The fairy tale "The Happy Prince" tells the story of a statue of the Happy Prince in the bustling city square, made of precious stones and gold, and glittering throughout.

A small swallow that flew south for the winter rested at the foot of the statue because it was lonely, and it planned to continue on a cloudy day.

When night came, the Happy Prince shed tears and begged the little swallow to peck one of his sapphire eyes and give it to the poor man who was about to die. Little Swallow couldn't resist the request and nodded in agreement.

The next day, the happy prince begged Little Swallow to peck out his other eye and give it to another poor man, and Little Swallow agreed. And so day after day, over and over again, the Happy Prince asked again and again, and Little Swallow agreed again and again.

The Happy Prince, who had helped many poor people, had lost all his jewels and gold. When the Happy Prince is no longer able to help the poor, his heart is split in half and turned into a grumpy statue, and he is eventually thrown into the garbage by local officials.

When the cold wave hit, the little swallow was hungry and cold in the blizzard, and it died silently.

When I first heard this fairy tale, I was moved beyond words by the kind-hearted happy prince. When I grew up, I changed a little bit of my perception and opinion of the Happy Prince: the prince sacrificed himself to help the poor, and his behavior was noble and moving, but he asked Xiaoyanzi to be an indispensable concrete implementer in the process of "helping others", did he really think about Xiaoyanzi? Is Little Swallow really willing to stay away from his companions and stay in this helpless city instead of flying to the warm and gloomy south for the winter? The prince couldn't bear to let the poor lose their lives due to illness, but the little swallow finally died of starvation, isn't its life also a precious life? If you can compromise and let the little swallow fly home before the disaster strikes, why not?

There is no love and hate for no reason, and some good people must have a trace of utilitarianism, evil, and ferocity in their hearts, which I personally think.

No one is only willing to give and does not need to give back, even if it is one in ten million, even if it is recognized as the greatest maternal love in the world, because there has been more than one mother, more than once there has been an expression similar to "raising children to prevent old age". This is perhaps the truest expression of their hearts, although it calls into question their motives for procreation, and "shames" the sacred, great, pure, and selfless maternal love.

In the past, the elders often used simple and straightforward words to educate us: good people are rewarded, you can't take advantage of others when you interact with people, you can't hurt anyone, even if you speak, you can't expose people's shortcomings and embarrass people......

The list goes on and on. The voice is in the ears, the words are in the heart, and with this as the code of conduct, we usually dare not slack off. However, after entering the society and going through all kinds of experiences, I began to think, can these words be applied everywhere? Is this a way of dealing with the world, or is it a self-explanatory after an injury, or is it something else?

There's no way to ask about anything, so you have to be yourself.

Any relationship exists with each other, and any unilateral overdraft, tolerance and dedication will inevitably accelerate the destruction of the relationship. If a person's "goodness" is as limited as his feelings and life, then when his "goodness" disappears, will he not be able to continue to be "good"? Because he's done it all.

How are we going to behave and what kind of people are we going to be?