Translation of a passage from "Zhuangzi"

Confucius and you are both dreaming. I say you are dreaming, but in fact I am dreaming too. The name of the words mentioned above can be called strange and weird

Diao (dì): strange and weird.

"Qiu Ye and the girl are both dreaming." Why did you say this suddenly? This is based on the previous sentence "Master thinks Meng Lang's words, but I think it is a wonderful way to practice. My son thinks it is Xi Ruo?" Regardless of whether it is the statement "Master thought Meng Lang's words" or the statement "the journey to the wonderful path", both of these statements are dreams. Not only are your statements a dream, but I myself criticize you, which is also a dream. Therefore, it is said: "Qiu Ye and the girl are both dreaming."

"I say that the girl is dreaming, and it is also a dream. This is what he said, and the name is paradoxical." Now I say that you are dreaming, and so am I. dream. This is called paradox. "Paradox" is a term unique to Zhuangzi. "Paradox" is Wei Ju. The word "瀬" has no meaning, but the word "倰" has meaning, and "耿" means guile. But since Zhuangzi used this word, it has become a technical term, and everyone knows what "paradox" is. "Paradoxical" means abnormal, not a normal word. "Paradox" becomes a technical noun, which is equivalent to the English word "paradox".

Why is it a lie to say that "Qiu Ye and the woman both dreamed of each other"? Because according to ordinary sayings, including yourself is not allowed. To include oneself is self-contradictory. However, this sentence is not contradictory here

I said you are a dream, this is also a dream, and I am no exception. Isn’t it contradictory to include yourself? Since it is contradictory, why are you saying this? Isn't that nonsense? But this is what he said. For example, we usually say: "Everyone in the world lies." When I say this, it means that I am not lying, and I am not included. Suppose you say that you are also lying, including yourself, which is self-contradictory. Westerners like to use this example. Russell started from this example to solve the logical paradox. In other words, "All propositions are false." So, is this proposition itself also false? This is called logical paradox. The quibbles of logic can be dispelled and solved. Russell proposed this method to solve it. He used theory of types to resolve this contradiction. According to Russell's theory of types, that is to say, the sentence "Qiu Ye and women are both dreaming" does not make sense. That is to say, my words are not in a dream, I am only talking about you. It would be self-contradictory to include oneself. Russell used theory of types to resolve this contradiction in Principia Mathematica. He pointed out that in "Everyone in the world lies", the predicate "lying" cannot be used to state the sentence "Everyone in the world lies". That is to say, this predicate does not include itself, so it does not commit self-contradiction. Why not include yourself? The levels are different. This is a two-level problem.

So, "Qiu Ye and Nu are both dreaming." "Qiu" and "Nv" are on the same level. Let me tell you, they are on a higher level, so they cannot be included. That is to say, "Qiu Ye and the woman are both dreaming." It is one type of words, and "I say that the woman is dreaming, it is also a dream." It is another type of words. These two different types. This kind of problem can be solved as a logical problem. If you usually think it can't be solved, it's because your language is unclear and your mind is confused.

Zhuangzi’s words here are not taken as logical quibbles, he wants to improve himself to a higher level through his words. "Qiu Ye and women are both dreams." All reality is a dream. We must realize it through a great awakening. Well, this is a dialectical quibble, not a logical quibble. Dialectical sophistry is to reach a higher state through a contradiction. Not only am I denying you, not only am I saying that you are dreaming, I am also denying myself.

So, "Qiu Ye and the woman are both dreaming, so I say that the woman is dreaming, and it is also a dream." It is to eliminate and eliminate my own words through a negation. It’s not just about denying others, except myself. By negating my words, I can reach a higher level and be freed from the relative dream of reality. This kind of paradox is called dialectic paradox. Dialectical sophistry must pass through a contradiction, that is, it must pass through a negation.

Therefore, there is "negation of negation" in dialectics. This is a dialectical word. This kind of word can only be found in dialectics and is not allowed in logic. Moreover, this term is only used in relation to the development of spiritual life.

What Zhuangzi said is the development of spiritual life. In this way, I can understand what "Great Enlightenment" is and what "Great Dream" is. This is not what we usually call "sleep" and "dream". I only dream when I go to bed at night, but it is no longer a dream when I wake up. This relatively speaking "awareness" and "dream" are not the "great awakening" and "great dream" mentioned by Zhuangzi. This "Great Awakening" is a super transformation of spiritual life. Therefore, dialectics in the Hegelian sense are all based on the development of spiritual life, and dialectics cannot be discussed apart from the development of spiritual life. Therefore, "negation of negation" is a dialectical quip.

"Negation of negation" not only negates other words, but also negates the statement that I deny other words. Through this negation, I negated myself and reached the highest realm. This is called "Great Enlightenment". This can only be used in spiritual life. If you use it in mathematics and say - (a) = a is dialectics, that is nonsense. Westerners understand it, but even Chinese intellectuals since the Republic of China don't understand it, because they have no scientific training, no logical training, no mathematical training, and they don't know where dialectics comes from. Yin and Yang and Bagua have become dialectics, and the world is in chaos. Yin and yang, male and female, positrons and negative electrons, these are physical phenomena. How can they be called dialectics? This is a joke borrowed from dialectics, and of course it’s OK to tell a joke. Men and women, yin and yang are all dialectics, this is a joke. This is how materialist dialectics comes about, it is the most vulgar and unreasonable. People who think about materialist dialectics are simple-minded, and only the most ignorant people believe this stuff. What kind of philosophy is this? It seems that if you don’t talk about these things, you won’t know the changes in physics and chemistry. Who doesn’t know the changes in physics and chemistry? Who doesn’t know that there are differences between men and women, yin and yang? Materialist dialectics is unreasonable.

/blog/static/5774492009153153131/Click on it and stick it on it. It feels very good, you can check it out

Hungry` By the way, since I like this kind of sentence Things, it seems that the editor did not specifically emphasize the explanation and usage of individual words, right? It is something that is already understood. Why look at those things that were added by later generations... (Okay, I admit that I have a lot of talk...)