Concept is equivalent to us mastering the world, we know the world, we put a sentence, we know the world and do things, you go fetch water, fetching water is an action is not wrong, but what is the difference between action and pouring water?
It depends on ideas to distinguish. When I ask you to fetch water, I give you an idea of fetching water. Please go fetch me a bucket of water and help me pour out the water. These two are commands, and the command itself is a concept. Through this, we have different ways of handling water.
Reading and memorizing the same text, please read this passage. Our high school teacher would say, 'Please, so and so, please recite this passage for me. Reading can be done with a notebook, but memorizing is not necessary. These two commands are concepts behind them, and by doing things, we will not do the same thing.'.
In a word, ideas are the fundamental medium for us to grasp the world, including the practices we can propose in the world, the practices we practice in the world, and the knowledge we practice and understand. Of course, besides that, we know people who express their emotions, anger, joy, sadness, surprise, and so on. You are all trying to deal with these things. If we were to draw conclusions, we would be at a loss when facing the world, and we would have no way to be human because we cannot recognize, distinguish, or grasp them. When we need to have any confidence, it already involves concepts. Conceptual theory is a form of correlation. It's not that the world is made up of him, but rather that without a covenant, we can't do anything.
As for some people who may say that animals are also like this?
I don't know, we don't want to answer the question right now. But for people, I have to do things, only with an idea can I do it, telling you where to find water, drink water, fetch water. These are three different concepts, but without such a drinking environment, you cannot go and drink water. You don't have the perspective of fetching water, so you can't fetch water. This is the concept that regulates and guides our behavior.
And when others see what's wrong with you, they also judge based on your beliefs. Whether you did it well or messed it up, it's all based on your beliefs. For example, you can't pour water like this. If you pour water outside and mess it up, they have a belief. It's just that, of course, this water is H2O, of course it's a liquid. Of course, drinking it can quench thirst, of course, there's no problem. It's just that everything we do requires the idea to act as a medium in the middle. Without him, we wouldn't be able to do anything.
Because reason is based on experience, the problem is that the relationship between humans and the world needs to be mediated by experience, and experience itself cannot provide the background needed for Enlightenment philosophy.
In addition, there is also a dualism in Enlightenment philosophy, which is the issue of the duality of body and mind. Today's Chinese people still accept the view that there are two civilizations in the world, one is spiritual civilization and material civilization. But the question is, ultimately, are these two the same thing?
In the real world, in terms of substance, it is material. The question is what is spirit?
If we follow the naturalism of enlightenment, then the whole world is material. If it is material, how the spirit is processed cannot always explain what the spirit is. Either the spirit is another unique property, or the spirit is another machine.
But no matter what, the Enlightenment believed that the world could be explained by natural laws, but in the spiritual world, how can you explain it by natural laws?
Most people encounter such problems with French defenders, who are a major faction in the French Enlightenment movement, because not all French Enlightenment activists were materialists. However, mechanical materialism was a mainstream ideology in the French Enlightenment. For example, De La Mette. He has a famous book, "Man is a Machine," in which he believes that all human activities, actions, and thoughts can ultimately be reduced to mechanical contracts. Our mental activities, muscle activities, and so on can be explained by mechanical laws to our spirit, reducing humans to machines.
The problem is that the crisis of enlightenment is the mutual dismantling of nature and spirit. Rational criticism means that everything without reliable evidence must be excluded, and the so-called reliable evidence is objective and real, which is reliable.
However, according to rational criticism, if you are thorough, what is the most reliable is that they are relatively immature at that time. Anything that is visible, tangible, and experienced by us is reliable. But in the end, through experience, we all know that what we can see and touch is our sensory experience. Listening, speaking, smelling, and smelling are all relative and vary from person to person, place to time, as evidenced by the eloquent proof of British empiricism. Under different lighting conditions, the same thing can be perceived differently by the same person. Under different physical conditions, the taste of the same thing is also different.
Mao Zedong once had a famous saying, "If you don't think about it for a moment, you will feel that he is right: 'If you want to know the taste of a pear, go and taste it.'. Most materialists would say that this is too true. We went to the market to buy fruit, and the boss tasted it. It seemed like this, but in reality, if you think about it carefully, the same fruit may not be the same under different physiological conditions.
Not to mention different people, for example, I am from Shanghai and don't eat spicy food. There is someone from Sichuan or Jiangxi who believes that without spicy food, one cannot make a living. Your spiciness is not as spicy as ours, so I need to add more spiciness. Some people have a strong taste, which is a common phenomenon in our daily lives. So, it is often relative, subjective, and varies from person to person, time, place to object.
Finally, because Hume, a culmination of British empiricism, believed that the objective world is unknowable, and all we can know is our perception. What we can see and touch is reliable, but it is not our perception. Whether there is a problem with things themselves or not, we cannot completely deprive ourselves of our perception and directly deal with things themselves. It is unknown how things themselves are.
The original purpose of the criticism was to lay knowledge on a certain and reliable foundation, ensuring that what we find is reliable knowledge. What I want to defeat are those who pretend to be gods and deceive people. Religions, superstitions, and witchcraft are all fraudulent and there is no reliable evidence to convince them.
Our current self's result is skepticism and agnosticism, about what things are, but the problem is not here yet. This person's result actually undermines naturalism. Firstly, naturalism acknowledges that nature exists independently, and secondly, scientific laws are inevitable because they are the laws behind things. They are inevitable, 'not for Yao, not for Jie'. Water will definitely boil when it reaches 100 degrees, there's no problem with that.
However, the problem is that he tells you how there is no problem, and the appearance is different under different conditions. Therefore, whether it is the laws you speak of or the objective reality you speak of, there is only relativity, not absoluteness. Rational criticism of naturalism holds that nature exists objectively and scientific laws are inevitable. He would say that science is not inevitable, because we all know that the law of causality is a classic example of scientific laws. Because in fact, many laws of classical mechanics can be reduced to causal laws. Causal rate, I pushed it a bit. When I play volleyball, if I hit the ball, it will move. However, if you don't have external motivation and he doesn't move, it can be calculated.
Therefore, most of us would say the law of causality. That's the law of causality, it's an objective one. Many of the laws in classical mechanics are actually causal laws. Later, Hume would say, nonsense, that causal laws have no objective regularity, only an objective probability, because causal laws are actually the result of our subjective associations. For example, we often see thunder first and then rain, thunder first and then rain, thunder first and then rain. Over time, we naturally form a psychological connection from within as soon as we hear thunder. When it's about to rain, we immediately have a natural association, but we forget that this is just our psychological habit.
We believe that it's not a psychological habit, but rather that things are like this, it's certain that after thunder, it will rain, and thunder and rain are objectively inevitable. Hume said that it is not objectively necessary, but subjectively probable, and that an event has been repeated a trillion times. However, logically speaking, it is possible for him to thunder without rain, because the connection between thunder and rain is not the connection of things themselves, but rather because we have this habit of thinking of rain when we see thunder, and our countless repetitions generate some psychological associations.
Therefore, the law of causality is not the inevitability of things, but rather a subjective association of human beings. It only has probability and no inevitability, and naturalism is washed away by it. Firstly, we cannot know what the world really is. The second is objective laws, not the objective laws you mentioned. Objective laws are just subjective constructions of human beings, they only have probability, not necessity, and they may not be. He may not always get nine out of three, as he always gets nine out of three. He may not be like this one day.
Because yours is a possibility, summarized by countless examples rather than deduced, you definitely do not have universal inevitability, only one possibility. Later on, Kant and classical German philosophers faced a problem: the principle of modern thought, a principle of rational criticism, that things without evidence cannot be believed. What does it mean to see evidence, to touch what is seen and grasped with one's own eyes, to have God or to say that after someone dies, they are resurrected or something like that? That is something that pretends to be divine and cannot be believed. This statement cannot hold up now, as it has led to skepticism and agnosticism. Skepticism and agnosticism directly undermine naturalism, because is the world objectively existing?
