Five thousand words on Western philosophy

Philosophy is divided into general philosophy and narrow philosophy; generalized philosophy (which usually means that what you are discussing is not intuitive, but relatively abstract, which can be called general philosophy) and special philosophy (only refers to the special logical game played by the ancient Greek "wise men")

For China, there is a lack of narrow philosophy, and there are many great thinkers in China, such as Confucius, Laozi, Zhuangzi, Mozi and so on.

China also has masters and professors who study philosophy, but in a sentence in "The Siege", it is said that China has never had "philosophers", only "philosophers" (such as Nietzsche experts, Kant experts, Hegel experts, these people have studied other people's theories all their lives, but have not studied philosophy, never have their own theories, and their contributions to philosophy have always been 0)

So, I introduce one person: Wang Dongyue

Wang Dongyue, pen name "Zi Fei Yu", is a freelance scholar.　　Independent of any party or academic institution, without a fixed occupation or a definite title,

He was a master of medicine in Taipingyu, but left the medical profession after graduating from graduate school; he has also been a visiting professor in the Department of Philosophy of Northwest University and a visiting professor of oriental culture at the School of Management of Xi'an Jiaotong University to make a living.　　Up to now, he has written three volumes and two volumes: three volumes of The General Theory of The Evolution of Things, one volume of essays, The Joy of Knowing Fish, and one volume of compilation of The Decline of Mankind.

When introducing Teacher Wang, I remembered Qian Weichang (one of the three qians), there is always such a kind of person in the world, who has been doing learning in obscurity all his life, and it is not until after his death that we gradually understand him. I hope that Teacher Wang Dongyue will be helpful to people who like Xi Zhe.

About what is called Western philosophy, in the next is only a philosophical layman, I am afraid that I can't say anything clearly. I think the first part of Teacher Wang's "The Joy of Knowing Fish" may be able to talk more clearly.

1. Useless philosophies

What is "philosophy"? It seems that three words and two words are not very clear. I have heard many people talk about philosophy, but I have never understood: , open the relevant dictionary, see this: philosophy (philiosophy) meaning derived from the Greek phileo (love) and sophia (wisdom) etymology synthesis, philosophical historians generally believe that Pythagoras first used this concept, in the 19th century, the Japanese based on the Chinese literature "philosophy, wisdom" and translated it as "philosophy", meaning the study of wisdom Yunyun ... I looked more and more confused, so I thought to myself that I belonged to the stupid uncle who "did not love wisdom". Later, he gradually woke up, Fang knew that in China, the teaching Guangsheng who ate the analysis meal was still faint, and the Zhao Zhao students who listened to the philosophy class could not be eaten by philosophy? Therefore, I felt the need to try a different way. Generally speaking, the farther away you are from something, the less you will become a slave to it, which makes some sense, but it should be rare to know nothing about a certain kind of learning, but in turn be able to be the master of that school. However, the relationship between Chinese and philosophy seems to be such a situation. It is said that in recent years, foreigners have come to China and found that too many people in our country can talk about philosophy, which is very surprising, because even in the West, which is rich in philosophical ideas, philosophy is still a relatively profound science, and generally not many people dare to casually show off in this regard. The more important reason, I am afraid, is that philosophy is originally a useless thing, so there is no chance to mention it in ordinary days. But in our fertile land, philosophy, like turnip cabbage, blossoms everywhere, and its political uses are particularly extensive, which makes people wonder whether the "philosophy" that Chinese hears is philosophy.

Philosophy was formerly called "metaphysics". Under normal circumstances, people live in the intuitive world of "metaphysics", so not understanding philosophy should not hinder survival in the slightest. But I think probably everyone has a philosophy subconsciously, and the question is whether you can salvage it. Usually, anything you can fiddle with on the tip of your tongue is probably not philosophy. If that thing turns out to be your philosophy, then your shallowness is probably incurable from now on. Because, even if it is said in layman's terms, philosophy for the human spirit, at least equivalent to the operating system in the computer, without this operating system, although all application software can not run, but the real set of basic operating system out of the examination, it seems that not all people who play computers can do it. If you're not a programming veteran, but you can easily flip your operating system, then what mess is installed in your computer, it is probably necessary to carefully review it. If so, why is philosophy still said to be useless? The uselessness of philosophy is that it actually lurks deeper than that operating system, or rather, it is farther away from the spiritual or conscious application level. It thus lays a deep and solid foundation at the bottom of the spirit, which is like basic science and applied science, the farther away they are, the more useless the basic science is, although the more useless the basic science, the greater the foundational effect and guidance on applied science. Einstein's theory of relativity, for example, ushered in a new era of science throughout the 20th century, but at first even he himself did not believe that this theory could be used as a basis for the application of quantum mechanics and nuclear physics. He even openly opposed quantum mechanics, and until the famous British scientist Eddington first made an observational proof of the bending of the gravitational field in space-time, Eddington still said that only two and a half people in the world could really understand Einstein, and he himself was only half of them. Not only that, but probably no one has been able to use the theory of relativity to make something useful in daily life. On the contrary, if a doctrine as a basic theory can come in handy everywhere at the moment, you must be careful of the harm that may be caused by its short-sightedness. Because this indicates that the application system built on top of it must be both. Rough and shallow, and the future is limited, like building a building on an unlammed foundation, which floor of the building may suddenly collapse, I am afraid it is really a particularly vigilant thing.

A comparison of the history of Eastern and Western ideas is probably the best illustration of this kind of problem. Around the 6th century B.C., rationalized philosophies sprouted around the world, as if some kind of trigger mechanism for the laws of natural evolution was at work. But from the beginning, their respective starting points and depths were very different, resulting in different types of civilizations eventually showing very different differentiation of internal energy and development prospects. The ancient Greek philosophers seemed to lack a sense of reality, and their concerns were far from the practical level, and even in the most primitive and simple period of natural philosophy, they only blindly asked "the origin of existence" or "the motive of all things", and this question was intermittently "behind things" or "the depths of thought", which immediately led to Pythagoras's use of abstract "numbers" (mathematics) to explain the world, euclid to use logical "forms" (geometry) to deduce the world, Philosophy and science thus forged the first kink in the depths of reason. The actual situation is that Pythagoras's brilliant theoretical precursor inspired Plato to first clearly realize that what is usually called the "external world" can only be a "spiritualized world", and Euclid's later writing "Primitive Geometry", illustrating objects with points, lines, and surfaces that do not exist in reality, is largely a testimony to Plato's "theory of ideas" - to prove that only ideas and logic are eternal and orderly. After the Renaissance, represented by Descartes, Western philosophers and scientists (Descartes himself was a scientist who combined mathematicians, physicists and physiologists) continued to advance side by side along this logical line of thought, simply pushing aside the "ontology" that lacked spiritual basis, concentrating on exploring the inner laws of cognitive activity, and philosophy stepped onto a new level of "epistemology". The rationale for this is that since the subject can only capture the object by virtue of its own a priori perceptual properties, what qualifications do we have to speak of objects other than the "spiritual world" before we have figured out the characteristics and regulations of "perception" or "spirit"?

Thus, Descartes can only prove that "I think, therefore I am"; Berkeley prefers to picket "the limits of perception"; Humo went on to discover "the ineffectiveness of inductive thinking"; Then Kant had to question how "pure intellect" could lead to an increase in knowledge... This is a huge ideological project that has lasted for thousands of years, and it has forged a fairly rigorous line of logical tools and methods of thinking. As a result, Copernicus, inversely feeling perfect, gave a rational "heliocentric theory" without much astronomical observational evidence at the time; Galileo deduced the "law of free fall" only in the logic of the slope test, and he did not need to climb to the Leaning Tower of Pisa and throw two iron balls of different sizes; Newton directly named his logical, systematic, and extraordinarily rigorous mechanical work The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy; Einstein was even more explicit, not only admitting that his first teacher of scientific enlightenment was the idealistic philosopher Mach, whom Lenin had scolded, but also criticizing Mach's inappropriate attack on the pure speculative logic of metaphysics. Intriguingly, China has long completed the mathematical Pythagorean theorem (i.e., the Pythagorean theorem), and the subsequent "zu rate" (i.e., zu chongzhi's pi) is even higher than the accuracy of western calculations at that time; Moreover, Zhang Heng of the Eastern Han Dynasty of China even made the model of "geocentric theory" (that is, the arillary sphere that leaks and rotates) earlier than Ptolemy, but it is only a seemingly beautiful physical model, but it is not a logical model with intrinsic compactness and ductility. Moreover, we, the artisan thinkers, are always in a hurry to elevate ourselves to the practical level halfway through. For example, Zu Chongzhi was particularly enthusiastic about making water mills and thousand-mile boats, and Zhang Heng was also particularly keen on developing azimuth geokinescent instruments for measuring earthquakes and weather instruments for measuring wind direction, but no one was willing to follow the dense logical path to study the relationship between the origin of the world and the mind without regard to utilitarianism. It is no wonder that Hegel sneered at the "oriental philosophy". However, strictly speaking, Hegel's view is not correct, because all the sons and hundreds of families in the pre-Qin era of China were philosophers, and it should be noted that it was their ideas that laid the foundation operating system of Chinese culture, that is, they all played the role of philosophers as spiritual foreshadowing and logic building. Unfortunately, they are too realistic, too much attention to the social troubles and humanistic care in front of the nose, so their thinking is urgent at the moment, and their logic is small and righteous. You see, Confucius was busy lobbying the nations all day, and Aristotle was anxious to get rid of the imperial drudgery of the Macedonian royal family; Mozi was worried about how to use "non-offensive" and "simultaneous love" to quell the war, and at the same time, Socrates did not think that his courageous participation in the defense of the Athenian city-state had anything to do with his philosophy; Here Gongsun Long leisurely played "White Horse Not Horse", and Euclid devoted himself to compiling the thirteen volumes of geometry; Only Lao Tzu was at large, and seemed to have great ambitions to inquire about the way of heaven and earth, but he was too profound, too vain, or could be said to be too lazy, so that if it were not for the Guan Chang of Hangu Guan, he would probably not leave a word for the future generations in his life. Moreover, if you read his Tao Te Ching carefully, you will find that his sophistication is not inferior to that of other sons, and on the contrary, his speculative ability to argue is as usual very pale.

In just five thousand words, most of the pages are actually talking about how to be a man and how to be a king, and its practicality is enough to make the later Emperors of the Han Dynasty directly issue a policy of governing the country, or it is enough for all sentient beings to transform it into a secular Taoism that saves the people from water and fire, but in any case, it cannot be developed into a "virtual" thinking logic and a scientific experiment of "keeping quiet".

Sure enough, practical philosophy will soon have practical effects: politically, our ancient social system is the most perfect and stable, and after two thousand years of tossing and turning, you will not want to completely dismantle its inextricable bonds of human rule and the authoritarian structure of the soul, so that Marx, who believes in dialectical movements, has no choice but to call this oriental monster a "stagnant society" . Economically, as early as the Middle Ages of the Tang, Song, Yuan, and Ming Dynasties, especially in the so-called "Kangqian Prosperous Era" period in the early years of the Qing Dynasty, China's gross national product once accounted for about 1/3 of the global gross output value, far higher than the current world status of the UNITED States economic dominance (about 21%), but it is impossible to derive a unique modern commodity economic form from here. Technically, we have taken advantage of the logical omission, and the compass is an accidental discovery based on the natural magnet tendency towards the Earth's magnetic poles; Gunpowder is an accident in which an alchemist randomly formulates various types of miscellaneous items; Papermaking and live printing are the products of folk production practice activities, and there is no need for any cumbersome and meticulous logical operation; That is to say, none of our four great inventions are both close and practical, and no fool will delve into the far-flung "heliocentric theory" or the useless "free fall". In the end, we had to play the dancers of Rhode Island, boasting about how wonderful we used to dance, but now we lack confidence and decline, no matter how hard we struggle, we can't stand up straight and can't dance high.

The Opium War of 1840 foreshadowed the final boundaries of the development of the spiritual entity constructed by shallow philosophy, and the May Fourth Movement of 1919 marked that we had to categorically abandon the ideological and cultural tradition that lacked rich roots—the dead branch of an ancient civilization was abruptly broken. But its bane should be traced back to the pre-Qin era or even before the pre-Qin era. Think about it, the dialectical theory of "yin and yang" that originated from the Yellow Emperor and King Wen is enough to explain all the mysteries of men and women at the beginning, and what long-term spiritual effects and logical results can you expect from such an intuitive philosophy that is so close to the skin of our bodies? Philosophy is originally a very deep "retreat", and only a nation that is proficient in retreat can hope to find the direction of "pragmatism". It should be known that human beings are the derivatives of "physical existence" dominated by "intellectual existence". Therefore, the rise and fall of philosophy seems to have always been closely related to the rise and fall of civilization, and the rise and fall of Western philosophical trends is completely consistent with the ups and downs of Western historical luck, and the same is true of China. It is only because China lacks the relaxed atmosphere of multi-directional exploration and the logical power of deep excavation since ancient times, so it lacks a broad and dense philosophical system, and the tension of civilization is weaker.

Throughout the history of human thought, most of the people who really made achievements in philosophy were naturalists or natural scientists at that time, and conversely, people who made significant contributions to the natural sciences were usually quite familiar with real philosophy, which is a pattern of two legs supporting a torso, and it is not easy to go long if you are crippled. Therefore, we must not think that just by studying mathematics, science, and chemistry well, we will inevitably be able to grasp the direction of future science, nor should we think that just by chasing the trend of thought, we will be able to jump to the forefront of the times. It should be noted that even if the students of the West do not all read the writings of Plato or Kant intensively, their minds are also contaminated with the basic spirit and atmosphere of Western philosophy, and in the same way, even if our students do not read through the teachings of Confucius or Lao Tzu, their spiritual bottom still has the stubborn imprint and atmosphere of Eastern thought. Firmly remember that today's knowledge is still thick and thin, there is still a difference between operating system and application software, and the marathon race that began will eventually show the high and low endurance and the short length of the qi pulse, only. I wonder what kind of choices the currently recreated Chinese culture intends to make?

At the end of the day, let me borrow Russell's words and give the briefest introduction to philosophy itself: mankind has so far gone through three stages of thought: theology, philosophy and science, and philosophy has thus become the logical intermediary between theology and science. What it has in common with theology is that both tend to pursue the ultimate causes of the world and show ultimate concern for humanity itself; The difference is that theology. The method of thought used is "faith", and the instrument of thought used by philosophy is "reason". It is not difficult to infer that it has something in common with science in that both are academics that use rational means to explore problems; But the difference in the goals of research is also obvious, science is more concerned with the study of specific objects, and philosophy maintains its ultimate form of concern. If the study of specific problems does not derive our overall understanding of our own situation, or if the process of human thought tends to become more and more differentiated, meticulous and narrow, that is, to become more and more urgent, practical and frivolous, then is it not a very interesting grand vision or a very lofty realm to overlook the overall state and ultimate relationship of the world and mankind from the philosophical standpoint of unity and integration?