One
Is there a reason for the world? In the mouths of cynics, the world is a jungle world of the weak. It is true that the world is not very gentle and frugal, sometimes cruel, and each of us must know this. Still, we can't help but be reasonable. For example, if you disagree with the cynic, he will most likely give you a series of examples of the weak and the strong, exposing the cold calculations under the veil of warmth. In short, he tries to convince you instead of jumping up and biting you.
Listen to the people around you, listen to court arguments, read newspapers and magazines, browse online speech, and hear reasoning everywhere. Yes, a lot of remarks are just venting dissatisfaction and insults, but there are also many remarks that are reasonable. The cynic laughed: Haha, what is reasonable, but it is just propaganda and deception. Yes, many times, people just seem to be reasoning, but in fact they are propaganda, they are cheating, and we must also know this. However, this in turn shows that we still believe in reasoning, or why does he make reasoning to publicize and deceive?
To be fair, reasoning is an important human activity, and in modern times, reasoning has become more and more important. The rise of scientific discussion and the promotion of the court debate system are all prominent manifestations. Now, even we are taking our children. The modern regime attaches great importance to propaganda, which in fact shows the importance of reasoning from another aspect. In fact, we sometimes change the opinions of others through reasoning and win support, and we ourselves are sometimes persuaded by others to correct ourselves.
However, as a means of changing the perception of others, we must not expect too much from reasoning. People can sometimes be persuaded, but "persuasion" does not necessarily rely on pure and pure reasoning, and persuasion is often mixed with deception, entanglement, inducement, and even implicit threats. Even in more purely reasoned situations, such as in the academic and scientific fields, reasoning is only one factor that wins. Evolution has amassed a century and a half of evidence, and has refuted all aspects of creationism, which is still believed by many. As for our major positions in political-social life, it is even less likely to be persuaded by a certain reason. When will Israelis and Palestinians be able to persuade each other to change sides? In these matters, we often argue with each other eloquently, but it is rare to see who really convinces whom.
Moreover, reasoning is not necessarily the most effective means of changing the views of others. Training, fieldwork, quoting authorities or the opinions of the majority, pleading, pestering, these are, if not more effective, at least as effective. If it doesn't make sense, I can move it. Most people read novels and movies without reading argumentative articles. An article "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and a "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" have changed the racist attitude of many people, and there are probably not many people who have changed their attitudes by a large number of reasons. Sociologists have studied the process of converting people to a certain religion and have concluded that the primary factor of conversion is emotional bonding, and missionary work to strangers is rarely successful. In addition, there is "teaching without saying", and role models are often more "convincing" than convincing with reason. Finally, there is propaganda, deception and even monetary inducements and threats of force. Tang Ju, an envoy of An Lingjun, reasoned with the King of Qin: "An Lingjun was guarded by the previous king, although he did not dare to change it for thousands of miles, wouldn't he be five hundred miles straight?" "This is the reason, but unfortunately the King of Qin does not listen." In the end, Tang Ju did not convince the King of Qin by reasoning, he raised his sword and made the King of Qin promise not to annex Anling. The patriarch of American philosophy, Pierre, said that repeating a view can have the effect of establishing faith, and Goebbels has a wonderful theory that "a lie is repeated a thousand times becomes the truth". These tactics may not be rosy enough, but it is hard to deny their effectiveness in changing perceptions. We were going to elect Zhang Sanlai as the director of our art research institute, but someone was willing to give 10 million yuan in funding, on the condition that Li Si be the director, wouldn't we change our position? Do we have to see profit and forget righteousness? Can't profit also be an important argument?
Two
So, what are the advantages of reasoning? We would think that reasoning is the most rational than fiction, film, propaganda, inducement, because reasoning depends on the power of facts and logic. Fiction may affect this person but not another person at all, and facts and logic have a coercive force, lead is heavier than aluminum, 3× 7 = 21, which everyone has to accept.
However, I try to convince someone, never because he doesn't admit that lead is heavier than aluminum or doesn't admit 3× 7=21. We are usually reasoned, not strictly composed of ironclad facts and flawless logic. Which deep view can be fully reduced to facts and logic? Proof of the existence of God, proof of the absence of God, proof that communism will come or cannot come, is not constituted in such a way as lead heavier than aluminum or 3×7 = 21.
Reasoning must be based on something that both sides of the argument can acknowledge and accept. But what about acknowledging your arguments? In addition to your arguments, there are thousands of arguments. You and I have different positions and hopes, and we will choose different reasons. The Israelis can put forward a strong historical basis for the claim of Jerusalem, and the Arabs can list a whole list of historical bases for expelling the Israelites from the Middle East. Facts are complex, the truth is not as clear as the mathematical formula, and the so-called power of facts and logic is difficult to distinguish from the eloquent. The Great English philosopher Bernard Williams said: "The 'coercive power of reason' is almost impossible to distinguish itself completely from the power of persuasion." "Our deep-seated perceptions rely on so many subtle, hard-to-label clues that we don't have to change our minds just because we have one more reason and one less. You speak eloquently and I am dumbfounded, but I still don't want to accept your opinion — must this be irrational and unreasonable? You have used "logic" to prove that my two hands do not really exist, but if I do not even believe that I have two hands, why should I believe that your "logic" has irresistible power? No matter how many facts an atheist cites to testify against himself, a god-believing person can still ask: What fact is more true than the existence of God?
Ignorant of human affairs, just picking up a few laws of theory from the academy, he thinks that he has the coercive power of logic, and whoever disobeys is an irrational and incomprehensible creature. Zhuangzi first spoke of "serving the mouth of the people", not to induce the population to dare not speak wrongly through threats and profits, but to "be the law of the voice and the law of words". In contrast to violence, inducement, and deception, the power of logic is internal, but in contrast to the satisfaction of the heart, the power of logic is external.
Reasoning in the living world never has the strength of a mathematical proof. You persuaded me to link the conclusions I had previously rejected to the truths I already understood. Although I did not think of this conclusion, it is understandable, that is, it is in line with the understanding of the world that I already have, with the world that I understand. Rather than reasoning to intellectually subjugate the other, reasoning aims to create new avenues of understanding, and your argument acts as a trunk for reorganizing my understanding. I understand this conclusion with the help of your argument, rather than being forced to accept it by your logic. If I don't understand in what sense my two hands are not real, what's the point of you asking me to accept this conclusion? In turn, I had started my economics research to prove that the market was omnipotent, and even if my final findings disproved my initial views, I did not do so in vain.
Three
Of course, reason cannot be just a person's reason, but it is also not something that floats in the sky and has nothing to do with man. Reason connects with people through understanding. We should not only look at the coercive force of logic, but also look at the penetration or penetration of reason. Reasoning needs to be connected to the ego of the speaker. Profound truths should penetrate people's hearts.
Reasoning is not limited to convincing one side to the other, nor is it even limited to convincing each other. We need to understand reasoning more broadly as a process of working together to gain understanding. In this basic sense, the party you are trying to persuade, he himself wants to understand, to seek the truth. No anger, no anger, no shame. Zhu Xi explained: "Those who are angry, their hearts seek to understand but they have not received the meaning." The mourner, the one who wants to speak but fails to look. Enlightenment means opening up its meaning. Hair, means to reach its word. Zhuangzi regards the supreme state of persuasion as obedience, and his heart is convinced, which is not an exaggerated standard, but the true meaning of persuasion.
The phrase "if you don't take one corner and don't take the three corners again, you won't repeat it" is even after "no anger, no enlightenment, no shame, no hair". Convincing others on a matter is not yet the purpose of reasoning; the goal of reasoning is higher: to give the other party an understanding through persuasion in this matter, and to give the other party the ability to understand itself. The goal of reasoning, if fundamentally speaking, is not so much to make the other person accept his own views on this matter, but rather to be a kind of mental cultivation—reasoning is a kind of enlightenment.
Let's not always focus on convincing others to reach a consensus. For reasoning, improving understanding is the first priority, and whether or not there is a consensus is secondary. Philosophers have offered many wonderful arguments, but they have not allowed us to reach consensus. Maimonides provided excellent proof of God's existence, and who converted to religion or conversion because of this proof? Zeno argues, concludes that Achilles will never catch up with the turtle, Berkeley argues, concludes that the outside world does not exist, who believes? There is also proof of the inevitable arrival of communist society. Great philosophers have proven nothing, they have opened up new ways for us to understand the world. Thus, we may no longer be troubled by the fact that the history of philosophy, while full of brilliant arguments, has never led the philosopher to a consistent conclusion. The brilliant arguments of philosophers provide us with a new understanding of the world, but no one thus provides the only truth about the world.
Strong rationalists treat reason as something that is laid out there, and whenever it is taken out, it has the power to be accepted. After holding the truth in their own hands and after some argumentation, those who hold opposite views will abandon the dark and turn to the light. They foolishly believe that after listening to his teachings, if others still hold on to the opposite view, it can only be because they are stupid, even because they are evil. I am wary of this attitude. Their arrogance comes not only from a strong misunderstanding of reasoning, but also from a far-more secular aspect—the principle they hold is the rationale of science when science dominates the world, the scientific truth of science when scientism dominates the world, and the reason of the academy when the theory of the academy is full of state funds and international awards. Confucius's Confucianism and the king's Confucianism are two kinds of Confucianism. In the face of the set of reasoning of the strong, we have to say: "Don't reason with me."
"Don't reason with me" is not all about power. In fact, although the powerful man has been silently saying "you don't reason with me" in his heart, he does not say so in this era, but he always makes a reasonable appearance. Those who are in a position of persuasion, young people, women, and the weak, will also say, "Don't reason with me," and the meaning of what they say is different from that of the powerful. Although the weak are weak because they have no power and no power, they are often weak because they can't reason with you. The vigilance and even disgust of young people for a set of big truths does not all come from the rebellious psychology of adolescence. The young man's ego is taking shape, maintaining the ego so that it grows naturally to the point of being critical, what he needs is nurturing, something to assist his growth, not a set of Tarzan's top-of-the-road principles to shape him from the beginning. Reason also has a context, and this "circumstance" and this "time" are not things attached to ready-made truths, but inherently constitute reasoning. Inappropriate, gaffe.