Are China's ancient books still worth reading?

Let me start with the first sentence you said: Looking at historical records, I feel that ancient literati are playing "word games" all the time, which is of no help to improve their thinking ability.

I think this "word game" should mean making good use of allusions or spring and autumn brushwork.

Why is Historical Records good at it? Describe ancient and modern times, not empty beauty, not hiding evil, and practice literary talent. These are all moral and literary accomplishments. How can they be compared with detective logic novels? Want to improve your thinking ability by reading historical records? It can be seen that you are not good at reading. If spring and autumn brushwork, I think history books are really necessary. China was very particular about morality and ethics in ancient times. People with certain status are nicknamed when they die, usually to summarize their character, imply praise and blame, and aim at promoting good and restraining evil and popularizing education.

Of course, the purpose of history books is not just to record facts. When Confucius wrote the Spring and Autumn Annals, the rebels were afraid of thieves, so it can be seen that his purpose was also to distinguish right from wrong, promote good and suppress evil. Historians themselves have to use words to hide their eyes and ears, not to hide, and not to distort history because of personal views or emotions, so that there will be such a concise and accurate historical account as "Zheng Boke's jokes in the air", which is called subtle and subtle interpretation. This kind of brushwork is often used by future generations and is not over-interpreted by future generations.

Actually, I think there may be a reason for not doing it. As we all know, the pen of history is like iron. And such a thing that needs justice is often stifled because of taboos. It can only be a revision of the history of the previous dynasty, so it will produce words similar to avoiding censorship. )

Many people don't distinguish the meaning of the word "reading". They simply think that it is to acquire knowledge, but they don't know the theory of self-cultivation and laying a foundation.

If reading is only based on utilitarian efficiency, it seems to be the most valuable method to search directly with Google and acquire knowledge purposefully.

"Is China's ancient books worth reading?" This form of problem has been discussed many times in other places. For example, some people will ask, "Are Latin ancient books still worth reading?" "Is the history of Thucydides worth reading?" "Is Homer's epic still worth reading?" . If we ignore the need of literary literacy, we can change it to this: "Is geometry still worth reading?" "Is Nine Arithmetic Chapters still worth reading?" And "Is Aristotle still worth reading?" If history jumps to the future 500 years later, it is estimated that someone will ask, "Is the mathematical principle of natural philosophy still worth reading?" "Is lattice dynamics still worth reading?"

In the final analysis, this question is actually such a question: when we learn knowledge, is it still worth knowing its history?

This is especially true in science, especially in mathematics textbooks, which directly tell you the formula results, but we know little about its historical process, because they think it is not necessary for students to understand the detours that past masters have taken.

Obviously, I belong to support learning and academic history to understand together. My argument is not novel, it has already been discussed. When I read Elementary Mathematics from a High Viewpoint and Monopoly of Technology-Culture Submits to Technology, the educational views in them were even more cited as confidants.

It takes a person who tied the bell to untie the bell. Do you want to ask, "Are China's ancient books worth reading?" Then look for answers from other modern critical books, which can be used for reference.

Quote a passage from Monopoly of Technology-Culture Surrender to Technology and Love Fighter: Let's look at history first, because in several aspects, history is the core of education. I don't need to argue about this. As Cicero said, "If you know nothing about what happened before you were born, it means that you will always be a naive child." Just mentioning one thing is enough to illustrate the importance of history: history is the most powerful ideological means for us to "improve our consciousness." However, there is still one thing to emphasize about history and history teaching, because they are often ignored in schools. History is not one of many courses that must be taught; Every subject has a history, and biology, physics, mathematics, literature, music and art all have their own histories. I suggest here that every teacher must be a history teacher. For example, teaching only what we know today and not what we know in the past is to devalue knowledge into pure consumer goods, which will make students unable to understand the importance of our knowledge and how our knowledge was obtained. If we teach students atoms without mentioning Democritus, electricity without mentioning Faraday, politics without mentioning Aristotle and Machiavelli, and music without mentioning Haydn, we will not let students participate in the "great dialogue". Moreover, it cut off their knowledge base. At present, other social organizations are not interested in the origin of knowledge. Knowing the root of the matter is not only knowing where your grandfather came from, but also knowing what he has suffered. You also need to know where your ideas come from and why you believe them. You should also know where your moral sense and aesthetic experience come from; You also need to know where your world comes from, not just where your family comes from. In order to fully show Cicero's thought at the beginning, we quote another sentence from him: "Unless human life is integrated into the life of ancestors, unless human life is placed in the historical context, what is the value of life?" Of course, Cicero's so-called "ancestor" does not mean his mother's aunt or aunt.

Based on this, I suggest that every course should be taught as history. In this way, students know that knowledge is not a solidified object, but a certain stage of human development, with a past and a future; Unfortunately, today's students don't understand this. Let's go back to creationism. What we want to explain is that the ideas that came into being 4000 years ago were not only uploaded to today in time, but also changed in meaning. These ideas have changed from science to religious metaphor, and from religious metaphor to science. How intimate and profound is the consistent connection between the magical speculation of ancient Hebrews in desert tents and the magical speculation in modern MIT classes! What I want to say is that the history of the discipline has taught us to contact; History tells us that the world does not reappear every day. Everyone stands on the shoulders of others. Off-topic, quote a passage from the article "On the Dual Functions of China's Historiography" to summarize the importance of historiography to the humanities:

Generally speaking, people with a sense of morality are naturally people with awe in their hearts. On the contrary, a fearless person, a truly thorough materialist, an unbeliever, is naturally a person who lacks moral sense.

It can also be seen from here that the religious consciousness of the former and the historical consciousness of the latter are different, but their functions are similar.

Some China scholars (mostly young and middle-aged scholars) lamented when comparing western culture with China culture: China people lack religious sense; He also called on China people to be close to religion and cultivate religious awareness.

The author believes that this statement is somewhat biased:

I only see that China people lack sincere religious sense, but I don't see that China people have a mellow sense of history, which can replace religious sense in some ways;

I only see great differences between China people and westerners, but I don't see that China people and west Renye Fang people have some characteristics, that is, they all have a sense of inner awe.

One of the most important and simplest facts is that China culture is based on ethics and has lasted for thousands of years. It is impossible not to cultivate a rather mellow sense of awe in the hearts of China people, but this rather mellow sense of awe has become somewhat weak today.

(Our nation maintains social justice by writing history, which has different forms at different social levels. The mainstream society has official history, and the folk society has genealogy, epitaph and rap ... —— omitted)

According to the above viewpoint, we can draw many other viewpoints, at least the following viewpoints.

First, traditional China historiography is compatible with fact judgment system and value judgment system-the most abundant fact judgment system in traditional China and the most basic value judgment system in traditional China, so it has the deepest spiritual resources of our nation.

Because of this, our nation has a famous saying that other nations are unlikely to have: "History will not destroy the country, nor will it destroy people", that is, history is the foundation of the country and history is the foundation of the national spirit.