Our human actions have a characteristic, which is unconditional in itself. The unconditional nature of moral laws and the unconditional nature of our practical behavior are consistent, or in other words, their basis lies here.
May I ask, what are the characteristics?
The characteristic is the unconditional freedom that we humans enjoy as a priori freedom. Our human freedom is unconditional and will not change due to persecution, imprisonment, expulsion, or any other circumstances, nor will it change due to the special nature of our existence.
This is a priori freedom, because experiential freedom allows you to say that freedom is relative. The mystery of the word 'a priori' in a priori freedom lies in its universality and absoluteness. It is non-negotiable, and we should do whatever we want. This is our freedom.
In fact, Kant, Fichte, and Hegel have the same understanding of freedom. Philosophy is fundamentally the philosophy of freedom, and "freedom" specifically means that we humans should be the reason for our actions. Only in this way can moral laws unconditionally constrain us. If we are not the cause of our own actions, I say it is because of society, the system, or myself being forced, then it is over, and it becomes a kind of determinism.
Of course, under such a determinism, morality would not exist. We are like this today, all morals can be folded in half here.
Our problem today lies here, because our determinism began in the Qing Dynasty, and it has actually become a tacit world view and outlook on life for our Chinese people. Let me give you an example. Our group of online intellectuals are known as Chinese liberals, similar to figures like Hu Shi. Let's read Hu Shi's philosophy of history, which is his view on the so-called philosophy of history. He is definitely a determinist.
Because he learned from his teacher Dewey, the roots of determinism in his thinking have not been completely removed. Therefore, Dewey, until his later years, said that Kant and Hegel had a great influence on his life, but they did not learn it well. Why did Americans still not get into the transcendental set of things? He always felt that Dewey's basic idea was that man and the world were masters and slaves. The most basic activity of man in the world was how to adapt to the external nature, which was, of course, determinism.
What path I take, what chess move I take next, what chess moves nature, he takes one step, I go further, this is determinism.
And Kant said, it doesn't matter what path I take. This is because I am free, and I just went that way. This is not adaptation, but our freedom to create. These are two completely different philosophies.
So, in today's Chinese society, why suppress bullying or what? In fact, the most authoritative logic in our society is the logic of money, followed by the logic of power, and morality does not exist.
In recent years, there has been a phenomenon where the Ministry of Education has launched a survey on college students. All universities are forcing and mobilizing college students to redo some exam papers from the past decade. What kind of state do you give to students? You are telling them that society is a fake society. However, there is no other way. If you don't falsify, you won't pass the inspection. The Ministry of Education also knows that there is no university that keeps exam papers from ten years ago.
However, he also made such inhumane demands, saying that if you can't come up with them, you will fail the assessment. So, this is simply a crazy era, and I don't understand how they think about problems. And there is a saying in China called self deception, do the people who come to inspect know if they are fake?
Of course he knows, he's not foolish enough. He also graduated from university, so of course he knows that many things in China are just self deception.
Look at the current public opinion, it's all about us being loyal to moral integrity, upholding political socialism, core values, and spiritual civilization, all of which are deceitful things.
Actually, it must look good. Although philosophy is invisible and intangible here, what kind of philosophy do you adopt that will affect your views on all the problems in the world? Do you believe it?
Therefore, an American once said that all people in the world have philosophy, and only a few people are good. Of course, it is right. Most people, some without higher education, would say that parents also pretend to be very experienced in society and tell their children not to be too naive. That's how society is, and that's how most parents educate their children.
Don't go against him, those who will suffer losses are driven by determinism. We need to adapt to ready-made things, but an invisible intangible thing. They will talk about the social environment or other factors, and then tell you, no, it will be very unlucky.
On the surface, we Chinese people are living a very easy life now. He has no responsibility. Because the responsibility has been taken by the society. The society is like this. I can not make a fake. Of course, I will make a fake. There is no way. But on the contrary, the Chinese people live a more oppressive and heavy life, and many people can't bear the condemnation of conscience once it comes.
I really want to know how the girl from the journalism department is doing now. There are two possibilities for such a person, one is to encounter obstacles everywhere, and the other is to enter the system. He finally realized that he was too naive. He still wants to enter entrepreneurship, I don't think there will be a third path to take. The third way is for you to give him some money and start a small business, which is free. Small business is not freedom, and the tax bureau is also powerful.
So, it is a priori freedom, "Kant said a priori." He is a call to us, and we unconditionally choose him, while at the same time seeing him as something that we seem to impose on us.
Actually, we chose freedom. However, on the other hand, after we were free to choose him in this way, it seems that he added something to us that made us less free. For example, when we obeyed moral laws, he only added it later, after we were free.
If we don't acknowledge that we are free, of course we can do anything, of course we can do anything. In that case, we won't be free. There's nothing we can do. If you ask me to betray my friends, I'll betray them. If you ask me to make up lies, I'll make them up. There's nothing we can do. What if I don't make up?
Of course, I can only make up for it. What can I do? I am not free. There are many helpless things in the world, and people have no choice but to endure them. In this way, people will not have freedom. Forgetting that these things themselves arise after freedom.
And as a poor person, we may be very simple. However, when it comes to Kant speaking, regardless of our situation, you are definitely making a demand for equal treatment and helping others. At the same time, the actor must also restrain his own behavior according to him. For the actor, it also means morality, and it is not easy to talk about price, which is an obligation.
The core of moral obligation is to experience that there is a powerful voice within me that makes certain demands on me. After experiencing such a requirement, I feel a responsibility to go beyond what I happen to do by chance or by chance.
A person feels responsible for telling a friend the truth about something, and at this point, they have a sense of obligation. A person feels that they should truly tell the truth, even if it means refusing to do something else, they still believe that it is what they want to do. Such an obligation experience is only possible for a free being.
One thing I saw yesterday is that a person has already retired. When the Korean War broke out, a college student from Nankai University in the past five years, his teacher said in class that we are engaged in history, and history means we must clarify the truth of things. Who initiated the Korean War?
Of course, at that time, all the officials were instigated by the lackeys of American imperialism and South Korea, and had to be counterattacked by North Korea, which was to fabricate history and then turn the tables. They went ahead and attacked others first, and then claimed that others attacked first. But at that time, it was very troublesome for you to speak, and it was very likely that your professor couldn't do it anymore and had to go to labor reform.
He said, 'We are all extremely nervous and scared because college students already know what's going on. Of course, they know what's going on, but they feel scared for themselves and sweat for their teacher. How can you know what the teacher wants to do?'?
Later, he said that a classmate stuttered and said that it seemed like a war launched by a puppet group in South Korea. Later, he said that his classmates were wrong. History needs to clarify the truth, who initiated the war is the truth, and of course, the person who initiated the war is not necessarily wrong.
Is it reasonable to launch a war? This is a two pronged issue, because as researchers in history, there are also many people who were right to take action first. However, let's not talk about it now. Let's figure out who took action first. As for whether it's right or wrong to take action first, that's another matter.
However, his viewpoint is that taking action first does not necessarily mean that the person who takes action first is wrong. It is two different things, but we should consider it to mean that no student dares to think about it. He said that war should have been started by North Korea, and at this moment, the teacher felt that as a history teacher, he had an obligation to tell his classmates. He was there, and I felt why he had to take a stand. That person wrote so vividly, saying that Teacher Hu stood on the podium for a long time waiting for us to react, but we didn't react. He finally said who initiated the situation.
I think he has an experience of feeling that he has a meaning, that a person should truly speak the truth, and it also means that there is an experience in their heart, a demand, and a voice. He feels that speaking anything else is shameful and cannot be done.
So, this kind of experience is rare in our current situation. This kind of pure obligation experience is the best, of course, not everything is just a free existence. Only a person who truly believes that he is free can experience him, what he wants to do, and his interests. Actually, it should be consistent once.
网友评论