Today I went with Teacher Wu to attend Master Ye’s gathering. We went to a French restaurant in Sanlitun for a French meal; the portions were a bit small, but the steak was genuinely delicious. We sat at a Western-style long table, and there wasn’t much conversation during the meal. Besides the Wu school and Teacher Ye, I didn’t know anyone else either; I only introduced myself briefly together with Senior Brother Shengli and Senior Brother Han, the three of us third-generation disciples, to Teacher Ye while packing up, and I didn’t even give my name. I don’t know whether Teacher Ye still remembers me.
Perhaps Teacher Ye still will remember that there was such a person as me, because when he came to Peking University in 2004 to give the Introduction to Philosophy course, I was the freshman who dared to step out openly and “challenge” Old Ye. Of course, that was online. But Old Ye personally replied to my posts twice, and in class he even specifically refuted my view that one ought to argue when studying philosophy.
In the end I got a 97 in my Introduction to Philosophy course, but that grade was obviously closely related to Teacher Cheng Lian, who was in charge of the course that year. As for what impression Teacher Ye actually had of me, I don’t know. Of course, Teacher Ye has the bearing of an immortal, so he surely wouldn’t have taken offense at my impertinence.
Looking back now, on the one hand I do indeed understand more fully Teacher Ye’s assertion that “philosophy is philosophy’s history,” as well as his cautious attitude toward philosophical debate. But on the other hand, my own position has not changed simply because I have “grown old.” I still believe that both entering philosophy and going deeper into it require an atmosphere of contention. What I said back then—“the significance of argument lies not in changing other people’s views, but in tempering and deepening one’s own thought”—found a fuller expression later in formulations such as Preserve Commonality, Seek Difference.
Of course, besides deepening one’s own thought through expression and exchange, philosophy needs debate because philosophy has always been a competitive arena of “striving for victory.” Ordinary people may study philosophy in order to resolve their own life perplexities and crises of meaning, and thus it may be a completely private activity. But those who do philosophy—those philosophers who labor over their thoughts, commit them to writing, defend, refine, and perfect them, and ultimately hope to place them in history and transmit them to the world—if they had only the motive of resolving private perplexities, that would be far from enough. Of course, there are preachers who, in order to save an age or save other people, insist on writing out their ideas; there are also those motivated by profit, who write in order to make money and make a living. But in general, the typical philosopher, whether as flamboyant as Schopenhauer or as steady as Kant, does not write without some desire to prevail. Of course, this desire to prevail is not simple vanity; it is not only not incompatible with humility and respect, but must be consistent with them, because only the pursuit of surpassing a worthy opponent whom one respects is true desire to prevail,
Debate is important not because it can help us reach so many conclusions, or even because it can promote better learning and expression. Most importantly, debate creates an atmosphere, a gaming platform—in this game, what is valuable is not your property or wealth, not your power or status, not your appearance or physical strength, but your thought and your words—in debate, the most empty language becomes the focal point of meaning.
Old Ye said that philosophical debate is often you hit east and I hit west; we’re simply not talking about the same thing. That is correct. From Leibniz to analytic philosophers, people have tried to design a neutral public language, doing everything they can to make philosophers’ debates strike the same target, but this approach is both ineffective and unhelpful. Philosophical debate ought to be you hit east and I hit west—that is exactly right. Philosophical exchange is precisely the act of such self-display. The key is that, while each person has their own routine, philosophers can simultaneously stand on the same historical stage and measure themselves against one another. That is the mode of philosophical exchange.
The website for the Introduction to Philosophy course from back then still unexpectedly survives, but the discussion forum can no longer be accessed. However, I had made a backup at the time, and this long-sealed historical document had never been posted on Suixuan either. Since I thought of it today, I might as well post it as well.
Peking University Department of Philosophy “Introduction to Philosophy” Discussion Forum → “Introduction to Philosophy” Discussion Forum → Featured Section →
Topic: The First Introduction to Philosophy Class
Hu Yilin
Level: rustic
Experience points: 214
Community coins: 50
Total posts: 22
Registration date: 2004-9-10
Stamina:
Online status:
No.1
I’m responding enthusiastically to the call and coming first to write down some thoughts. (Throwing a brick to attract jade~)
First, I feel that this course is very good and very meaningful: Old Ye’s learning is very profound, and for us, being able to hear him teach an introductory course is a rare opportunity! However, I think that listening to this introductory course does not require us to fully accept Old Ye’s views, and it is not even necessary to fully understand his thought or completely grasp the concepts he mentions; the key is that, in attending the class, we can come into contact with the questions Old Ye raises, with Old Ye’s thought, and ultimately generate our own questions and our own understanding, producing an interest in further thinking and inquiry—if that is achieved, then the purpose of this course will have been largely fulfilled!
Specifically, regarding yesterday’s first Introduction to Philosophy class:
Old Ye first spoke about the “crisis of philosophy,” mentioning “philosophy being ‘forgotten.’” My understanding of this is: philosophy was originally the source of all disciplines, as the saying goes, “philosophy is the root, mathematics the trunk, and all sciences are its branches and leaves”; one could say that the influence of philosophy permeates every discipline. Precisely because of this, the luxuriant branches and leaves make us forget where philosophy truly lies; we only pay attention to philosophy’s shadows in other fields, while forgetting philosophy in its most essential form. Philosophy’s covering its influence across all domains is, of course, a good thing, but at the same time it must always take pure philosophy as its core and foundation—this is probably what Old Ye meant, right?
As for what exactly “pure philosophy” refers to, I have only listened to one class by Old Ye and still haven’t fully understood it; I think this must involve the question of what the core of philosophy is—in history, the so-called core of philosophy has often been “metaphysics,” and “metaphysics” also has another name, “pure philosophy,” while in the modern and contemporary periods, the core of philosophy may have shifted toward epistemology, ontology, and so on. This issue should gradually become clearer in the future…
And regarding the method of doing philosophy, I very much agree with Old Ye’s so-called “up and down.” The relation between philosophy and other non-philosophical fields is special: the philosophical spirit permeates every field, and philosophical research cannot detach itself from other disciplines either. If philosophy only goes down and not up, forgetting philosophy’s root, then it is a lost philosophy; and if one single-mindedly seeks the upward, pursues transcendence, and isolates oneself, that is likewise undesirable. The saying that “philosophy rejects no knowledge”—philosophy should draw experience and knowledge from all disciplines, and provide inspiration and direction for all fields… (Of course, one must first adhere to certain fundamental things, and must not forget one’s own starting point and principles.)
Finally, regarding Old Ye’s topic of the “rights of philosophy,” my understanding is still not deep enough… The so-called three rights—“the right to know and understand,” “the right to freedom and creation,” and “the right to truth”—I feel that any science should possess them; they are not unique to philosophy. But I am quite interested in what Old Ye said about philosophy’s characteristic of “from reason to practical power”; that issue will probably require deeper listening to lectures and reading before I can have a fuller appreciation of it.
That’s all I’ll write for today.
——————————
Even if 99% of the universe is said to be filled with darkness, when I look up at the night sky, what I see in my eyes is still that brilliant starry expanse!
——Treat goodness and beauty with a grateful heart; use a broad and forgiving chest to accept evil and ugliness——this world is actually really wonderful…
Posted at: 2004-9-10 13:09:58 IP: recorded
huangt
Level: little savage
Experience points: 10
Community coins: 4
Total posts: 2
Registration date: 2004-9-12
Stamina:
Online status:
No.2
Classmate Hu Yilin said, “I feel that any science should possess them; they are not unique to philosophy.” Although I have not fully grasped Old Ye’s wisdom either, let me offer my humble opinion. The saying “philosophy is the root, mathematics the trunk, and all sciences are its branches and leaves” is in fact a very vivid metaphor—the roots that truly absorb nourishment are philosophy, so compared with other subjects, philosophy should have the most complete rights to cognition and understanding, the greatest freedom of creation and exploration, and the most direct access to truth.
——————————
That was the September rain, and I no longer understand how to cry
The so-called pain and sorrow, I do not feel
Gazing toward the darkness of the sky, are you there on the other side?
Looking down at my face, you shake your head and smile, saying this too is eternity
Posted at: 2004-9-12 9:08:36 IP: recorded
Hu Yilin
No.3
Classmate huangt has made a reasonable point.
I thought that when Old Ye brought up the “three great rights of philosophy,” there must be an emphasis intended: compared with ordinary sciences, these rights that philosophy possesses should be the most prominent. But in reality, perhaps it is precisely philosophy’s rightful rights that are often forgotten by people… This may also be a continuation of Old Ye’s topic about “philosophy encountering a crisis.”
——————————
Even if 99% of the universe is said to be filled with darkness, when I look up at the night sky, what I see in my eyes is still that brilliant starry expanse!
——Treat goodness and beauty with a grateful heart; use a broad and forgiving chest to accept evil and ugliness——this world is actually really wonderful…
Posted at: 2004-9-12 15:56:31 IP: recorded
yuchjd
Level: rustic
Experience points: 202
Community coins: 0
Total posts: 18
Registration date: 2004-9-14
Stamina:
Online status:
No.4
The classmates above have all spoken very reasonably.
Let me add some of my own thoughts:
1. I think “quasi-philosophy” should refer to merely using philosophical methods (as classmate Hu Yilin said, only going “up” or only going “down”) while ignoring the philosophical spirit
applied to philosophy, and thus obtaining only its form without its spirit.
2. Greece’s contribution in the realm of freedom of rights is: it separated knowledge from experience. Then, in separating from experience, one is in fact abstracting the essence from experience, so that knowledge can develop more freely, independently, and purely. The highest purpose of such development is application and creation, and its survival still depends on continually drawing experience from practice and abstracting the essence from it. Thus this separation is in fact a fusion at a higher level.
3. The three rights represent the “unity of epistemology and ontology.” I don’t quite understand what is meant here by “ontology”; does it refer to the existentiality of truth?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Posted at: 2004-9-14 21:42:19 IP: recorded
Topic: The Second Philosophy Class
Hu Yilin
No.1
After attending the second philosophy class, I felt even more excited than after the first one—after the first class I learned that Old Ye was a master, and now I realized: Old Ye is not only a master, but a master whose views diverge from mine! Listening to such a master teach felt even more meaningful to me.
Today Old Ye refuted some of the views I wrote online last time, and I listened with deep feeling. However, perhaps after some time my ideas will change, but at least for now I will not be shaken so easily: I will supplement my views more deeply.
First, let me talk about the issue of “reading”: Old Ye, like apeiron on the forum, places “reading” in a very high position. Reading, especially reading original works, is extremely necessary; this is something Old Ye said from experience, and I very much agree. Where do I disagree? On the status relationship between “reading” and “thinking”—I believe that “reading” is one aspect, one key part, of “thinking”; “read for the sake of thinking” and “think for the sake of reading”—the difference between these two is not merely playing a word game, but a very important divergence! What I understand philosophy to be is a study of exploration and the search for knowledge, not a discipline of organizing books and historical materials! Admittedly, today’s philosophy has already become very mature, very “old,” and the treasure-house of thought left by previous generations is very abundant and endlessly useful. But does that mean that in the future we will only need “historians of philosophy” and not “philosophers” anymore? (Although philosophy and the history of philosophy are inseparable, to say that doing philosophy cannot do without the history of philosophy, or that studying the history of philosophy cannot do without philosophy, does not mean that philosophy is philosophy’s history!). Perhaps I am too naive (philosophy does need a little naivety, I think); it seems to me that many people in philosophy have such a method: think for the sake of reading—they always center on “reading books,” “thinking about books,” “exploring books,” “studying books”… As the saying goes, “books are the ladder of human progress”—books are a “ladder”! They are tools, foundations, wealth, rather than a “goal”! We climb the stairs in order to reach a higher place! So I think books are important—without these steps, we will find it hard to leap up to the heights of our predecessors. But the key issue is “thinking”! Although most of us will never become philosophers, at best we can become “researchers in philosophy,” and the very clever ones among us may perhaps have the chance to become “historians of philosophy,” but true philosophers are probably beyond our reach. So Old Ye’s words of earnest guidance to us, before we have even entered the field and before we have even stepped onto the stairs, are very necessary. Up to here, there is not a single point where I differ from Old Ye: I am only supplementing my own thought—namely, that “thinking” includes “reading”; read for the sake of thinking! Only by holding such a view and such a method is it possible to produce one’s own school of thought, to be not merely an interpreter, but also a thinker!
What I said before may not be exactly the same as what Old Ye emphasized, but there should not yet be a contradiction; and regarding the understanding of “debate,” this can be said to be where Old Ye and I diverge.
I should further supplement my view:
I divide the path of philosophy into two aspects—“thinking” and “debate”—this is a relatively broad division: besides “debate” in the general sense, I also include under it “critique,” “argument,” “discussion,” and so on, as well as the parts opposed to “calm” and “solitude.” I think this is different from, yet should be equally important as, “contemplation.”
Looking at thinkers of ancient times, one often sees “contemplation” and “intense debate” coexisting, whereas today our impression of philosophers is often one of “living in seclusion and rarely going out,” of being “quiet and detached from the world”; I think this is not how philosophy ought to be by nature, but rather the result of philosophy being forgotten and isolated.
In my impression, quite a few philosophers and scientists attach great importance to the usefulness of “debate,” and some even take “debate” as the driving force of scientific development. I happen to have scant materials at hand right now, so I won’t bother to cite authorities. Many people think debate is useless, but that often comes down to different understandings of “debate.” Some look at it from the standpoint of results: ordinary debates are very hard to produce any “result,” and my understanding is that this is not the point, because for many problems you won’t get much of a result even if you think them through on your own! The value of Plato’s “dialogues” for later generations does not lie in their conclusions, but in the dialogues themselves—that is the meaning of debate as well. Some people look from the point of departure and say that many so-called “debates” go round and round, with no one even clear what they are debating; you go south and I go north, and we’re not even on the same road—when I was in high school, a teacher of mine also raised this issue. The background was that our science-oriented class, whenever politics or Chinese class came up with certain topics, would often argue heatedly and happily both in class and after class: although those debates often really were as far apart as south from north, when I look back now I still think they were immensely rewarding—debate makes one encounter many new problems, generate many new ideas, and continually revise and deepen one’s own views. If the parties to a debate are truly at cross-purposes, why not think about the deeper reasons? Has the other side failed to understand? Has the other side failed to express itself clearly? Or have you failed to understand? Or have you yourself failed to express yourself clearly? Or is it that the issue being debated simply cannot be debated? … If it is “the issue simply cannot be debated,” then why not think about the reason why the issue should not be debated? If you have thought about it, then your saying “it cannot be debated” and the other side saying “it can” becomes the next topic of debate; if it is “I have failed to understand,” then one should think about why one cannot understand: is it because one has not thought deeply enough? Is it because the other side is saying something wrong? Or is it because one lacks certain knowledge?—if you figure it out, you gain “new knowledge”; if you do not figure it out, you gain “new problems”; if it is “the other side has failed to understand,” then one should think about why I cannot make the other side understand: if you admit that the other side is also a smart person, then even if you cannot persuade him, you should at least let him understand your point of view—if your point of view can be understood only by you alone, that is self-admiration and self-enclosure! We philosophers, have we been forgotten and isolated by society not enough already? Must we isolate ourselves again? I think this attitude is not desirable! Philosophy ought to be profound, but at the same time it ought to be open and communicable! In the final chapter of A Brief History of Time, Hawking mentions that science is ultimately meant to be understood by the public—those who may conduct scientific research are only a tiny minority, but “science” itself belongs to the public, not to some club of a few people; the secrets of science are open to the public!—Philosophy is the same. So, if your debate is such that no other intelligent person can understand it, that is not as it should be—you should think about the reasons, improve your expression, or look for a more convincing argument. In short, so long as your attitude is sound, debate certainly will not be a waste of time—it will either leave you something to think about, leave you problems, or bring you inspiration and knowledge, or prompt your views to become deeper and your expression clearer… Perhaps when I am old I will change my mind, but for now, in this youth so full of passion, “debate” is absolutely an excellent way to improve oneself!
That’s all I’ll write for today.
——————————
Even if 99% of the universe is filled with darkness, when I look up at the night sky, what I see in my eyes is still that brilliant starry expanse!
——To treat goodness and beauty with gratitude; to accept evil and ugliness with a broad and tolerant heart—the world is actually really wonderful…
Posted: 2004-9-16 19:45:52 IP：已记录
yexiushan
Level: wild man
Experience points: 6
Community coins: 4
Total posts: 2
Registration time: 2004-9-10
Energy:
Online status:
No.2
Mr. Hu, philosophy of course calls for “thinking”; regarding the relationship between “study” and “thought,” I once said that for ordinary people one should “nourish thought through study,” and thought should be “thought about something”; I also wrote before about “what philosophy thinks about,” and “thought” in “philosophy” is a major issue. In class one emphasizes “study” because the main audience is “students.” As for “debate,” of course it is important for any science, but I also want to stress “debate” about “what,” because not every debate is meaningful.
Posted: 2004-9-17 9:27:19 IP：已记录
Hu Yilin
No.3
I do understand what Teacher Ye means, and what Teacher Ye emphasizes is exactly what we currently need.
But I also have my own emphasis—the background of my post is a forum like this: I hope to advocate a certain spirit here—a peaceful, beneficial “debate”! I think you too would not wish for such a forum to be merely a place where you repeat your lecture notes and everyone just “yes, yes, yes, you’re right” in a chorus—that kind of forum has little meaning! Since we have such a good environment as a forum, we should make better use of it.
At present I still cannot fully understand exactly what kind of debate is meaningful and what kind is meaningless; if we are always worried about whether this debate or that debate has any meaning or benefit… in the end no one will dare to speak, dare to debate, dare to communicate! Therefore I want to say: any debate with a proper attitude is meaningful! If, after all the debating, it turns out to have been meaningless, then the great significance of that debate is precisely that it has taught us what a meaningless debate is (before the debate we did not know this)—isn’t that also a gain?
Believe me—debate will not be a waste of time!
——————————
Even if 99% of the universe is filled with darkness, when I look up at the night sky, what I see in my eyes is still that brilliant starry expanse!
——To treat goodness and beauty with gratitude; to accept evil and ugliness with a broad and tolerant heart—the world is actually really wonderful…
Posted: 2004-9-17 12:23:09 IP：已记录
xushl
Level: wild man
Experience points: 34
Community coins: 13
Total posts: 5
Registration time: 2004-9-12
Energy:
Online status:
No.4
Mm, personally I’m more inclined toward this: after having accumulated a certain foundation, only then should one begin to express opinions on certain issues, or, one might say, only then should one enter into debate. I don’t think it is of any benefit to judge and argue about things one does not understand, so at this stage, when philosophy is still not even introduced to me, I would rather read, try to think, rather than immediately voice my own views. —Of course, perhaps this is too lacking in youthful vigor… well~~~ I choose the path of accumulating first. So for the time being I will remain silent about things I do not know.
——————————
Trees are beautiful creatures. They are fresh and pure
They can devote their whole lives to contemplation
And with their roots embrace the earth deeply, while striving to stretch out their branches and yearn toward the sky
Posted: 2004-9-18 1:01:22 IP：已记录
Hu Yilin
No.5
This is indeed also a very good attitude: since one does not know, one should not pretend to know and engage in empty talk.
But I think: we always know something, don’t we? One can speak of what one knows, and debate can help you better find out exactly what you know, what you do not know, and what you only think you know but actually know only in fragments… Without debate, these things are often harder to feel through.
As for so-called “accumulating first,” I want to ask—how much accumulation counts as having entered the gate? The sea of learning is boundless: your knowledge now may be only 0.000001%, and even if you study to old age, perhaps it will only be 0.0001% (in fact, knowledge is infinite; I’m only speaking by way of analogy)… I remember an ancients’ saying: the more one learns, the more one discovers one’s own ignorance! There is no need to refrain from sharing one’s views merely because of ignorance; of course, if someone mocks us for being immature, that is only “the fifty steps laughing at the hundred steps.”
I am willing to bring out even my immature views, because that is a record of my own intellectual journey; moreover, it is often precisely in the course of making every effort to organize my thoughts for the sake of debate that I continuously summarize, refine, revise, and deepen my originally immature, scattered, and vague views…
But… in fact, fellow xushl already understands what I mean… although you may not be willing to debate philosophical questions, what I am currently discussing is precisely the topic of “discussion” itself—you have already participated in my discussion, haven’t you?
——————————
Even if 99% of the universe is filled with darkness, when I look up at the night sky, what I see in my eyes is still that brilliant starry expanse!
——To treat goodness and beauty with gratitude; to accept evil and ugliness with a broad and tolerant heart—the world is actually really wonderful…
Posted: 2004-9-18 8:46:45 IP：已记录
Hu Yilin
No.6
I suddenly thought of a question… Actually, Teacher Ye advocates that everyone read the original works more, and I advocate that everyone discuss more; in fact, the two are very similar!
Can we beginners read Kant, Hegel, Heidegger… and understand them? Can we read them clearly?—Impossible! Even a master like Teacher Ye, can it be said that he completely understands Kant and fully understands Heidegger? I don’t think so. Let alone us, just entering the gate and reading the classic original works—the books contain many concepts we still do not understand, much less the thoughts of giants! Since it is destined to be unreadable, why still read? Of course one should read! Our reading of the original works is not so that we must first understand everything before reading; the significance of our reading the original works now lies in this: in the process of reading, we will generate many “pieces of knowledge,” “questions,” “inspirations,” “desires to know,” and so on. Right now we read the original works not in order to produce some result, but the key lies in the “process”; this “process” will bring you many benefits beyond your plans!
Then the “debate” I advocate is the same—we are not asking for any particular result from the debate, or for any certain level to be reached; the key too lies in the “process.” The “knowledge,” “questions,” “inspirations,” “desires to know,” and so on obtained in this process!
——————————
Even if 99% of the universe is filled with darkness, when I look up at the night sky, what I see in my eyes is still that brilliant starry expanse!
——To treat goodness and beauty with gratitude; to accept evil and ugliness with a broad and tolerant heart—the world is actually really wonderful…
Posted: 2004-9-18 10:21:07 IP：已记录
apeiron
Level: wild man
Experience points: 61
Community coins: 30
Total posts: 14
Registration time: 2004-9-15
Energy:
Online status:
No.7
I think you are too fixated on the formally significant issue of “thinking” and “debating.” What matters is the content, namely what exactly one “thinks” or “debates” about.
——————————
The pursuit of knowledge is human nature.
Posted: 2004-9-18 10:31:40 IP：已记录
Hu Yilin
No.8
Then, may I ask you, classmate, what exactly should your view be about “thinking” and “debating” about? Must I know what “thinking” and “debating” are about before I am qualified to begin “thinking” and “debating”? Then how do we come to know that “what” in the first place? Do we know it without any “thinking,” without any “debating”? By passively receiving it?
Each person has a different understanding of philosophy; I take philosophy to be a discipline of the pursuit of knowledge, and “pursuit” is a key point—the connotation of philosophy is embodied in the word “pursuit.”
——————————
Even if 99% of the universe is filled with darkness, when I look up at the night sky, what I see in my eyes is still that brilliant starry expanse!
——To treat goodness and beauty with gratitude; to accept evil and ugliness with a broad and tolerant heart—the world is actually really wonderful…
Posted: 2004-9-18 10:47:56 IP：已记录
apeiron
No.9
I’m waiting for you to say it—what philosophical problem did you actually think about?
Then I can debate with you.
If philosophy is a discipline of the pursuit of knowledge, then what distinguishes it from other disciplines? Which branch of learning is not a discipline of the pursuit of knowledge? For example, what is the difference between seeking philosophical problems and seeking problems in physics?
［This post was edited by apeiron on 2004-9-18 11:56:56］
［This post was edited by apeiron on 2004-9-18 12:02:26］
——————————
The pursuit of knowledge is human nature.
Posted: 2004-9-18 11:55:30 IP：已记录
Hu Yilin
No.10
If philosophy is a discipline of the pursuit of knowledge, then what distinguishes it from other disciplines? Which branch of learning is not a discipline of the pursuit of knowledge? For example, what is the difference between seeking philosophical problems and seeking problems in physics?
What am I waiting for you to say? What philosophical problem did I think about? Right now I still cannot clearly distinguish what counts as a “philosophical problem”! I merely think: philosophy has the right to seek knowledge, the right to think: what problem is there that philosophy cannot explore and think about? What topic is there that philosophy must avoid? I feel that philosophy is spiritually free; she has no shackles or limitations. I do not know within what range I need to think in order for it to count as thinking about philosophical problems; I merely think that thinking is free, and debate is also free—why must I put a frame around myself and say that I am thinking about philosophical problems while you are not? But people each have different understandings of what philosophy is, so how are you to define what counts as a “philosophical problem”? Therefore I do not dwell on these annoying questions. Thinking is thinking—free thinking!
I have thought about many problems, and of course some of them should be “philosophical problems”; but when you ask me to “say” something with no beginning and no end, how can I immediately produce some topic? Topics have to be brought out, and debate is a good way to bring out topics; we can talk about them slowly later.
When I say “philosophy is a discipline of the pursuit of knowledge,” I am speaking of philosophy’s characteristic, not saying that “a discipline of the pursuit of knowledge is philosophy.” Here there is an effect of emphasis. Just as in Teacher Ye’s first lecture on philosophy, he mentioned philosophy’s “three great rights”; I said, shouldn’t science also have these three great rights?—that is an emphasis. If one must speak of a difference, then philosophy’s “pursuit” is the most natural, the most arising from freedom, a pursuit without utilitarianism, a pursuit that does not need a result… Of course, in a certain sense, philosophy is the root of science; science cannot shake off philosophy’s shadow, so to say that the “pursuit” of physics is the “pursuit” of philosophy is not too much, right?
——————————
Even if 99% of the universe is filled with darkness, when I look up at the night sky, what I see in my eyes is still that brilliant starry expanse!
——To treat goodness and beauty with gratitude; to accept evil and ugliness with a broad and tolerant heart—the world is actually really wonderful…
Posted: 2004-9-18 13:33:25 IP：已记录
chxr
Level: wild man
Experience points: 19
Community coins: 16
Total posts: 7
Registration time: 2004-9-9
Energy:
Online status:
No.11
Actually, the relationship between reading and thinking is only an overlap; one cannot say that one includes the other
What one thinks about is not necessarily what one reads about; I think thinking is the process of making one’s own account cohere, and of course I mean this without any pejorative sense.
Classmate Hu Yilin is right: today most people are “workers in philosophy,” not “masters,” but whether one can become a “master” or not is closely related to the relationship between thinking and reading. Reading is a process everyone can engage in, and I think it is necessary; thinking, however, varies from person to person.
Both “reading for the sake of thinking” and “thinking for the sake of reading” make sense, but I think neither reading nor thinking is for the sake of the other; rather, both are for “puzzlement.” Puzzlement comes not only from reading and thinking, but also from life and from practice.
Of course, perhaps someone will say that without thinking in practice and in life, where would puzzlement come from? But the Chinese word for thought is rich in meaning; the kind of thought in life may as well be called finding, and the thought above may as well be called thinking.
Nowadays the classics of philosophy are vast and boundless; it is hard for anyone to cover everything, and that is why there are branches, and each person has a research direction.
No one wants to deny the necessity of debate, and no one wants to question its importance. What Classmate Hu says—that one should debate as much as one can, and that in the process one will improve oneself—is something I agree with. But I think debate also needs to be learned; not everyone can see where the crux lies and then engage it in debate. This requires training in thought, especially logical thinking; therefore, at the beginning one may perhaps feel something is wrong but not know how to argue it, and thus puzzlement arises. Studying philosophy is nothing more than the accumulation of puzzlement; perhaps the more one studies, the more one accumulates……
I’m posting this not to refute or convince anyone, but simply to sort out my own views.
Posted: 2004-9-24 9:00:36 IP：已记录
lookout
Level: wild man
Experience points: 4
Community coins: 2
Total posts: 1
Registration time: 2004-10-1
Energy:
在线状态:
No.12
Very interesting.
I think that in the way Hu Yilin and apeiron treat “thinking” and “arguing,” Hu Yilin is more “ontological,” while apeiron is more “epistemological.” Hehe.
When we discuss “what is thought” and focus on it, we are taking an epistemological attitude, because behind this lies a kind of cognitive distinction: there is a kind of knowledge, or a debate about some issue, that is not a debate between philosophy and philosophy.
What apeiron says in his signature file is quite interesting: “The pursuit of knowledge is human nature.” Aristotle has a similar line in the *Metaphysics*: “All men by nature desire to know.” Or, “By nature, human beings have a frenzy for ‘seeing’ (eidos).” What this points to is that, in the soil from which the initial philosophical or cognitive question arises, there is some instinct in human nature. In this sense, how can you deny the intention of that young man who encouraged “pure” debate?
Of course, Hu Yilin, in the argument about the relationship between “reading” and thinking, or between learning and thinking, seems a bit too persistent. I very much support “learning.” The very first line of the *Analects*: “To learn and at due times practice what one has learned.”
发表时间：2004-10-1 2:50:27 IP：已记录
apeiron
No.13
The line I use in my signature file is the very first sentence of Aristotle’s *Metaphysics*: pantes anthropoi tou eidenai
oregontai physei.，
I actually do not think my view has an “epistemological” tendency. On the contrary, what I mean is that we should not focus too much on questions like “How can one attain philosophical knowledge?” but should instead face the questions themselves directly through reading the classics. Emphasizing “what is thought” is precisely to require the exclusion of an obsession with epistemology.
——————————
The pursuit of knowledge is human nature.
发表时间：2004-10-1 20:29:21 IP：已记录
胡翌霖
No.14
As for the specific meanings of epistemology and ontology, I still haven’t fully sorted them out; but from my initial impression, it may be that I really do lean toward “ontology”~~ Of course, ontology and epistemology probably are not opposed to each other in the first place; they should be able to be unified (Teacher Ye seems to have mentioned this in the very first class).
What I persist in is this: I believe the core of philosophy lies in thinking, and the classics are one kind of aid in this process—one may say they are indispensable, but not the core. That is what truly means “doing philosophy.” However, for us, for quite a long period of time, we will not reach the realm of truly “doing philosophy,” and should always remain at the stage of “studying philosophy”; this is even more true for us undergraduates—before we have “studied” philosophy well, we cannot really speak of “researching” philosophy, much less “doing philosophy”! So, when it comes to us now, emphasizing learning as primary and reading as primary is something I can accept. What I insist on is a deeper, more essential attitude: the ultimate value of learning and reading must be manifested in thinking and arguing. The mission of philosophy is to “seek truth,” to “interpret the world,” or even to “change society”; it must absolutely not remain at the level of summarizing and explaining the writings of our predecessors! The transition from studying and reading philosophical works to forming one’s own independent thoughts and judgments is an indispensable sublimation. I think it is not good to linger in the former without the ambition and courage to transcend it. Even if, in reality, our efforts at transcendence may hardly achieve anything, and may even backfire, that does not mean philosophy should retreat! To take a step back, even if one were only studying classic texts and speaking of “directly facing the questions themselves through reading the classics,” then after having faced the “question,” what comes next? In the end, don’t we still have to “think” about it? If one does not think about the question, is it enough just to find the “question” and put it there? Here it is obvious that thinking and reading have some kind of relay relationship, one standing above the other, right?
——————————
Even if 99% of the entire universe is filled with darkness, when I look up at the night sky, what I see in my eyes is still that brilliant starry firmament!
——Treat good and beauty with a heart full of gratitude; receive evil and ugliness with a broad and forgiving breast——this world is actually really wonderful……
发表时间：2004-10-1 22:37:35 IP：已记录
本主题共有 1 页 [ 1 ]收藏帖子 | 取消收藏 | 返回页首
Powered by BBSxp 5.00.SP1/Licence © 1998-2004
Script Execution Time:140ms
主题：关于哲学讨论的看法：
胡翌霖
No.1
I think the opening of such a forum is very meaningful. A forum is not merely a platform for exchanging information; it is also a platform for exchanging ideas.
I believe there are only two paths to doing philosophy: one is “contemplation,” the other “vigorous debate.” In form, these two are completely opposed. So, in general, the image of philosophers is also divided into these two types: one is the reclusive, self-sufficient thinker; the other is the passionate and radical orator… But in fact, when one studies philosophy, these two paths can and should proceed in parallel! To do philosophy, one must first have the ability to settle down, read, think, and create in solitude; if one does not have a peaceful and self-possessed mind, one cannot learn philosophy. At the same time, philosophy also cannot do without fierce debate. Only in argument can sparks of thought be ignited. If one does not lay out one’s ideas and thoughts for debate, then a philosophy that merely delights in one’s own fragrance and indulges in self-intoxication is truly “useless learning.” So I think our forum should have such an atmosphere: everyone can exchange their immature insights and their unique thoughts here, point things out to one another, and debate with one another. This is very beneficial for everyone.
Perhaps some classmates will have such concerns: we don’t understand much about philosophy yet, we haven’t read many books, and we don’t know many concepts; perhaps we are not qualified to put forward views or engage in discussion. Such thinking is unnecessary. Right now we are only just beginning; what about a few months from now? A few years from now? I’m afraid we still won’t be able to say that we have truly entered the halls of philosophy. Learning has no end; as the saying goes, “When human beings think, God laughs.” If we are always afraid that our ideas are childish and therefore dare not share them, then we will probably never have the chance to enjoy the sparks produced by the collision of minds. So, no matter how much we have learned, we can all come here to exchange experiences and ideas.
In addition, perhaps some classmates still have another concern: since everyone is using their real names, and in life we are all classmates in the same class, perhaps I do not agree with his views, but I feel awkward criticizing or arguing with him. This too should be unnecessary. As the saying goes, “The gentleman values harmony but not sameness”; even the best friends—of the same aspiration and in agreement on the path—do not need to, and indeed cannot, be completely identical in views and ideas. The deeper the exchange, the more differences one may discover. (Even if aspirations differ and the paths do not align, that should not hinder peaceful academic debate.) Differences in thought are not a problem; what matters is the attitude toward differences—everyone has a personality, and everyone will think their own understanding is correct. We can and should share our thoughts with others, but we cannot impose our own understanding on others. At the same time, while being tolerant of differences, if all you do is say your own and I think my own, with no connection between us, that is also bad. Once there are different viewpoints, they should be laid out for argument: although in many cases argument will not produce any result, and persuading someone to change their mind is difficult, while getting many issues to a perfect conclusion is even harder—the value of argument often lies precisely in the process of arguing itself. The significance of argument is not to change other people’s views, but to sharpen and deepen one’s own thinking! Toward other people’s views, one must be both daring enough to question and rebut, and good at understanding and being tolerant—that is the attitude toward scholarship and life that I admire.
I’ll write these much for today.
——————————
Even if 99% of the entire universe is filled with darkness, when I look up at the night sky, what I see in my eyes is still that brilliant starry firmament!
——Treat good and beauty with a heart full of gratitude; receive evil and ugliness with a broad and forgiving breast——this world is actually really wonderful……
发表时间：2004-9-13 21:31:06 IP：已记录
chenglian
等 级:社区区长
经 验 值:32
社区金币:10
总发贴数:4
注册时间:2004-9-11
体 力 值:
在线状态:
No.2
I very much agree with what Hu Yilin said. The establishment of a forum is a new attempt in this course; we have never done this before. How to stimulate everyone’s thinking and discussion is a question worth serious attention for teachers. The core of philosophy is not a pile of textbooks and a variety of theories, but the arguments hidden behind them. It is not difficult to hold some views, theories, or master some philosophical ideas: as long as you read some books, attend some classes, and take some notes, you can always manage it. But to grasp the principles behind theories and viewpoints is not an easy matter. Memory is only one faculty of the human mind; we also have imagination, reasoning, and the ability to distinguish good from bad and right from wrong. We must not waste them.
发表时间：2004-9-14 5:42:57 IP：已记录
apeiron
No.3
At the very least, one more thing should be added: reading books, especially the important original works in the history of philosophy. This is beneficial to both “contemplation” and “vigorous debate.” Because, first, not all questions are philosophical questions; only by reading the philosophical originals of our predecessors can we truly enter the questions. Second, we need to know what explorations our predecessors have already made on these questions—in Teacher chenglian’s words, what corresponding “arguments” there already are. Third, not all debates are philosophical debates (for example, those in ordinary debate competitions are basically not); we need to learn through reading the originals how to “debate” in a truly philosophical way.
——————————
The pursuit of knowledge is human nature.
发表时间：2004-9-15 12:51:01 IP：已记录
胡翌霖
No.4
Let me add something: when I said, “To do philosophy, one must first have the ability to settle down, read, think, and create in solitude,” I was placing reading within the category of “contemplation” here; of course, I did not elevate reading to the highest position. Indeed, reading is very important, but I still classify it under “thinking”—because if there is “reading” without “thinking,” then “reading” is utterly useless; and “thinking” is not only thinking about the writings of previous thinkers, but also includes “thinking” about nature, society, and human beings themselves. Thus it is clear that the status of “thinking” is above “reading,” and “reading” is subordinate. That is the reason I make such a classification.
Also, regarding what apeiron mentioned about the “philosophical mode of debate,” I do not quite understand it. My own view is: “Being daring enough to question while also being good at tolerance, taking the sharpening and deepening of one’s own thought rather than changing the other person’s view as the starting point” is a very good attitude toward argument; as for what counts as “truly philosophical debate” and what counts as “true philosophy”—those very questions are themselves things that need to be debated~
——————————
Even if 99% of the entire universe is filled with darkness, when I look up at the night sky, what I see in my eyes is still that brilliant starry firmament!
——Treat good and beauty with a heart full of gratitude; receive evil and ugliness with a broad and forgiving breast——this world is actually really wonderful……
发表时间：2004-9-15 13:34:46 IP：已记录
yexiushan
等 级:小野人
经 验 值:6
社区金币:4
总发贴数:2
注册时间:2004-9-10
体 力 值:
在线状态:
No.5
Hu, I’m glad that you can have such a systematic and clear set of ideas. Yesterday in class I mainly stressed the importance of reading the original works. In this regard, you can refer to my recently written *General Introduction to the History of Western Philosophy (Academic Edition) — Volume One*, published by Jiangsu People’s Publishing House.
发表时间：2004-9-17 9:18:07 IP：已记录
00423034
等 级:小野人
经 验 值:11
社区金币:6
总发贴数:3
注册时间:2004-12-15
体 力 值:
在线状态:
No.6
Can we discuss some philosophical questions on the forum? Looking forward to everyone’s active participation.
发表时间：2004-12-29 19:32:22 IP：已记录
主题：退一步的补充：
胡翌霖
No.1
After rushing out those three posts first, I came under a lot of pressure. Perhaps my earlier expression was too impassioned; in fact, my original intention was simply to advocate something… I was advocating “exchange,” “discussion,” “debate”… This is both a “forum” and a section called a “discussion area”; are we supposed to avoid discussion here as well? If all it is is students asking and teachers answering, then such “discussion” will not be lively—and what’s more, our classmates may not even be willing to ask questions, because many people have such constraints: is this question necessary to raise, is this topic necessary to mention… Of course, it is necessary to think carefully before speaking (or writing), but does that mean one must think things through extremely thoroughly, consider every concept clearly, and only after chewing through the original works have the right to speak? What I advocate is a kind of “free” discussion—do not worry about purpose, meaning, or scope; do not become timid because of ignorance: is not the origin of philosophy precisely rooted in ignorance, in curiosity?
Let me talk about myself again: everyone sees me as seemingly very active online, but in real life I am someone who really dislikes talking, and I especially avoid so-called “arguments” in ordinary life to the utmost—I am the sort of honest person who “won’t return a blow when struck, and won’t answer back when insulted.” I have never participated in everyday disputes, and I am also extremely bad at those so-called “debates” with a utilitarian flavor: for instance, if I were assigned to do ideological work, to persuade others of something, that would be completely inappropriate—I respect very much the fact that others may have different understandings, different ideas, and even different worldviews or values; as long as you follow your own heart and do things with a clear conscience, I may not agree with your actions, but I do not need to argue with you. In addition, I also do not really like the kind of “debate” found in “debate competitions”: in high school I once represented my class in a school debate contest—“Aren’t you quite good at discussion? Go on, go on~!”—I was too honest to turn it down, so I went, and as a result, apart from reading out a prepared passage, I didn’t get a word in the whole match! On the one hand, I was too dull-witted; on the other hand, I simply do not like this kind of debating method—there are predetermined answers that cannot be changed in advance, and one uses every possible means merely to knock the other side down, with no room for reconciliation of opinions… What I advocate is a kind of “argument” that is free of constraints, free, and takes as its starting point correcting and deepening one’s own thinking rather than changing the other person’s thinking.
Of course, when I argue with some senior students about the meaning of “argument,” I also do not hope to change your thinking. If there are classmates who originally intended to become solitary scholars detached from the world, I admire that very much. Doing philosophy requires “persistence,” requires “perseverance”! All roads lead to philosophy, and each person’s understanding of philosophy is not entirely the same. I am only putting forward my personal views to share with everyone and exchange ideas with everyone.
I’ll write these much for today.
——————————
Even if 99% of the entire universe is filled with darkness, when I look up at the night sky, what I see in my eyes is still that brilliant starry firmament!
——Treat good and beauty with a heart full of gratitude; receive evil and ugliness with a broad and forgiving breast——this world is actually really wonderful……
发表时间：2004-9-19 17:09:05 IP：已记录
主题：对同学们的建议
胡翌霖
No.1
This time I don’t want to write about the “third philosophy tutorial class” anymore—it’s always me writing, and that’s not very interesting…
I want to talk about how to study introductory philosophy, how to approach and enter philosophy, and share my thoughts with my classmates.
Teacher Ye said: “… philosophy also needs these kinds of textbooks (introductions, reading guides, etc.), but their importance, relative to other disciplines, is a bit weaker.” — *General Introduction to the History of Western Philosophy*, p. 22. My understanding of this, however, is exactly the opposite! Compared with other disciplines, philosophy is precisely in greater need of “introductions”! — We can start with a simple comparison: when we first began to encounter mathematics, and when we first began to encounter advanced mathematics, there was no such thing as an “introduction” or “prelude”; subjects like physics, chemistry, and biology were a little better: there is an “introductory chapter,” which I’m sure everyone studied in middle school—often it was just one or two classes to finish the job (and more than half of one class was the teacher introducing themselves ^_^)… But when we study philosophy, we spend an entire semester on an “introductory” course, and later on in our studies we will still encounter all kinds of “introductions,” “reading guides,” and so on…
Why is it that mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and even economics, history, sociology, and so on do not need such a long “introductory course,” whereas philosophy does? Because with subjects like mathematics and physics, we can very easily think of what they “study” and “how to study” them; philosophy is different: with philosophy, it is hard to form an intuitive grasp of questions such as its concepts, its domains, its meaning, and so on. That is why guidance is needed.
I think that our biggest task this semester is to “understand philosophy and draw near to philosophy” — although, to be sure, there is no standard answer to the question “What is philosophy?” We can see that Teacher Ye, who gave us the introductory lecture, and Teacher Zhang, who wrote the textbook for us, describe philosophy in very different ways. But the fact that there is no standard answer does not mean that we do not need to think about this question. Everyone should do philosophy in accordance with his or her own understanding, and our impression of and understanding of philosophy ought to be something we begin building, clarifying, and systematizing from now on.
As for how to begin, Lao Ye’s advice is to “read the classic original texts (of the German classical period).” I think this is aimed at philosophical research — if you are doing philosophical research, German classical philosophy should be your foothold and point of departure! — this is Lao Ye’s experience, and everyone should take it seriously. But what I want to say is that our classmates are in very different practical situations. Many are beginners who know extremely little about philosophy; even for us freshmen in the philosophy department, many of us chose philosophy blindly. Many people have no real knowledge or understanding of philosophy — this is the result of parents, society, secondary education, and historical reality, not the fault of the students, nor does it mean that these students will not be able to study philosophy well. For those classmates who have not yet drawn near to philosophy, I do not encourage you to start by gnawing on the “original texts”! Philosophy is certainly a profound discipline, but like other theoretical sciences, it is also full of fun — as long as you throw yourself into it. Aren’t the vast majority of mathematicians, physicists, philosophers… all delighting themselves in that profound ocean of learning? There is no need for us to be impatient; we can take it slowly… If, when reading the original texts, you feel dizzy, exhausted, and miserable, then put the book aside for the moment (of course, don’t throw it away! Put it somewhere you can easily pick it up and flip through it), “step back to a second-best choice” (Teacher Wu Guosheng’s phrase), and start with introductory guides, general surveys, and so on; start with books that you actually want to keep reading… We should “proceed step by step,” not force ourselves with gritted teeth or go against our interests — just as when learning mathematics: we say that “calculus” can be regarded as the foothold and point of departure for doing mathematics, but does that mean that when we are still just drawing near to mathematics in elementary and middle school we should already be looking at calculus? Showing calculus to a primary school student: this is not inspiring, not guiding — it is “intimidating,” giving them a “show of force”! I want to say to my classmates: never fear philosophy! When I had just entered middle school, I had already seen high school math olympiad problems, and I was almost frightened by them — piles upon piles of grotesque symbols, page after page of dazzling calculations… Fortunately I quickly forgot those and only looked at the simple and interesting middle school math problems in front of me, learning step by step… Before I knew it, I had reached high school, and suddenly discovered that I too had begun using a lot of those strangely shaped symbols, that I too had begun consuming stack after stack of scratch paper, that I too had begun writing dense calculations… Those scenes that I had imagined as extremely terrifying at the time, once I had walked through them gradually and step by step, became very natural, and I still found them very enjoyable… I bring up this experience to tell my classmates: do not be afraid, do not suffer, do not shrink back, and do not force your way through; you can fully grasp your own interests and follow them naturally, in accordance with those interests…
As for specific methods of study, I still emphasize thinking and discussion. In addition, I also offer everyone some “step back a little” reading suggestions for mutual reference. Let me start with extracurricular books. To study philosophy, one needs a rich knowledge base, and reading books in any discipline is helpful. First of all I recommend works of cutting-edge popular science: Hawking’s A Brief History of Time, Gribbin’s In Search of Schrödinger’s Cat, B. Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos, Penrose’s The Emperor’s New Mind, and so on — the best of this kind are the “First Push Series,” and the “Philosopher’s Stone Series” is not bad either. In my first year of high school I concentrated on reading this batch of books, and felt as if my original worldview, view of matter, and view of space-time had been completely overturned; you will be forced to rethink some previously seemingly self-evident understandings… It was precisely these books that brought me close to philosophy back then (although on the surface the connection does not seem very large, there were many other coincidences involved; I’ll chat with everyone about them when I have a chance later). As for extracurricular books in the humanities, I recommend reading some on history, in keeping with the saying “to map the heavens and measure the earth, to master the ancient and understand the present.” There are so many good books in this area that I will mainly recommend Stavrianos’s A Global History and the series by Huang Renyu…; but let’s return to the point and talk about books on philosophy. First are the recommended readings from Lao Ye (whatever you do, don’t buy the Commercial Press edition of the Critique of Pure Reason @_@); if you can read it, that’s best; if you can’t get through it, you can take a pause. I suggest that everyone can read some more accessible books on the history of philosophy, so as to get a broad overview of philosophy ancient and modern, Chinese and foreign. There are many good books of this kind; here I will only pick out a few popular ones to introduce: Russell’s The Wisdom of the West, Feng Youlan’s A Short History of Chinese Philosophy, [Norwegian] G. Hildebek
N. Ihle, History of Western Philosophy — From Ancient Greece to the Twentieth Century…; finally there are the introductory books. Since we are taking this course, we should first of all read Teacher Ye’s History of Western Philosophy (Academic Edition) (General Discussion), first part, as well as the Philosophy Introduction by Teacher Zhang Shiying that we have in hand — and you will find that the two masters describe some questions in utterly different ways! For example, Teacher Ye’s understanding of Hegel, which he mentioned yesterday, is different from what Teacher Zhang expressed, and everyone can compare the two… In addition, I would especially recommend one book: [American] Robert Solomon’s Big Questions — A Short Introduction to Philosophy http://www.joyo.com/shopbook/bkbk406333.asp?source=w-90003370
! I bought this book only four days ago, and it felt as if I had found a backer~~~ because many of the ideas in it about studying philosophy are very similar to mine — many are exactly what I wanted to express… Of course, the greatest feature of this book is that it is “accessible without being shallow”; it is heuristic: at the beginning and end of each chapter, and in the body of the text, it lists many questions for students to think about and discuss (the author also strongly advocates discussion). Among these are interesting questions, and also many profound “big questions” — and in the text, the author, based on these questions, will find the answers given by major philosophers, and one often gets to see different philosophers’ different views on the same question! Of course, introductions to individual philosophers and philosophical classics are interspersed appropriately throughout the discussion…
Finally, I will copy out several passages from the author’s views in Big Questions to support the ideas I want to express — “Page 6: Great philosophers… they help us formulate our own views and learn to clarify what it is that we actually believe. ……………….. But philosophy is mainly not the study of other people’s views; rather, it is the effort to …………………. This book is precisely meant to help you do this, namely, to take the philosophers of the past and their great ideas as inspiration, as a way of organizing your own views, to study philosophy and to express your ideas, to arouse ……………….. You should think independently, clarifying which view you are inclined toward, and ………………….” “Page 11: Philosophy consists of our insights, that is, our beliefs and attitudes about ourselves and the world. Therefore, doing philosophy is first of all such an act of stating, an activity that seeks to express as clearly and forcefully as possible what we think and what we have in mind. … In addition, philosophy must also do its best to evaluate the differences between one’s own views and other views, to be able to argue with those who hold different opinions, and to try to resolve some of the difficulties they may leave you with. ………….. Philosophy is also an attempt to reconcile a number of different opinions into one perspective, and to persist in responding to objections with your own ideas. Indeed, an idea that cannot be connected to other ideas and cannot withstand criticism may in fact not be worth believing at all.” “Page 14: Philosophy is first and foremost reflection; it requires you to step back, listen to your own voice and that of others (including those great philosophers), and try to …………………. Clear expression — this is the first step in philosophy; sitting down and writing out your thoughts is an excellent way to make them clear, but most people may choose a better and more pleasant path, namely to discuss these views with others (for example, with classmates, good friends…). Indeed, conversing with another person not only forces you to be more clear and specific when expressing your own thoughts, but also ………………….” “Page 22: Doing philosophy with style卜…………………. But the reason they became great philosophers is that they eloquently put forward their own ideas, defended them brilliantly, and organized them together, building a magnificent (and at the same time profound) edifice. … Philosophy should be persuasive. …” “Page 38: This is the general interest behind philosophical questions: it teaches us how to think about, clarify, and argue for what we believe, allowing us personally to clarify these ideas and then present them in a convincing way to others who may hold different opinions. Therefore, philosophy often advances when two philosophers or students of philosophy debate with one another on the basis of differences in meaning.” …^_^… Finally, here is an advertisement: find Xiaogu on Joyo, and any book on Joyo will be 85% off the original discounted price on Joyo itself~!
［此帖子已被 胡翌霖 在 2004-12-30 18:38:36 编辑过］
——————————
Even if 99% of the entire universe is filled with darkness, when I gaze up at the night sky, what remains in my eyes is still that brilliant expanse of stars!
——Treat goodness and beauty with a heart of gratitude; embrace evil and ugliness with a broad and tolerant heart — this world is actually truly good……
Posted at: 2004-9-24 15:23:58 IP：recorded
chxr
No.2
Strongly support
Feng Youlan’s <A Short History of Chinese Philosophy> is really a great book; even a newbie like me can understand it
I just can’t stand the teacher-assigned <Critique of Pure Reason>; it’s obscure and stiff (more seriously, I bought the Business Press edition translated by Lan Gongwu; I don’t know how that version is, but in any case it is half classical Chinese and half vernacular, which makes it even more dizzying…)
Posted at: 2004-9-26 1:26:51 IP：recorded
apeiron
No.3
From the standpoint of accuracy, the Lan Gongwu translation is not bad; it’s just that his language does not suit the habits of young people today — actually, it doesn’t even count as classical Chinese. This year there are two new translations of the Critique of Pure Reason by Deng Xiaomang and Li Qiuling; purely in terms of language, the latter translation may be a bit better.
However, I do not agree that someone learning philosophy should start by reading the Critique of Pure Reason, because if you do not know what problem he is addressing, you will surely feel that it makes no sense. I actually think the Commercial Press’s Selected Readings from the Original Works of Western Philosophy is quite good; one should first read it through once, get a basic idea of the history of philosophy, and only then read Kant for it to be effective.
——————————
Seeking knowledge is human nature.
Posted at: 2004-9-26 11:42:23 IP：recorded
00423034
No.4
I regret that only now have I had the chance to see everyone’s views on philosophy. I very much agree with some of Hu Yilin’s viewpoints. But I am a shallow and ignorant person; it was not until university that I learned about philosophy, let alone reading philosophical originals. Now I feel that I really should read more books like my classmates. I hope everyone will generously give me guidance in the future. I also hope for more opportunities to discuss and explore some philosophical questions.
Posted at: 2004-12-29 19:21:54 IP：recorded
胡翌霖
No.6
It is truly regrettable that I have not participated in much discussion over such a long time; I feel as if I have become lazy and dull, and that makes me a little disappointed. Why is it that in the science-track classes nationwide there can often be a free atmosphere of discussion among classmates and between classmates and teachers; how is it that when it comes to the sciences one has literary youthful spirit, yet once one moves into the humanities one turns into someone who just buries his head alone in books? This is the opposite of what I imagined! … Indeed, philosophical questions have no standard answer, and the questions each of you and I understand will be different; so does that mean that once discussion starts it will just go in opposite directions and be meaningless? I do not agree! It is precisely because there are no frameworks and no standards that discussion going in opposite directions is interesting: science-track questions are often relatively clear-cut, at most inviting discussion to inspire lines of thought; and in many cases there is no need to discuss at all — just look at the answer and do the calculations yourself, and that’s that; philosophy is different. Philosophy is always concerned with the question itself, not the answer.
Saying that one is a “shallow and ignorant person”… of course, humility is extremely important, but humility does not necessarily have to be extremely cautious and timid. There is an old saying that goes: “When human beings think, God laughs.” Seen in this light, who is not a “shallow and ignorant person”? If everything were understood, there would be no need for discussion anyway (one would have become God~)!
In fact, I feel that sometimes “caution” — the belief that one is not qualified to talk about philosophy — is, rather than humility, actually a kind of “arrogance”: one imagines philosophy to be towering above everything else, and once they feel that they have entered the door of philosophy, they easily become self-righteous, look down on “ordinary people,” and even look down on the thoughts of other philosophical comrades who are not as “profound” as they are: “He doesn’t even understand what question I’m talking about, and I don’t have the time or interest to discuss it with him!” I do not want philosophy to fall into closure — I do not approve of strengthening the boundaries between philosophy and the so-called “ordinary people,” between philosophy and other sciences and disciplines, or even between one school of philosophy and another — everyone faces the same problems, and everyone has the right to think and the right to speak; a so-called “philosopher” is not someone whose questions have to be so profound that others cannot understand them for him to be considered impressive, but someone who can sort out various ideas, systematize his own views, and explain them clearly!
Nietzsche said: “One of the merits of a theory is that it can be refuted.” — Do not fear our own views being refuted; on the contrary, we should welcome others refuting our views, for this helps deepen, improve, and clarify our views,
The philosophy I understand is an inclusive and communicative discipline — only philosophy can do this: communicate between humans and nature, connect science and the humanities! Below I am posting the philosophy-term paper I wrote for discussion with everyone. I wrote this paper rather hastily; it merely sketches out my line of thought. God will surely laugh when he reads it; I wonder how everyone else will see it~^_^~.
yuchjd
Level: dirt native
Experience points: 202
Community coins: 0
Total posts: 18
Registration time: 2004-9-14
Physical stamina:
Online status:
No.7
1. Regarding “death” as the measure of time, can it be understood like this: “life and death,” as a resultant vector, undergoes a leap at some boundary in time; at this boundary, the “death” component is tangentially continuous, while the “life” component is normal-continuous — that is, everyone has a day of death, and after everyone dies, the influence he or she has had on this world still keeps living on without ceasing.
Then, when empirical sciences study boundary problems, can they also find a sudden-changing quantity, and thus find the essence of the world?
2. When the teacher argued that the history of philosophy is a science, I felt that in recent years the method some humanities scholars use to argue for the similarity between religion and science is partly similar.
A. There are some presuppositions (the empirical world must have regularity) B. Conceptually similar C. Methodologically similar, including the similarity of the entire theoretical system.
But I always feel that these arguments only capture part of the similar properties. Can properties determine essence? What exactly is their essence?
Posted at: 2004-12-31 8:34:54 IP：recorded
This topic has 1 page [ 1 ] Bookmark post | Cancel bookmark | Back to top
Powered by BBSxp 5.00.SP1/Licence © 1998-2004
Script Execution Time:93ms
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply