My life also has an end, and knowledge has no end. With no end, there is no end, and it is gone!
—— "Zhuangzi Health Lord"
He who knows what heaven does, and knows what man does, is the ultimate.
- "Zhuangzi, the Great Grandmaster"
Big knowledge idle, small knowledge between; big words Yan Yan, small words Zhan Zhan Zhan.
- "Zhuangzi QiWu Theory"
On January 18, Yang Lihua, a professor in the Department of Philosophy of Peking University, entered the B station, and the first video immediately aroused the expectations and hot discussions of netizens, and as of now, more than 130,000 people have followed his account.
Professor Yang Lihua has been named one of the "Top Ten Teachers" of Peking University, studying the history of Chinese philosophy, Confucianism, Taoism and Taoism, and is widely popular with Peking University students because of his knowledge, temperament and personality, and has also gained a large number of fans outside the school.
"Zhuangzi" is known as one of the most difficult Chinese philosophical classics in history, and its original thinking, allegories full of hints, and magnificent language lay down a labyrinth of insurmountable mazes for future generations. So why choose to take a course in Zhuangzi's philosophy? What is the core problem of the book "Zhuangzi"? Professor Yang gave his own answer.
Screenshot of the course "Professor Yang Lihua of Peking University Speaks about Zhuangzi Philosophy" (the same below)
The core of Zhuangzi is the question of "true knowledge", and such a fundamental philosophical problem makes Zhuangzi different from the ideological direction of contemporaries or earlier philosophers in terms of fundamental philosophical thinking. The question of true knowledge is still the fundamental problem of philosophy to this day, and it is also the most difficult problem for philosophy to explore.
Think about it, how can we attain universal, definite, absolute understanding? Is it possible for us to get it? If we can't get it, what should we use as the basis for our knowledge of the world?
Today, Movable Character Jun shares with book friends Professor Yang Lihua's sorting out of the inner context of Zhuangzi's philosophical speculation in "Zhuangzi Philosophical Research". Detach from the specific text and reproduce Zhuangzi's philosophy. "This effort means, at least in part, thinking and pursuing like Zhuangzi in the context of modern Chinese."
Text/ Yang Lihua
This article is excerpted from "Zhuangzi Philosophical Studies"
Peking University, September 2021
01
The Path of Truth: The Vision of Leisure
Philosophy aims at true knowledge, so what is true knowledge? The understanding of this issue determines different directions and paths of thought. In Zhuangzi's philosophy, the question of what is true knowledge is answered in a negative way. Only when it is clear what kind of knowledge is not true knowledge can it be possible to establish the standard of true knowledge and thus open the way to true knowledge.
The beginning of this negative exploration is a fundamental question: how do we know what we mean by knowing is not knowing? How do we know if we mean not knowing or not knowing?
In Zhuangzi, knowledge without certainty cannot be true knowledge. That is to say, certainty is the primary criterion of true knowledge. And since the uncertainty of knowing comes from waiting, true knowledge with certainty must be waiting for nothing. The knowledge of indefinite certainty is unconditional. In other words, true knowledge is true in all circumstances and is therefore universal.
Universal, absolute, definite knowledge is true knowledge. But is such knowledge possible? If universal, absolute, and definite true knowledge is possible, doesn't that mean that there can be some kind of personality as the master of all things? And if this kind of true knowledge is simply impossible, then has Zhuangzi's philosophical thinking on true knowledge become a complete futility?
Moreover, since true knowledge is universal, absolute, and definite, it should be pervasive in the minds of all individuals. If this is not the case, it means that there can be a mind that does not agree with true knowledge, so where does the universality, absoluteness, and certainty of true knowledge begin?
Giving an experimental answer with the idea of potential and reality or similar to it is not Zhuangzi's path. For the structure of potential and reality must introduce some form of teleology. If true knowledge is the ultimate aim of the dialectical development of the forms of knowledge of the individual mind, then, on the one hand, all forms of knowledge are links in the inevitable process leading to the goal, and unpredictable accidents have no place to live; on the other hand, all minds that are links in this inevitable process also have the possibility of attaining true knowledge. And these two aspects are opposed by Zhuangzi's philosophy.
True knowledge is pervasive in the minds of all individuals, but in most people it is covered. The veiling of true knowledge is possible because it comes from true knowledge itself. And the reason why it is possible to uncover this cover is also based on true knowledge.
Removing the obscured, endless horizons is a prerequisite for true knowledge to be revealed. As we have already pointed out earlier, "idleness" is "shaking". "Elimination" means eliminating righteousness, and "shaking" means shaking and breaking free. Both are negative, pointing to the removal of obscurations from the field of vision of the Great Knowledge.
So, what exactly obscures the vision of revealing true knowledge? Knowing and using is a concept that is coherent throughout The Getaway. And the knowledge associated with the use is always waiting. Therefore, in order to attain absolute, definite knowledge, it is necessary to transcend the barrier of correlation.
Once incorporated into the whole of the relation of use, man is using the thing at the same time as the thing is being used. As the user of the utensil, man realizes the usefulness of the appliance. Yao before "suddenly losing his world" is for the use of the world. Xu Yu is not allowed to let go, ostensibly saying "to give useless to the world", but also to say "to give do not want to use for the world". Specific associations are always subordinate to attributes and localized to a domain. Zhang Fu, which was indispensable to the Song people, became a useless thing in yuedi, where "hair tattoos were cut off".
Because of the relativity of use, the knowledge associated with use is of course also relative. Fundamentally, the development of the field of human knowledge is still based on use. Even the disciplines that are the furthest away from practical utility have no way of being completely separated from the whole of the associations of use.
In the modern system of knowledge, mathematics not only often considers itself a universal necessity, but also gives a certain aspect of universal necessity to other natural, social, and even human disciplines. The question is, can the world as a popular system of Dahua be fully quantified? In the unquantifiable scope and field, can the universality and inevitability of mathematics still hold?
Zhuangzi's fortuitous emphasis on the unexpected suggests a possible answer to this question, which is not in his domain. Knowledge with use at its core obscures certain, universal knowledge, as if light engulfs its obscure source.
02
"True Zai" and "Right and Wrong": Two Clues
"True Zai" and "Right and Wrong" are the two intertwined main lines of "The Theory of Qi Things", which are finally concluded by the "waiting" of the "Reckless Two Questions" chapter and the "materialization" of the "Dream Butterfly" chapter. The vision of the Great Knowledge, opened up by "shaking", makes it possible for the development of existing fundamental problems. Where does the existence of individual beings and their forms come from? On what basis? Is there a "maker"?
True Zai
A hidden key word in the first chapter of The Theory of Things, "make", is completely ignored. And this word is the key to the introduction of the concept of "true zai" later: "Neither I have no self, nor I have nothing to take." Yes and no, but I don't know what it does. If there is a real slaughter, it is especially not possible. This passage contains the core of Zhuangzi's speculative structure.
Zhuangzi is misunderstood as a skeptic precisely because of the depth of his philosophical questioning and questioning. For a philosophy that rejects any stereotypes, the starting point for unmistakable thinking is an unavoidable question. Zhuangzi proceeds from the immediacy of human existence and involves both mind and body.
Zhuangzi did not begin by exploring the question of the authenticity of the complex content of the mind, but realized that all emotional thoughts are related to "this" and seem to be rooted in this "this". These fleeting apparitions of the mind that seem to come from "this" are involuntary, and it can be inferred that there is an ungratched "other" at the other end of the association.
If the apparitions of the mind come entirely from "this" or "me," then they should be knowable and graspable, but a deeper understanding will reveal that their emergence, change, and disappearance have aspects that cannot be understood and cannot be controlled, and therefore can only be understood from the "other" as opposed to "this.". "This" or "I" is not only unaware of the emergence, change, and disappearance of mental apparitions, but also of the origin, whereabouts, and basis of existence.
The questioning of one's own roots in reflection fully exposes the non-root nature of "this" or "me". Hence the saying , "No one else has no self." What is this inevitable connection between "other" and "me" "made" by whom? From this, it seems that "true zai" can be deduced. But there is no trace of it, and there seems to be no way to confirm it.
Since the body is also close to the immediacy of human existence, Zhuangzi also made a corresponding investigation. Zhuangzi does not give a positive discussion of the relationship between body and mind, but from his various related discourses, the body and mind are parallel realities that can interact. The mind can exert influence on the body, but the orderly movement between the "Hundred Skeletons," the "Nine Tricks," and the "Six Treasures" is not something that the mind can control. From this, it seems that the conclusion that "it has a true monarch" can be deduced.
Moreover, whether or not we can "seek their affection", in other words, whether they know it or not, they cannot affect the "truth" of the "true king". The perception of the human mind and body can deduce the existence of the "true zai" or "true king". But this kind of observation does not mean philosophical proof.
right and wrong
With true knowledge as the goal of pursuit, "right and wrong" cannot be bypassed in any way. From the existence of opposing knowledge, it can be inferred that all knowledge that claims to be universal is in fact relative. The trouble is, when we say this, aren't we making another general assertion? This universal assertion can at least be questioned and rejected – it is not difficult, is it not again a dispute between right and wrong?
What starts is an endless cycle. In fact, as long as it involves the question of right and wrong, such a cycle cannot be avoided. When we say that the distinction between right and wrong is wrong, we have said what we think is right. Is the cycle of right and wrong rooted in the reality of cognition or is it simply a matter of language? Zhuangzi clearly saw the subordinate attribute of language--"The speaker has a word, and the person who speaks is particularly undecided."
The true virtuous are speechless. In zhuangzi's book, all the words about the Tao come from the mouth of the hearer or the knower. Moreover, this kind of speech is also "taste the words", "try to say them" and "talk nonsense". Words to the Tao also fall into an endless cycle. When we say unspeakable, we have spoken of some understanding of the Word. Therefore, only another layer of negation can be used to dissolve what has just been said. It's also an inexhaustible process.
The endless cycle of right and wrong, though not unrelated to the limitations of language, is not rooted in it. The reason why there is a dispute between right and wrong and the endless cycle that comes from trying to dissolve the dispute between right and wrong is because of the difference between this and the other at the root of individual existence.
All individual beings have their own "this", but some are free and blind, and some are conscious. For beings who cannot be conscious of their "this", "this" is the embodiment of its tendency to maintain one of its own bodies, and "other" is manifested from the direction of disintegration.
It is precisely because there are infinite numbers of self-consciousness and "this" existence that "self-knowledge is not seen, self-knowledge is known" that "I and if I cannot know each other." The fundamental inability of people to know each other is also the guarantee of the initiative that people cannot eliminate.
However, is there really a difference between "other" and "this"? Or is there none? To say that there is or not to be is to fall into the realm of knowing, and root doubt is to be truly ignorant. This ignorance points to the transcendence of the treatment of "other" and "this" - "he is a puppet, called the center of the path".
The paradox, however, is that knowing is also knowing, in other words, knowing that you don't know. Therefore, the individual beings who are conscious of their "this" know their own ignorance in addition to self-knowledge. The ignorance, hidden deep in the foundation of self-knowledge, reveals the root of the other—the "other" of "neither nor selfless." This "other" and "this" do not constitute an even relationship, but are the root of "this". The "other" that is the root of "this" is what Zhuangzi calls "True Zai" or "True King."
"True Zai" or "True King" is revealed in the unknown. Since ignorance is the foundation of self-knowledge, all knowledge based on self-knowledge is essentially ignorance. In this way, the "other" and "this" in the treatment, as well as the "benevolent end of righteousness, right and wrong" that come from the "Fan Ran chaos", also lose the basis of the universality of the voice itself.
At this point, the two threads of "The Theory of Qi Things" have been combined in the key link of unknown knowledge.
The allegory of dreams in the last chapter of The Theory of Things in the Firmest Way leads to the question of whether the world is real or not. The inability to prove that one is living in a dream is a fundamental philosophical dilemma. Except for the true "enlightened" ones, no one can even "know this big dream." What the "enlightened" person sees does not enter into speech, but can only be glimpsed through the thinking and experience of the hearer. The key link in the speculation of the "Dream Butterfly" chapter is also unknown.
For the distinction between consciousness and dreams, Zhuangzi did not make any futile efforts. What about in dreams? Isn't it also in the midst of involuntary change? Since they are all in the uncontrollable state of change, doesn't it just prove that whether in consciousness or in dreams, there is a "other" object that is treated with "this"?
03
"The Transformation of Things" and "The Journey of Destiny"
What is a guest? Anything that is not under the control of the autonomous can be returned to the guest realm. Since the guest realm is real, how can we understand Zhuangzi's view of "having something that has not yet begun" as the ultimate of knowledge? It should be noted here that Zhuangzi said "there is nothing without beginning", not "nothing". Judging from the use case of "undeveloped" in the inner part of Zhuangzi, this expression is a negative doubt. If it is doubted that it may not exist, nor can it be necessary to have none, it will enter the realm of ignorance. Taking the ancient to the human "thinking that there is nothing without beginning" can only prove that in Zhuangzi the knowledge of man is not knowing, and it cannot be assumed that Zhuangzi negates the existence of the material realm.
The existence of the material realm is confirmed by the experience of the changes perceived by the self-knowledge of the existence of its "here" being. Since the self-knowledge of the conscious being is only awareness of its own identity, which is constant, it cannot be the source of the experience of change. Of course, the awareness of one's own identity referred to here does not mean the realization of one of the existing selves of the individual, but only an unchanging tendency in continuous change.
Since the source of changing experience is not in the conscious self-knowledge of existence, it can only be attributed to the object state. The awareness of oneness, which is not changed by changing experience, is evidenced by an autonomous subject; while the changing experience, which is not controlled by an autonomous subject, shows the nature of the object.
Concrete knowledge always tries to grasp the changes and manipulate them by means of them—to delay, to prevent, to trigger, and to enhance. However, whether it is the cognition of sensory experience or the cognition of intellect, there are parts and elements that cannot be determined. The uncertainty of sensory experience and the insurmountable limitations are evident. The laws of intellectual knowledge are easily misunderstood as universal necessities. This is actually a fundamental illusion.
Since infinity is fundamentally unrecognizable, that is, it cannot be dominated and dominated. This also constitutes the essence of the guest as a "guest". In other words, the unexpected is the true connotation of the object. The "last resort" and "helplessness" of the changing guest realm are revealed in Zhuangzi's philosophy as "the transformation of things" and "the act of fate".
However, if we simply emphasize the accidental and unpredictable side of change, we will fall into agnosticism in the full sense of the word. Although all changes have unpredictable contingencies, this does not mean that the process of change is completely uncertain. The root of knowledge lies in the effort of the subject, who is conscious of one of its own bodies, to try to incorporate unexpected changes into some kind of identity order. In this sense, all knowledge is actually the result of the subject's subjective objectification.
Although concrete knowledge cannot be universally inevitable, it can still have an impact on the actual process of change. Beings who are able to realize their "this" are always aware of their own identity, and this awareness is fundamentally incapable of all changing experiences. Sustaining oneself in the midst of endless changes, there is the possibility of falling and getting lost in the unforeseen knot of the same and the difference.
The person who indulges in some kind of sensual pleasure, in the flow of one and the other in the accidental object, partially loses the self-knowledge and autonomy of returning to one of the self-bodies. Therefore, Zhuangzi said: "Those who desire deeply, their heavenly opportunities are shallow." The self-sustaining, self-assertive person who is able to change must fundamentally express his own awareness of the sameness as a negative "no." Negative "no" is a universal and essential possibility for conscious beings.
This kind of autonomy is not in any passive bondage, but is the embodiment of man's highest initiative. Human autonomy and self-sustainability can, in turn, influence the actual process of change through concrete knowledge. Being unaffected but being able to influence and change others is a manifestation of the role of the master. Of course, since the conscious individual is ultimately limited, the dominance of the individual's self-knowledge and the specific knowledge that comes from it is not universal.
04
I don't know
The self-knowledge of the existence of self-consciousness and the various specific knowledges of "this" are limited, and their foundation is ignorance. The knowledge of the unknown is certain, universal and absolute. In other words, only the knowledge of the unknown is the unmistakable true knowledge. As we mentioned earlier, true knowledge is pervasive in everyone's heart, but not everyone has the possibility of opening up true knowledge. The reason for this is precisely that the cover of true knowledge comes from true knowledge itself.
For those who are lost in the endless pursuit of things, ignorance is a defect to be overcome, not the foundation of a life of reverence. Some awakened people are deeply aware of their fundamental ignorance, but what they know about their own ignorance is still differentiated and informed.
For beings who can consciously realize their "here", the uncontrollable contingency and unpredictability of the whole manifest as "life". In the face of the total invisibility of being hidden in complete obscurity, there is only "peace". To understand "peace and order" as passive obedience, to understand the irredeemable slippery slippery of the decaying, is a fundamental departure from the spirit of Zhuangzi's philosophy.
"The change of events, the deeds of fate" is unpredictable, even if you want to follow, where to start from? "Anzhi" is actually just a matter of ignoring it and not being moved. The conscious individual beings are always aware of the same tendencies as themselves, and on this basis they continue to set themselves up—what Zhuangzi calls "I.". Although at the level of existence, this self-set boundary is not determined, but with a clear internal and external boundary, there is also its own same range.
Trying to maintain one of its own bodies within the realm of being set as "self" or "me" also has the tendency to "say that life is evil and death". Yet in the midst of endless change, the range of one of the self-bodies set by the finite individual is ultimately unsustainable. The basis of self-setting lies in self-knowledge that is the object of self-knowledge, and the basis of self-knowledge is precisely the knowledge of ignorance as fundamental knowledge.
The dissolution of one of the self-set selves, death, is fundamentally the return of self-knowledge to the unknown. In this sense, death is never external, but at the foundation of birth. "Death, survival, and death" are inherent in the self-awareness of the same tendencies.