700 days | Finding the Meaning of My Life Part II 6

But they are all right

Moreover, although there are so many contradictions, they are all right within their respective systems, and they can all be justified. Why?

Whether it is repeated or opposed, it is reprocessed on the basis of predecessors to adapt to the background environment in which they live. For example, during the Baroque period in the 17th century, the distinct humanism and optimism of the Renaissance due to political conflicts turned people to believe in the impermanence of life. "The waves of the world are on the boat, and they can live along the Huan?" [1] Like the birth of Taoist thought in the history of Chinese philosophy—the gou-for-all life in a troubled world, and the emergence of Neo-Confucianism—it copes with the onslaught and incompleteness of Buddhism. For example, the common starting point of Fichte and Schelling is Kant, and Fichte uses Kant's Critique of Practical Reason as its starting point, while Schelling seeks theoretical evidence from the Critique of Judgment. Fichte's philosophy arose from the social crisis of the times, and when he came to a "terrible world", he had to exert the practical rational doctrine of Kant's philosophy with the initiative awakened by the French Revolution, so that philosophy would become a great force for mankind to transform itself and the objective world. Schelling's philosophy, on the other hand, emerged from the crisis of the natural sciences during the turning point of the 18th and 19th centuries. For Fichte, nature is only a passive stage of human activity, while for Schelling, nature is the real object of knowledge. Fichte's epistemology is based on the concept of "primordial action", while Schelling's natural philosophy is based on the concept of "intellectual intuition". Thus, as Hegel asserts, any explanation can be said to be reasonable, including, of course, his own set of theories, for they are explanations of the history that have already occurred, theories based on their own experience and then backwards. In this way, they are necessarily correct.

Everything is not free from all possibilities, but it is surprising that each one is so reasonable. Is it true that all the possibilities in quantum mechanics coexist? But why does an explanation have its opposite, and is it true along with its opposite? Doesn't this mean that things and their opposites are correct? How is this possible? There should be only one reality!

Nietzsche said: "Ordinary things have no opposites, and the fallacy of reason is the basis for the emergence of such opposites." How can this rational fallacy happen? It equates language with things. "People tend to think of words as things, and that's a big mistake." [2] On the one hand, the generalization and ambiguity of the language itself determines that its meaning is erratic. "The purpose of language is to convey ideas, and to achieve this purpose very simply and very quickly, and in any of these three respects, if language loses its function, it is either abused or itself is flawed"[3], and it has been proved that "our language is very flawed; and the nature of the word itself makes the meaning of many words ambiguous"[4]; on the other hand, language is an independent symbol system, "Cassirer proposed the concept of symbols, The idea that we can never directly grasp and reproduce what is real always needs a system of symbols or symbols as an intermediary" [5]. However, because of this, it is easy for people to fall into the trap of ontology. Hume says that in proof, it is easy to fall into a circular argument that uses the thing itself to prove the thing. At that time, everything that is said is only in terms of the language itself, which will be correct in any case. "Although knowledge is imparted by written language, most knowledge is confused and blinded by the abuse of writing and common language." [6] "Illusions and words are the key to influencing human thinking, especially words. [7] Even many claims are thus self-evident. For example, Descartes' definition of God, even the understanding of this matter, has proved its existence, he has taken his understanding of God directly as a starting point, and according to Thomas's definition, nothing greater than him can be understood, so this understanding, whatever its content, has proved the existence of God, or this understanding has assumed that God actually exists, otherwise there would never have been an understanding. Only by first assuming the actual existence of God can it be possible to deduce what God is in reality. Spinoza's definition of an entity already includes a conclusion - there is only one entity, and the way he uses the boundary theory + public rules to deduce the conclusion, in fact, if you think about it, the conclusion is already clear in the boundary theory and the public rule, that is, what it has not proved has already explained the conclusion. Moreover, Hegel said that "absolute" is the totality, which is of course, and of course that there is nothing outside of it is of course the totality. And since "things" are all limited descriptions, "absolute" can only be spirit, the opposite of this "thing". Combined with the fact that "absolute" is the whole, then it can only be thinking about its own spirit. But this also limits it. Because as long as it is a description of man, it is a limitation, Spinoza said: "Regulation is negation", which means the opposite, which must produce contradictions. Rather than what is inherently contradictory about real things, such people invent and add an attribute to it. For example, in quantum entanglement theory, all factors are entangled together to form an "observation" factor, so is there still a so-called observation before? "Superposition" has thus become a complete assumption, a kind of word game. What the empiricists oppose is not reason, but its refutation of the senses, the abandonment of experience, and the assumption of utopian conclusions. Empiricism and rationalism are concepts added by later generations, just to facilitate division.

Thus, in this ontological abyss, it will be easy to refute others, because language, as soon as it is defined, immediately has its opposite, but it is not conducive to the real solution of the problem. Hegel once talked a lot about what "philosophy" should be, but don't tell me how it should be, but why it is so. What I need is to state and explain the facts, not what it should be theoretically and what it should be. "Yes", you can say anything. Tell me what it is, not how it "should" be. Don't need to tell me I'm wrong to think that way. Why is it said that no one is at fault? Do people have to make mistakes? Where is there any right or wrong, people act randomly, only when a certain standard is set, the behavior will appear that cannot be framed, this is negligence; moreover, the standard is still set by people, changing at any time, and what is originally right has become wrong. So, don't tell me it's not right to think that way, I just want to know why I think that way. Why?

Thought, According to Kierkegaard, has become a theoretical thought that exists for the sake of thought, for the purpose of pure "knowing." Initially, it was simply a tool for the struggle for survival, serving the self-preservation of living beings. But in the process of evolution, tools transcend purpose, and thought gradually becomes a non-realistic and self-contained world, which is even more important for the higher spiritual life of human beings, religion, ethics, and science. As a result, more and more people sell themselves to theories, to words, to theories for the sake of theories, rather than out of their own confusion.

In addition, "the transformation of language was a major part of the Enlightenment of the 18th century." Language is not only a set of symbols, but also a method of reasoning and argumentation. The logic of science is essentially dependent on their language. [8] Thus, "Human beings begin in geometry by determining the definition of words, and this process of determining meaning is called definition, the beginning of human calculations." When a person reasons, it is a calculation. [9] Logic is self-evident in the fact that it involves only thinking. Logic is simply the training of consciousness in time. Aristotle believed that the role of logic is to clarify some things that are not very clear through the relationship between concepts. He gave an example: Are mice sucking? Rats don't lay eggs and are therefore mammals. And mammals are those who eat breast milk. So, the answer is obvious. I had the answer in my mind, but I had to think it through before the answer came out, and the answer was in the concept itself. That is, Locke said, the general direct consent that occurs after the understanding of the noun is "self-evident reasoning." The so-called "self-evident principle" has been embedded in the concept and meaning of nouns.

Concepts, because of their pure thinking, have inevitability. Mathematics, for example, is purely the logic of thinking. After having a category (that is, a common attribute), there is a number. Numbers, also a type of symbol, are artificial. Therefore, no one is born to count, and no one is born to count. Mathematics begins with concepts, definitions, that is, in the "intuition corresponding to concepts", which can be expected, but in the end it seems to be self-amusing.

Wittgenstein thus argues that the whole basis of those refined philosophies—logic—is tautological, equivalent to saying nothing. "True knowledge comes from within, not from others. At the same time, only knowledge from the heart can give man true wisdom... Everyone can comprehend the truth of philosophy by applying his own common sense... Search your heart and use your inner wisdom. [10] Only for one's own sake, the urgent need, can one truly gain. The world questions itself, not for the sake of so-called philosophy. Schopenhauer said, "A man's thoughts are first and foremost for his own sake. [11] It doesn't apply to yourself, but teaches it to others? At the end of the day, what I need is not philosophy, but just questions that need to be answered. In Nietzsche's view, in modern times, the state has controlled and used philosophy to feed a group of academic philosophers, "a group of philosophical slaves." As a result, philosophy has been ruthlessly beaten by the natural sciences. It should be contemplation, not scholarship. In fact, not only philosophy, but also these natural disciplines, does not mean that there is such a difference in the nature of each thing, but only to facilitate understanding and expression. The categorization itself is artificial, and the parts are originally a whole. A wide variety of schools, a large number of scholars and professors, are mainly for the practical purpose of survival, not to seek knowledge. There are so many misguided people, although they are just to make a living, but they never realize that the impact is so huge.

All are names, general and special, possible and fact, logical and metaphysical, material and spiritual, experience and innate knowledge, cause and effect and freedom, and they are in opposition to each other since they arise. "The way of thinking of the famous masters who know for the sake of knowing and are not interested in directly practicing reality is very similar to that of the West, but in ancient China, this ideological movement died prematurely." [12] Xun Quan said: "The lawless king is not a righteous one, but it is good to cure strange words, to play with qi rhetoric, to even perceive but not to benefit, to argue but useless, to be troubled and to be ineffective, and not to be able to rule the discipline; but his persistence is justified, and his words are reasonable enough to deceive the foolish." It is Huishi and Deng Yanye. [13] For example, the famous master once had a concept - no thickness, that is, no thickness, thin to the point, but in fact there is no such thing, it is just a concept, playing with words.

Words are spoken by people. The contradiction between their words and deeds further shows that they are only theorizing for the sake of theory, and also implies that they are bound to fall into self-contradiction and self-denial. Schopenhauer, for example, clearly criticized this practice of theory for the theory's sake, arguing that "a man becomes a philosopher because he is troubled by a certain problem ... True and false philosophers... The former is troubled by his perception of the world, while the latter is troubled by a work or philosophical system before him"[14] but his life is criticized. Russell said that if judged by his life, his argument was also insincere. Failure to know the unity of deeds is naturally despised. Mozi said: "Words are enough to repeat the practice of the people, not enough to hold the often, not enough to hold and often, is not enough to hold the constant, is to swing the mouth." [15] Only words that can be seen in deeds are valuable. Confucians pay too much attention to "names" and "rituals", believing that those who are famous, the outline of heaven and earth, and the outline are extensive. Confucius's "benevolence" is inseparable from "kinship", and Mozi hopes to improve society with "simultaneous love". Contrary to Confucius's contempt for labor production, his single-mindedness in reading only the sages and his contempt for "profit", he advocated "frugal use", opposed "thick burial" and "long mourning", opposed music, believed that clothes were only used to "fit the body, and skin", "not honoring the eyes and ears and looking at the foolish people" [16], Confucianism is "flourishing with vocal music to fool the people" [17]. Mencius traveled around the world, dozens of cars, hundreds of students, retinues, even his own students felt that it was too much. The lives of Song Ju and Yin Wen are the lives of the Mo family, although hungry, they also "do not forget the world", "may the peace of the world, with the lives of the living people; the nourishment of people and me, stop at the end" [18]. But as Xun Quan said: "Meritorious service, great frugality, and poor servants, etc., were not enough to tolerate differences, county monarchs"[19], the Mo family's ideas were eventually not tolerated by the ruling class, and that kind of "name" was really too easy to use and too useful.

[1] From Wei Yingwu's "Book of the First Development Of the Sons sending yuan".

[2] From Locke's Theory of Human Understanding.

[3] From Locke's Theory of Human Understanding.

[4] From Locke's Theory of Human Understanding.

[5] From Hans Joassim Sturicht's History of World Philosophy.

[6] By Berkeley.

[7] From Gustav Le Pen's The Rabble.

[8] From William Coleman's Cambridge History of Science.

[9] From Hobbes' Leviathan.

[10] From Jostan Judd's World of Sophie.

[11] From Schopenhauer's Collected Essays on Schopenhauer.com

[12] From Hans Joasim Stulicht's History of World Philosophy.

[13] From Feng Youlan's History of Chinese Philosophy, quoted in Xunzi Bugou.

[14] From Schopenhauer's Collected Essays on Schopenhauer.com

[15] From Feng Youlan's History of Chinese Philosophy, quoted in Mozi Gengzhu.

[16] From Feng Youlan's History of Chinese Philosophy, quoted in Mozi.

[17] From Feng Youlan's History of Chinese Philosophy, quoted in Mozi.

[18] From Feng Youlan's History of Chinese Philosophy, quoted in Zhuangzi Tianxia.

[19] From Feng Youlan's History of Chinese Philosophy.