The ultimate goal of nihilism is that everything is for me, and it was very common in the 18th century. Jacobi said that although nihilism is an inevitable result of many philosophers, 'I do what I want, there is no principle above me, outside of me, of absolute authority.'.
All principles are relative, I persist in what I like, and all principles I dislike must be resolved. We are in a very powerful era of nihilism today. If you look at the thinking of the average people around us, it will be very useful to me. I look at things that are not pleasing or hindering me, or I feel inconvenient. I'm sorry, I don't even recognize his principles, or I can come up with a whole set of various reasons to negate him.
Later, Heidegger took Nietzsche's example and believed that one of the fundamental principles of modernity was so painful that Heidegger went to the extreme. The essence of Western culture is nihilism, or in other words, the essence of Western metaphysics is nihilism. Only when one hates it to the extreme, will they speak of it as nihilism.
Reflection is very profound. At the end of the 20th century in China, we realized that all the sacred and solid things had been overturned. We are now facing nihilism, and this nihilism is a traditional way of thinking. How to face nihilism is an object that all humanity faces today.
At that time, German philosophy was a major dilemma faced by any philosophy, and another problem was the conflict between reason and faith. In the 18th century, reason seemed to be about to destroy itself. Later, Hegel said, reason seemed to be determined to suffer its own retribution, and reason itself would destroy itself.
The Enlightenment's belief in reason was primarily driven by the critical power of reason. Philosophers at the time believed that reason was the ability to criticize, and the entire criticism was the ability to provide us with sufficient evidence for our faith. Where there is evidence, there is faith. Without evidence, I'm sorry, rational criticism is such a faith. The principle of criticism is set through the law of sufficient reasons, and faith must always have reasons, not without reasons. It was taught during the Enlightenment movement that faith should not be without reason, and all beliefs should have sufficient justification.
What does' sufficient reason 'mean?
Your reasons must be based on everything that has already been proven to be true, provided they are reliable. Because the thing you derived from these reliable premises, we call it a sufficient reason, and nothing else can be established. The Enlightenment movement saw the problem as absolutely simple. It's very simple. He would say that the rest of you are talking nonsense to me. The Bible is completely wrong and unreasonable. There is no reason why you want to do it. For example, if God is good, you need to test whether Abraham Khan is devout to me. Suddenly one day, he told Abraham that there is no one in the world who is very devout to me. They say you are truly happy, so believe me. Tomorrow afternoon at 3 o'clock, take your son to the back mountain and cut him with a knife. If you cut him, believe, if you don't cut him, don't believe.
There is no reason why you want to cut it. If you still do it because there is no reason, it shows that you truly believe. True believers do not ask for reasons before you believe. If you want to ask me, why did you let me do this?
That's you telling me the price. My God, the old man is a relative thing in front of you, not absolute. The Enlightenment movement is unreasonable and nonsense. How can a person do this? If we want to be rational, we must have reasons, and the reasons come from everything that is true. No, I don't believe it at all.
This is their approach, and they have assigned a sufficient justification rate. Without any surprises, all beliefs must comply with the requirement of a sufficient justification rate. In your conclusion, it's not that you're vague and talking nonsense to me. I'm sorry, I'm going to overthrow you immediately. There's nothing sacred in the face of rational criticism. Neither the state nor the religion, except for the critical court, there is nothing sacred or noble. The only noble thing is rational, and everything else is not noble or correct.
However, such a clearly suspicious exception, where rational laws can remain uncritical, raises doubts about the Enlightenment's belief in criticism. Why can you avoid criticism? Where does the authority of your laws come from?
Some philosophers believe that an unconditional requirement for criticism should itself be self reflection. It's unconditional criticism that should apply to your demands on others. Why can't you use the spear of a child, why can't you target yourself. Since you say that your law of sufficient reason makes sense, why do you say that I make sense and why can't it be applied to you? We also have principles for you, can we?
It is often said that if the duty of reason is to criticize all our beliefs, then it should not be a special zone, it should not be an exception, it should also criticize itself, and it cannot be said that it criticizes all beliefs except for me. Because he is also a belief that reason is the highest, and the court is also a belief, because he has not been proven, it is also a belief.
Why can't you pass the test of accepting your own principles?
If you cannot accept your test, it means that you are not rational, and anything rational should withstand the test. Your unwillingness to undergo testing indicates that you are not rational at all. This move is very powerful. There is also faith, and no faith can be avoided. It is like using the spear of the child to attack the shield of the child. Therefore, if you want to refuse to be tested, any belief that refuses to be tested, in the philosophical love of that time, is governance and should be tested.
You don't allow inspection, we are exceptions. Everyone else needs to inspect, but I don't want to inspect. I'm sorry, you are dogmatic. What are the differences between you and Christian dogma? Don't doubt it, just believe me. I am right. What are the differences between you? This move is indeed very powerful, and it is also very correct. The characteristic of dogmatism is to refuse to give reasons. Obviously, dogmatism is the enemy of reason, a characteristic of rational criticism. Please give me reasons. No reason is dogma, and I still trust that to this day. There are too many unreasonable things in our lives that don't give reasons. The saying goes that if you don't reason, you won't give a reason. That's what I said.
Unless you criticize yourself. If he doesn't want to criticize himself, if he wants to be loyal to his principles of rational criticism, he must aim the cannon at himself and criticize himself. The critique of criticism itself, Kant's critique, is actually aimed at solving problems.
What are the possibilities of our rationality itself, what are its conditions, and what is the scope of its effectiveness? Don't be too busy criticizing others, first look at your own limitations?
This is Kant's true loyalty to the principles of enlightenment. He wants to criticize reason, and with the publication of "Critique of Pure Reason," "Critique of Practical Reason," and "Critique of Judgment," it is actually a critique of reason. These three critiques are aimed at criticizing reason itself.
On the other hand, another belief of enlightenment, "rationality is universal and unbiased", that is, what the Chinese say, "not for Yao, not for Jie", is neutral. It is such a rational court of belief that rationality cannot be questioned, not only because its principles are neutral, but also because they are universal, because they accept every rational person, no matter what his culture and education is, every rational person will recognize it.
Secondly, they are unbiased, and their rational conclusions are not related to human desires and interests.
This point has been completely torn apart from Marx, and rational conclusions are often dominated by interests and desires. Later, Marx and Nietzsche exposed the most profound work, of course, which was first done by Hegel. However, Hegel did not do it thoroughly, unlike later Marx and Nietzsche who did it thoroughly. It is an illusion that there is a desire at work behind reason.
The most original, powerful, and influential figure in this belief is a German philosopher named Aman, who, like Jagger, is a philosopher with a strong religious flavor and opposes the idea of rational purity. He said, 'You think you have no impurities like a crystal, but that's not true at all.'. Why? This statement is abstracted from culture and experience. In fact, our rationality and human culture, language, activities, and experience are intertwined and inseparable. All reason must be expressed through a special language, which expresses a unique human experience and culture.
That's right, there is no neutral rationality like crystal, no culture, no language, no experience, that kind of rationality is an artificial abstraction, not a fact.
If so, we have to ask, Haman said, where is rationality? What special thing is he in? "Haman asked himself and answered," Our only answer is that reason is already in our language and behavior. If you speak incoherently, it is irrational. If you speak in an orderly manner and make others accept it, we will say that you are a very rational person. Or as the common people say, he is a very reasonable person, very reasonable, that is, a very rational person. He is reflected in language and behavior, and we can only study reason in this way. Reason is not a special existence in an individual or spirit, as Kant believed, but a way of speaking and acting in a special language and culture.
That's not wrong. For example, one of my students made a mistake and called his father to school. His father told the teachers that they did a great job and thanked them for their meticulous care and all the people in your department for taking care of my child. However, it was because his child had a problem and it was very bad at the time. The teachers in the department heard his father's expression and thought it was very rational. He had tears in his eyes, spoke calmly, and expressed gratitude to everyone who took care of him. Even some have suffered some damages, and he said we will definitely be responsible for compensation and so on.
In that situation, it's not chaotic at all. Rationality expresses itself through behavior and language. On the contrary, when someone comes and is about to hit someone in the office, you will say that they are unreasonable and irrational, which is also manifested through language and behavior.
Peak 144 Mysticism
So Haman is not like Kant, he is in a very mysterious place where he appears, no, reason has already expressed him through our language, through our actions. What's more, as a contribution of Germans to us, reason especially emphasized the social dimension. Indeed, at that time, reason was no longer cannibalistic. Reason had its social dimension and its historical dimension.
There is also one thing that Harman did wrong. Of course, in the philosophy of the 20th century, many people believed that the tool and standard of reason is language, and language is just a reflection of a nation's cultural traditions and customs. It is also spoken very well, and language is not purely a tool. There is a nation's cultural tradition under language.
Why do I feel a little heartbroken and even like a disaster when it comes to online language? The destruction of Chinese culture by online language is enormous. Because in the future, we will not understand our real Chinese. What we understand is a mixture of English and deliberate imitation of the Internet all day long. And now some professors are the same. People who are ten years old write letters, even write papers, publish in newspapers, also use Martian, and even pretend to be naive.
He just means that I'm 50 years old and my heart isn't old yet. You are not old, you have a mental illness. I read articles published in the Wen Hui Bao that some people use this kind of language to describe it, and there is nothing to say. Of course, Haman emphasized that after all, there are social and historical dimensions, but there is also a pathogenic weakness that can easily lead to relativist rationality.
Chinese people have Chinese rationality, Japan has Japanese rationality, and Africans have African rationality. That's the end. It seems that human beings have no common rationality. They also have such problems. If the language and custom of a culture determine the standard of rationality, if the language and culture are different or even opposite, there will be no single universal rationality.
Indeed, reason cannot remain outside of culture. Because his standards are determined by culture, but this does not mean that rationality has no commonality, nor does it mean that rationality in different cultures has no commonality. On the one hand, we need to recognize Harman's contributions, and on the other hand, we need to prevent relativism from arising from Harman's ideas.
Haman himself wants to make it clear that he has not clearly defined the meaning of such relativism. However, among those influenced by him, such as Hegel and H ö lderlin, his ideas have been given varying degrees of expression. Let's go back to what Jacques said about spontaneous rationality. Jacques proposed it from another perspective, and we cannot regard rationality as desires and instincts, which are very high.
We need to see that reason is a single living organism, a part of us living flesh and blood beings. Among flesh and blood people, he organizes and guides various functions of life. So, rationality is not a non utilitarian organizational ability, but a tool of will. He is also deeply influenced by the fate of his will.
His standard of right and wrong is guided by will. Later, Hegel, in his Second Critique, actually spoke of practical reason. He purified Hamann's consciousness, and reason should be guided by will to determine whether our life goals are successful or not. Reason guided by will can judge whether our life goals are achieved and whether what we are doing is right or wrong.
It is not to say that a pure person is as calm and objective as a computer, and will always be that way. No, he implied that the purpose of life, different cultures, such as the Chinese treat, Indians simply have no way to understand our attitude towards life. Many Indians, who are independent of the world, earn some money, 3000 yuan a month.
Then, trust in such a good place and interact with some very friendly people, because Bali still believes in Hinduism. What are the good things about drivers and sliding doors in Shanghai? Why do you need more money. He finds it ridiculous that different cultures have different purposes for life. Some people believe that culture is about using their savings and real estate to prove themselves.
There is also a culture that says that I can achieve harmony between heaven and man, feel balanced with nature, have no worries in my heart, and always be filled with joy and gratitude. This is also the purpose of my life.
Ha Man said that the purpose of each life and culture is different. So, before Jacobi, Harman had already engaged in conscious and rational activities. He expressed our subconscious and irrational desires, which later became very profound, even 100 years earlier than Nietzsche.
To say that he is profound, it is now believed that Freud is one of the three great prophets of the modern world, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud. He mainly proposes that humans actually have a subconscious and desire to lose.
There is another one, Harman was a pioneer of Freud, but Freud only knew that Nietzsche did not know Harman. Harman believed that sexual ability is the source of a person's creation, and that reason is the sublimation of our sexual ability. Firstly, Nietzsche, and later Freud acknowledged that his sublimation and creation through sex came from Nietzsche, including the concept of sublimation. However, in reality, Harman was more than a hundred years earlier than Nietzsche. Herder said that all our activities are only the power of certain judgments that we suppress for the purpose of daily life.
We must suppress our inner selves. There is a lot of darkness deep inside us, otherwise we cannot live in society. We must suppress my dark things, which is also Freud's basic theory. These things come back to our context, and these ideas are aimed at one of the main ideas of enlightenment, which is rationality.
The criticism of reason in the late 18th century was partly a product of the Enlightenment's view of nature. We should explain everything according to the laws of nature, which is the main proposition of the Enlightenment movement. If we accept this proposition, we cannot detach rational thinking from the natural force that exists.
We should interpret it as a force of nature, just like anything else, it should be a part of nature, without a unique and elevated status above nature. If a person attempts to place reason in a special scientific research, an inaccessible ontological field, in order to save the autonomy of sexuality. It's like a supernatural god and obscurantism, why are you protecting reason. If you hide him in a place, it's a transcendent field where scientific research doesn't work for him. What's the difference between you and the ignorant, mystical, and supernatural ideologies you oppose?
Doubting is also correct. If reason should explain everything according to natural laws, it should also explain itself according to natural laws. Of course, everything should include himself, and it cannot be said that everything should be explained according to natural laws, except for me. This sentence is too soft.
However, there is no special relationship between the subject of nature and nature. The relationship between humans and nature is the same as the relationship between other things and nature. Don't dress yourself up as someone special, someone special, someone privileged. No, you are also a part of nature.
However, in that case, another problem will arise. What is the problem?
The problem implies that reason is not a special zone of nature, it must be a part of nature, just like everything else. Then there arises a principle of reason that must also be removed from enlightenment. If reason is not a part of nature, it is no longer its own, and it must obey the natural rate. Like all other things in nature, it must obey the natural rate. Reason is no longer oneself. In this way, the belief in rational autonomy cannot compete with scientific naturalism. It can be seen that the rational faith of enlightenment, even if rationality can explain everything in principle, will ultimately lead to nature becoming a faith.
Because faith can already be explained, in fact, thanks to modern natural science, it inevitably carries the naturalism that modern nature should represent, and the principles of naturalism will eventually become a rule to establish its own rational status, ultimately leading to its downfall.
If you can explain everything with reason, then you should treat everyone equally and explain yourself with your principles. But if this happens, you will also become obedient to the natural rate, without the autonomy that Kant later desperately tried to prove. You are his master, and natural forces are ruling over you. You are his master, you are not autonomous, you actually obey the natural rate like anything else. It is also a fundamental difficulty for him.
The Enlightenment movement, after 200 years, exposed his own almost insurmountable self contradictions. Kant appeared during his time, and in fact, as an extremely intelligent and genius philosopher, he is very clear about all philosophy. His philosophy aims to uphold the Enlightenment movement and solve rational problems.
The victory of Kant's philosophy is not an exaggeration, and it can also be said that Kant's name hangs over the universe. Among people who have received higher education around the world, I think in the Western world, Kant's influence on society is probably significant. Although Kant passed away 200 years ago, he still has a very great influence today. Today in the West, many issues cannot be discussed without Kant.
Why can't we do without Kant?
Whether you are a Chinese or a foreigner, as long as you care about the fate of human beings, you will certainly encounter these questions that Kant thinks about, such as freedom, how people know themselves, what kind of evaluation people should have of morality, whether morality is a means or an end, what other people's judgment is, what kind of judgment people make, what kind of judgment is a legitimate judgment, what kind of world peace is possible, and how possible? Of course, there is also the question of human reason, human thought, and how much of the world one can grasp. In an era where rational science is highly developed, does faith still have a place?
We are all slightly intelligent people. As long as you are not someone who daydreams and understands life through eating, drinking, and entertainment, you will consider these issues. In a word, a conscientious person and someone who does not want to daydream will consider these issues to some extent. I must consider the issues of mutual love between people, the principles of violence, and the essence of violence. Kant has discussed these issues.
