contradictions, YZ attempts to evade them by conflating a deistic god with Christian faith (another version of Neoplatonism?). While I acknowledge this is an extraordinarily ambitious strategy, I also conclude this dialogue with one last question that YZ did not answer directly\u2014namely, Question 7 from my previous questioning: How can one ascertain that the highest good as understood by each individual is not a flawed understanding? Aside from mysticism, what other avenues can provide such a guarantee? If the highest good can only be understood through mysticism, then this can never guarantee against understandings among individuals being vastly disparate or even mutually contradictory. If one proclaims that all correct understandings of the highest good ought to arrive at the same destination by different routes and cannot be mutually contradictory, this merely transfers the crux of the problem to how to find the \u201csameness\u201d of understanding\u2014namely, the highest good\u2014and thus falls into a circular argument. Whereas if one acknowledges that \u201cdifferences\u201d in understanding are unavoidable, then except for the most solid few rules of natural law (such as thou shalt not murder with malice) which may perhaps possess human universality, the rest of ethics and laws vary across cultures; consequently, contradictions and conflicts between individuals and collectives arising from differences in understanding the highest good will be inevitable. This could also be considered a kind of religious war, even if the supreme being of this religion is not a purely personal god.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  My Concluding Remarks<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

                  Strictly speaking, this is not a symmetrical dialogue or debate, but rather a manifesto submitted by YZXK with questions raised by Orcan\u00e8te. One is a creator, the other a commentator, and the dialogue remains unfinished. This also reflects the historical trend of the past one or two centuries: science and reason continually advance on the offensive, while faith continually defends and retreats at the same time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  As the blogger, my stance, like that of most humanities scholars, is agnostic. It is worth noting that many people appear to be atheists, but if you ask them how to prove that God does not exist, they will say they cannot prove it; strictly speaking, then, this is still agnosticism. The basic orientation of this blog is humanistic, but cooperation with believers who share a humanistic orientation is welcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  However, what this dialogue explores is not whether God exists, but whether we need God. I remain similarly skeptical on this, and part of the reasons has already been provided by Orcan\u00e8te. A few days ago, I encountered a middle-aged woman preaching loudly in a subway carriage, and the somewhat menacing, eschatological religion she spoke of hardly seemed endearing. This woman and YZ both clearly believe that humanity needs a supreme being, yet the true substance of the convictions behind them seems vastly different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  The question raised by YZXK is important: a meaningful life indeed requires a value direction. Where, then, does this direction ultimately come from? There indeed ought to be a moral standard, but I tend to establish this standard within the inner heart, rather than positing a supreme being. Where to establish the moral standard is perhaps primarily a matter of personal orientation. I have also seen the kind of person who believes they are answering God\u2019s call, and who happens to be a well-known moral exemplar in the community. Religion seems capable of providing a more potent moral potion than secular solutions. Of course, neither do I believe that pure reason can refute religion, because sometimes what is needed is a leap of faith in the dark. Science and religion can still achieve communion, though the mode of communion is certainly different from five hundred years ago. Therefore, while Orcan\u00e8te has provided many questions, reason after all cannot penetrate the territory of the heart; nevertheless, it remains necessary for faith to continuously respond to these challenges.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                  Editor\u2019s Note: This dialogue originated from a recent lecture by Xiang Biao, the text of which was discussed by YZXK and Orcan\u00e8te. This discussion can also be subsumed under the broader question of \u201cDo we need God?\u201d, but a more precise phrasing would be: Does a meaningful life need to be anchored in the highest good? YZXK issued an affirmative manifesto, to which Orcan\u00e8te raised questions and skepticism. YZXK How should an individual attain salvation and lead a meaningful life? My core viewpoint is: if one is to resolve the question of the meaning of life rigorously and thoroughly, one must introduce an existence that transcends the secular world\u2014namely, God […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":203,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/A-Dialogue-Does-a-Meaningful-Life-Require-Anchoring-to-the-Highest-Good.png","fifu_image_alt":"","_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-201","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-cultural-criticism"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":99,"url":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/is-china-a-collectivist-society-or-an-atomized-one\/","url_meta":{"origin":201,"position":0},"title":"Is China a Collectivist Society or an Atomized One?","author":"Stephen Leng","date":"04\/11\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Is China a collectivist society or an atomized one? As I was reading through various academic papers, I noticed some scholars still describe China as a collectivist society, while others have already picked up on its growing atomization. On online forums and insightful blogs, it's rare to find anyone still\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cultural Criticism"","block_context":{"text":"Cultural Criticism","link":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/category\/cultural-criticism\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/i3.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/social-atomisation.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/i3.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/social-atomisation.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/i3.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/social-atomisation.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/i3.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/social-atomisation.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/i3.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/social-atomisation.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/i3.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/social-atomisation.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":82,"url":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/on-loneliness\/","url_meta":{"origin":201,"position":1},"title":"On Loneliness","author":"Stephen Leng","date":"01\/23\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Loneliness is the destiny of human beings, an unavoidable and fated part of life. Since the 19th century, many philosophers, writers, and psychologists have expressed this attitude from different perspectives, such as Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Thomas Wolfe, Jean-Paul Sartre, Hannah Arendt, and Irvin Yalom, among others. Regardless, the belief that loneliness\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Philosophy"","block_context":{"text":"Philosophy","link":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/category\/philosophy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/lonely-bench.jpg?w=1920&fit=1920%2C1280&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/lonely-bench.jpg?w=1920&fit=1920%2C1280&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/lonely-bench.jpg?w=1920&fit=1920%2C1280&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/lonely-bench.jpg?w=1920&fit=1920%2C1280&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/lonely-bench.jpg?w=1920&fit=1920%2C1280&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/lonely-bench.jpg?w=1920&fit=1920%2C1280&ssl=1&resize=1400%2C800 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":163,"url":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/trialogue-is-romantic-love-unique\/","url_meta":{"origin":201,"position":2},"title":"Trialogue: Is Romantic Love Unique?","author":"Stephen Leng","date":"03\/22\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Editor\u2019s Note: This dialogue brings together two enthusiastic discussants of this blog, Orcan\u00e8te and ImageNoise, and the blogger Stephen Leng to discuss the topic of uniqueness in romantic love. The main text was completed independently and sequentially by the three participants, while the comment section is expected to host further\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Philosophy"","block_context":{"text":"Philosophy","link":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/category\/philosophy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/A-Three-Way-Conversation-Is-Romantic-Love-Unique.png?w=1920&fit=1920%2C1071&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/A-Three-Way-Conversation-Is-Romantic-Love-Unique.png?w=1920&fit=1920%2C1071&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/A-Three-Way-Conversation-Is-Romantic-Love-Unique.png?w=1920&fit=1920%2C1071&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/A-Three-Way-Conversation-Is-Romantic-Love-Unique.png?w=1920&fit=1920%2C1071&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/A-Three-Way-Conversation-Is-Romantic-Love-Unique.png?w=1920&fit=1920%2C1071&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/A-Three-Way-Conversation-Is-Romantic-Love-Unique.png?w=1920&fit=1920%2C1071&ssl=1&resize=1400%2C800 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":119,"url":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/the-substantial-foundation-of-work-life-balance-high-quality-private-time\/","url_meta":{"origin":201,"position":3},"title":"The Substantial Foundation of Work-Life Balance: High-Quality Private Time","author":"Stephen Leng","date":"09\/03\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The phenomenon of extremely long working hours\u2014more than 40 hours per week\u2014exists in both the United States and China. Yet in the U.S., it is mostly confined to a few \u201cbloodsucking\u201d industries, while in China, it permeates nearly every sector of the workforce. One could say that the U.S. lacks\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cultural Criticism"","block_context":{"text":"Cultural Criticism","link":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/category\/cultural-criticism\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/work-life-balance.webp?w=1200&fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/work-life-balance.webp?w=1200&fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/work-life-balance.webp?w=1200&fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/work-life-balance.webp?w=1200&fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/work-life-balance.webp?w=1200&fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":32,"url":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/tiktok-is-bad-but-rednote-is-even-worse\/","url_meta":{"origin":201,"position":4},"title":"TikTok is Bad, but REDNote is Even Worse","author":"Stephen Leng","date":"01\/14\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"In response to a possible upcoming on TikTok in the USA, many young Americans are now flocking to REDNote. The saying goes that between two evils, people should choose the lesser one, but now they seem to be choosing the bigger one. Concerns about TikTok are understandable. It does indeed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Technology"","block_context":{"text":"Technology","link":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/category\/technology\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/rednote.jpg?w=1520&fit=1520%2C855&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/rednote.jpg?w=1520&fit=1520%2C855&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/rednote.jpg?w=1520&fit=1520%2C855&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/rednote.jpg?w=1520&fit=1520%2C855&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/rednote.jpg?w=1520&fit=1520%2C855&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x, https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/rednote.jpg?w=1520&fit=1520%2C855&ssl=1&resize=1400%2C800 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":184,"url":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/beyond-locality-and-the-universal-human\/","url_meta":{"origin":201,"position":5},"title":"Beyond Locality and the Universal Human","author":"Stephen Leng","date":"05\/08\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Hegel sat at the podium in a lecture hall at the University of Berlin\u2014a city he described as the focal point of modernity\u2014delivering his lectures on the philosophy of the \"World Spirit\" (Weltgeist). Hegel was a brilliant thinker, but not a particularly gifted teacher. He possessed almost no oratorical skill;\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Philosophy"","block_context":{"text":"Philosophy","link":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/category\/philosophy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/i3.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/Transcending-Regionality-and-the-Universal-Individual.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/i3.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/Transcending-Regionality-and-the-Universal-Individual.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/i3.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/Transcending-Regionality-and-the-Universal-Individual.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/i3.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/Transcending-Regionality-and-the-Universal-Individual.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/i3.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/Transcending-Regionality-and-the-Universal-Individual.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/i3.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/Transcending-Regionality-and-the-Universal-Individual.png?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]}],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/my-img.stephenleng.com\/A-Dialogue-Does-a-Meaningful-Life-Require-Anchoring-to-the-Highest-Good.png?w=1920&fit=1920,1071&ssl=1","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=201"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":202,"href":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201\/revisions\/202"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/203"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}