The easiest thing to accept is that morality makes me happy. In today's world, it's not just in philosophy that ordinary people think morality should be like this, because morality is a rule of public human life. This is what makes us happy, not painful. What kind of morality is pain.
We won't talk about the second religion anymore, it's all about the 'foremost evil', which hasn't done anything good to people for thousands of years, and it's the Enlightenment movement. Religion is also finished. Starting from Hobbes and Locke, the state is not a artifact, but a machine.
His purpose of existence is for humanity, to safeguard my life safety, our freedom, and my personal dignity. If this is not possible, we have the right to overthrow him. Until today, the country has been a tool, and its sole purpose is to ensure the safety of my personal life and property. I can't change it, it's completely different from the ancients.
And there is also a problem that the methods of mechanical mechanics in modern science directly lead to atheism, fatalism, and instrumental rationality. Since the world is all about physics, there is another thing that used to be about good and evil. Now no one is afraid because there is no god. Most people were once foolish men and women. If they do bad things, they dare not do them. After all, they say that God is watching over you. If you do bad things, you will go to hell in the future, and they dare not do them.
But now, I'm sorry, there is no God, and there is also anarchism. Since the country is a tool of mine, I can have him or not. If I feel that he doesn't like me, if I feel that he is interfering with my freedom, why can't I hit the government?
So, anarchism has been very popular in China until today. In the 1940s, anarchism was very popular because young people were particularly receptive to it. Why do we need someone to manage us? The government can completely ignore it. Government agencies just take income tax from us. What's the use of it? This idea is very popular.
Another one is us atheists. During the Cultural Revolution, what did we do every morning. Farmers are assigned tasks by the team leader, while the women he specifically manages are managed by them. They are responsible for overseeing the work of female members.
Women in rural areas work relatively lightly, such as pest control and pesticide use. He, for example, assigned pesticides to two female members of the club. At that time, there was no watch because it was written on one bottle of pesticide that it was the original liquid and you had to mix it with water. This cannot be made too thick. After mixing it with water, such as its normal ratio of 1:20, it can be mixed with vegetables. Although it is harmful and not a problem, if it is 1:10, it will be toxic and harmful to the human body if eaten.
At that time, the two of them finished drinking these two bottles of water, because according to your 1:20 ratio, it would take about a morning to finish. However, which one is shorter between your 1:10 and 1:20 ratio? Of course, 1:10 is short, and it falls down after finishing. They are all folded in half, not in proportion at all.
After finishing, when he went home, he knew whether he knew it was poisonous or not. Of course, he knew. He said, 'We've cleared two pieces of land, don't go eat it. Anyway, it's none of my business to sell our food to others.'. He said that in their hometown, this kind of thing was unimaginable before, because at that time the Chinese people believed that there was God. You were not only immoral, but no one dared to do it. However, he said that after the liberation, there was no God in the discipline learning culture. There was no God in the world, and there was no God to fight.
Atheism, after the release of Sanlu milk powder, people in the newspaper kept calling for a nation without reverence to be very terrifying. Later, Wen Jiabao said, 'We still need to have a sense of awe. We should respect nature. If you don't have a sense of awe, you won't be afraid of anything. But if you use this materialism to understand nature, a sense of awe is just a verbal expression of not being afraid, because if he can do anything to me, I will give up. What can you do?'?
It has nothing to do with me if someone else eats and falls down to foam. I am not condemned on my conscience. So, without a sense of awe, it's really scary. And this is a global phenomenon, not just occurring in China, it's just a superficial good or bad.
Because all natural problems can be solved by mechanistic theory, is there still a possibility for freedom to exist? Even in the 17th century, the most fiercely criticized church city for religion and the church, the Pope of Rome, was Voltaire, a two legged beast. He saw that God must exist because he said that if humans believe that there is no ultimate guarantee of good and evil, good will be rewarded, bad people will be punished, and humanity will be in chaos. He famously said, "Without God, we must create one.
People should not think that bad people have good karma and good people have bad luck. He said that there is no good or evil on Earth. At this point, they have at least realized that there are things in the world that cannot be explained by reason. In the 19th century, Schulmacher was the first to raise the banner that we should not use this approach to deal with God.
Religion is primarily an emotional issue, why do we need God?
It is because of our emotional needs that people are composed of three parts: knowledge and intention. The idea was introduced to China during the May Fourth Movement, and ultimately there must be three schools of thought. One faction doesn't matter, it's optional, this one has the least strength. There are also two schools of thought, one is that religion is a harmful thing, religion is the devil, and religion is superstition. There is another faction where religion can exist, but they also do not acknowledge anything beyond religion, making it easier for them to accept. This made Mach's viewpoint popular at the time, that religion should exist. Without it, in the chaotic modern society, conscience would have nowhere to settle down, and people's inner emotions would have no support.
When we encounter difficulties, we need someone to comfort us in our hearts. God, the elderly, will protect us, purely out of human emotions, not other issues.
So, the problem has persisted until today. When we talk about the 21st century, religion should not be completely complete. Religion is not only prevalent on campus, but I don't know about it. Later, when I was sitting in Fichte, I met a yoga instructor who was in Weihai. The Korean people went too far. He said that if you develop a character in Weihai, he will give you kickbacks and turn it into a business. This is a big problem. Art and science have not improved human morality, but rather corrupted it. It seems to continue Rousseau's pessimistic viewpoint.
Because Kant and Spinoza are models of Enlightenment philosophy and fortresses of rational authority. Kant's philosophy represents a rational philosophy of science, while Spinoza's philosophy represents a thorough naturalism of science. However, their philosophy also clearly states the dangerous consequences of rational exploration.
The consequence of Kant's philosophy is that if his inconsistent design of the thing in itself is set aside, everything that can be known in the world is either set by me or constructed by me. Anything that is not constructed and set by me cannot be known.
Spinoza's philosophy, if we remove his superficial religious language, is actually atheism and fatalism. Everything can be deduced using geometric axioms. His ethical theory, you can strongly have such a feeling. When I was young, why did I like him? It's a one-step approach. Young people all have this kind of conclusion. He's good, and step by step, there's no room for doubt. That's great. I used to be very fascinated by him, and of course Spinoza is not simple either, but at least on the surface, you give you the impression that everything we infer based on geometry, what the premise is, what the reasoning is, he is a fatalist and atheist.
However, these two most important philosophers ultimately attribute both religion and reason to God. The reason why morality, religion, and the state have had a role in shaping or constraining us in the past is that they share a common characteristic of 'not for the survival of Yao, not for the downfall of Jie'. For example, if you want to find a Chinese in the 18th century, you will say that morality is designed for my convenience, I can change it if it is inconvenient, the rules of the game can be changed, and people will say that you are crazy. It is natural and there is nothing to bargain about.
Similarly, Westerners are also like this, and many tragedies arise in this way. God is also like this. The same goes for the country. Everything now can be explained by mechanical laws. The second is related to causality.
This creates a very confusing problem. If we accept all these morals, gods, and nations that have an impact on human behavior, why should we still listen to reason?
At that time, there was still a fear that philosophers who had been influenced by the Enlightenment movement would not be able to go back to the Middle Ages. None of the philosophers who had been influenced by the Enlightenment movement would say, 'Because we are facing such a serious problem now, let's give up rationality. This is not possible.'.
They are currently very conflicted and will be at two extremes. They cannot give up reason, and they believe that reason should be within morality and religion. Of course, it is different from the ancient people. The ancient people believed that the foundation of religion and morality was God in a transcendental celestial phenomenon, and we Chinese people believed in heavenly principles. They also believe that morality and faith should be based on reason, and they cannot give up on this. Moreover, they believe that reason is mysticism and dogmatism, the only antidote to this evil.
However, unlike later rationalists, they were also unwilling to give up their faith because they knew that moral behavior and social life cannot be without faith. People without faith are terrible people, and societies without faith are terrible societies. After all, they are still great thinkers.
They feel that on one hand, reason cannot be lost, and on the other hand, faith cannot be lost. Of course, there is a very contradictory aspect here, how to achieve a balance between faith and reason, there seems to be no middle ground to take. Previously, in his "Treatise on Human Nature" written at the age of 26, Hume predicted the crisis that would only become at the end of the 18th century, which is an unsolvable conflict between the demands of reason and faith, philosophy and life. Hume's reasoning led him to the conclusion of skepticism.
These conflicts in our actual lives, after playing cards with us and our friends, we forget about them and their power disappears. He adopts this approach to pretend not to see. However, in the 18th century, the German religious belief was more profound than that of the British, when they would appear nihilism words, in the sense of the German philosopher Jacques. In his view, nihilism was a skeptic, and his reason told him to doubt everything, others, God, even his own existence, can doubt, the only thing he can affirm is me.
