Human civilization has encountered major crises, but it also means potential opportunities. "Where will human civilization go?" This is already an issue before every country, especially the nationals of all the major powers.
We often say, "Read history to know today's events", in fact, many previous generations of scholars have thought deeply about the dilemmas and choices we face today, for example, in 1944, two important books were published, one called "The Road to Slavery", written by Friedrich August von Hayek (1899-1992) in China, and the views of the other book, which are in direct opposition to Hayek, in the history of 20th century thought. Also of great importance is Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation (1886-1964).
Although the Great Transformation came out in 1944, it was fully translated into the Chinese world, but it was half a century later. But who were the first people to introduce this view to China and in what year? As early as 1946, Professor Pan Guangdan of Tsinghua University read The Great Transformation, and he may have been the first to introduce Bo's views to China.
Today we found Pan Guangdan's article "Where Civilization Goes" written in 1947 for the benefit of readers.
Where does civilization go?
A review of a seminar
Author | Pan Guangdan
1
A question like this, where is civilization going? For thirty years, it has been frequently proposed.
Remember that after the First World War, some well-known scholars and thinkers in Europe and the United States. At the behest of the American historian Beard, a collection called "Where Mankind Goes" was published, and Hu Shizhi of China also provided a paper in the collection. It seems that not long after, Hu Shizhi wrote a manuscript of "Where China Goes" in the monthly magazine "New Moon". It seems particularly appropriate to write this kind of paper, and it seems particularly appropriate to write this kind of manuscript, which is done by Hu Shi, because, if nothing else, it is Hu's big name, including the name and surname, which is enough to symbolize the wanderings of this era.
By the time of the second world war, and especially at the end of the atomic bomb's power, the problem had become more and more serious, and in the last one or two years, it seemed that people with a little thought, people who had expressed a little concern for mankind and civilization, were asking such a question, and they could not find an answer, not even the less than satisfactory one.
The answer is that there will be no for a while. So it's obvious that there won't be a reason for it for a while. The problem is too big to be true, one also.
The evolution of civilization, so far, on the surface and in part, although the result of a self-conscious and automatic human being, has in fact been arbitrary in terms of the whole, that is, to go there is there, and no one has ever tried to make a comprehensive view.
What is the matter of civilization, what is the meaning of civilization, and even whether it should pay attention to meaning, how to develop civilization to get it, how to get it, what kind of must it be, what standards to get it, what standards are not to be discussed, none of this has been discussed in general, let alone the guidance control of the paper? This is the second.
Because the evolution of civilization is arbitrary.
Over the past few thousand years, it seems that the developments we have seen, except for one or two eras and regions that can barely be counted as exceptions, are all deformed, biased, and cannot be put away; as far as Western civilization is concerned, the middle ages are excellent examples of religion and modern times to science; deformities have developed for a long time, they have become accustomed to going sideways, and it is difficult to return to a certain extent, so that most people do not feel that they are deformed, that they are biased, and that they only feel that they are full of ambition, and that people who are full of ambition have no problems to raise, and are more likely to feel that the people who raise the problem are multi-tasking , for the worries of the unfounded. In short, there is no problem in front of you, and you have to find the answer in your heart. This is the third.
Ren Yun is not only a habit, but also develops a view of civilization, a set of self-rounding theories, that is, civilization will naturally progress, and will inevitably progress, and progress will naturally reach a certain kind of end; in the past two hundred years, many Westerners, and in recent decades, there have been many Chinese, as if riding on the tide of this civilization progress, thinking that we must not rebel against the trend of this tide. Or at best, just by adding to the waves, we can be born on the other side. For this type of person, Ren Yun is not just a habit, but a natural, really "habit into nature".
For this type of person, the question of where civilization goes is not only eventful, but simply a sin, and there is a naturally determined and clear line for the progress of civilization? If we have to ask more questions, will we not only increase the confusion and fear of mankind? This is the fourth.
With these four ends, it seems to us that some people dare to boldly think of an attempt to discuss this issue with this question, which is already unsatisfactory.
2
An attempt to be new and collective was a symposium at Reading University in England, held from 26 July to 2 August 1946. This will be the first time since the war that the Institute of Sociology in The United Kingdom has presided over it.
Radijn University, UK
In the "Where is civilization going?" Under the general topic, many lectures, public seminars, panel discussions, and the like were held; although all the scholars and writers invited to participate, each with their own expertise, the discussions were not limited to any special topic, nor did they seek any specific common conclusions, but only on the major topics of the meeting, in the air of extreme freedom and harmony, extensive exchange of views and mutual deliberations.
The focus of the meeting and the fulcrum of the discussion were obviously a few special lectures, of which the particular importance was one on the atomic bomb, two on politics and philosophy, and one on religion and social economy. There are also articles on education and literature and art, but they have caused less discussion and are not discussed.
This whole problem can be said to have been caused by the atomic bomb, so we cannot but know a little about the speech on this subject. The speaker is Professor N.F. Mod of Bristol University in the United Kingdom, a fellow of the Royal Society and president of the Society of Atomic Scientists. He stated that he spoke from the standpoint of a citizen, not a scientist. At present, everyone's estimate of the power of the atomic bomb is considered to be overheated.
In fact, the power of an atomic bomb is roughly equivalent to the power of a bomb that a thousand bombers can drop at the same time, so if no one can make thousands of dollars, although the power is large, it is still limited, and in recent years, no country, including the United States, can produce a large number of them. Therefore, it is impossible to use the power of the atomic bomb to control the death of the enemy and to end a war at an accelerated speed.
Professor Mulder and the association he represented, on the positive side, were in favour of the Lilienthal Report, which was based on its actual claims, and part of the recommendations in the report, such as the atomic development authority, to regulate the production and storage of all uranium and other related metals in the world for research purposes. This organ also bears the responsibility of the aggregate and mastermind of all atomic energy research—especially its wholehearted support.
That's a lot of advice. If we do not do this layer, and advocate the prohibition of the manufacture of atomic bombs, or allow only the use of atomic bombs by force such as the international police, etc., are all empty words, and absolutely cannot prevent the recurrence of war. Therefore, it is imperative to persuade Soviet Russia to accept such proposals, and in the past, since Russia has changed its policy in the past, it is not necessarily impossible to accept such proposals in the future. Once accepted by the Soviet Union, the regulatory body could be established and an investigation into the uranium deposits of various countries could begin. Professor Mulder believes that this is a realistic view and proposition, without losing all ears and ringing bells, or being ambitious.
We also agree with this proposition. Shortly after the end of the Second World War, I remember discussing this with one or two British friends, arguing that unless there was a way to internationalize scientists, especially physicists, that is, to make them stateless, and they themselves did not denationalization of scientific experts, there was hope for a solution to the problem; at that time, the British friend told me that Professor Joseph Needham Needham) has expressed the same opinion; now Professor Mudder and the Association of Atomic Scientists can be said to be on the same line; the difference is that one advocates the internationalization of scientific experts, and the other advocates the internationalization of scientific resources, which may be easier to do, because man is an emotional animal, and although he is a very objective scientist, it is still a great difficulty for him to suddenly abandon his attachment and favoritism to the state.
The two speeches, which are political but also involving religion and philosophy, happen to be tit-for-tat. The two speakers were George Catlin, a former British professor at Cornell University in the United States [Ka's visit to China in April and May 1, 1946, and a brief introduction to Tsinghua University on May 1. ] and Professor Shao Xunzheng of Tsinghua University in China.
The reason why I was able to write this review is entirely due to Mr. Shao's proclamation and some of the Western comments he has seen, but I should make a declaration here. The reason why the two people are tit-for-tat is: one is a Westerner, and what they are talking about is quite oriental religious and mysterious, and the other is an Oriental, and the argument is very down-to-earth and realistic.
Kars believes that through the efforts of scholars in all aspects of modern times, the ideological insight of civilized human beings may gradually shift into a new form, and its significance and far-reaching influence may not be due to the changes caused by Adam Smith, Bentham, and even Marx a hundred years ago. If the old type can be called exclusive, the new type may be said to be cooperative. The efforts of scholars and writers from all walks of life, as Kashi claims, are indeed a major fact.
Novelists such as Aldous Huxley, S. Maugham), A. Gronin J. Gronin taught to depict the so-called "good people" of integration; cultural and sociological writers such as E. Gill and J. Gronin taught to describe the so-called "good people" who were integrated. Middleton Murry), J. McMurry MacMurray), G. Heard), R. McGuiver M. Maclver and others have analyzed and played the concept of community and community; educational psychologists such as Isaacs, Anderson, Horney, psychoanalysts such as Suttie, Harding, Raynard West, Glover, social anthropologists such as Ruth Benedict Dollard, Malinowski, etc., have important insights into why man is a cooperative animal; the religious scholar R. Niebubr) has an analysis of the character of laziness and arrogance; the philosopher Russell has a new diagnosis of the origin and type of power.
All these new trends in ideas for the cooperative type have contributed directly or indirectly. As to how to make such new tendencies in ideas and concepts manifest and effective in practical life, including political life, Kach argues that there must be spiritual cooperation of religions. It may be that in his view, the conceptual transformation is only knowledge, and the expansion of the religious spirit is the force. Thus his practical proposition is that we should renew our support for all organized religions, especially the Church of Rome.
Kashi had met Gandhi not long ago, and Gandhi told him: "A man of religious sincerity never talks about rights and political guarantees, and he will never feel lonely when he is reduced to a 'minority' side." For he experienced God with him." However, Kasch did not advocate non-resistanceism, and he believed that force or the "secular sword" still had its limited uses and its subordinate status, as also advocated by medieval scholastics as part of the so-called "late ecclesiastical creed".
Karsch's special proposal of the Church of Rome as an object of support is probably one of the reasons. The organization of the United Nations has gradually become a fact, a fact to be maintained in any case, and if there is a country with a contrarian future that has to be sanctioned by force, Kardhi also believes that it should be done without hesitation.
In my capacity as a reviewer, I believe that Professor Ka's words should be valued in two parts. The first part, on the trend of the change of ideological forms, I fully agree with it, and I have discussed it in detail from some different angles, see the article "Factions and Hui" (see below). As for the second part, which supports the actual claims of the Church, I cannot but doubt it. I have no doubt that we are born in a shattered era when it is extremely easy for us to think of this practical way. But it is one thing to think about it, and it is one thing to do it.
A large part of western civilization has been liberated from the unity of the church for three or four hundred years; whether the church is good or not, whether it is liberated or not, whether it is right or not, is completely another question, we do not care, but liberation is a fact, this fact has existed for such a long time, and now it is necessary to retreat, to the Roman Church, which has in fact improved a lot, theoretically possible, even morally, but the situation will not; good horses do not eat grass, A group of people who have left the village for several generations have lost contact with each other, especially emotional ties, and will never go back to their hometowns, not to mention the millions of people whose opinions have long since developed and whose beliefs have long been pinned on? One or the other.
This is only to say that a part of the Western society, a national society outside the West, has not participated in a well-organized church at all, so that there is no such emotional connection in the traditional experience of any church.
In the political field, Kashi wholeheartedly supports the ideals and organization of the United Nations, which is the unity of the actual mass life, and it is logically inevitable that in order to live in one respect, and to achieve practical results, faith has to strive for its unity. The reason for his proposal of the Church of Rome is probably this; in his mind, civilization must have a future, everyone must participate in one church, believe in one God, under the whole world, can not be the royal land, lead the land, can not be the king's subjects, secular life, unified in the United Nations, spiritual life, unified in Romanism, inner saints and outer kings, two have fallen.
The question of where civilization is going is not easy to answer, but such an answer is always too consensual. This is the second.
The psychology of faith is probably indelible, the unity of faith in one statue is also the aspiration of many people, but the object of faith and unity in one statue can be changed, but it can vary according to the times and regions, the West has changed from the reformation to the church, this object has been replaced by a unified church to a denominational church, from a trinity of God to a one-in-one God, from the God who created man to an artificial God, and from God to a human or rational thing, and for more than a hundred years, more from the church to the state, race, or class, From dogma to doctrine, from heaven to ideal society, from Lotte to struggle revolution... Although there is only one kind of psychology of foot sign belief, the way to satisfy this psychology can be ever-changing, just as the needs of diet are the same as those of people, and the tastes can be formal and uneven; regardless of people outside the West, the appetite of Westerners in this regard has always been vigorous, the appetite has always been healthy, and for hundreds of years there have been opportunities to change tastes at any time, and they have developed all kinds of habits of new tastes and the desire to taste peculiar smells. It was okay to change it, but to change it back, to what they thought was an indifferent, unpropetual taste, from a tree into a valley, I am afraid it would be more difficult than a camel passing through the eye of a needle.
Although there are no individual examples of exchange, such as G.K. Chesterton in Britain after the First World War, how many Are there in the world? This is the third.
In order to save Kassych's difficulties, I think that there is a view worth putting forward, that is, what we should ask for and can hope to achieve is a situation of "difference and harmony", which is the case in international politics, and the ideal of the United Nations may be gradually realized, and its basis lies in this; so is the development of scholarship, thought, literature and art, and the new trend of cooperation emphasized by Kassit cannot be outside this, and even if this is enough, how to go to the field of faith must put forward a "unity and harmony" that has always advocated unity and strength. What about the Church of Rome?
UN
In short, Kashi's view, as far as the second half is concerned, is psychologically a wish, while the form is a snake to add to the snake; most of the time Shu Shi's mood is too earnest, the desire is too pious, and the whole discussion is not the same.
Speaking of the principle of difference and harmony, we can naturally turn to Professor Shao Xunzheng's discussion in the seminar.
Shao believes that the West has always misunderstood traditional Chinese political thought, believing that it is philosophical in sitting on the Tao and a Taoist in distinguishing between evil and right.
In fact, in his view, China's political thought is the most realistic in its views and responses to the various contradictions and deadlocks contained in political and social issues. The emergence and existence of this contradiction is not due solely to a lack of knowledge, as Socrates assumed, or a lack of morality, as in the Christian view, but to a certain extent inevitable and reasonable.
Therefore, with regard to the "resolution" of contradictions, Chinese do not want to ask for too much urgency, and we cannot help but doubt the easy proposal of a "solution"; anyone who seeks too urgent a solution always wants to directly interfere with this contradiction, or to forcefully co-opt it, or to violently suppress a certain aspect of the contradiction, so that it will lose its effect. These Chinese are not willing to do it, but are willing to let time gradually consume some of the contradictory forces, and then find a natural and direct solution for profit.
This method of coping with contradictions has its own high degree of skill, and a very basic part of it is that there must be a practical understanding of the balance of power and its nature caused by contradictions, and not just patient expectation and tolerance. Shao's understanding is very specific, so his conclusions about the current crisis in the world and the prospect of future civilization are also very specific.
He believes that at present, it is impossible to talk about one family under the world, or one country under the world, and it is impossible to talk about it, or to be full of expectations, which is a dangerous luxury. The existence of such extravagant expectations, on the one hand, can make us not face reality, make our hearts eager to seek and be dazzled, and on the other hand, teach us to try to solve all kinds of problems and things that are different and contentious between people and us, and in fact it is just a matter of ignoring, ignoring, pretending to be understanding, so as to show leniency; how can the purity of the eyes be pure? This is the danger of all "utopian" ideas and the ideal of equal treatment.
At present, all kinds of differences and disputes, coupled with the background of science and technology, are explosive, and we have fully acknowledged this. But we should also admit that they are also controlled by human reason, and that proper control, the negative, can teach them not to be excessively sharp, and that they can contribute more than they can to the collective survival of mankind, as they have been, and will continue to be. Pretending to be an explanation of people and ignoring them, or by doing good things to bulldoze them and polish them out, is really useless and harmful.
Shaw acknowledges that the current polarity between the democratic politics of Britain and the United States and the communist politics of the Soviet Union is dangerous, but on the one hand neither side can automatically make a correction to reduce the sharpness of the confrontation, and on the other hand, outside the poles, we can not fail to promote the creation of a neutral belt, or to produce more poles, so that the whole world can form a multipolar rather than bipolar system. In Europe, Shaw believed that the situation in France was special, and it was possible to use the old traditions of Greek and Latin civilizations to sort them out and cultivate them, assume a leadership responsibility, and form a neutral pole. In Asia, China's ability to measure virtue is also unyielding.
Shaw's insight. Not only am I unpromising, but I fully agree.
In Chinese political thought, there are indeed very few philosophical and low-wandering parts, and the part of Taoism that has a face is only superficial, and the main thing is to seek reconciliation or compromise between many contradictions in reality, at least to achieve a state of balance in a short period of time, and this effort to seek is by no means forced, and half of it must be taken advantage of by the time.
In the meantime, there are artificial, there is reason, there is also nature, there is experience, it is obvious that it is a mixture of the philosophies of life of the two Families of Taoism and Confucianism, the part of artificial and rational is almost Confucian, and the part of nature and experience is almost Taoist.
Whether Shaw traced the source of this kind of political thought in his original speech, I don't know, but I added these few strokes, so that he would not think it was troublesome. The tit-for-tat confrontation between the Shao and Ka clans is more clearly seen here. Kass's support for organized religion, especially the Church of Rome, is particularly unrealistic at this point, and the almost reluctant way of suppressing certain aspects of contradiction, as Shaw calls it, or in the case of those who already have Christian relations in general, is also a path of near reluctance.
As for Shaw's self-promotion of China, although history can do him a favor, reality is not necessarily true, especially since the end of the War of Resistance Against Japan.
Over the past twenty years, the political situation in China has always been a polar contradiction, which has recently intensified; a number of efforts to establish a multipolar system cannot yet be said to have a few landings, and the fact is that a number of small poles that are sprouting are too large, because the original poles are too magnetic, and these poles are like iron filings, which are attracted and divided at every turn, becoming vassals of the two poles, and the result is nothing more than teaching contradictions to become sharper and sharper day by day, the hope of solution getting farther and farther away, and even some of the external admonitions are thrown in vain.
I didn't read it, let alone sympathize with me, although Shao's words were right, they were really bold, but since Shao said this bold thing, we also took the opportunity to examine it ourselves.
Professor Shao Xunzheng
Let's leave it alone and ask, "Where is civilization going?" And ask" where did China or Chinese civilization go?" "For the emergence of neutral belts and the establishment of multipolar systems, let's not ask about the large-scale world but about small-scale China."
If the small-scale ones first have some eyebrows, and then expand from near and far, it is not too late to try to achieve large-scale realization. This is not a basic part of China's realpolitik thinking, and the so-called proper procedure for repairing, qi, governing, and leveling is that the so-called multipolar system is the most meaningful, and I would like to take this opportunity to draw on the concern of friends who are keen on peaceful reunification and who are working hard to reopen peace talks to think about this, and this is not enough. There are many motivations for this review, and this is not one of the more important ones. [Less than a year after this has been said, the contradictory situation between the two poles is not only the enemy and the enemy, but also intensifies, and intensifies to a certain extent, so that there can be no other poles outside the two poles, and it is even more impossible for Shao to fulfill his words for the sake of national culture. ]
3
A professor from the host university, H.A. Hodges, also gave a lecture on Philosophy and Civilization. Huo's argument is pessimistic, arguing that philosophy's use of reason can no longer provide any basis in this world. How long the future of civilization, where reason is no longer useful, is a huge question for him. Starting from Greece, he believed that in the eyes of philosophers, only the conscious civilization of Greece was on the right track of civilization, and the Greek concept of civilization was correct and effective.
Greek civilization assumed that man was a rational animal and could only live in a group-ruled life of receptive control. Like a city-state, talent is enough to fulfill his personality and fulfill what he thinks is a rational animal mission. Man has a mission and a purpose. The same is true of the whole universe, so that man's intellect has a way of understanding.
By the seventeenth century, this basic view had risen again and progressed, the methods of observation and experimentation had become more extensive and sophisticated, and our understanding of the universe had entered a new realm. As a result, we have produced a movement and era of so-called enlightenment; teleology has finally replaced intuition and emotion as the master of thought and behavior; and self-control has become the core of the idea of freedom.
The change of circumstances was in the nineteenth century, and this change was extraordinary, and it finally became a fatal blow to the evolution of civilization. The sciences of the nineteenth century, including biological psychology, almost completely overturned teleology. Since then, civilization has become some blind movement, and the universe has become an accidental event. The highest values in evolutionary theory, the so-called survivors, rely on factors that seem to have nothing to do with "civilization."
Isn't the power, skill, and cooperation recognized by civilization, once analyzed, the naked violence of the strong and the weak and the tyrannical? Isn't it naturally cunning? Isn't that a sign of the instinct of partnership or gregariousness? Henceforth, man becomes an ordinary animal, not a rational animal. Inspired by science, philosophy more or less made the same view, so it deliberated and deliberated, pondered and pondered, and finally knocked itself to pieces, polished a essence, and almost did not exist. Such a civilization has no future at all, and as for where to go, why bother?
In two speeches by Catering and Hoggiers, the former affirmatively proposing the path to be followed by religion as a civilization, the latter denying any future at all, and the latter, though not mentioning religion, repeatedly speaks of teleology. Teleology or fetishism, and even doomsdayism, is also a fundamental belief in Christianity.
The two speeches, between affirmation and denial, are very different, and seem to have caused a lot of repercussions, but they are also worth recounting, especially the discussion of the French Catholic thinker Ronald Knox and the British Koblc and Balliol's Two Colleges, Donald MacKinnon.
Ronald Knox
Mai was probably a Protestant. Although these two speak for religion in the same way, they are in opposite directions and are completely wrong. Mai believes that religion is the law of the world, and should be coordinated with the whole civilization life, without the slightest reservation; Nords believes that religion is the law of birth, which has nothing to do with civilized life, not only is it irrelevant, but it is not incompatible, and it is necessary for civilization to have diseases and civilizations to decline, and religion can have the opportunity to develop.
In the Middle Ages, his words might not be surprising. Today, it has become an astonishingly wonderful theory, and it has a great effect on those who are keen on the progress of civilization and drinking.
He fundamentally denied civilization; what the religious seeks to open up is heaven, and what the reformers want to build is a "utopia"; the two are mutually exclusive; what the reformers and civilization seek is security and well-being; but human beings are born of sorrow, and happiness is dead, and civilization will decline because of happiness, and the current civilization is walking this dead road. Nords again cursed the omnipotence of the contemporary state; under the control of the state, man has completely lost his position of freedom and autonomy; he believes that "every man and man", artists, scientists, philosophers, and religious scholars, should unite to compete with the state, which is the number one enemy of the heavenly word, and after defeating this enemy first, it is not too late to settle their own accounts with each other.
The so-called own account probably refers specifically to the relationship between religious scholars and other scholars. Because the latter all belong to the world, they are all affirmative of civilization, and although they also have accounts with each other, their accounts are not large, while the former is born, and the account between civilizations is negative, but the account between birth and entry into the world is larger.
Knott's designated the country as the number one enemy, and we put ourselves in the shoes of the enemy. It is also easy to understand that in the past one or two hundred years, the state has been replaced by Shinto, the doctrine has been replaced by the law, and the ideal society has been replaced by the kingdom of heaven (said to have been slightly above, and see my book "Political Necessityism?"). ", see the book "Part II"). When the enemy meets, he is extremely clear-sighted, and it is no wonder that his evil is so deep and the pain is absolute. At this point, it can also be seen that the so-called "people and people" of the Noshi clan are very different from Han Changli.
Mai's words are in response to Ka's, and he also affirms the relationship between religion and civilization, that is, the future of civilization should depend on the future of religion, while Nords simply denies this, he is only concerned with the future of religion, for religion to have a future, there must be no future for civilization; he has abandoned civilization; civilization has declined, and chaos, and silence, in his opinion, this seminar at The University of Ruiting may be a waste of effort, and has no other role but to teach people like him to be secretly happy.
However, this is difficult for the people who teach Kashi all the way! I commented above on Kassy, thinking that he was too willing; now it seems that this comment is even more appropriate, and his willing "one" does not even include the Church of Rome itself, at least not the Church of Rome as well as that known to people like Nords; it is like a person who falls in love with an object, says many good prayers for the object, and ends up being kicked by the object.
I think that Professor Hodges' observation is generally correct, and whether it is necessary to be pessimistic because of this depends on one's mood. For Huo's sake, he could at least advocate a restoration of the Greek outlook on life, a restoration of teleology; this proposition may not work, it will not work, but he still has the freedom to advocate, and others have the freedom to respond to him. And this kind of person may not be too few, virtue is not lonely, there will be neighbors, then there is no use for their pessimism. How can another proposition, like Professor Ka's claim to the Church of Rome, necessarily work?
However, in Huo's words, there are two or three points that I think are worth correcting.
The overthrow of teleology did not begin in the nineteenth century, but in the seventeenth century, which Hoche highly admired; the philosophers, scientists, or sociophysicists of the time (all names of which can be used) such as Hobbes, Spinoza, Descartes, Leibnitz, etc., and a great success of some later psychological and social scientists, are nothing else. It just happens to be the abandonment of teleology.
Second, however, modern psychological science has not completely overthrown teleology; psychologists vary from one to the other, some denying and some acknowledging teleology, for example, the school represented by Professor Woodworth of Columbia University fully acknowledges the place of purpose in behavior.
Third, Huo shi said that philosophy has crushed itself and pondered so much that it is almost non-existent. That's enough to say. But the seriousness of the problem seems to be more than that. Science since the seventeenth century, especially under the inspiration of the quantitative analysis theory of Descartes and others, has either simply set aside the animal that created science, "man", and ignored it, or has used the same quantitative analysis method to deliberate on a smash, to figure out a essence, and what is the reason why man is human, what is the same thing, so far scientists are at a loss, and philosophers have neither sacrificed themselves nor obeyed others, nor have they understood at all.
In the field of great learning, the object of man has no status at all, man himself is almost gone, the skin does not exist, and Mao will be attached. The existence of philosophy is self-explanatory. The reason why man's way of dealing with himself is that he is dazed, but I do not read it, let alone the future of civilization, so what kind of future does it have? Civilization has no future and can be pessimistic, that is, the situation of riding a blind horse and approaching the depths of the night can be pessimistic, so isn't the existence and future of the blind more pessimistic?
The American critic Lewis Mumford also talked about a topic called "On the Nature of the Times We Live in, and on How We Should Act in Order to Achieve Adjustment Between Time and Space."
Meng Shi nodded his head and pointed to the topic and said: "The current work is impossible, but the times need us to try the impossible", which has the meaning of "knowing that it is impossible to do it". In his sentence, the first half of the sentence is a description of the current facts, and the second half is a call to work forward.
Although this call is intended to impress our moral sentiments, it is not outside the realm of reason. However, it is necessary to get the obedience of others. Meng had to reinterpret the function of reason.
He thinks that our intellect must recognize a new absolute, the common karma of mankind, and with this recognition we can use all our scattered ideals as an attached force to save the source of all higher life from exhaustion. We should know that the so-called civilization is originally a common thing, that is, common karma, the sum of many parts and their functions, and we must not allow any part to develop to the point of suicide and harm and totality.
Such a view of civilization is by no means a consensual structure, but rather rather down-to-earth. He denies the absoluteness of things like knowledge, efficiency, and even peace, and he does not speak of life, but he regards the whole content of life above all else.
Therefore, we must abandon the culture we know today, the civilization that currently exists, so that we each have a personality full of ambition and secretly worshipped. We should each strengthen what we think is our weakness, and what we think is our strength. Only in this way can civilization become a whole, and only the whole can live longer. Meng Put forward "coexistence" and "common karma" as the essence of civilization, and in particular affirmed the invigorating nature of civilization, and thus attacked the scattered parts of civilization that constituted civilization separately, so that it would no longer be absolutely self-proclaimed, so that it would no longer be self-serving or sacred and inviolable, which in the eyes of those attending the meeting at that time, was his place of non-violation of reality and non-contradiction with reason, and it can even be said that through his explanation, the rationality that philosophy often adheres to has made a new statement.
Meng's discussion and Huo's discussion above are really the same road, that is, they are still nostalgic for Greek civilization, the difference is that Huo's is broken, while Meng's is not broken.
Greek civilization can be illustrated by two basic principles, one is self-knowledge, and the other is to avoid overheating anything; these two principles are engraved on the shrine of the sun god Apro in the city of Delphi. The words of Huo and Meng both echo the civilization represented by these two principles.
Huo's particular echo is the first, so a statement that only Greek civilization is "conscious", and only conscious civilization is the right track of civilization, and then repeatedly emphasizes the status of teleology; when it comes to self-consciousness, of course, it is the consciousness of man, when it comes to purpose, of course, it is the purpose of man, which is the purpose set automatically by man; as for the self-control that once became the core of the concept of freedom, it is even clearer; in Chinese literature, the opening three or four sentences of the book "University" are most similar to this: "The way of the university, in Mingmingde, is in the new people." In the end of the supreme good", starting from MingMingde, and finally reaching the supreme good, that is, it begins with self-awareness and finally the purpose is achieved.
What Meng paid special attention to was the second; when he said that we do not allow any part of civilization to develop to the point of suicide and harm to the fullest, it is equivalent to saying that everything should not be overheated. Meng Shi did not fail to mention the purpose, that is, the so-called common karma of mankind as the absolute crane is not equal to the theory of the supreme goodness of the new people? Both the Meng and Huo clans are begging for spirits to greek civilization, they can not be regarded as novel, Huo Shi did not think that it was novel, Meng's topic and tone, and the reaction of the people present to him, are all with people with a novel feeling, in fact, it is nothing more than a repetition of the old tune. However, I speak as a commentator, and if the old tune is really interesting, it may as well be repeated, while the old tune of the Greek part is still worth repeating, because although the old and the new tune are not tired of playing.
4
The final speech was by an American Jewish writer, Pu Lanyi (now Polishi Karl Polanyi). In my draft review, the first thing I want to thank is Professor Shao Xunzheng, as mentioned above, and the second is this writer.
Polanyi published an introduction to the seminar in the commentary (September 1946 issue) published by the American Jewish Council. In this review, about the part of the "narrative", seventy-eight times out of ten have used it as a model.
The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time
The monthly magazine "Review" did not appear in the United States for a long time, and it was only published in the second volume in 1946, and its popularity in China was still limited, if it were not for Professor Shao's love, I would never have seen it for a while, and this manuscript would not have been able to write itself.
Pu believes that in order to guide civilization to a sound path, we must establish human freedom, and the biggest difficulty in the current establishment is the theory of economic destiny. So he also has a call, that is, the rejection of economic destiny. He pointed out that although human life depends on material goods, such dependence is not directly related to the motives of a production work and even a general effort.
The market economy of the nineteenth century had two characteristics, one was that the market included labor, but also land, that is, including man and nature. Thus the whole of society was considered part of the economic system, and there was no escape between heaven and earth. The second is that the motive for participating in productive work is so underestimated that it is mistaken for two aspects of the same psyche, namely, the fear of hunger and the hope of profit, so that this motive is obviously nakedly "economic".
In fact, in societies outside of Nineteenth-century Europe, such psychology was never used as the whole motive or stimulus of production, and in the present Europe, this market economy has quickly become a thing of the past.
The motive of production is a very complex thing, and people say that it has to do with rights, so why can't we say that it is related to obligations, the duties of citizens? How can production not be a social requirement, but indiscriminately after social relations have taken place between people? However, rather than saying that the whole society is embedded in the economic system, it is better to say that all economic life is embedded in the system of social relations, not so much that the economic system predates the social relations, but rather that the social relations predestinate the economic system; the statements "rather than" and "rather than ning", according to Pu's view, are still polite, and what we should say is that the economic predestination is a mistake, and the social predestination is almost true.
Although this fear is unfounded, it is best enough to prove that in the eyes of this generation, the general economic destiny still has its great power; I would like to ask, if the planned economy is launched by man, by society, and not by the economy, is not the same as worrying about the slave road?
While scorning the erroneous view of the market economy, Pu also admits that at least a large part of the freedom we cherish has not been a by-product of it. At the same time, the Pu clan also predetermined the freedom under the social destiny. He believed that future freedom must be planned in the planned economy, that is, part of the whole plan. In the future, this account of human rights must also be relaxed, and the field of industry must be included in order to protect individuals from bullying, oppression and arrogance by centralized governments or trade unions.
After such a predetermined place, Pu Believe believes that under the planned economy, we can ask for benevolence and benevolence for the quality of freedom, and have no regrets. In short, apart from the market economy, what really has the power of destiny is by no means the economy, but some ideals of mankind.
There is a point in Pu's insight that can echo Meng's.
Meng argued that any part of civilization should not be overdeveloped, should not become an absolute thing, should not be regarded as sacrosanct, and Pu clearly had the same view of the economic predestination since the nineteenth century, and therefore believed that it must be rejected. As for the reason why it must be rejected, in the Meng clan it is so that the common karma of civilization can be achieved, and in the Pu clan, it is left more for the development of freedom, although on the surface, although it is a little different, in fact, it can be compared.
Isn't the social theory of the Pu planned economy also a common one? Pu's denial of economic predestination is something that many people must agree with, but the substitution he proposes seems to be a predestination of social relations, and I think there are also many people who think it is impossible.
Although materialism has lost all monopolies, isn't socialism the same as the danger of enveloping and erasing, and replacing economicism with socialism is not violent?
For the crux of the matter is not what is the only thing, but the attitude and style represented by the word, or the intellectual paralysis, the emotional blindness, and the paralysis of behavior evoked by the two words.
We must not forget that predestination and predestination or fatalism, although on the surface the former is scientific, while the latter comes from religion or other traditional beliefs, are in fact a hill of raccoons, even if there is a distance, there is no room for error.
The so-called historical inevitability, the environment is omnipotent, the trend must be conformed to, and the spirit of the times encompasses everything... The tone of one type of argument is all predestination in disguise. What is different from the previous generation is that the predestination of the previous generation was unified or monistic, one in the mandate of heaven and one in God, while in modern times it is pluralistic, and the objects belonging to nature and even man-made things are also pluralistic [this seems to be contradictory to the above theory of the "multipolar system". In fact, it is not the case that ideas, policies, plans, etc. that do not move the liver fire are not harmful to pluralism, and they should be pluralistic, and they cannot be pluralistic in facts; psychological activities such as faith are easy to impress the liver fire, but if they are only individuals who are free to obey, non-social, and unorganized, their potential must also be pluralistic, and pluralism is not hindered. As soon as the beliefs are socialized and even politicized (all beliefs necessarily include a predestination or predestination, but not a theory), the problem arises. Monistic belief can teach freedom to be completely suffocated, and in a situation of pluralistic beliefs, freedom can only breathe temporarily in the cracks. I say for the time being, because in this situation any one of the pluralists always wants to exclude the others, and it creates a new situation of unity, and sooner or later the freedom to breathe is finally suffocated. Religion in the Middle Ages of the West played such a set. The greatest merit of the Renaissance and the religious revolution was the emancipation of the people from this set, and the basic principle of this emancipation work is the individualization of faith; the so-called freedom of belief, the personal gospel, the interpretation of the scriptures according to conscience, and so on all belong to this principle. In short, the problem is not pluralism itself, but in the pluralistic background, each has its own strong ego, a strong sentiment, and an unbreakable psychology of self-sufficiency, and the attacks and seizures that take place on the scene because of it, and will not stop until the situation of single monopoly is won, see the seventeenth, eighteenth and twenty-second chapters of the following chapters of this book. ], just because it is excessively inconsistent with one, so that the excessive is its own, the shackles of life remain, the suffocation of freedom is as old, and civilization is more of a wandering and misguided situation that is exhausted at dusk.
Speaking of which, we cannot but express a few points of sympathy for the positive religious theories of the Upper Wenka and Mai, and even for the negative religious theories of Nords, on the one hand, despite their criticism. In short, no predestination seems to be able to solve the problem of the future of civilization, neither can the economy, nor can the society, nor can the predestination of the ideal of mankind, which Pu suddenly mentioned at the end. "Where is civilization going?" Although we cannot say what the answer is, many of the claims that appear in the posture of the answer are relatively easy for us to assert that they are not. Predestination, any way of predestination, is an example.
The whole seminar at Ruiting University has no general conclusions on the question of the future of civilization, and the same is true of one of Pu's introductions, and our commentary cannot be "summed up above". If there is a conclusion, it is not equivalent to having an answer, which is not allowed by the current facts and the extent to which thinking has reached. However, the questions have been solemnly raised, some have been pondered, and the weight of the information has increased a lot more than before the question was raised - this is the contribution that this type of seminar can do. My comments, if on the whole, are considerate and fair, they will not be in vain.