This way of discussing problems, I think, is a really valuable way to really understand French philosophy, not just French thoughts, or even the way the French think about the world in the 18th century, rather than the way they use to observe and describe the world.
What I constantly remind everyone to pay attention to is the particularity of French philosophy. If we talk about Kant, we can ignore this contradiction. It can be said that Kantian philosophy sets an example for us. It means that we can directly start from our subjective world, or in other words, we can construct an understanding of the world without describing it; On the contrary, what the world is like is entirely constructed from subjective concepts, which is Kant's idea.
So, for Kant, this contradiction does not exist, but for French philosophers, this contradiction is very obvious.
Of course, earlier on, we also raised a question for everyone, which is how French philosophers resolved and handled such contradictions?
Remember my answer to everyone is that for French philosophers, there is no contradiction here because they did not realize that it was a contradiction.
In other words, for them, it is to present their understanding of nature in this way, in other words, to construct a philosophical theory based on their personal common sense grasp of the world, which is the most natural for them. So, they won't ask what kind of contradictions and conflicts exist within or behind this structure.
I think this is the characteristic of French philosophers. So, Marx and Engels also regarded French philosophers as naive materialism. This' simplicity 'lies in the fact that they have not delved deeply into establishing the basic principles of materialism and what fundamental theoretical basis it should have behind it.
He did not consider why we must start from experience, or where the mistakes of those who do not agree to start from experience and do not use experiential knowledge as the foundation of philosophical knowledge lie.
Just like a method we used to adopt in the past, which is to label all idealistic philosophies in a so-called way, as long as they are idealistic, they are wrong, regardless of where they are idealistic or why they are wrong. Anyway, if they are wrong, they are generally wrong. In short, they are wrong, and we don't have to repeatedly ask why they are wrong. I clearly told you it was wrong, but you still have to ask why it was wrong. Isn't it troublesome for you.
There is such an understanding, such a way of grasping problems, and of course, if we obtain an understanding of the world in this way, I believe that human knowledge and understanding cannot advance forward.
We have repeatedly emphasized the important differences between philosophical and scientific thinking methods, as well as thinking methods that include our common sense. Only when we understand what philosophy is and what philosophy is, can we truly know where French philosophers went wrong.
Only then can we truly understand why German classical philosophy, especially Kant's philosophy, has created a completely new field of knowledge that is completely different from other sciences for real human cognitive activities.
This field of knowledge tells us that in the process of human understanding of the world, it is not simply presenting the world, and the way each person presents the world is actually their way of understanding the world, and the way of understanding the world does not come from your experience and observation, or even from your experiments. I think in this sense, it is very necessary to grasp why French philosophy is wrong and where it is wrong.
So, although we use characters as clues to introduce the ideas of French philosophy, or rather, I use their broader concern for humanity as a whole, especially for human society, as clues to grasp the development of French philosophy. However, we must always adhere to the philosophical way of thinking. Always focus on the influence that French philosophy has created or brought to the development of philosophy in the entire West, as well as the significant role it may play.
So, at this point, we are not confined to a specific philosopher who discusses this idea. Of course, all expressions of ideas must be based on their original works and the development of their ideas.
For Voltaire, his philosophy was basically a philosophy of common sense. If you have read his "Dictionary of Philosophy," his arguments for philosophy do not have the truly reflective features of Descartes or the elements of Kant's framework system. Of course, this is directly related to the French philosophers' strong admiration for British empiricism, because in their view, only British empiricism philosophy is a truly valuable philosophy.
So, in their minds, Locke far surpassed Descartes' role. As we will see later, Voltaire even regarded Locke as the greatest thinker in human history, and his works as, arguably, wonderful and perfect, works that humans could write.
Voltaire, as a critic of atheism and a proponent of natural theology, largely sought to avoid criticism from theists, especially Christian theology. This was a strategic consideration, but deep down, Voltaire believed that there was a primal force behind the world or nature we observe. Without such a primal force, it is difficult to imagine how nature could have been formed.
So, thinkers always tell us that the deeper we explore nature, the more we understand it, the more mysterious it appears to us or in front of us.
Exploring the mysteries of nature is not to reveal nature, on the contrary, it is to worship nature, which is an important concept of French thinkers. The purpose of exploring nature is to worship nature, not to reveal it.
The purpose of exploring nature is to make us view the world around us with greater reverence, rather than to transform this world. This idea is completely different from British empiricism, including the later development of science.
So, French thought always comes from a tradition of romanticism, which is not manifested in the romance between people, but in the romance between people and nature. It is manifested in the object of making nature appear before people, making them have only reverence and no harm.
Therefore, we can understand why French philosophers are so different from German philosophers and British philosophy, and why, in French eyes, the best way to express philosophy is not concept deduction, not logical argument, but literary description.
Literature has become the core content of French philosophy, which is why two French philosophers have won the Nobel Prize in Literature. One is the late 19th century philosopher Bergson, and the other is the 20th century French philosopher Sartre. There is only one person in the UK who has won the Nobel Prize in Literature, and that is Russell.
In fact, the biggest difference between British philosophers and French philosophers is not their attitude towards nature, nor their emphasis on empirical knowledge as the source of knowledge. In this regard, their expressions are quite similar, and their difference lies in the way they express philosophical ideas.
So, by understanding this, we have a good grasp of some important characteristics of French thinkers that other philosophers do not possess.
Voltaire's refutation of atheism, let alone whether his refutation is correct, because this refutation can be said to be subjective, and we cannot say that his refutation is completely valid.
For example, atheism cannot prove that understanding can be generated solely by the movement of matter.
This actually doesn't make logical sense because there is no necessary connection between atheism and material movement, as emphasizing the existence of the material world and our ability to understand it externally is not necessarily related to our recognition of the existence of God or the existence of God.
In other words, our understanding of the source of reason does not necessarily have to be attributed to the existence of God. You cannot attribute the existence of God to the fundamental source of human reason.
That's why we criticize French philosophers, not praising them, so every point they make makes God laugh, which logically makes no sense. You may seem reasonable, but in reality, it's unreasonable.
We often make such mistakes in our daily lives, and learning to understand the drawbacks of their ideas actually helps improve our ability to distinguish right from wrong.
So, in order to argue for the error of atheism, he said, 'It is a creative intelligence that makes the universe work, even if there is only an infinite chance of it occurring. Therefore, animals only have feelings, while humans have intelligence, and the accidental combination of bodies cannot explain the difference between the two.'.
Therefore, in order to argue that the source of wisdom does not come from our human senses, we must establish a fundamental basis for the source of wisdom, which cannot come from nature, but can only come from the existence of something else outside of nature, which is the existence of the omnipotent God. Only the existence of God can create our human wisdom.
