The first field is the comparison of knowledge to tools. Comparing knowledge to tools, of course, we may still use domains now. Knowledge is a tool, a tool for us to deal with various problems in life and society. Why we need to master knowledge is probably a deeply rooted idea among many modern people nowadays.
To do a good job, one must first sharpen their tools. This sentence can also be used from the "Kao Gong Ji" to prove that this idea is very correct. Your knowledge is a tool in our hands. With him, we can do things without any obstacles. Of course, Hegel talked about people using metaphors, and knowledge is a tool for us to grasp it.
The second knowledge is mediation.
It is the intermediary between us people and things. How do we humans understand things? Through the intermediary of knowledge, truth and intuition must go through such an intermediary. In Hegel's view, Locke and Descartes both attempted to test the intermediary or tool. Let's see if he's reliable or not.
In fact, modern philosophy is more or less like this idea. Knowledge is the gateway to intermediaries, indicating that it is the channel to truth. The tools indicate that he is a powerful tool for mastering truth, but first of all, if these two things are to work, whether they are reliable or not, as anyone who has studied the history of philosophy knows, this is a constant thought of modern philosophers.
However, we also know that such a pursuit tests him to see if he is reliable, which is very ironic, and the final result is unreliable and incompetent. The final conclusion is Hume's skepticism. We cannot obtain knowledge about things themselves through it. What we may obtain is phenomena, but it is not the things themselves. In the end, it is a very ironic conclusion.
We all know that Kant was awakened by Hume from the fog of dogmatism, but in Hegel's view, Kant's critique of pure reason is actually a further extension. Because what he said was not wrong, he did not wrongly accuse them. Kant made it very clear that we understand knowledge through reason.
However, whether reason itself can recognize knowledge requires criticism. Whether it can recognize, to what extent it can recognize, and under what conditions, this is what we need to do in rational criticism.
He is also in a sense, and indeed he sees him as a tool. The reason why I want to conduct 'Critique of Pure Reason' is to see how powerful the tool is, how much it can achieve, and how broad its scope is now? What are the conditions exactly? Basically, it's the same way of thinking.
However, these two fields can actually be regarded as one field. Hegel said that this field itself is wrong. He said that as long as we reject the contingency of knowledge from the beginning, we will not doubt these two fields of knowledge.
The contingency of knowledge means that the world is rational. So, knowledge about the world can only be like this, why? This is governed by reason, and we can simply put it this way: Hegel would never consider such a thing. If the world is something without reason, and we discover that there is something that conforms to the law in the object world without reason, it is of course accidental. Coincidentally, it has a law.
Moreover, he must be viewed in the context of modern philosophical history, as he aims to block the path of skepticism. What is the strongest and most lethal reason for Hume's skepticism?
We have no way to prove causal necessity. Strictly speaking, causal necessity comes from the mechanism of our human psychological association, which is a fantasy or object, an illusion generated by an experiential psychological behavior. You can try it out a hundred times, don't say it's a hundred times, always unhappy. In theory, it only has probability, not inevitability, because its inevitability cannot be confirmed by our experience.
However, our only reliable source of formal knowledge is experience. So, for him, when he says that there is great killing power, causal necessity, only probability, and no necessity, it actually leads to the impossibility of knowledge. We humans cannot know the world.
Hegel emphasized that knowledge is inevitable, and he also had a consideration in the historical context of the time. He wanted to completely block this path, saying that it is inevitable. There are certainly many considerations here, but all of these considerations can intersect together.
Of course, Hegel also believed that the world is rational, and of course, we humans are rational animals, so the world should be able to be reasonably explained, or in other words, the world is reasonable, so there is no need to be pessimistic about the world, all of which are present in such a thinking path.
Don't think of him as a simple proposition, he has deep considerations behind it. This is the great philosopher. Every time he brings up something, like the great philosopher we have here now who said, 'Everyone must eat.' This is the first principle. This statement means that the first person has to eat, can it be considered as a principle.
Secondly, even if it's the principle, there isn't much explanation behind it. Why?
We can even be of little value. It is not people who want to eat, but rabbits also want to eat. You need to eat all living things. You regard it as the first principle of philosophy. Do you think it can carry the function of the principle? You don't want to think about such simple things, and still tell everyone there that it is really necessary for us Chinese to improve our ideological level.
It's not necessary to go and see him like watching a giant panda. Think carefully, because when people eat, he doesn't have any special characteristics. Speaking of knowledge like him is not accidental, and this sentence is very regulated. You can't say that rabbits are not accidental either.
Knowledge is not accidental. Whether a person can be a qualified philosopher or not, some basic qualities can be seen at a glance.
Because a seasoned philosopher, a qualified philosopher, cannot speak such absurd things because they cannot pass his own rational scrutiny. This person recently said that he specifically came to this point and asked a seemingly profound question, which turned you upside down. When I went to Fudan before, I used to say that you were the most powerful, Teacher Zhang. Let me ask you what existence is first?
Can't I answer it? Later on, I retorted to him and said that the question couldn't be asked like this. He immediately understood that he was very smart and knew that my words were very helpful.
The question cannot be asked this way, existence is not knowledge. The so-called current top professor sat next to him and said, 'What do you mean by philosophy?'? Those people say that of course it's a philosophical book, and a big name philosophy is the love of wisdom.
Then, some people say no, anyway they say you've all finished speaking, and I'll say a philosophy is to love wisdom. He doesn't even know that Plato has made it clear, so of course we cannot say that what Plato said is a conclusion. However, at least what I mean is that Plato defined opinions and ideas. If philosophy is opinions, the first thing you need to do is to refute one of Plato's ideas. Why does he belittle opinions and elevate knowledge in this way? And why should I do knowledge?
As a well-known philosopher of Plato, one of the most well-known ideas is to know that when you are responsible and speak philosophy as an opinion to many people below, it is okay. If I say that Hegel is not right, truth is not the whole, truth is the part. When I say this, I must say that if I am a responsible person, I am not the audience at the end of the term, or if I believe that the audience below does not even know this kind of thing, I must say it first. As you all know, you must think that I am talking nonsense because Hegel once said a famous sentence. Now, I want to say why I disagree with Hegel's statement. Only in this way can truth be part and stand firm. This is what a responsible and serious thinker should have, and he should respect his audience.
Because the audience may know that philosophy is not an opinion, you should respect them. First, you need to explain why I believe philosophy is an opinion and why I believe Plato is wrong?
You need to explain it clearly before it makes sense. Being reasonable means being reasonable, with a set of reasons. Otherwise, why should we seriously consider your opinion.
I hope that when we speak in the future, even in group discussions in class or in our usual private discussions about a problem, we should have an attitude of respecting everyone. Everyone knows these issues, and when you bring them up again, why do I have a different idea from others? I have to give my reasons, which is a respect for the audience.
So, Hegel believed that skepticism should still be addressed locally. Hegel thought he had a deep understanding and asked how Hume's skepticism could have come about? The fatal skepticism is due to the fact that modern Western philosophers distinguish between knowledge and the external world. They do not know that there is actually a unified truth between knowledge and the external world. They do not understand. They believe that knowledge is subjective, the world is objective, and knowledge within the external world. Therefore, he said that such a dualism will inevitably lead to Hume's skepticism. Kant continued to walk on the path of dualism, but of course, he could not truly overcome Hume's skepticism. In the principles of many philosophers at that time, Kant had already solved the problem of skepticism by integrating the external world into the domain of knowledge itself, which was composed of intellectual categories and intuitive forms.
At that time, many people did see things this way, but Hegel clearly pointed out that Kant is the one you are talking about. However, Kant further distinguished the ontology of phenomena and spoke very absolutely. There are phenomena and ontologies, and what we know can only be phenomena, and ontologies are impossible.
This makes it very clear that Kant distinguishes between phenomena and entities, based on or in other words, Kant distinguishes between the world we know and the world itself. The world we know is not the world itself, and this is not what skepticism is. The world itself cannot be known.
In Hegel's view. The ultimate result is that we still cannot understand the world itself. If Hume had lived to this day, he would have said, 'What did you overcome my skepticism about? Isn't your conclusion the same as mine? If I were to say that we know the world we can know, I may not have any disagreement with you either.'.
Hegel believed that once we distinguish between our world and a world independent of us, it is inevitable to come to the conclusion that we only know our world, but the world itself is still outside of our knowledge.
