Joke Collection Website - Joke collection - 200 points, high score! Do you believe everything is the same?
200 points, high score! Do you believe everything is the same?
In fact, your question just touches one of the most fundamental problems in western philosophy.
What you call "the integration of all things" is actually one of the two foundations in the western philosophical tradition, that is, the theory of all things (the other foundation is rationalism). Since Thales, western philosophy has established that the goal of philosophy is to find the origin of all things, which includes the idea of the origin of all things, that is, through a transcendental assumption, everything in the world can always find (one, two or more) origins. Traditional western philosophy also believes that rationalism and the theory of the origin of all things are unified, that is to say, human beings can use rationality to find the origin of all things. Philosophers of later generations have been searching for the essence of everything under this tradition.
However, this view was challenged by Hume. Hume believes that human perception can be divided into two kinds, concept and impression (you can temporarily understand these two kinds as philosophical rational knowledge and perceptual knowledge respectively). Concept comes from impression, impression is sensory perception, the source of sensory perception is unknowable, and the connection between perception and foreign objects is unknowable, or, because all human experiences come from perception, "the connection between perception and foreign objects" is something other than perception, so it is unknowable. Therefore, human beings are confined to the world constructed by perception, and can never explore everything beyond perception through perception, let alone explore the origin of everything. That is to say, Hume holds agnosticism, and foreign objects may or may not exist, and he doesn't know, even if there is origin. Hume said that reason can't be used as a tool for people to know the origin, because he thinks that reason is based on experience (that is, perception). He thinks that causal determinism, as the pillar of rationalism, is transcendental in itself, and it is an association of people's regular habits. I don't know whether there is such a causal relationship in practice. Therefore, since primitive people cannot be understood by reason, even if they exist, they are meaningless to human beings.
In this way, he actually dismantled the unity between the theory of the origin of everything and rationalism. Later, under the influence of Hume, Kant expounded this idea clearly and systematically. After Kant, philosophers no longer thought that they could understand the origin with reason, and their understanding was divided.
Some philosophers think there is still an origin. Since this origin cannot be understood by reason, they use irrationality to "experience" and "intuition". Irrationality has nothing to do with perception and experience. Irrationality here does not mean philosophical perceptual knowledge, but refers to will, fantasy, dream, passion, desire and impulse. Other philosophers believe that there is no origin, but people can still carry out cognitive activities through reason. They no longer ask what is the origin of the empty world, but pay attention to the origin or fundamental logic of human existing knowledge, or pay attention to people's actual life, that is, practical activities. The former is called humanism and the latter is called scientism.
So at this point, I can tell you my opinion on the so-called "integration of all things". I told you such a long history of western philosophy first because I have a background to answer your question. I am a scientist myself, so I don't believe that everything has its origin, and I don't think irrationality can know its origin. The simplest reason is that irrationality and rationality are actually human brain activities, and neither of them has some transcendental special attribute of knowing the origin. It is better to pay attention to the science, knowledge and life we have now.
Moreover, the concept of "primitive" is slightly different between Chinese and western contexts, and the original meaning of "primitive" in China's philosophy. In short, it is the China context that emphasizes the origin of genetics, while the western context emphasizes the constituent elements. I think this has something to do with China's secular tradition and western religious tradition. Western religious traditions are strong and continuous, and the question of origin and creation has always been answered. However, in China, because ancient myths did not develop into the prosperity of local religions and secular regimes, this question needs to be answered by human philosophy. Therefore, there are many discussions about the origin of China's ancient philosophy, while western traditional philosophy is about the constitutive origin. But no matter what kind of primitive man it is, I don't think it is possible or necessary to gain an understanding of it through speculation. Due to the origin problem, contemporary science has an imperfect but still developing solution to it, which is well-founded and does not come from any fantasy or experience. However, for the question of pure origin, whether everything exists or not, this itself needs two hypotheses to solve, and for this hypothesis, we can only believe it and postpone it, so it is also unreliable. Of course, science is also based on assumptions, but science itself does not contain such a grand purpose as exploring the origin. Science only comes from and serves practice and reality, so scientific assumptions are commensurate with their own themes and demands, while metaphysics (that is, the theory of the origin of everything) is not commensurate in this respect. It is actually related to religion to attribute the origin to the assumptions supported by faith or mysticism.
So my answer is that I don't agree with everything. But I can't answer "I don't believe everything is the same" according to your question, because "believe" actually contains two meanings, on the one hand, it is a transcendental belief based on mysticism, on the other hand, it is a rational belief based on reality made by a sense of reality. No matter what the meaning is, when I use "don't believe" to deny it, it can't be logically related to "everything is the same". It is very important to note this point, which is related to the division of water among religion, philosophy and science. After all, human language developed from so-called ignorance. )
PS:
That "I think, therefore I am" has nothing to do with the unity of all things. Instead, it is the basic assumption of Cartesian dualism (that is, "two things" ~ hehe). I think therefore I am also a common mistake in distorted translation. ...
- Previous article:Are Jackie and Bey Hayden really together? How did you meet?
- Next article:A humorous joke full of jokes.
- Related articles
- How do mobile users unsubscribe from long-distance privileges through SMS?
- How to write this composition? It��s my first time and I��m not sure. I don��t know how to start. Please give me some advice. Thank you!
- What should rural low-energy and high-educated leftover women do if they are forced to get married by ancient parents?
- In which TV series does Niu Li play Yang Qin?
- Who is Naruto Uzumaki's rival in love?
- Make fun of friends and show love.
- How to say cold humorously?
- What is the most classic Nanchang dialect?
- Jin Xiangong's divination, which result influenced the historical trend?
- How did Princess Yin Shan lose her memory?