How to understand the far-sighted anti-war concept of "reasoning"? Third Draft of Problem Philosophy 16

——Uphold the belief, pay attention to the strategy, and go all out.

Continue to think, the "beginning" of human thinking normativity? - How to think about this? Our choice is to make another question. That is, how to establish a "reasoned" "promotion of reflectiveness"? - Is the problem of the latter related to the problem of the former? In our contemplation, the solution to the latter itself should contain an answer to the former.

1. At the beginning of a person's speech or "reasoning", the effect of his pursuit or the purpose of creation should be determined. At the beginning of any speech or reasoning, people must demand a clear normative nature of the position or purpose of their own speech. We determine here that "normative", man's reasoning to others and to himself, should be the "promotion of reflection" of the subject of thinking. This is a very important proposition. We intend to elaborate on it systematically. The unique systematic thinking presented by this exposition shows that this is a highly speculative certainty deduced from the logic of contemporary cultural thought. It is necessary to attain the required nature of the highest moral concepts and the certainty of the logical links that are confirmed.

2. Please imagine that you are preparing to "reason" - to "distinguish between right and wrong" and "clarify things" to others, what effect do you want to achieve? Determine your "reasonable" "positional", "directional", and "in-depth" ideological determination. What we mean by proposing the propositional idea is to establish a new point of view in theory: that man's reasoning with others should "promote reflectiveness" and that such "original intentions should not change." Drive the nail home.

3. There are two major reasons for the establishment of this "new perspective". One is "anti-war." Man's ultimate demand for peace is "opposition to war." Man's "reasoning" itself is "anti-war." That is, "reasoning", not carrying out war. The highest realm of reasoning is "seeking common ground while reserving differences" and "turning dry things into jade.". Verbal attacks, emotional venting, are only manifestations of the negative or "antithesis of speech" in their thought communication. The second is that "reasoning" is to seek the way of communication, but also the "way of enlightenment", to "empathize" to eliminate "impulse", to "communicate" to promote "transactions", including "time" to dilute "resentment". All of this is obtained in the form of "reasoning". "Reasoning" brings wise thinking, moral measurement, and humanistic trade-offs. Wait a minute.

4. Reasoning between people is mutual. Reasoning on one side should strive to promote reasoning on the other. In dealing with the "unreasonableness" of the other party, all necessary means and means should be adopted with the main purpose of making it "reasonable". In short, to avoid or reduce the acts of war, to eliminate the destruction of the social order and the human tragedy brought about by the war itself.

5. If the original opposing rulers and decision-makers uphold the above-mentioned anti-war concepts and reasoned pursuits of a high realm, they will make a directional tilt toward striving for "seeking common ground while reserving differences" and "humanism" in decision-making. It is "anti-war" in such an established "skillful" and "wise" way or manner. The "anti-war concept" determined by such a theoretical nature is of extremely important significance.

6. There are two major prerequisites for correctly understanding and upholding the above-mentioned anti-war concepts, one of which is not to take the so-called "ideological differences" as a position. It will not or reduce such "preconceived" certainty, and choose the initiative of opposing and Latin American alliances. Second, there is no stubbornness in the sense of opposites of difference and amplification of contradictions. On the premise that people have "flexibility" and "self-change mentality", consider the necessary measures. Promote positive interaction between the two sides and move in the opposite direction.

Then again. The main thrust of this article on the establishment of the "anti-war concept" is to establish such a concept. Man is a rational and active body of thought. When people make decisions and choices, their historical and inherent cultural concepts can easily "determine" the position and trade-off nature of their decisions. However, the "going into the future" of people cannot be treated as "determinism" and the reality of people's choices cannot be treated. That is, people's "past" or "historical imprint" determines the choice of people's future. This is just as absurd as "fatalism" or "innate determinism." On this subject. Let's think about it next time.

What happens next? Take a look at the next breakdown.