You think the existing theories are the second step, the third step. You start from the first step. I will go to the first step. Let me have a look again. I'm afraid we can see different things. The reason why we, like Chinese people, are worse now is that the second step, the third step, neither. The fifth step, the sixth step, you look at the university. The university students haven't come in yet. Next to the museum, the entrepreneurship research base of the university employment office, you are asked to be. If you haven't learned anything, you will be given 100000 yuan. You go to start a company and become the boss. Those people give you paper money to do. If they lend money to them to do business, their parents don't need to send it up. Let them do business with some money. What else do you want to come to, the Reemployment Guidance Office or the Entrepreneurship Office, And now our language is already very strange. Only being a boss is called entrepreneurship, and his understanding of business is to make money. If you analyze it carefully, his language is extremely dirty. What is entrepreneurship?
So, you asked him what entrepreneurship is?
If one day I were to impersonate a student's parent and ask the teacher what entrepreneurship is, he would say that your child can start considering establishing a company now. It must be like this. This kind of person can be a teacher. Why do they send their children here? We used to say that causing harm to children is similar to seeking wealth and death. That's the truth. But now our problem is that our classmates are even more foolish and think they have a plan. During our four years in college, no one came to ask us to study, so let's end up here today and send them to a dance party tomorrow. There are probably not many dance parties now, various lectures, various promotions, campus marketing or various activities. Four years have passed by.
Then, he went out. I don't know if you ruined four years of your life and thought you were proud. What's wrong with this class? I'm just here to play this. This kind of thing is really harmful, and now I think about this kind of education, there's really nothing to say.
Logic, because it is philosophy, it is ontology, and it must start from something that precedes and is more fundamental than any distinction between subject and object, and then be able to indicate our orientation towards pre reflection. It's not our reflection, it's the orientation of pre reflection. The various contradictions and tensions that arise during thinking clearly demonstrate what actually serves as a norm.
Existence and non existence, this is a pre reflective orientation. We don't need to reflect at all, we will be in the world. As long as we exist, we will have a existence, and then we will say that there will definitely be a non existence.
Then, the contemplation between existence and non existence will involve a normative regulation of things in the world. What is important and what is not important? We can say that something is better than nothing, or treat it as nothing. These things originally came from this, and traditional Chinese philosophy is also like this. But now, because people like Mou Zongsan were trained in philosophy at this university's philosophy school, they have forgotten their primitive vitality. They are still shallow and think that imitating the language of Western philosophers like Kant, combined with his semi literate Chinese, to construct a philosophical language and express something is called deep, not necessarily.
In fact, you cannot say that Laozi is not deep, you cannot say that Zhuangzi is not deep. The language he used was probably the language used by people at that time, but he thought deeply. What are we now?
Just like a person, he thought he was a gentleman with a tie. It's not like this. As a gentleman, he can still be a gentleman when he meets someone naked. I don't know if you believe it or not, it's determined by inner temperament. It's completely different from what clothes to wear. The reason why we don't have philosophy now is that he doesn't think about these issues, while ancient people did. There was always a book about Wang Yangming's state of existence and non existence. Why do we have to go back and forth between existence and non existence?
Because this involves our initial orientation towards the world, and then, the regulations of the world. Internally, there is a pure and irregular existence, but in reality, it is not pure. According to Hegel's concept of pure and irregular existence, there is an internal tension within it, which can be separated from it. The concept itself has an internal tension, which is not imposed on it by anyone.
The regulation of something is the opposite of what is imposed on it. Of course, there is an inherent tension within it, and pure thought itself has nothing that can be used to make it indistinguishable. However, the meaning of existence is precisely that it is different from nothingness. Therefore, once we try to express the idea of existence, perhaps such reasoning is already implicit here. Existence and nothingness are the same, as if nothingness is also a kind of existence.
We naturally say that existence and non existence are the same, both are a kind of existence, as if it is obvious that existence exists and there is nothing that exists. This is a famous proposition of Parmenides. People who don't understand will say that the existence of a fact that even those with some culture know doesn't exist. Parmenides is not that shallow. He tells you inside that on the surface, this seems to be a matter of bridge returning to bridge returning to road, existence exists, non existence does not exist, everything exists. However, there is actually a reasoning relationship between the two inside.
Just like Hegel said in logic, 'existence and non existence are unified propositions, which are self contradictory because propositions are self contradictory. Existence is non existence, and non existence is existence because both are present. Therefore, in the sense that existence and non existence are both present, we can say that existence is non existence, and non existence is existence.' However, Hegel said that this proposition is self contradictory, and self contradiction is thus reduced. Many people have come to this point, and I have also been ridiculed before because of sophistry. What is there is nothing, and nothing is there. I can't continue talking about it myself. This is not contradictory anymore. What does he mean and why does this phase diminish?
I can ask these people, 'If there is something, then there is nothing, and if there is nothing, then there is something.' However, based on this foundation, if there is something, then there is something, and if there is nothing, then there is actually something, because he is also a being, and he can be what he is. In a sense, he is a being. Since there is something, we can also infer that there is nothing, and if there is nothing, then there is something, because nothing is just another being.
Hegel, it's not a mockery of you. Ordinary people think it's a contradiction, and I admit it. Hegel would say, 'Yes, because the statement of contradiction is untenable.' He is self diminishing. But what Hegel wants us to think is, it's really strange, how could such a thing diminish?
You have to think about it, because whether it's me, Teacher Zhang, or anyone present here, I'm afraid they will all make this kind of inference. It's not just anyone who makes a special inference, everyone will make this inference. There is something that exists, and there is nothing that doesn't exist. We won't object to it. Then, based on this, there is something that doesn't exist, and there is nothing that doesn't exist, which is self diminishing.
It's not complicated at all, it's not difficult at all, and it's not a password issue. To Hegel, when we are unwilling to accept his elimination, why do we say that existence and non existence are not the same thing? Why?
Because there is a contextual understanding of the world that plays a normative role, making us firmly believe that even if we push it this way, the presence and absence are still different. Why?
Because behind it, it's not just two words playing around, there's a contextual understanding of the world at play. He understands the world as a whole composed of reaching existence and ceasing existence.
There are some things in the world that have changed from nothingness to nothingness, and there is also something that has changed from nothingness to nothingness. To change from nothingness to nothingness is to acquire existence, or in other words, to achieve existence. This is how the world continues to thrive, and that's what it means.
Our background understanding of the world, with and without, their unity and self dissolution, is meaningful in this sense. We are talking about it, otherwise it is meaningless.
So, Hegel wants us to think from this perspective, not to make tongue twisters with you, unless you are too shallow yourself. If you say Hegel is making tongue twisters, it is not making tongue twisters, there is a background behind it. If there is no overall thing, of course there is something, and nothing is nothing.
I'm throwing out the tea cup now. I said that when I didn't throw it away just now, he had it. Now I throw it away, of course, it's nothing. There is a way to transform it. But his premise is that we limit the world to such a small part. However, if we say that we regard the world as a whole, the tea cup certainly has it. But when we throw it downstairs, it doesn't matter that we destroy it. The factory can also build one. The tea cup exists, and the other one is the same. You can get the existence, as a whole.
Hegel said here, 'I have extracted all the rules. What I am talking about is the basic rules of everything in the world, which are determined from the background of the world. Therefore, it is not a boring tongue twister. I am going around for you. He is trying to tell us why.'
If it is precisely because of this principle, it is not a tongue twister, it should allow us to see that thing. When we distinguish between existence and non existence, we are not comparing two different things based on their attributes. We are actually in a normative space of reasons, which is also rational in the West. In fact, there is a reason, and we are making some inferences within a normative reason.
A world is a process of existence and disappearance, and this worldview allows us to live and die in a certain way. Zhuangzi said this, and it is this worldview that enables us to make these inferences. We can see in the world that what will exist and disappear is not nothing, but something that will exist or disappear.
The concept of existence with all regulations, if we try to think about existence without any regulations at all, we will find that we are thinking about nothingness. The mind goes from existence to non existence, from pure non existence back to existence, and it cannot stop wherever it is. Each one seems to disappear into its other.
According to Hegel, the truth of existence and non existence is a movement in which one disappears directly into the other, and this is their truth.
网友评论