Why do philosophers like to analyze the nature of things so much?

I'm Louie of longevity. Thank you for your concern.

They are responsible for fooling us into fools, and the ultimate goal is to study themselves into fools. Take the worship of fools as vanity.

In fact, there is only one sentence in everything, get rid of its dross and take its essence. They want to expand indefinitely, and finally they are chanting metaphysics in their graves.

Two words, funny.

Just because I don't like philosophy doesn't mean I can't live. In fact, have people who study philosophy come to any conclusion? Philosophy has nothing to do with pain and happiness. It only studies why we should be happy, why we should suffer, what we get from happiness, what we get from pain, and how to treat happiness and pain. Too much philosophical research can easily make people feel that happiness and pain are detached.

I saw a lovely puppy, so I smiled. But philosophers will think about why dogs exist, what love is, and why they laugh because they are cute. Of course, this is just an example.

Am I happier or are they happier? I am happy because my life has my simple happiness. If they are happy, we have not deprived them of their freedom to be happy.

Maybe philosophy is also a kind of belief. Just because I don't believe this doesn't mean others don't. I don't believe in Christianity, so I won't go to church, but I don't want to tear it down.

Make everyone happy with a short article.

In class, I farted-a very ordinary fart. It's neither smelly nor fragrant.

The terrible thing is that the professor is talking about dialectics.

"Please judge this fart for yourself," said the professor. "Is it good or not?"

I have to say, "No."

"Wrong," said the professor. "Everything has contradictions. It has its bad side and it must have its good side. "

"So it's good or wrong?" I asked.

"Of course." The professor said.

"There are good and bad."

"Wrong. You only see the opposition struggle between the two sides of the contradiction, but you can't see their unity. " ..........

A little guilty, isn't it? Do you really understand philosophy?

I had to take this serious problem seriously, and after careful consideration, I said, "This fart has good and bad, but the bad side is the main and dominant one."

"Wrong. You look at the problem from a static point of view. The two sides of the contradiction will change each other, and they will be in a dominant position today and in a secondary position tomorrow. "

"You mean all mankind will cheer for my fart?"

"No, but we can't deny this trend."

I froze for a long time, so I had to bite the bullet and say, "My fart is good and bad, good and bad. Today may not be good, but tomorrow will be fine. Today may be good, tomorrow may be bad. "

The professor shook his head and said, "This is a complete skepticism, not a dialectical view."

In this way, I became a skeptic just because I farted.

The professor went on to lecture: "The power of dialectics lies not only in its ability to easily refute any viewpoint, but also in its ability to easily find a theoretical basis for any viewpoint."

"But my fart has no basis." I protested.

"That's because you didn't find it. It's actually quite simple. It is the inevitable result of the unity of opposites in your stomach. "

I'm speechless.

The professor said, "Let's talk about a more complicated problem: no matter how you choose a watermelon or a sesame, there is a theoretical basis."

I quickly said, "I'm going to pick up the watermelon and lose the sesame."

"Very good." The professor said, "You have grasped the main contradiction, that is, the key to solving the problem."

"Then I'll pick sesame seeds and throw watermelon."

"There must be a quantitative change to have a qualitative change. You solved the problem in the right order. "

"I want both watermelon and sesame."

"Is to grasp the principal contradiction, don't pass the secondary contradiction. You look at the problem from a comprehensive perspective. "

"I want to smash the watermelon and crush the sesame."

"Very well, you are looking at the problem from the perspective of development. New things are the negation of old things. Everything old is doomed to perish. The demise of old things is the premise of new things. "

"I want to eat watermelon and break it. Pick up sesame seeds and crush them. However, there is only one watermelon and one sesame. What should we do? "

"That's when you enter the door of dialectics. What is important is that the two sides of the contradiction are not only antagonistic, but also unified. Of course, it is reasonable for you to eat watermelon, but it is not unreasonable for you to smash it. Only by unifying the two can we enter a higher level of struggle. "

I was tongue-tied. "But you didn't solve my problem."

The professor smiled and said, "Dialectics doesn't solve any problems. Its purpose is to turn people into fools first-if there are people who are not fools. "

"You mean' first'?" I asked.

"Yes, and then jump from a fool to a scholar." The professor began to sort out the lecture notes. "Why dialectics doesn't solve the problem, how to turn people into fools, and how to realize the leap from fools to scholars are the contents of the next class."

The professor jumped out of the classroom.

The second class:

The professor said, "Let's talk about the application of dialectics. Let's give a more complicated example: What do you think of the traditional culture of China? "

I said, "Then we should use a dialectical point of view."

"yes. We have many famous dialectics scholars who will make full use of the three laws of dialectics, integrate theory with practice, learn from others' strengths and engage in vertical and horizontal strategies. Write a thousand words, closely around the theme. Finally, I will give you a summary: take its essence and discard its dross-do you admire it? "

"yes. Isn't dialectics very useful? "

"I used to think so. Until I saw a stray dog who lost his family-this changed my mind. "

"wild dog?" I'm confused.

"yes. There is a garbage dump behind my house, and one day a stray dog came. It didn't look at anything else, and it snapped and bit a bone. "

"It's not surprising, all dogs are like this." I said.

"Not bad. The problem is that for dogs, this bone is the essence. In addition to bones, there are dregs such as bricks, iron blocks and broken barrels in the garbage dump. Why does he only want the essence of bones? How does he know to take the essence and discard the dross? Does it fully understand the arguments of big-name scholars? "

"I don't think so."

"Certainly not, so the subtle conclusions drawn by big-name scholars through accurate elaboration are actually things that even a stray dog has long known. In that case, why should we cheer for them and worship them? "

"Yes, why?"

"The only explanation is that dialectics has successfully turned you into a fool."

"I see."

"When you understand, you must ask: What you said is useless. Take the essence and discard the dross. Everyone knows that. The question is what is the essence and what is the dross. "

"Yes, see what he says."

"You can't beat him, he will make full use of the three laws of dialectics, integrate theory with practice, solicit opinions from others, and strive for others. Write a thousand words, closely around the theme. Finally, I give you a conclusion: specific problems, specific analysis. Is it smart? "

"That makes sense."

"But I think: this is not only a boring and useless question, but also a rogue."

"What do you mean?"

"Is there anyone in the world who can' analyze specific problems in an abstract way'? Will the stray dog classify all kinds of things like Aristotle before coming to the garbage dump, first find out its connotation and extension, and then decide whether it will eat bricks or bones after induction and deduction? Is this possible? "

"Impossible. In that case, he may even eat bricks. "

"Yes, obedient. No one can make an abstract analysis of specific problems, and the phrase "specific problems, specific analysis" is equivalent to not saying anything. Dialectics scholars prefer to use abstract methods to analyze specific problems. Because dialectics is a universal truth that is universally applicable. So if you see a dog eating bricks, don't underestimate it. It may be a famous scholar. "

The professor packed up his lecture notes and said, "The essence of dialectics lies in looking at problems from the viewpoint of' comprehensiveness, development and connection'. Like all lies, this statement sounds very true. The next class will talk about the origin of dialectics and its relationship with metaphysics.