The morality of the 20th century, the morality of the present

First of all, the European intellectual enlightenment movement led by France in the 18th century gave birth to a new tradition, which emphasized certainty, identity, continuity, progress, and on this basis, the pursuit of the ideal state of social development. "Freedom, equality, fraternity" is first and foremost a universal moral judgment, and accordingly, a new legal system is established. It is total—as a new morality, it belongs to modern times.

Morality always has to be "against" reality, and mankind has entered the 20th century, and the modern moral ideals that are generally talked about have been seriously challenged, because these ideals are not in line with what people have experienced in the real world. Looking back at the 20th century, those "good guys" and "bad guys" who led the ideas, art and politics of the times, as well as ordinary people who were influenced by the fashion of the times, they did not openly challenge the above-mentioned modern Enlightenment moral teachings, they only did not say, which is especially manifested in the field of modern and contemporary art creation - it is never just art, but political and moral, but artists do not consciously think of the political and moral consequences of their own works when creating their own works, they are just releasing their own personality spirit, Seek some kind of refreshing effect.

Artistic modernity began in the second half of the 19th century, baudelaire as long as the artistic effect of beauty, not so-called morality, because the traditional moral preaching not only hinders art, but also hurts itself, it creates mental trauma. According to the above-mentioned modern moral concepts, Baudelaire's poetry is immoral, but he is the true founder of modern art. Equally immoral is Picasso's "Avignon Maiden" (the etiquette of his private life of debauchery and informality, according to the book "Picasso, Einstein: The Beauty of the Heart", the young artist Picasso used the same basin, used for eating during the day, and peed in the middle of the night), and he painted these women... How to say it? It doesn't seem appropriate to say "ugly", more precisely, inhuman, simply not human.

As for the famous philosophers of the 20th century, they were also at a loss for moral concepts. Heidegger's Being and Time is a work of genius, but the book avoids the theme of love and the question of morality, while Sartre's Existence and Nothingness, known as the conscience of 20th-century intellectuals, likewise avoids the discussion of moral concepts. Did they deliberately not talk? I don't think so, the real situation, perhaps can be compared to the artistic creation of Baudelaire and Picasso, philosophy is the creation of ideas. Both Heidegger and Sartre, judging from their two masterpieces, clearly conflict with the traditional Enlightenment morality of modern Europe, and perhaps they are not good at publicly criticizing humanitarianism in the book, but they will never claim to be a humanitarian. For this situation, Sartre has a wonderful description of this situation in the novel "Nausea":

One of the main characters in the novel, the "self-learner", is a humanitarian who claims to love everyone, and at the same time says to the protagonist of the book, Rogandan, "It is difficult to be a man", rogandan replied: "I think it is not difficult to be a person, as long as it is casual." As for the so-called humanitarians, Rogandan said, "I'm not stupid enough to say that I'm a counter-humanitarian, I'm just not a humanitarian, that's all." Why? For if Rogandan professes his opposition to humanism, he will fall into the trap of "self-learning", because "self-learning" lives on opposites (this is Sartre's existential philosophy, a revolt against Hegelian morality). If Rogandan says that he is opposed to humanitarianism, the self-learner will encircle and encircle it from the opposite side, which will be a very difficult opponent. But Rogandan's real thought is that this self-learner is actually his own person in his bones, and he has only been poisoned by the moral deception of others and temporarily defected. "He doesn't have any friends, he's actually as lonely as I am, he just doesn't know it," so "I don't say anything about self-study, I just hate those who poisoned this poor man." Sartre then had a pamphlet entitled "Existentialism is a Humanism", but this is not at all the humanitarianism of the 18th century in the context of the ideas of "freedom, equality, fraternity" and the times.

It is obvious that traditional morality has become crumbling, extremely unstable, and has become an empty preaching with only gestures and no actual content, but it is always politically correct, and it is boring to openly oppose it, as Rogandan said above, who wants to openly claim that they do not love others? And the self-learner's so-called love for all people, you deserve love, I deserve love, all people are worthy of love - this is the sense of justice that is always unimpeded. But it has no real content, as Sartre's novel Disgusting reveals: there are all kinds of humanitarians, they all claim to love each other, but they hate each other to death. From this, we can think of china today: who dares to claim that they are not patriotic? Everyone is patriotic, but specifically to individuals, between people, it is numb, indifferent, and even hateful to each other - but, listen, we are all patriotic. It's like we all love the people, I am the people, you are the people, he is also the people. We are all people, but we don't love each other — whether it's a logical problem or a moral problem, maybe. "People" is certainly not a thing, because people are people. Wow, "the people" is a black hole, it devours our flesh and blood, our lives, from this hole, we are represented by the "people", which is not a thing, but it seems to be empty of content, can not really land. Once we land, we will find that as individuals who are all people, the separation between them is almost incomprehensible.

The separation between each other is not due to unwillingness to communicate, but the "ditch" is not "pass", just like a chicken talking to a duck. I think that's a good thing! It illustrates the characteristics of our time. Of course, we all pursue a beautiful society, we have the initial stage of beauty, we have eaten and dressed warmly, and then we have cars and houses, and there are high-rise buildings, but these are the external characteristics of our times, not the spiritual characteristics of the times. Spiritually and morally, what are the distinctive characteristics of our time? With all due respect, this feature is that there is no mainstream feature - let me put it bluntly, that is, I can't take you, but you can't take me, and you can't do anything with me. Who wants to really control whom! Well, maybe you can control my body, but you can't control my will! Will is in the mind.

What is old morality? It is the morality on the surface of the moment, in terms of external characteristics, it emphasizes that people must be managed, and who is in charge? Managed by officials. Why bother? Because I am afraid that once people are not managed, when taking the subway, they do not know to "get off (the car) first and then get on the (car)". It's managed, and we're used to it to this point. For example, people who manage people sometimes "numb their claws" (Northeast dialect, referring to facing an unexpected situation, having no idea for a while, overwhelmed, and unable to react). At this time, it was in a rare blank time to be managed, but as a person who was managed, he actually began to numb his claws accordingly, because the feeling of no one taking care of it was quite unaccustomed: you don't give me freedom, because freedom is difficult. Although I am the people, I do not know how to make my own decisions, please be my lord. In short, there are many changes in the international situation, we must be vigilant against this kind of tube and the person being managed, both sides are numb to the short gap moment, but also to prevent the extension of this gap moment, due to inflexibility, it will be timid, it is like such a moment:

When people are together (whether it is a few people), what is particularly frightening is that everyone is silent and does not speak. Another example is the organization of a meeting of 20 people. Experienced facilitators will take turns speaking in the order of each person's seat, provided that it is a meeting where everyone has to speak. The participants will think that they have to speak anyway, and they look forward to their turn to speak early, otherwise they will always have to worry about this matter, so the last speaker will always have something in his heart that cannot be put down, and his mind is hanging - in this case, the person presiding over the meeting is the most relaxed. Those who do not preside over the meeting often let the participants speak freely, and the Chinese people have the virtue of modesty, and when they meet, they all sit in the back row, and the front two rows are basically empty. Once you speak freely, it is inevitable that everyone will look at each other, and no one will be willing to speak first, which will waste time.

What is the new morality of the moment? It is the above things of the old morality that are still playing out all around us from time to time, but no one exposes it, knows that it cannot become a climate, but no one says, you let me go to the meeting, I go with the body, but only without the ears. If you really can't hide from speaking, then look around and talk about other things.

That is to say, people are not accustomed to speaking freely, improvising, free choice, please name, please take care of - but all this has long been the old morality, it has gradually aged, it is on the verge of death, there is no living popularity, but the skin of the eyes is still tired and boring. Where is the new morality? Quietly in the folk! Especially for those who are not willing to fall spiritually. But this is not an accurate summary of the morality of our time, the exact situation is this: China is a heterotopia today. Heterotopia is different from utopia, which is a fantasy that has no actual content in real life, while heterotopia has actual content. Specifically, due to the great imbalance in the degree of regional, cultural, and social development in China today, and the great difference in the mental state of individuals, it seems that they are not in the same country, not people in the same country--this is called the "different epochality" of the same era in moral concepts. Although they all live in 2022, some people's brains are still in the Qin Dynasty, and some people are postmodern. These different brains, there is absolutely no possibility of communication with each other, each other's blank eyes, I can't take you, but you can't take me. You say yours, I'm mine. The people who listen to you are over 50 years old. But the people who listen to me, under the age of 35, account for 60 percent, don't have to make any predictions, and under normal circumstances, only young lives have a future.

The so-called new morality means that we are in an era of moral diversity, which returns to the individual of difference. The young man goes like this: I don't talk back, but I can't listen. Can't listen to what? Can't listen to anything! This situation is actually quite good! Who is qualified to educate others?