Wang Meng: My philosophy of life

I didn't have a good school education, and I had a limited number of books. Sometimes, those who do not give up and are considered to have some ideas and opinions, and do not follow the trend, first of all, benefit from the enlightenment of life practice and the perception of being eager to learn and inquire.

That is to say, I acknowledge the basic proposition that "practice produces true knowledge", and at the same time do not deny the exceptions and variations beyond the basics.

It's going to be my 60th birthday soon, so what can I tell my readers based on my experience?

First, don't believe in simplification.

I say one thing everywhere: anyone who makes complex problems clear and clear about shallots and tofu is not credible; Anyone who says that solving complex problems is like digging into a bag, easy as a finger, is not credible; Anyone who says that troublesome things are the fault of one thought, that it is the fault of one person, and thinks that if he changes this thought or that everything will be fine if he gets rid of this person, he cannot be trusted.

The main contradiction is solved, and the secondary contradiction is solved - to be honest, I have never encountered such a cheap thing in my life. The majority, the vast majority, is that the main contradiction has been resolved, and the secondary contradiction has become more prominent, intensified, and more troublesome.

So although I praise acupuncture, I don't believe in acupuncture points and mantras.

I know there is no one-size-fits-all cure, so I don't get angry or turn against me when a medicine fails. I often don't have any expectations, so I'm rarely too pessimistic and hopeless.

Second, don't believe in extremism and arbitrariness.

There are absolutely no two colors in the world, two colors, two virtues, good and evil, two forces of friend and foe, two kinds of right and wrong, and no two classes.

It is necessary to be good at facing and grasping a large number of intermediate states, transitional states, disordered states and contradictory states, controllable states, plastic states, and so on.

The things in the world are definitely not the one who destroys the other party, and the world is peaceful and bright. At every turn, they build themselves as the right and righteous party, detain the other party as a wrong or even hostile party, and try to criticize and scold the other party at every turn-whether it is the A batch B that depends on the situation or the B batch A who is in the tide, they all have the taste of deception and self-peddling speculators and pediatric naivety. Learn to confront the real world, not just "confront" a concise wall chart that has been filtered and redrawn by a certain intention or theory.

On a large number of issues where there is no absolute certainty, the middle way option is desirable and can stand the test.

Third, don't be intimidated by big words, don't be intimidated by nonsense, don't be intimidated by banners.

Most of the people who have become invincible because of the invention of a sentence have a lot of water. I don't know how many loopholes and false accusations there are under the big and unwarranted judgments.

More than enough is too much. Words that are too great or too humble, too clever or too stupid, too peculiar or too archaic, are all questionable.

Don't get caught up in the battle between labels and flags, and don't think that you can make value judgments by wearing a hat by a category. Don't think that the world is in order with one class and one judgment – most of the time it's the opposite, and it's even more distorted.

Those who wear laurels can also be shit, and those who buckle the shit basin may also be wronged, this is one. The laurel Yunyun may not be valuable in itself, and the basin Yunyun may not be ashamed in itself, this is two. There may be different states and even properties under the same genus or concept, which are three. Your taxonomy itself has not been proven, and your taxonomy is extremely low IQ and therefore not reliable, which is four.

Be good at using concepts rather than being dominated by what they use.

Generally speaking, in the absence of sufficient basis, between common sense and rhetoric, I choose the former. But I am by no means flippant in rejecting a staggering assoction. I'm willing to take the latter and wait and see.

Fourth, don't engage in exclusivity, and don't turn your eyes on heretics who are different from you.

Especially in the matter of literature and art, and on many other issues, it is better to believe that others and oneself are in the process of being blind and trying to figure out the elephant, and that people have their own reasons and opinions. There is nothing more profound, more pervasive, and more instructive than the parable of the blind man touching the elephant.

Therefore, for many years, I have insisted on a saying: it is okay to be the same party, and be cautious or not to disagree. It is better to have the same party and the same party. You can sell melons and boast about yourself, don't want Wang Mazi scissors to have no semicolon. Advocate diversity and complementarity, and don't engage in life and death at every turn.

I am committed to advocating and nurturing constructive academic character. In most cases, I advocate that the word should be the first thing to be broken, and only when the right thing is established can it be broken, and it is equivalent to breaking or discarding the fallacy. Facts have proven that simple destruction without immediate construction often leads to anomie, chaos, and degeneration, and this vacuum is worse than before it was broken.

Fifth, so I advocate understanding, believing that understanding is higher than love.

Even when criticizing fallacies, we must first understand the other party, know how he stumbled, how one-sided and inflated, and how his partial rationality and even the brilliance and overall absurdity are expressed and "combined". Rather than simply treating each other as demons. No one has the right to look at the opposite side as demons, ghosts, snakes, and gods at every turn.

I advocate seeing something that I have not seen or cannot figure out first, first trying to understand it, appreciate it, and then criticize it and correct it. I don't approve of the bad habit of denouncing something you don't understand, convicting you first and then finding a reason. What you don't understand is not necessarily bad, and the wise way to do something you don't understand is to look at it and study it, and if it doesn't work, hang it up first.

The so-called understanding is the meaning of clarifying the truth, and it is the most fundamental principle to first clarify the truth and then make value judgments. Making value judgments before asking for the truth, or even never asking the truth: this is the distinguishing mark of a wise idiot.

Anyone who tries to judge the truth and morality, and the savior, everyone is turbid, I am alone, everyone is drunk, I am sober, don't believe him casually.

That's why I advocate Fei Epporai, and I don't believe that Lu Xun's original intention was to make people fight endlessly and brutally.

Therefore, I am in favor of not engaging in pointless arguments, and I often have an attitude of not being moved and angry, waiting for changes, not believing in evil, comparing words and deeds, and comparing and analyzing.

So I often doubt the self-made claim that I have discovered the ultimate truth.

Sixth, I admit exceptions, but pay more attention to normality, I dream of certain moments, but pay more attention to regularity, and I do not believe in using exceptions and moments to negate normality and general hypocrisy. No matter what kind of rhetoric this hypocrisy takes.

So I forgive, and often sympathize, with the mundane, that moderate tolerance is necessary.

I like to be pragmatic towards people, I prefer to assume that people have shortcomings, most of them are mediocre, mediocrity is not a sin, popularity is not a sin, and there is no need to be jealous and hateful for people who have problems. Self-interest is not a sin, but you can't harm others, harm others and harm the country, you only know how to seek personal gain, I hate it.

When it comes to academic discussions, I think there will inevitably be a lot of superficial rumors, biased rumors, bad rumors, and "" in the contention of a hundred schools of thought. I have also said many times that three or two of the "100 schools" have profound and true expositions, and it is not bad. If you think that this "withdrawal rate" is too small, and thus abolish the controversy, you may be farther from the truth than closer. Don't choke on food.

Of course, I admit the special and the exceptional, but I cannot agree with the use of the special case to negate the general law. For example, when we talk about love, we emphasize that we can't love tuberculosis bacteria, and when we emphasize business, we argue that a certain martyr is not great because of good business, etc., these are all boring sophistry. We should pay attention to the exceptional, but we should also focus on the general, on the group, on the state of the normal situation. Tolerance, of course, refers to the normalcy, not to the moment of fighting with the enemy with a bayonet. I deeply regret that I have to talk about this nonsense.

Seventh, in terms of academic pursuit, I attach importance to the study of languages, foreign languages, philosophy, logic, and general knowledge of mathematical sciences. I like to read books and newspapers, I like to think, I often compare, I am willing to discuss, I do not disagree, I do not disagree, I believe that many truths must be tested by practice. Believe that the tree of life is evergreen. I believe that truth, goodness, and beauty have many similarities and complementarities with each other.

I'm interested in things in the world that are so different on the surface and so close in reality, and that they are all the same in fact and so different from each other. Seeing this, it's an interesting discovery.

I especially want to be able to develop my most different and relevant knowledge and skills, or at least to be appreciated. For example, intuitive poetry and the theory of logic. Examples include local opera and symphony, as well as rock music. Every day, I am vigilant and break through my own eyes, and I am still not completely free from the shadow of this disease.

Eighth, I attach importance to conclusions as well as to methodology. If you take a look at his methods, you can see whether he is biased against biased, violent for violent, and selfish for private. I often find that the two sides of a fierce conflict use the same method of having me without you, the method of erasing the facts, the method of commenting on me in the Six Classics, the method of reaching a conclusion first and then eloquently, and even the method of bragging and pretending to scare people.

I have benefited a lot from dialectics, including the dialectics of Lao Zhuang, the dialectics of Hegel, and the dialectics of the revolutionary teacher; I have benefited from the enlightenment of the dialectic of life itself. So I despise that kind of mile-to-mouth and mouth-to-mouth, clinging to the incomplete, playing ugly and ugly, self-sufficient cycle, only knowing one and not knowing the second and third.

Ninth, in terms of life attitude, I like Lesheng and like to be interested in all kinds of new and old things.

I believe that a variety of interests and pleasures are not only good for health, but also good for learning, work, and even public and private affairs. At the very least, it is conducive to touching the bypass, to developing imagination so that it can make better choices, to draw inferences from one another, to discuss calmly, to know oneself and the other, to carefully observe, to embrace all rivers, and to eliminate ignorance and prejudice.

What I hate and despise the most is being angry, drilling into the horns of the bull, attacking one point, rectifying oneself, being the same, drawing the ground as a prison, and forming a small circle to claim the king's hegemony.

Tenth, on the issue of the mission of intellectuals, I advocate that everyone do his or her own thing. Only by doing our own things well can we achieve real development of the country, and only with real development can we have everything. Without tangible development, only hastily introduced concepts, it will not work. If there are certain chronic diseases in our country, then it is like a person, everyone goes to treat him and fights for the problem of medical treatment, and that person must die. It is also not permissible for everyone to avoid medical treatment, or vice versa. The correct method can only be to seek truth from facts, proceed step by step, pay attention to accumulation, and pay attention to construction.

There is also a question of normality and abnormality. In extraordinary times, people will throw away their own business, workers, peasants, soldiers, and businessmen, and everyone will come to the rescue. Just as a person should eat three meals a day, this is the norm, and in an unnormal situation, maybe not eat a meal for three days. Will the revolution make people live more normal lives, or will everyone live an abnormal life? This was not meant to be an esoteric question.

Eleventh, in terms of "being a man", I have made up the following maxim for myself:

The Great Dao is not skilled: It is necessary to conform naturally to the Great Dao. And I don't care about some technology, power tricks, small fights, small gains and small losses.

Great virtue is nameless: true virtue, really doing good deeds with weight, should not and cannot be in the limelight.

Great wisdom and no strategy: learn great wisdom, be a great wise person, and act in harmony, without having to work hard to engage in all kinds of strategies - if you don't get it right, it is a habit of conspiracy and trickery.

Courage is not meritorious: The merit of courage is everywhere, it is impossible to highlight itself, there is nothing to show off, it is not to be publicized, and there is no merit to show and brag.

(All of the above generally does not apply to my literary aesthetic.) In my opinion, literature and art are the supplement and counterpoint of human practical and academic activities, and it is precisely literary and artistic activities that require whimsy, rhapsody, abnormality, mystery, subconscious, endless exploration and breakthrough, and so on. Thinking that you can rely on junior high school philosophy textbooks to point fingers at literature and art, it is really naïve and wishful thinking. ）

Based on the above points, I would like to talk about a few principles that I have practiced but have not consciously realized over the years:

1. The middle way or the principle of neutralization. Recognize the complexity and diversity of the world. Recognize the contradictions and dialectics of the world. Recognize the relativity of each specific understanding. Recognize that the changes in history are made up of the resultant force, and that the direction of the resultant force is along the diagonal line of the parallelogram, the middle way. I have always tried to find the convergence of different contradictions. I believe that peace is precious under normal circumstances.

2. The principle of normalcy or common sense (not to deny perversion and abnormality, but to use the concept of normalcy to tolerate abnormality and perversion. The so-called heterogeneity and metamorphosis are mutations of the normal that come from the normal and return to the normal. It is a swinging oscillation of normality, and finally a form of normality).

Therefore, I agree with the nature of culture, the nature of humanity, the worldliness of human beings, and the rationality of developing production to improve life and seek benefits and avoid disadvantages. Agree with the principle of the best interests of the greatest number. Recognize the rationality of the life and political efforts of the state, the nation, and society (including the international community). And take a cautious attitude towards all kinds of high-profile arguments.

3. The principle of health. What is healthy and what is not?

Rational principles are healthy. Angry, bragged, babbling, wishful thinking is unhealthy and pathological.

It is healthy to be kind, to be kind to others, to be upright, and to be broad-minded. Vicious, dog-bellied, evil, and ruthless, it is pathological to fight bravely at every turn.

The principle of optimism. In the face of all troubles, it is healthy to have no illusions, but still maintain an optimistic attitude towards people, history, and human civilization. It is pathological to threaten to hang yourself on a telephone pole at every turn.

The health principle is a self-serving and happy principle, but it is also a moral principle. I agree with the summary of "gentlemen are frank, villains are often relatives". The higher the level of morality and wisdom, the more we can do things that are beneficial to our own and others' physical and mental health, rather than doing things that harm others and hurt others.

The principle of health is also the principle of wisdom. Wise people tend to be healthier in dealing with problems. There are countless examples.

These principles are inseparable from each other and condition each other. For example, goodwill refers to normality, and the middle way is mostly healthy.

These principles are too ordinary, too weak, too normal. There's nothing surprising about it. In a world of swords, deceit, hardship, and resentment, my principles are too cowardly. But I firmly believe that people need these common-sense principles. Hope lies in these principles, not in the other way around.

And all that. In fact, I am more focused on experience, on the enlightenment of life, on the relativity of things, and on the normal common sense of things. I don't really have any inventions, and I don't like to perform dark horses. On the other hand, I have quite weaknesses and omissions in terms of the rigor of my studies, the rigor of the system, the breadth of the references, the toughness of the decisions I make to kill, and the accuracy of my nouns and arguments. Some of my opinions are not so much academic, but common sense in life. Acknowledging life and common sense, we gain a basis for discussion and communication.

(Writer's Life Notes Series - My Philosophy of Life, China Youth Publishing House, January 2000)