And these philosophers, or the majority of them, are social activists or practitioners. No one is doing research on old papers, most of them are social activists engaged in various industries and jobs.
So, there are two understandings of philosophers, these are the two understandings of philosophers in 18th century France. In our understanding today, besides that kind of understanding, our philosophers mainly talk about researchers who can form a set of conceptual thinking activities and propose some important ideas based on this theory itself.
For example, people like Kant and Descartes, including Hume, are called philosophers because they can form a theoretical way of thinking and continue this way of thinking, allowing later philosophers to continue discussing and thinking along the questions they raise, rather than stopping at him.
For example, when it comes to Montesquieu's views on the separation of powers, political freedom, political environment, and geography, he ends here. At most, we regard him as the object of criticism or discussion, and we will not continue on this issue. We say that this theory has inspired us and given us a new understanding because the problem itself has a high degree of generalization.
There are none, so it only stays at the level of political theory or political theory.
We often say that philosophical theory is the most abstract, universal, and general theory among all the epistemology of humanity. Other theories, including political science, law, anthropology, sociology, are all under philosophy. Therefore, philosophy is called the king of science because it is a comprehensive discipline that governs all sciences.
However, in the 18th century, because the philosophy at that time did not form Kant's philosophical concepts, people's understanding of philosophy was still basically based on the understanding of activists. That is to say, what we mainly emphasized was that philosophy is actually a fundamental principle of theory, and these fundamental principles are constructed from practical knowledge obtained from various aspects of social life.
Then, after rational discussion, it sublimates into a theoretical doctrine, which we call philosophy.
So, we call Montesquieu's political theory a philosophy, Voltaire's materialism a philosophy, Rousseau's theory about the origin of human society a philosophy, and Diderot's materialism a philosophy.
In fact, in our view today, these theories themselves are not yet sufficient for true philosophy.
But we cannot deny the value of French philosophy because, as mentioned earlier, the value of French philosophy lies not in what theories or new questions it provides us with, but in proposing new theories and questions for later philosophers and opening up a direction.
And this direction has both positive and negative aspects.
On the positive side, it directly triggered the later German philosophers' genuine concern for human freedom. The concept of freedom originated from the French Enlightenment, and although Locke also had it, without the work of French Enlightenment philosophers, the understanding of freedom among German philosophers would never have been so profound. So, on this point, it is positive as it directly sparked a profound discussion among German philosophers about the concept of freedom.
At the same time, it also sparked an understanding of what "bad" philosophy is. Previous philosophies were all good, or there was no distinction between good and bad. French philosophy provides us with an example of bad philosophy.
This is also a positive significance, letting us know that philosophy cannot be done in this way. It is definitely wrong to do so, just like we have explained for a long time. If we still do philosophy in the same way as French philosophers today, we are sorry. Then you will no longer have your place in the history of human philosophy. At most, you can provide an empirical description.
Just like today, why did the Nanjing Massacre bring us a profound disaster? Up to now, none of our real works can represent or reflect that era. None of our real works can make us feel that we people really understand the Massacre from the perspective of human nature and bring us such a profound disaster.
This is also a strange phenomenon for us. We have filmed so many movies and TV shows, such as' The Flowers of Jinling ', which attempts to shine a little brighter from the perspective of human nature, revealing that through the best side of human nature, we can save the lives of others. This is the only highlight of human nature, but it has not been highlighted, but has been replaced by a cruel scene, bloody shots, and a suffocating and oppressive rhythm.
So, why do Iranian movies, Mexican movies, and even movies from a small African country win the Best Foreign Language Award at the Oscars? Do you think their values are the same as those of the West?
The Indian film 'Slumdog Millionaire' ultimately won an Oscar in the United States. Do Indian values align with those of Westerners?
It's different, why can't Westerners understand our movies. Then our excuse is that you don't understand because you don't understand Chinese culture. If our reason is always this, then we will never become a world power, obviously because we can never look at problems from the perspective of humanity.
If we only look at the problem from the perspective of the Chinese nation, then this level is too low. As Chinese, we can't just close the door and say hello to us. So, the rise of culture must be viewed from the perspective of humanity, in order to touch the universal soul of humanity and make people feel the opinions, issues, and ideas you express. This is something that every nation, no matter what the situation, must face.
Why can the works of Laozi and Mencius be widely circulated?
Because Lao Tzu's works, Mencius's works, including Confucius's works, touch upon the most basic humanity, kindness, compassion, and morality, which are the most basic things. Everyone should consider this issue, not just the Chinese. The reason why Laozi is so easy to become a world classic, with more printing than the Bible, is because people have gained a kind of thinking, learning, and progress from it.
Can our current culture reach this level?
We can't do it anymore, because today we have too many restrictions and artificial rules that imprison our thoughts. You can only think this way, not that way. If you think that way, you will be wrong. Your thoughts will make mistakes, and you will be punished for making mistakes with your thoughts. This is the most tragic thing for humanity.
We often say that we have no creativity, and we Chinese people have no imagination at all. For example, almost all of our achievements, many literary and artistic works, are copied in large quantities, or plagiarized. I read some articles on the Internet that day, saying that we even copied movie posters. I felt a pang of sadness in my heart.
I wonder if we Chinese people have no creativity at all. After a movie is released, some plots of some films are copied from overseas. Even posters have to be copied from the original version, and then become Chinese faces again.
Many of our technologies, the Internet, and so-called innovations have been popular in foreign countries for many years before they entered our country. We also regard them as models and models created by countrymen people. When foreigners look at them, they know that many of them copy others. Are we Chinese stupid enough today? Where has the wisdom of the Chinese gone?
This indeed requires us to reflect. So, culture can only become a nation's if it becomes human. Because it belongs to the world, it has become a representative of the nation. If we are only satisfied with our own nation and have not integrated into the entire human discourse system of the world, then it is over. We can only forever immerse ourselves in our own small scope and can only be called 'Chinese characteristics'.
But it cannot become a part of all humanity. China has always wanted to play a role on the international stage, and being able to keep its word can play a greater role. However, we must have culture, and the biggest problem with our culture is that few people can view it from the perspective of humanity, which is a great annoyance.
So, the positive meaning provided by French philosophers is to shape the image of bad philosophy for us, so that we know what bad philosophy is. However, what is its negative meaning?
The entire traditional Western philosophy, starting from Descartes and continuing through modern philosophy to French philosophy, has taken its own opposite path. Descartes' philosophy starts with reason and takes concern for the relationships of the external world as the starting point of philosophy; It is not as concerned as ancient Greek philosophy about how we construct the outside world in a conceptual way.
So, understanding the world is based on constructing the world. If you don't construct a world, you won't be able to understand it.
Because we are not born with a blank slate, we are born with many things from various directions, including family education, social traditions, and cultural psychology. People will definitely accept many things. At this time, you need to learn to distinguish, judge, identify, classify, and learn these things. So, what do we need to learn through what?
You need to first have a strong theoretical concept to support you. Where does that concept come from?
