If we rely on him, of course it is not an objective existence, because how can you prove his objective existence? We can know that the world exists through our senses, but our senses are relative, not absolute, subjective. This is the first.
Secondly, therefore, the objective laws that follow are not necessarily objective.
Because such a spiritual crisis is a real crisis, where he overthrows others and takes power himself. These two main principles resolve and subvert each other, draining each other's foundations and leading to such a result. On the other hand, naturalism, which is materialism, also has a negative impact on him. He would say that this world is inevitable, this world exists. I have mastered the universal and necessary standards of rationality.
However, neither of them can convince the other. The rational concept of mutual supervision and mutual supervision emerged repeatedly in the epistemology of the Enlightenment movement. Whether Descartes, Hobbes, or Hume, their epistemology is an attempt to provide some foundation for the new natural science.
However, they also undermined naturalistic skepticism with some viewpoint, and this awkward situation was prominently manifested in Descartes. I think, therefore I am. "I want to establish a very reliable starting point for our knowledge, and then, using geometric content and logical deduction methods, starting from an unquestionable starting point, I can ultimately obtain unquestionable knowledge.
But the question is, is it certain that he himself discovered the reality of the external world and the applicability of mathematics?
Because for example, he would face a problem like this, which all mathematicians have experienced. Mathematics can be miscalculated. How can you guarantee that even if a person follows the steps you just described and eventually deducts it wrong, the world we know is not actually the world itself wrong, because Descartes cannot provide his final guarantee on how to ensure the correctness of calculations. He ultimately appealed to a theological idea, saying that because the world was created by God, humans are also created by God. God is kind, and he will not deceive the people he created. According to his own creation of humans, our knowledge must be reliable.
However, it is not a rational argument at all, it is a theological argument. Your God is merciful and will not fabricate a false world to deceive us. And our rationality is also reliable, because God cannot joke with us, because we are the care of His elders, and He cannot deceive us. It is not based on rational principles.
If according to the principle of reason, the argument is not qualified, and you are using theological argument instead of rational argument, which is also evident in Hobbes' argument.
Because Hobbes is a materialist in his worldview, he always says that the universe is like a big clock, moving meticulously according to the mainspring that God has wound on him. However, he always asks that our perception is a ghost, and our souls understand that the external world is different from our souls. Because he is a materialist, he believes that anything in the world can be consistent, and similarities between the two can also be consistent. However, it is evident that our perception, our soul, and the external world cannot communicate with each other or imagine clearly.
Locke is also like this, he said that his epistemology will become the servant of the new natural science, that is, the servant. He also wants the perceptual subject to be directly aware, but he also acknowledges that what we ultimately perceive as the perceptual subject can be aware of is not the objective world, but rather our perception and perception of change, which is our ideas. Because we can recognize concepts such as sweetness, lightness, and saltiness, our grasp of the world ultimately lies not in the world itself, but in our own ideas.
It has already appeared in Locke's works. Finally, Hume said that the foundation of all sciences in the world should be the foundation of human beings. He wanted to write a theory of human nature, and only by studying humans well can the world study science. But in the end, he couldn't grasp the person himself, which created a self question. What is I? Since we have feelings about ourselves and everything we grasp, I'm sorry, what is I?
That's how he came here, all the feelings combined don't equal me, so the whole modern world seems like a huge irony. The ultimate result of the efforts of philosophers for one or two hundred years is that the world is unknowable. If the world is unknowable, I also do not know. My grasp of myself is only a feeling, but not myself.
The situation in France and the UK just now. Starting from 1770 in Germany, when Kant wrote his Critique of Pure Reason, the problem was also manifested in Germany. Initially, it was the same as the Enlightenment movement, that we should obey the laws and principles of nature. Of course, anyone with a brain can only obey reason and cannot obey anything else. And it can only obey the principle of rationality. Everything else may have personal interests or other things involved. The principle of rationality is universal and neutral. We have 2+2 equals 4, and it does not lean towards any one. Therefore, we should support this rationality. At least in theory, the ability of rationality can explain most things in nature.
Now, some things are still a mystery. It's a matter of time. sooner or later, human beings will be able to solve them and understand them. In the 1870s, German people also admitted this view.
After a few more years, in the late 18th century and the 1920s and 1930s, it marked the beginning of a new era, also known as the era of meta criticism (critical criticism), which criticized the rationality of the Enlightenment movement. Because he saw a practice of rational criticism that had many problems, such as the problems of Christianity, do you dare to oppose it.
Just now, it was all about using the Spear of the Son to attack the Shield of the Son. You thought so and told us so, but later we followed your logic and deduced that you were opposing yourself. Not only did you fail to fulfill the conclusion you promised us, but in the end, you ended up opposing yourself, which is a big problem.
I defeated myself. We cannot derive the conclusions that you agree to from your premises and logic. On the contrary, we come to conclusions that oppose you. Therefore, the meta critique has begun. I'm sorry, now that you criticize others, we will also criticize you. Of course, the meta critique did not use other weapons, but rationality. Therefore, I also need to criticize myself rationally.
At that time, more and more people believed that modern science and philosophy were weakening moral religion. Originally, morality had a very high position in the West, just like in China. The basis of morality did not come from reason, but from the will of the Heavenly Emperor or God. God found Moses, and there were ten things, some of which could not be done. Cannot fabricate, cannot kill, cannot lie, cannot commit adultery, cannot steal, cannot provide false testimony to harm others, and so on.
So, for a long time in the West, the status of morality has been very high, with absolute authority. This authority comes from transcendence, from God. God cannot be doubted, but can only be executed without reservation. Failure to execute is God's sinner, who will be punished in the future, and his soul will go to hell after death. This is one thing.
Religion goes without saying, its positioning is also extremely high. In the West, religion once ruled them for more than a thousand years. Everyone was born, from cradle to grave, and grew up in the embrace of religion. The first thing is to be baptized from birth, and when you die, God will make you confess in the end. Finally, there must be religious rituals for your burial.
We in China do not have a religion that can rule over all human life, and it is difficult for us to understand the life of religion. In ancient times, Westerners, like us, ruled the world. These three things are the pillars that maintain social stability and support human development. Under the impact of rationality, their foundation is being weakened and now it has turned into morality.
Morality is just about living together and following public rules, otherwise it can be chaotic. This is negative. The highest level, where does morality come from?
Because people are born with empathy for others, on the basis of empathy, we develop morality. However, more importantly, he conforms to capitalism, believing that morality actually exists to serve us. One of the famous moral standards in 17th century England was that what makes us happy is moral, and what makes us suffer is immoral, because it is simple, because our understanding of humans is inherently inclined towards happiness and avoidance of suffering, and seeking benefits and avoiding harm is human nature. Since it is all morality, as long as it is human morality, not something imposed on us by God, it should conform to our essence and not violate it. All morality that violates the essence is evil morality.
The morals that cause me pain are all evil morals, and in the 18th century, the utilitarian moral view also emerged. Morality is actually meant to benefit humanity. There is also the utilitarian moral view, which goes hand in hand with the pragmatic moral view. The utilitarian moral view is immoral and is designed for us to do things well or not. Well, it can be said that morality has a pragmatic moral view, which also sees morality very thoroughly.
Hume's concept of chastity is not what you think. Couples should be faithful to each other, and the concept is not sacred, it is very simple. Before there was a family, there was no private property. He said, 'Didn't we have one? There was no fixed family, no fixed sexual partner. How could there be any loyalty or disloyalty? Why should we be loyal?'?
It's very simple, because of personal property. After personal property arises, people are very concerned about one thing. Property should be passed on to their biological children, and there is a sense of childishness. Why do I recognize them as my children? Because my property also has inheritors. But the question is, what is the purpose of a fixed family?
Raising a child alone is impossible. So, the purpose of loyalty is to maintain the stability of the family, so that the family does not fall apart and the children do not grow up. That's what Hume said, it's very simple. Therefore, in this way, although there are still countless people speaking about morality in the world today, the most unpopular moral view is that morality is sacred, transcendent, and has a side that transcends people's likes and dislikes, which is the least trusted.
