--Write only the highest quality Jepp content
preface:
As a,
When looking at anything, a rational and basic academic accomplishment, "people" must not be viewed from a subjective, arbitrary, and blind general perspective.
Instead, it must be based on a field in which it has studied itself, and in that field anything encountered is examined from the perspective of a logical argument. Otherwise, you have no basic qualifications to evaluate this thing, and you can only follow the public to blindly write something that you don't know or be misled.
Of course, for Li Zifeng's papers, it is now more of a social topic, and it is not a real academic inquiry, because the real academic inquiry is by no means evaluated by most people who have not studied deeply, and I am focused on the all-round study of "philosophy" and have no intention of commenting on social hotspots.
However, based on Li Zifeng's exposition of a wrong philosophical view, and it is arbitrary and blind to refute Einstein's theory of relativity with dialectical materialist philosophical view, which undoubtedly has a very bad impact on the true connotation of "philosophy", then as the initiator of China's new philosophy, this has to be issued to distinguish the difference between Li Zifeng's so-called "philosophy" and philosophy in the true sense, otherwise the Chinese people will inevitably go farther and farther on the road of wrongly understanding "philosophy".
You know,
Li Zifeng's philosophical underlying logic is materialist and dialectical logic, and once these two cornerstones are denied, his entire thesis will inevitably lose its foundation and will inevitably collapse.
But while criticizing Li Zifeng's paper, we must first understand what value his paper has, what huge logical loopholes there are, and what exactly it is discussing, what its underlying logic is, and why the underlying logic cannot correspond to today's ultra-large amount of information in modern science.
From this, we can truly understand the causes and consequences, values and omissions of Li Zifeng's papers, which is also a more rigorous academic discussion, and there is a basic basis for the reader to judge, rather than blind opposition or approval.
-One-
Why is Li Zifeng's paper praiseworthy from a certain point of view?
1. It disproves the birth defects of materialism and dialectical logic
It should be known that the philosophy of materialism and dialectical logic is an important ideological system occupied by domestic philosophical research, and now Li Zifeng will take this ideological system representing mainstream philosophy to refute Einstein's theory of relativity and has been wildly resisted by various articles of the Chinese people.
It can be seen that the mainstream underlying ideas of materialism and dialectical logic are not suitable for any doctrine.
This also expresses that what we need is a "new philosophical view" in a more modern sense to deal with the more complex and severe society and world of the present, because Li Zifeng's paper has made the mainstream underlying logic philosophy the target of public criticism.
2. Examine physics with philosophy
Li Zifeng is right to believe that physics originates from philosophy and that physics should not conflict with philosophy.
Today physics has reached a point where it is almost impossible to falsify, but in terms of research, is physics no longer developing?
So Li Zifeng proposed Newton's materialistic view to refute modern physics that is almost impossible to falsify, and this idea is undoubtedly declining to some extent.
But this also expresses that science has come to an end, it is necessary to need philosophy to re-examine science, this use of philosophy to examine physics, science is correct, because science itself is the concrete presentation of philosophy in the phenomenal world, and in recent centuries human beings have completely focused on science, and ignored philosophy, so that human beings are facing more and more difficulties today, then it is necessary to need a new philosophy to deal with today's complex world.
So, although Li Zifeng's paper has huge flaws.
But he is the representative of today's blatant reflection on science in China, which is also the first time that science and philosophy have been linked in China, although Li Zifeng's way is extremely wrong, but the thought is obviously right. Because science must need philosophy to re-examine, without philosophical scrutiny, science will be like a demon head, constantly developing bigger and bigger demons from small demons.
From this, this also tells us that philosophy is closely related to science, and that science needs a correct path, which is what philosophy provides, but Li Zifeng's erroneous underlying philosophical logic also tells us that we urgently need a new philosophical view to re-examine science on a larger scale.
From this point of view, Li Zifeng's thoughts are undoubtedly worth it to some extent, but unfortunately, there is too much of a problem with the underlying logic of his philosophy.
3. Li Zifeng's thoughts express that the Chinese people no longer fully believe in radical scientific inquiry
Although there are serious flaws in the bottom layer of Li Zifeng's philosophy, his doctrine expresses the reflection on modern science, that is, modern science is more and more detached from reality and divorced from reality, and human beings continue to blindly pursue the pursuit of God particles and what Lyra plan as Li Zifeng said.
Therefore, the value of Li Zifeng's paper is somewhat valuable.
At least in advising the Chinese people not to pursue those God particles and Lyra plans more extremely, because the result can only be a waste of earth resources, so to this extent, Li Zifeng's paper is not useless.
However, this does not mean that Li Zifeng is right, I just remind the reader that what I call modern science is becoming more and more detached from reality, which means that human beings should focus on maintaining the stability and survival of all mankind, rather than extreme and crazy pursuit of modern science that is almost impossible to achieve.
Because today's global warming, ecological destruction, new crown, intensified international competition, species extinction, etc., there are too many things that need to be chosen by human beings to do, and bidding farewell to the things that consume a lot of earth resources and cannot solve the current problems naturally require us to pay less attention.
Therefore, from this point of view, Li Zifeng's paper can be said to be admonishing the Chinese people to slow down this radical process, which is the only place worthy of praise in Li Zifeng's paper, at least he calls on the Chinese people to stop following the radical Western science fanatics, and must have their own judgment.
Through this matter, it also reflects the so-called mainstream philosophy status quo in China that dare not innovate and can only be conservative. All mainstream philosophies are actually more in the continuation or direct follow of the previous philosophical tradition, the scientific tradition, because it is difficult to make mistakes in doing so, and if there is a difference, it is easy to shirk their responsibility, so there is extremely little investigation and discussion of the new scientific view and the new philosophical view, because new things are also prone to error, and they have to be conservative and ignore everything else in order to protect their own rights and interests.
The new philosophical and scientific views can only be talked about in the folk, that is, the so-called folk philosophy and folk science, and then they are excluded by all kinds of unjustified and hat-wearing.
(Although many folk philosophies and folk sciences are indeed a waste of time and not worth exploring, not all folk philosophies are not worth exploring and discussing, which requires attention.) ）
-2-
Why does Li Zifeng's paper need to be more derogatory?
Why should Li Zifeng belittled?
Because his erroneous philosophical ideas have seriously deepened the misunderstanding of philosophy among the Chinese people, because he has taken a pragmatic dialectical materialist philosophy to refute Einstein's theory of relativity, this must seriously affect the Chinese people's understanding of true philosophy. This is not to say that Einstein's theory of relativity cannot be refuted, but this refutation tool can only make people laugh.
This must be strongly refuted!
Because, if one who has explored Western philosophy too deeply will not use an ancient materialism and dialectical logic to refute the ultimate product of the development of human science, this is simply ignorance of the deep connotation of philosophy, and if it flows into the West, it will be ridiculed by Westerners.
This statement is by no means subjective, consider the following argument.
1. Wrong definition of "matter"
In Li Zifeng's paper, he first defined "matter", but the substance he defined was actually air, water, earth, light, electromagnetic waves, and so on. This is obviously to say that "matter" is an object in human perceptual intuition on the one hand, and on the other hand, it is a physical phenomenon, and then "matter" is defined by the synthesis of the two. Obviously, this definition is hugely problematic from the start.
You know, if we cut anything longitudinally, we can see the following segmentation sequence:
Organisms (such as DNA, RNA, amino acids, and from single-celled organisms to humans) → molecules (from inorganic to organic, from low molecules to polymers or macromolecules) → atoms (starting with hydrogen atoms to gradually derive 92 natural elements) → subatomic particles and nucleons (such as quarks, electrons, photons to protons, neutrons, etc.) → "basic" particles (seemingly endless "uninformed") → starting "singularity" (or the initial basal particles of the singularity Big Bang).
Thus, we can see that atoms, molecules, living things, and even human beings are nothing more than primordial particles such as some elementary particles or quantum hermit shells or temporary depositary forms, and then gradually evolve into natural things that are expanding with "function", "vitality" and their "structural forms".
To put it simply, all things are made up of the same primordial constituent unit or primordial particle, but what you are talking about and what you are touching is not at all the primordial particle of pure "materialism", because logically you can divide infinitely with the advancement of technology, so you cannot touch the elementary particle of pure "materialism" at all.
And the point is, even if you find that particle, how did humans evolve from singularity to humans? How did the human spirit and society come about?
This so-called "thing" cannot be investigated scientifically at all!
But Li Zifeng actually directly regards the phenomena of physics and the objects in the perceptual intuition as "matter", obviously there is no use in studying philosophy, Li Zifeng directly takes this wrong starting point as the starting point of his paper, which can be seen that it is wrong at the beginning, and even if it is used to complex scientific phenomena later, it cannot make up for the error of this logical starting point.
2. Materialism does not hold
The non-establishment of materialism lies in the fact that in the past materialism only focused on the material prescriptivity of the "object", but ignored that the subject itself is also an object existence, that is to say, any subject itself must also have material prescriptiveness and corresponding perceptual prescriptiveness, and the obtained "objects" are selected and distorted.
Therefore, whether it is intuitive perceptual things or rational logical things, they refer to the existence of attributes, not to objective existence or "things" themselves, and the objective existence or "things" of "external things" themselves cannot be touched in any way.
Moreover, it is precisely because of the objective prescriptiveness of the subject itself that "materialism" cannot "materialistically reflect" the pure materiality of the object carrier (that is, the object), so that idealism can be established to some extent.
3. Arbitrary opposition to idealism
Li Zifeng arbitrarily opposes idealism, but does not know that idealism effectively proves that our perception is not the same as external objects, and any object is distorted by our perception. Any subject recognizes only the perceptual properties of the object.
For example, humans can only recognize light waves of 400-700 nanometers and distort them into different colors, but outside this band is shielded by people's eyes, and then humans only have to obtain corresponding information through the prescribed five senses, such as sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, etc. To receive external information, in addition to which we do not have any other channels to reach foreign objects.
Therefore, the human spiritual and perceptual channel is not a vacuum channel, but a prescriptive one!
From this we know that idealism is a more advanced discussion and pursuit than materialism in the process of questioning the existence of nature and the object of objective things.
In ancient Greece, natural philosophers, including Li Zifeng's materialism, did not think or realize that there was actually a problem of "mind" in addition to "things". That is to say, they do not realize that their own perception is prescribed, nor do they know that the "perceptual intuitive existence" and "rational existence" of inquiry are attribute existence, not objective existence.
And it was not until the classical philosopher Descartes began to realize that the questioning of existence, of the "object", is itself directly related to the pursuit of the spirit, that is, perception is not a vacuum but a prescriptive one.
Thus, beginning with Descartes, materialism and idealism are completely separated, that is, material entities and mental entities.
So, if we're going to explore existence
First of all, we need to ask and discuss perception, and only after exploring perception can we have the right to discuss external objects, that is, if we do not know what perception is, and we have not deeply examined what perception is, we are not qualified to question the object, because without discussing the prescriptiveness of perception itself, you cannot judge whether the object you are talking about is an objective object or your subjective object.
From this, we know that the epistemological inquiry of idealism is a question that needs to be asked after the inevitable succession of the problem of materialistic objects of knowledge, that is to say, the epistemological problem and the idealistic problem are the advanced questions that materialism must derive, or the depth of the problem.
So when philosophy begins to question what perception itself is, when philosophy begins to torture thought with thought, philosophy enters the second stage of depth, the stage of "reflective" spiritual philosophy.
note:
Although Li Zifeng is refuted here with the non-establishment of materialism and the establishment of idealism to some extent, this does not mean that I am idealistic, because materialism also has a reason for its establishment, and idealism also has a reason for its non-existence. So I am neither materialist nor idealistic, but still less agnostic. As for why you can consult the previous post.
4. Li Zifeng's philosophical view stayed at most in the Descartes and Locke stages
Li Zifeng said that traditional philosophy believes that consciousness is the reflection of the material world in people's minds, which shows that Li Zifeng's philosophical starting point is around this.
But remember, Descartes separated the material entity from the spiritual entity to some extent, Locke thought that the spirit was a blank slate, Berkeley proposed that existence is perceived, and Kant separated the material entity and the spiritual entity to the extent of rigorous argumentation.
Therefore, it can be seen that Li Zifeng's philosophical thought originated at most in Locke, which is a reproduction of Locke's materialist reflection theory, and as for Kant, who is the peak of the entire classical philosophy, and his transcendental philosophy, it is almost ignored by Li Zifeng, and it can even be said that it is completely unclear.
The inability to fully understand the philosophies of Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant is bound to fall into a narrow angle of denying either materialism or idealism.
Therefore, it can be said that Li Zifeng cannot even distinguish what is a material entity (an objective existence that cannot be touched) and what is a spiritual entity (the rectification of the perceptual attribute on the sensible attribute of the perceptual attribute), and Li Zifeng can be said to directly put the rectification of the "attribute" on the understanding of the objective existence of "materialism", and the bottom of his philosophy is still a little more on the thoughts of Descartes and Locke, which has materialism to negate Einstein's theory of relativity.
Why? Because Li Zifeng believes that consciousness is the reflection of matter in the animal's body, how different is this statement from consciousness as a reflection of matter in the human brain? There is almost no difference.
This shows how important it is to explore the bottom layer of philosophy!
5, Li Zifeng is too self-congratulatory
When seeing Li Zifeng's references, it can be said that the mood is complicated, and there are even people who use their own books or articles as references for their new views, which is equivalent to setting rules with themselves, and actually completely disregarding the achievements and achievements of the great philosophers and scientists in the past.
So to say that this paper is completely self-deprecating is not an attack.
You know, the establishment of any doctrine and any idea must conform to the three logical aspects:
One is that its own logical system is self-consistent (here we will think that Li Zifeng's theory is self-consistent, but it is by no means a very rigorous logical argument, and the definition of terms is extremely frivolous), and the other is that any logical model must be consistent with the observed phenomenon, for which Li Zifeng's paper may never be able to do it.
The second is that he reconciles with the continuation of the third, that is, the establishment of your doctrine must be directly related to other doctrines, and can accept new information, rather than complete self-congratulation, which is obviously impossible for Li Zifeng to do, and it is enough to see from his references.
6, Li Zifeng only stays at the intuitive and experimental level
Li Zifeng blindly opposes idealism and creationism, but he does not mention the genesis sources of man, human spirit, and human society at all, but only blindly emphasizes adhering to "materialism", then this must show that he does not have a grand cosmology and world view.
Therefore, Li Zifeng's philosophical view is only a generalized philosophy under the traditional thinking of the most primitive simple dialectical materialism, and even the narrow philosophy cannot be reached, because he only purely believes that seeing is believing, believing in experimental proof, and as for the seeing and experimentation, it must be completely refuted.
This limited understanding of the world, of course, needs to be criticized.
It refutes the "materialistic" aspect of Li Zifeng's argument.
Next, we will look at the rebuttal of Li Zifeng's Marxist philosophical view, because only by refuting this underlying logic, we will have a clearer understanding of what is the underlying logic of Li Zifeng's thoughts. How he came to this erroneous conclusion.
-Three-
Li Zifeng's narrow Marxist philosophical view
About Marx's philosophy
As a reader, it should be understood that Marxist philosophy is called dialectical materialism or historical materialism, and its deep meaning is not like the philosophical connotations of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and Kant.
Anyone who has studied Marx should know that the center of Marx's research is "political economy", a science that studies the "social and political structure" from an economic point of view, and even Marx called it "political arithmetic", which is the core part of Marxism.
At the same time, it should be known that Marx's discourse on philosophy has only one doctoral dissertation, "Study of the Ancient Greek Philosopher Epicurus", and there are no other philosophical monographs, all of which are written in the practical sense of the discipline.
But it should be known that true philosophy does not focus on learning in the practical sense, but on the pursuit of ontological "existence", in the investigation of cognition (spiritual existence or spiritual phenomena), in the understanding of the world, the understanding of the world, and the mobilization of intelligent reserves.
Therefore, Marx can only be said to be an applier of "philosophy", an engineer, not a philosopher in the true sense. Moreover, Marx's philosophy did not follow the mainstream of Western philosophy and the depth of the basic problems of Western philosophy, because real philosophers care about knowing the world and understanding the world, and transformation is done by engineers, not philosophers in the true sense.
Moreover, it should be known that the core of Marx is dialectical logic, and the bottom of Li Zifeng's philosophy must also be dialectical logic, and if we make a deep criticism of dialectical logic, Li Zifeng's philosophical view will naturally be completely impossible to stand.
-Wanton-
Criticize Li Zifeng's low-end dialectical logic
1. What is dialectical logic?
The so-called dialectical logic, that is, dialectics. The logical model constructed by dialectical logic is the simplest model of thought constructed by human beings in concept, rather than just making unthinking judgments on physical objects.
The simplest example of dialectical logic is:
For example, the opposite of A is set to B, and then AB transforms into each other to achieve the most basic cognition or determination of human beings about the world, time, and space.
For another example, the early yin and yang theory of the I Ching, in the eyes of human beings at that time, everything was either yin or yang, and then the transformation of yin and yang constituted an early rough world view, so the essence of "dialectical logic" is a typical relativist subjective construction model, which is a logical form of simply using qualitative binary division to understand the world, to know objects, and to know time and space, it is only to stay on qualitative binary opposition and binary transformation, and it is impossible to touch the same quantitative calculations as contemporary science.
Therefore, the essence of dialectical logic is that human beings have for the first time constructed a rough worldview model through figurative concepts to enable human beings to achieve a basic understanding of the world, time and space, and "objects", which is completely based on the premise of subjective relativeness.
So what is subjective relativity?
For example, human beings say front, back, up, down, left, right, up, down, but what is front? It is the relative you as the midpoint, your front is called front, your back is called back, then you go backwards and then it becomes front, that is, front, back, high, down, left, right, these concepts are all purely subjective relative concepts.
And you know, why don't we have a definite front, a definite back, a definite upper, a definite lower, a definite left, a definite right?
This is because our human existence is in a state of out-of-place space-time, and we cannot passively achieve positioning by relying on our own tendency reactions like atoms, molecules, and even primary organisms.
Therefore, we must achieve the relative positioning of ourselves and "external objects" through some subjective concepts.
Therefore, these relative spatial concepts are a way of positioning and seeking the human dislocation of the amorphous state, and only when these basic spatial concepts are determined, can humans locate themselves and the positioning object, so that they can grasp the object and themselves.
Thus, dialectical logic constructs a very general model for realizing the understanding of the outside world, and in any case cannot rise to the level of calculation through quantitative precision logic, which is the biggest drawback of dialectical logic.
This also determines that dialectical logic cannot do anything significant in dealing with the almost unlimited amount of information in the era of human beings entering the philosophy, but only as a general model for quickly establishing classification and identification;
For example, day and night; good and bad, fast and slow, long and short, cold and hot, etc., as for the specific hours, seconds, how many degrees, how many meters, centimeters, millimeters and other precision calculations, all are not in the scope of dialectical logic.
2) Dialectical logic is an atypical "rational logic".
Why is dialectical logic an atypical "rational logic"? Because dialectical logic does not grasp the essence of intellectual logic, let alone the essence of reason.
Then dialectical logic is only the simplest treatment of the most basic problems, which is the crude setting of all but A as the opposite of B, and then AB can be transformed into each other, which is the simplest, most efficient, and fastest one that transcends sensibility and intuitively grasps the simplest logical model of everything in the world.
In the vast majority of human daily life and work, even more than 95% of the cases, we use dialectical logic, because the more primitive and lower things are, the more foundational, decisive and stable!
Therefore, dialectical logic expresses its validity because of its low-end and stability, so dialectical logic is not the high-end logic of human beings, but the low-end state of rational logic, which is not applicable to the science of dealing with contemporary large amounts of information.
3. Dialectics or dialectical logic is the primary stage of human rational thinking.
From the perspective of the history of the development of human thought, dialectical logic is the earliest rational logical form of human beings, that is, the transition from the cognitive world of animal perceptual logic and intellectual logic intuitive instinct to the starting point of understanding the world through rational logic.
Therefore, we will see that as early as 3300 years ago in China, the dialectical culture of yin and yang represented by the "I Ching" has been popularized, and it is full of various tricks of dialectics, so the basic foundation of China's primitive thinking is realized in dialectics.
Another example is Lao Tzu's "movement of the anti-Tao", such as Confucius, who talks about moderation and establishes the basis of his doctrine is dialectical logic;
There are also Western ancient Greek philosophers, including Parmenides, Heraclitus, Zeno, Socrates, plato, they all use dialectical logic, but the Greeks are more inclined to see it as a kind of "sophistry" that is not elegant, because dialectical logic is full of qualitative duality and unity.
This dialectical logic can still be of great use in the agricultural and animal husbandry civilization that believes in the Lord and values morality.
As for the natural sciences, which want to grasp everything in the world with certainty, dialectical logic at best occasionally borrows to gouge through difficult problems that are not clear for the time being, just as in Aristotle's view, the logical contradiction is not allowed, it is a manifestation of confusion in thinking.
Therefore, when human beings enter the state of philosophical thinking, that is, after Plato and Aristotle and even after the modern scientific era, it is impossible for true thinkers to use dialectical logic to deal with problems when they study truly complex problem systems.
At this time, the amount of information and the state of complex processing must be quantitatively processed with the help of high-end rational logic, and it is obviously impossible to deal with qualitative dialectical logic.
But why is dialectical thinking the earliest model of thought in the history of human thought?
This is because at the beginning of human civilization, the amount of information is extremely low, watching the sun rise in the east and set in the west, the moon cycle is in profit and loss, life is from weak to strong, from strong to weak, things must be reversed, the prosperity and decline, then with such a limited intuitive observation of the world seen, human beings must be based on dialectical logic to construct the world view of the world to understand the world in the early days.
Thus
Dialectical logic is only the most elementary mode of thinking, which can only deal with problems that intellectual logic cannot solve, but it is precisely this most elementary mode of thinking that determines the wandering and first-end of the primary dialectical logic concept of rationality.
For example, judging the length of the same bamboo pole, for those who grow up to be masters, they will feel that the bamboo pole is short, and for those who grow short and short, they will feel that the bamboo pole is long, so the length of the bamboo pole is different because of the height of the person, so it can be said that it is short and can be said to be long, but such a discussion can be more objective to distinguish the length and length, obviously not, but must be defined by how many centimeters, higher than this definition is long, below this definition is short.
Therefore, the primary concept is both ends of the wandering and the first mouse, and further quantitative weighing standards must be made for this binary opposition.
This also determines the emergence of more certain higher rational concepts, such as numbers, geometry, symbols and other purely abstract definite concepts, which can express dynamic knowledge and will not themselves wander and the two ends of the rat.
In short, when the primary concept of rationality is formed, dialectical logic is the crudest logical tool for seeking conceptual connotation and extension to establish concepts, so it is impossible to observe the grander objective world or organize larger information, nor can it more accurately grasp everything in the world, and can only establish a general binary opposing worldview model. So dialectical logic is the basic stage of rational logic.
Because the way dialectical logic operates is exactly the way of thinking of rational logic, that is, qualitative reasoning and rectification of perceptual appearances. Dialectical logic is not at all applicable to the treatment of modern science of large amounts of information, which has been fiercely refuted by the great scientists of the time in Hegel.
Finally, we need to know
Traditional Chinese thinking is materialism (seeing is believing, learning to apply), that is, dialectical logic (since the I Ching has begun), which is the basis of thinking that chinese people do not need to learn, because when you turn to ancient writings, all of them are dialectical materialism.
Therefore, Marx's philosophy only strengthened the inherent thinking of China, but did not bring the Chinese people a real breakthrough in thinking, and even deepened the obscuration of other scholarship under this dialectical materialist thought.
Therefore, to some extent, it is more that Li Zifeng has put the traditional Chinese thinking and Western philosophy in a certain connection, and the most core philosophical view is still to see the truth and apply what has been learned, and under such thoughts, even Western idealism and agnosticism do not know what they are expressing.
This point, everyone looks at the title of Li Zifeng's paper is already clear;
The core is nothing more than to emphasize experiments and phenomena, as for the untrueable learning, Li Zifeng used all kinds of ways to refute him, that is, to use the most primitive seeing as believing and dialectical logic to deny the extreme of scientific development.
This, of course, needs to be seriously refuted.
Through this,
We can also see that Li Zifeng and Hegel used dialectical logic to stir up the problems of "knowledge" and "in" in the past, but Li Zifeng took a set of traditional and primitive ancient ideas to refute the extreme of scientific development, and its logical loopholes were too many.
As for his argument, it is far inferior to Hegel's, and Hegel at least clearly defines his dialectical logic as a pure idea of spiritual operation, but Li Zifeng actually hard-moved this logical form into the material movement outside the concept, which is tantamount to stealing the rational basis of dialectics.
All of Li Zifeng's entire papers are really not rigorous logical works in the true sense, even if they are qualitative and precise logical logic, if this paper is published abroad, the Chinese people may inevitably fall into the situation that we see Indians using God to deal with the new crown, just as Westerners see us using materialism and dialectics to deal with relativity.
-Wu-
Conclusion
Whether it's materialism
Still Marxist philosophy, from Li Zifeng's point of view, almost does not continue in the true philosophical vein, but still emphasizes the perceptual intuitive "things" and "physics" in the level of physical experimental phenomena to understand the world.
And there is almost no exploration outside of "materialism", and even it is not clear what is materialism. What is idealism? What is agnosticism?
Then opposing Einstein's theory of relativity from the perspective of such a "Li Zifeng philosophy" is seriously problematic.
But once the starting point is the problem, as for what kind of physical discussion is behind, even if it is self-consistent to some extent, the underlying logic is missing, which will inevitably lead to Li Zifeng being besieged by various ways. Maybe he doesn't know that he is taking the mainstream road, but he actually wants to be abandoned by the mainstream, which is really a helpless thing.
At this point, Li Zifeng talked about in the paper, what is space? What is time? What is quality? What is energy? What is the source of atomic energy? What is consciousness? The understanding of light, even the infinity of the universe, and so on.
Because its underlying logic is narrow "materialism", the starting point of such a problem is already extremely narrow, and as for how to use modern information to explain, the result must also be because of the instability of the foundation and the establishment of dangerous houses that will collapse at any time.
At the end, the reader must know.
The above discussion is to re-examine Li Zifeng's so-called philosophy from a more profound philosophical perspective, but for some people who are extremely prejudiced against "folk science" and "min zhe", they may say that min zhe refutes min ke, and both are not all the same thing?
But no matter how you look at folk science and folk science, the premise is whether the world you understand at the moment is complete, whether your own logical system is worth scrutinizing, whether you have a fundamental cognitive understanding of folk science and folk philosophy, and the so-called mainstream must be "correct"? You must know that Li Zifeng's dialectical materialism is typical mainstream thought!
The reader should therefore be aware of the following statement:
1. This article refutes Li Zifeng's thesis with rigorous logical arguments, without any pure subjective arbitrariness and blind evaluation, but completely inherits the main ideological pulse of philosophy and the criticism of Li Zifeng's thesis in line with the current new philosophical concept, and its deeper connotation lies in letting the reader understand what is the real philosophy and what is the deep connotation of philosophy.
And not to be misled by Li Zifeng's dialectical materialism. And if we don't criticize Li Zifeng for the core errors of Li Zifeng's underlying logic, then this critic will not be much different from Li Zifeng's academic research spirit, but we are obviously not.
Therefore, the above can be seen as a re-examination of Li Zifeng's philosophical thoughts from a lower philosophical perspective and a heavy collation of Li Zifeng's philosophical thoughts.
If this distinction is not written, then Li Zifeng's thesis will inevitably because of the imperfection of Li Zifeng's own philosophical thought itself, and blindly oppose today's physics that is almost at the critical point and cannot be falsified, and this wrong thinking will inevitably affect the Chinese people's misunderstanding of "philosophy" itself.
Therefore, this article does not emphasize Li Zifeng's "right or wrong", because this is not his fault to some extent, and most of the Chinese people are materialists and dialectics?
This article focuses more on this to distinguish between Li Zifeng's so-called philosophy and real philosophy, so as not to deepen the misunderstanding of philosophy among the Chinese people.
In this way, it is also used to let more people understand what is the real philosophy? Missing this underlying philosophical model, it is actually impossible to judge whether the Li Zifeng incident is right or wrong, and finally it is not good, it is not good, it is not good, but it is like most people either spewing randomly, or various complex entanglements, so that the reader does not know the so-called, more unclear.
2. Li Zifeng's so-called "philosophy" is not "philosophy" in the true sense at all.
It is nothing more than a set of antiquated backward philosophical views of "seeing is believing, learning to apply" and dialectical logic to refute the almost desperate situation, unable to verify the pseudo-physics through reality, which I believe anyone who has studied philosophy deeply should be clear.
In addition, why has science developed like this, and the underlying logic behind it is not dialectical materialism, so what is this more instructive new philosophical view? This is actually more worthy of our deep thinking.
3, whether it is the mainstream or the folk philosophy, the folk science, as a contemporary learned, basic academic cultivation, the most basic is to use rigorous logical proof to refute, and by no means empty mouth, disrupting the atmosphere of academic research, because only on such a rational basis, will have their own opinions, otherwise it is just a self-righteous self-righteous.
Of course, this may not require you to read the doctrine in its entirety, as long as you can disprove the core of this doctrine, the logical starting point, it is enough to negate it, and it is not directly denied because it is not the mainstream, because the mainstream must be mainly conservative.
For example, this article directly contradicts materialism and dialectical logic, and once it is proved to be true, naturally no matter how fancy any doctrine is, it is actually not worthy of being explored.
It can also be seen that when you have a more complete and grander philosophical thought and philosophical model, it is easy for you to see the essence behind the complex phenomenon, so that you can know him very clearly, understand him, and refute him.
4) Through this article, we try to convey the idea that any philosophy today, any science, must conform to the current amount of scientific information, must be corresponding, you cannot take an Anaximander's cosmology or Plato's cosmology as the cosmology of our cognition today, and you cannot take an ancient dialectical logic to correspond to today's era of information science, because the two are not at one stage of correspondence at all.
This also indicates that in this era there must be a philosophical view that conforms to the current amount of information, and mastering this more basic philosophical view can correspond to today's extremely complex world, and human beings will understand what our direction should be today.
Without this lower philosophical thought, this is the fallacy of Li Zifeng's paper, which uses primitive and ancient materialism and dialectical logic to refute Einstein's theory.
Subtitle: Please separate Li Zifeng's so-called philosophy from real philosophy!
bibliography
"Dongyue Philosophy of New Chinese Philosophy" by Shu Zhe
"General Theory of The Evolution of Things" by Wang Dongyue
Eastern and Western Philosophy Enlightenment Class ∙ Wang Dongyue (Video)
History of Western Philosophy by Frank Tilly / Jia Chenyang Translated from the Book
The History of Western Philosophy, Part II by Russell / Translated by Joseph Needham
The History of Western Philosophy : From Socrates to Sartre and Beyond , by S.E. Stumpf , by J. Fieser / translated by Kuang Hong Deng Xiaomang
Revised Edition of a Brief History of Western Philosophy by Zhao Dunhua
Revised Edition of the History of Western Philosophy by Zhao Lin and Deng Xiaomang
History of Western Philosophy 2nd Edition by Zhang Zhiwei
Kant's Critical Philosophy by Kant/ Tang Translation
"Kant's Three Critiques Collection" ∙ (De) Kant / Deng Xiaoman translated by Yang Zutao School
Collected Works of Hegel Phenomenology of Spirit ∙ (de) Hegel / Translated by Xian Gang
Hegel's Collected Works of Logic ∙ (De) By Hegel / Translated by Xiangang
Spirit and Absolute Knowledge by Hegel /translated by Chen Jianhua
Hegel Says Negation and Freedom , by Hegel / Wang Yunhao, ed
Creating content is hard, and it's even harder to create quality content
I hope you all watch,
There are people who hold the money field, and there are people who hold the field
Ideas can be taken away, retweeted or shared;
You can also leave likes and appreciations
Your support is the biggest motivation for us to do the best quality content