We cannot verify whether a statement is true or false through such a method. Therefore, we define the sign of a truth. Although the method of practice is the ultimate criterion, in the entire specific process of discussion, we precisely examine whether a theory can stand up to our test through a logical reasoning and analytical approach.
And the fact that a theory can pass our logical tests does not mean that it will necessarily achieve good results in practice. Therefore, we still need to put it to the test in practice.
However, if a theory is inherently illogical, makes no sense in the first place, cannot hold water, and is full of contradictions, just think about what the outcome would be if such a theory were put into practice.
On the other hand, it should be noted that our thinking ability itself is a criterion for testing our theories.
Why did Kant offer us a critical approach to pure reason? That is to say, it is not about exploring what human rational capabilities can do or what our thinking abilities can achieve. Instead, what Kant pointed out to us is what our thinking cannot do.
Therefore, Kantian philosophy is not a positive conclusion; rather, it is a critical and negative conclusion about human rational ability. In this sense, rationality itself, which we all possess fully and can use to understand the changes in the world, is a fundamental premise, and this premise is based on our natural attributes.
As natural beings, each of us can understand everything that happens around us. When you don't understand something, you should find a way to understand it. The way to do this is through learning. By learning, you can understand what you didn't understand before, and the process of learning is the process of exercising your rational ability.
The knowledge we usually acquire is accumulated through our experiences and gradually elevated to a general principle. Once it becomes a universal principle, we grasp it and apply it to our daily lives. This is what we call "putting what we have learned into practice."
Whether it is for "learning out of ignorance" or "applying what has been learned", both processes are actually the processes of intellectual training.
Therefore, rational activity itself has never deceived us; it has always been a very clear way of showing us that it is at work.
If a person's rationality goes wrong and he becomes insane, his rationality cannot function properly. Therefore, he cannot understand the outside world. As a result, he may express some words and deeds that we cannot understand. However, to this madman, he may think that normal people are the ones who are insane, while he himself is the truly normal one.
What does this mean?
When we discuss the occurrence and development of philosophical concepts, and when we talk about how a philosopher's thoughts are put forward and reasoned, in this process, we do not necessarily have to apply this theory in practice to test it, or assume that it will definitely have a good outcome in reality and thus be correct; or if it has a bad outcome, then it is wrong.
It's not like that! Rather, the examination of reason itself is actually a kind of practical activity. But what does reason refer to here?
And precisely this is the process of logical reasoning. Therefore, this is how we understand the entire philosopher's thought and how it has evolved, rather than simply saying that this theory is wrong in practice, so it is a fallacy; if it is correct, it becomes truth. It is not that simple. If it were that simple, we would not need to study and understand philosophy at all. We would only need to put forward various theories and concepts and test them in practice.
But if we were really to do this, how many such practices could humanity endure?
After several attempts, humanity might collapse or perish. This is because humans cannot bear such a heavy burden, which leads to continuous failures and a constant loss of self-confidence in humanity itself. Therefore, we will surely keep verifying our theories through our unique way, first by logic to see if they are rational and appropriate, and this verification process is the training of thought.
So, in this sense, when we talk about learning philosophy, we are essentially training our thinking ability. When you encounter a problem that you cannot understand, a rational obstacle occurs at this point. To overcome this obstacle, you need to continuously enhance your understanding of the problem through your intellectual capacity, constantly enrich your background knowledge of it, and keep learning how others handle related issues. As a result, you become so capable of solving this problem.
Therefore, rational learning is precisely accomplished gradually in the process of constantly resolving the obstacles of rationality.
If your mind is not impaired and you keep saying that you are very happy, that you think of nothing, that you have no worries, no joys or sorrows, and no emotions at all, and that you are truly very happy, then this person must be a hundred percent of a fool. In this world, there is no such person, no one who is carefree, innocent and lively, and always in a state of happiness. That can only exist in some romance novels.
Of course, this is not to belittle Qiongyao's novels. Her works actually set up many challenges and tests, and the male and female protagonists eventually achieve their ultimate happiness. It's just that, in our eyes, her novels are too childish. They are merely about romantic affairs and love affairs.
In fact, each of us is confronted with intellectual obstacles to varying degrees. These obstacles, when constantly being solved, enhance our abilities. The ability to solve such problems is actually the training of your thinking process. Every time you solve a problem, it is equivalent to raising your thinking ability to a higher level.
I take it as a kind of training. Because philosophical problems are precisely the most difficult ones among all intellectual activities. If you can solve a philosophical problem, it indicates that your intellectual ability is far above that of the vast majority of people. Therefore, the process of philosophical training is just this concept.
For many people, I believe, understanding the ideas of the French Enlightenment philosophers is a piece of cake. You won't encounter any difficulty. When you read Rousseau, you will find it very smooth and unobstructed. Even when you read Montesquieu's "The Spirit of the Laws", apart from the lack of historical background, there won't be any difficulty in understanding it.
You won't say, "I can't understand this" or "I have no idea what it's saying." Such a situation won't occur. Therefore, for us, the works of French philosophers, just like many of the modern philosophers we have read, won't present such intellectual difficulties when we read them. Of course, there might be a few obstacles, but they probably won't be too significant.
What is this kind of obstacle?
The obstacle merely means that you don't understand what the background of this philosopher's thought is. You don't know where his thought comes from and where it goes. So, you will encounter some obstacles, but you won't have difficulties. Here, difficulty and obstacle are different.
The difficulty lies in that you have no idea what it is talking about at all. I believe this is not the case for us when reading the works of French philosophers. But when you first encounter "Critique of Pure Reason", I believe that even if you spend a week just reading the preface, being able to understand a little bit of it would be a huge challenge. And when you read a small section of "Phenomenology of Spirit", even just retelling what Hegel is saying might be like a mystery to you.
Even though you recognize every word, you still have no idea what he is saying. This is what is truly called an obstacle or a real difficulty.
So, in this sense, French philosophy is relatively easier to grasp and understand. When we look at the thinkers of the Enlightenment, we all take a book, including Rousseau's works, including Montesquieu. When we read the book "The Spirit of the Laws", we will feel that it is not speaking to people of the 18th century, but just like it is speaking to us today. This sense of closeness will arise spontaneously, and you won't have the sense of isolation or distance of different eras.
But abstract philosophy is just the opposite.
The French philosophy we are discussing today offers us a very good background, telling us that the work we need to do is not merely to read their works or just be content with reading them. What is more important is to understand the entire French philosophy through their works and to see what kind of valuable philosophical concepts they provide us.
This is what we need to understand. While you just read quietly, we can't finish even a few books in a year. Of course, if we talk about the works of Kant and Hegel, it's impossible to finish them in a year. But within a year, we can at least finish reading the works of a French philosopher.
However, if one spends the same amount of time reading Kant and Hegel, it won't be so enjoyable or easy.
Next, we are going to talk about Montesquieu. Before that, let's briefly introduce him and his life.
In fact, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Diderot, La Mettrie, Rousseau and so on, all these philosophers lived in the same era, the 18th century.
