Locking the blog was pretty pointless; it didn’t help change my way of life as I had expected. Rather, it has made my life even less regular, and there’s even the danger that it will sap my vitality. By the way, my mood lately has been very complicated, with all kinds of emotions mixed together, but on the whole I’m a bit exhilarated, with a strong urge to write; writing with a pen is no longer enough to vent it all~
And then, hey, even Wu Laoshi has started blogging too, wahahaha~~ wahahahahaha~~
So I’m planning to come back earlier than expected, though it will probably be about a month before normal updates resume. For now I’ll first finish my graduation thesis, then spend some time organizing my recent notes and start writing a few long essays, so I expect to be able to make a move only by early June. This is just a heads-up; everyone needn’t wait until the Olympics~
By the way, a few days ago I changed the background music to this: the OP of *Fafner in the Azure*. It’s an anime from 2004, but a very good one. It was made largely by the same team as last year’s *Heroic Age*; both the music and the visuals are quite good, and there’s also a certain philosophical reflection in it. *Heroic Age* is a bit too abstruse; *Fafner*, on the other hand, suits my taste better. People say this anime is a tragedy, but I think it’s merely somewhat serious.
What attracted me to this OP, apart from ANGELA’s distinctive voice, was more importantly its lyrics.
Lyrics, roughly speaking:
Even if it is a delusion, it doesn’t matter
We must still seek the traces of that vast dream
Wave farewell to a pale and ordinary life (goodbye, blue days)
If you go with the flow
You will slowly grow old
Gradually lose the innocence of former days
Only the ripe fruit will be chosen
And the one who cuts it open first with a knife
Will be able to taste its sweetness in advance
Our goal: Shangri-La
Desire that cannot be suppressed
Overflowing with endless fantasy
An unrelenting pursuit of freedom
Can’t we say it out loud now?
Here is the paradise of dreams
Goodbye, pale and ordinary life
We once thought that even if we had to
Step on important things and use them as stepping stones
We would still pluck the fruit from the highest place
But it was only after losing it that we realized how precious it was
We who are still young always miss things so easily
A stable, peaceful life with no desires
Instead makes the heart uneasy
Better to be covered in wounds than refuse to fly
The seemingly simple, brilliant starry sky
Has long understood everything about us
Even if dream and reality are far apart
Our hearts still firmly believe it is our own treasure
Young and inexperienced boys
Never care about the hardships of the journey
Can’t we say it out loud now?
Here is the paradise of dreams
Goodbye, pale and ordinary life
http://comicer.hzcnc.com/music/yjj/fafner001.mp3
Comments and replies
smw
2008-05-21 23:50:53 Anonymous 125.46.31.138 [reply]
The impact of Wu Laoshi starting a blog is huge……
Linghun Chaosheng
2008-05-21 13:02:23 Anonymous 124.133.120.158 [reply]
Master of Suixuan, you’re making a comeback? Hehe, good news, good news indeed…
I haven’t come here to sit and chat for a long time, because I’ve been busy filming, and lately I’ve hardly read at all or thought much, for fear that I wouldn’t be able to calm myself enough to read your words carefully. But it should be possible to shake off this state very soon.
I read your reply to that post of mine, and it gave me quite a bit of inspiration again, hehe. Thanks!
Looking forward to new work ^-^
Gucu
2008-05-10 16:27:52 [reply]
“Intuitively, I would think you’re very cute. You have a doll-like face, you smile happily, and you smile knowingly~~~ That kind of smile is the smile of someone who, from the heart, has gained a kind of intellectual satisfaction or who smiles after an argument!” — Thank you for your intuitive evaluation of me; I’ve finally heard such a heartfelt compliment. To be frank, I’ve received quite a few compliments so far, but some have made me ashamed, while others have seemed to arise from misunderstanding. Today is the first time I’ve heard an evaluation that truly delights me, with not the slightest shame and not the least resistance. I accept that remark in full!
No matter through what medium, in the end people always grasp the world intuitively. Philosophy, poetry, art—all of them, through different paths, seek to call forth the power of intuitive insight in people. I simply chose philosophy as my path. The mission of philosophy is to weave a net of concepts, but the purpose of that net is not to make people sink into a jungle of concepts and lose their way. On the contrary, it is meant to help people break free from the fog of concepts, because human beings do after all exist in language and inevitably are constrained by concepts. And the web woven by philosophy is meant to make concepts interconnected everywhere, so that, as Teacher Chen Jiaying said, philosophy is “transparent throughout” (I think that’s how it was said). The weaving of philosophy is precisely to make the entire conceptual system accessible to intuition at every point.
Burning in Empty Stillness
2008-05-10 14:15:51 http://deleted [reply]
I haven’t read philosophy books for the past two years. The last book I read in 2006 was Wittgenstein’s *Philosophical Investigations*. It really does give the feeling of incessant chatter, though his loose style is better suited to describing the function of language. Whether he has made the simple complicated or the complicated simple, to me language is the most mysterious thing human beings have. Heidegger and Gadamer have also offered their own interpretations of language. I may lean toward Heidegger’s “language is the house of Being” and Gadamer’s “the contribution of poetry to truth.”
Whether game theory counts as valid or not is irrelevant to me; I rely on intuition to grasp the world, and the linguistic form of poetry is best suited to being grasped through intuition (this intuition is intuition after experience)~ Form is greater than content; intuition comes from experience, and experience is greater than experience itself—this is my basic view. (Please forgive the laugh.)
Certainly, the primary function of language is to unconceal, but in fact it often also conceals more things. Even between lovers, there are often no shared words.
Can language accurately express thought? Does language have its own independent internal logical system? Once speech leaves the author and becomes language, is it no longer under the author’s control? Is there a genius of the author, or a genius of the reader? Or is it that the power of language itself is limitless?
All this should probably stop being judged. I only rely on my own intuition to grasp everything. For example, when I read your words, from experience I feel that you are very serious and very accomplished. But intuitively I would think you’re very cute. You have a doll-like face, you smile happily, and you smile knowingly~~~ That kind of smile is the smile that comes from the heart after gaining some kind of intellectual satisfaction or after an argument!
Finally, let me give you a sentence from Dai Zhen: Do not let others obscure yourself, and do not let yourself obscure others! I believe you will achieve great things, and I also hope you will soon establish your own metaphysics and faith. Chinese people need metaphysics. Dai Zhen’s intention was not philology, but the reconstruction of faith; unfortunately, he did not complete it. Later scholars—Tan Sitong or Xiong Shili—also did not complete it. I hope that in our time someone can accomplish such a mission. This mission cannot rely on people over thirty; it will certainly have to appear in the generation born after the 1980s!
Gucu
2008-05-10 13:25:22 [reply]
“Chatterbox” — that reminds me of Teacher Xian Gang’s评价 of the later Wittgenstein: like a chattering old woman.
Actually, many times I really do have a strong desire to chatter incessantly; once I start discussing something with someone, I can’t stop, especially as long as the other person is still talking, I will keep talking too, and won’t stop until I force them out of the discussion.
Apart from habit, I have a reason for this.
When facing any problem, I always have something more I want to say. Discussing with others is only a stimulus; in fact, I’m just using it as an occasion to talk to myself.
In fact, when we read the classic texts of philosophers, we often find that the core of their thought is usually just a very simple point—what is called “holding to one thread throughout.” The whole philosophy is strung together by a single main line. So with great philosophers, they can, as if by magic, connect all sorts of different problems together, making it seem as though they are just saying the same problem over and over. You can see that Kant’s philosophy is nothing but repeated use of the critical method, and Heidegger is, over and over again, truth = freedom = unconcealment. So when people say “a philosopher thinks about only one problem in a lifetime,” that has its reason. Ordinary people lack a philosopher’s ability to connect things through, so in their discussions the boundary between one problem and another is very clear, and even when they focus on one problem, it is hard to expand outward from it.
I believe my style is closer to that of philosophers: on any specific problem, I can keep talking endlessly. Why? Because any problem, as long as it has meaning, can certainly draw out all the other problems from within it. That’s why I often say philosophy is “a net”: as long as the net is woven tightly and firmly enough, grabbing any single thread will inevitably pull the whole philosophy out.
The discussion of the style and attitude of “insulting people” is directly related to the attitude of philosophical discourse, and also to the attitude toward the “other”; it also involves the spirit of ancient Greece, and the basic life attitude of play and seriousness. All of these can directly touch the core issues of philosophy. Moreover, these are also things I’ve been thinking about a lot recently. My first task upon returning will probably be a clarification and sorting out of “the attitude of philosophy.”
Burning in Empty Stillness
2008-05-10 12:44:11 http://deleted [reply]
I feel a flavor of Su Xuelin scolding Lu Xun, of course not in terms of content, but in terms of form and attitude. But that is still just my personal feeling; you needn’t agree with my view at all~~ hehe~~~
Su Xuelin scolded Lu Xun on the basis of respecting Lu Xun. In fact, she wasn’t scolding Lu Xun himself, because she only began her half-century-long denunciation after Lu Xun had died. She was not scolding Lu Xun, but another political attitude and political ideal! Actually, the thing you are aiming at may seem concrete on the surface, but in essence it is also a critique of another ideological stance. So I saw the shadow of Su Xuelin, that is all!
Let this discussion end here. I want to see something new from you, whether serious or cute, rather than entangling yourself with some thing and chattering on and on~
Gucu
2008-05-09 14:43:28 [reply]
When I previously saw “there’s a strong flavor of Su Xuelin scolding Lu Xun,” I didn’t know what to make of it, because I knew absolutely nothing about Su Xuelin herself. But today I casually looked it up, and I really can’t understand why you would connect me with this kind of scolding. Still less can I understand how expressions such as “Lu Xun’s psychology was entirely pathological, his character despicable, and this was especially unexpected; he simply didn’t even meet the minimum qualifications to count as a ‘human being’,” or “Lu Xun’s misconduct—truly we cannot but call him a degenerate scoundrel who disgraces the literati, an evil and vicious person absent from the *Biographies of Confucian Scholars* in the Twenty-Four Histories, whose criminal roots ought to be proclaimed to the world and to later generations, so that everyone may spit upon him”—how on earth is such language “gentle”!? It makes me doubt my understanding of the word gentle……
The object of my criticism will only ever fall into two categories. One is a general discussion, such as “modern people” are like this or that, “X ideology” is like this or that, and so on; it will not be specific to any one person, though I may cite some representative views. The other is criticism aimed at one specific person; if it is the latter, then this person must be an opponent whom I respect, and absolutely not someone I hate. I would never scold people the way Su Xuelin did, full of hatred. Everyone can look at all my articles: have I ever degraded the personality of any specific opponent?
So my way of “scolding” is typically masculine and heroic; only those I respect are worthy of being my opponents. Otherwise I would never lower my own worth by mocking and ridiculing the weak. Of course, when faced with an opponent who confronts me upon our first meeting, I will at least adopt a minimally respectful attitude toward them first.
Any friend who wants to engage in deep exchange with me must understand my attitude: I will never scold people because of hatred, nor will I hate because of scolding. Mutual opposition and equal struggle will only highlight both sides’ independence and freedom, as well as dignity.
Gucu
2008-05-09 00:33:17 [reply]
A childlike desire to win — I like that line.
An ancient Greek, masculine, childlike desire to win.
As for “philosophical language,” that is not what I desire.
In fact, there has not yet been any great philosopher writing in modern Chinese who has been born. So I don’t know what modern Chinese “philosophical language” actually looks like.
See for reference (http://hps.phil.pku.edu.cn/bbs/read.php?tid=523&fpage=1&toread=1)
Just wait and see; philosophical language will be like this~
Burning in Empty Stillness
2008-05-08 23:14:19 http://deleted [reply]
The poster has a very heavy murderous aura!
But it’s still a childlike desire to win.
So that’s why I say you’re utterly adorable!
By the way, your language is very good, but from what I can see now, it is more suitable for commentary language, with a strong flavor of Su Xuelin scolding Lu Xun, gentle yet severe. To turn it into philosophical language, it still needs some tempering!
Gucu
2008-05-07 21:42:16 [reply]
Serious argument is very interesting. It’s like playing chess: it requires both sides to be fully serious and earnest, completely absorbed, making no regretful moves, pressing step by step with only the thought of putting the other side to death. If it were not so serious, but instead casual—if one could take back moves at will, break the rules, be halfhearted, and not aim at checkmating the opponent—then the game would certainly be easier and livelier, but chess would no longer be fun.
Seriousness is precisely for the sake of play. The more serious a game is, the more replayable it tends to be, and the more it can stir up people’s lasting enthusiasm.
Gucu
2008-05-07 20:56:26 [reply]
Actually, I am very simple-minded: if you express praise toward me or express disdain, I usually just laugh it off. But once you make any form of “provocation” toward me, I will respond seriously.
Because my thinking is aggressive and combative.
In terms of my usual style, this response is nowhere near what one would call a “serious long essay.” If I were really to get serious, I’d be far more overbearing and sharp-tongued~~
Gucu
2008-05-07 20:50:18 [reply]
For someone like me, who isn’t good at joking around, it wouldn’t be bad at all to become God’s punchline~
Since you said, “I’ve been following your blog for a long time, but I’ve never spoken before,” how could I dare not take this breakthrough first comment seriously?
UNI
2008-05-07 20:09:57 Anonymous 124.117.16.236 [reply]
A shock
Burning in Empty Stillness
2008-05-07 20:00:17 http://deleted [reply]
When humans think, God laughs. The poster must often make God laugh~~~
I merely made a harmless joke, and it drew out your serious long essay. Looks like you really are adorable beyond measure~
Gucu
2008-05-04 21:31:32 [reply]
Philosophy is, in the first place, “superfluous” and useless. Anyone who wants to devote themselves to philosophy had better be aware of this; don’t get too full of yourself—we are nothing more than people with full bellies and nothing to do.
But thought is after all a mark of civilization. If no one thinks, there will be no “brilliant” discussions, and no rich culture.
What is the purpose of thinking? If the purpose of thinking is merely to guide practice, then a considerable amount of thinking—especially philosophical thinking—must be “superfluous,” because not only does it often fail to provide convincing guidance, it sometimes instead shatters people’s existing creeds and leaves them even more at a loss.
The criticism upstairs, that it is “of no avail,” does not work on me. Because my thinking was never undertaken in order to be “of avail” in the first place. I think only in order to understand and to question; what philosophy pursues, in the final analysis, is merely to persuade oneself that one has clarified a problem, not to persuade others to do something. If you want to evaluate the success or failure of my thinking, you may say that these thoughts are useless for answering the questions I raise, but you may not say that these thoughts are useless for whether you choose to do something, because I was never thinking for you to begin with, but only for myself.
It cannot be denied that some people’s “thinking” is done for others, such as “think-tank” people and propaganda writers. But philosophers absolutely must not think for others. Philosophical thinking must pursue independence; it must not bind itself with external purposes. No matter whether such purposes arise from selfish desire or from noble dedication, they are harmful to philosophy. Philosophical thinking has only one purpose: “thinking” itself.
Bu Yan Kongjing
2008-05-04 20:29:06 http://deleted [reply]
Discussion is brilliant, but thinking is superfluous! Let those who are willing to see Western medicine go see Western medicine, and those who are willing to see Chinese medicine go see Chinese medicine; it all depends on personal experience and preference. No matter how fiercely you quarrel here, it will still be of no avail!
Also, I’ve followed your blog for a long time, only I’ve never spoken before. Seeing you return, I’m very happy, and I look forward to your work!
Chu He
2008-05-04 00:32:41 [reply]
Oh, I see. Thank you. Let’s discuss this for now.
I hope to see an article with your views on Chinese medicine
Gu Bo
2008-05-04 00:30:08 [reply]
“Whether in hospitals, should Chinese medicine and Western medicine long coexist?” — I have already said, “As for how to arrange Chinese medicine within the social medical system, that is a rather complicated issue, not something scholars like us in the study can sort out.”
To develop Chinese medicine, it is not necessarily required that Chinese medicine and Western medicine coexist institutionally. For example, one could completely remove Chinese medicine from comprehensive hospitals (which may reduce the danger of Chinese medicine becoming Westernized), and encourage Chinese medicine to flourish in various forms such as pharmacy resident physicians, barefoot doctors, private clinics, and so on; that may also be a better choice. In short, technical questions are not simply a matter of taking a stance and “declaring” it.
Gu Bo
2008-05-04 00:25:04 [reply]
“Do you agree, or not agree?”
—I refuse to answer this kind of question. Philosophical discussion is not a political declaration.
If I answer you now, “Agree,” so what? Have you gained much more understanding of my thought? Perhaps the prejudice and misunderstanding that this answer adds to you will outweigh the help it offers your understanding of me. Only when I can make clear in precisely what sense, and for what reason, I am expressing agreement will my answer be meaningful.
Chu He
2008-05-04 00:24:56 [reply]
::And if the standard for judging right and wrong lies outside science, then people have no right to rely on Western science to determine what is right and wrong in Chinese medicine.
According to your view, should Chinese medicine and Western medicine long coexist in hospitals?
Gu Bo
2008-05-04 00:20:38 [reply]
The existence of some kind of alternative science is always “possible,” but it may not become reality. What I mean by alternative science is a scientific system that is self-contained, with its own standards and rules, and its own tradition and institutional setup; none of these are easy to produce or to grow, and Chinese medicine is a rare case.
Where, after all, do our standards for judging correctness and error lie? If this standard is provided by science itself, then a self-contained alternative science possesses independent standards, and the standards of mainstream Western science have no right to adjudicate another mode of existence that does not belong to it in the first place. And if the standard for judging right and wrong lies outside science, then people have no right to rely on Western science to determine what is right and wrong in Chinese medicine.
Chu He
2008-05-04 00:16:34 [reply]
Heh heh, what I actually wanted to ask was, “Is Chinese medicine riding around in a golden rice bowl?”
Agree, or not agree?
Gu Bo
2008-05-04 00:13:01 [reply]
I have always been rather inclined to agree with Teacher Jiang’s views, but I don’t dare simply say that “I agree with the views of this article,” because this article does not contain only one view. In terms of philosophical stance, of course I still differ quite a lot from Teacher Jiang, so even the same specific view may be explained by me in a different way.
As for what philosophy I mean when I speak of philosophy, sorry, that of course refers to my own philosophy! One can only read, study, and criticize other people’s philosophy; one cannot possibly take another’s philosophy and make it one’s own, because philosophy, in any case, refers to free and independent thought.
Chu He
2008-05-04 00:08:55 [reply]
Since Chinese medicine can serve as an “alternative science,” then could there also be alternative sciences such as “Chinese physics” or “Chinese chemistry”?
Does “alternative science” help human beings understand the world?
Gu Bo
2008-05-04 00:05:55 [reply]
How to treat Chinese medicine and herbal medicine really takes a long time to explain. Simply put, I would support letting Chinese medicine develop independently as a kind of “alternative science,” though this is from an academic angle. As for how to arrange Chinese medicine within the social medical system, that is a rather complicated issue, not something scholars like us in the study can sort out; it involves many objective conditions and power relations. Even within Western science, to distribute funding among different disciplines, and to balance the institutional support between foundational disciplines and marginal disciplines, is not a simple matter. What I can say is only academic freedom: since Chinese medicine is a system that is completely different from Western science, how to research and develop this system should be free, and it should not be judged by the standards of another system. This is also what the “freedom” spirit that the Western scientific tradition should take pride in requires.
Chu He
2008-05-04 00:04:46 [reply]
::I will use my entire philosophy to oppose scientism.
What kind of philosophy are you talking about?
Chu He
2008-05-04 00:03:56 [reply]
Jiang Jinsong: Why should Chinese medicine beg for food while clutching a golden bowl
http://news.sina.com.cn/pl/2008-03-23/084015205934.shtml
Do you agree with the views in this article?
Chu He
2008-05-04 00:01:22 [reply]
I just think you are relatively rational, so I wanted to hear your opinion.
And Chinese medicine and herbal medicine and the like should have nothing to do with philosophy; they are objective, right?
Gu Bo
2008-05-03 23:58:01 [reply]
I don’t want to comment on this kind of article right now. Naturally, there are many contradictions in the articles by Fellow Student Fang and Teacher He, but since these articles are themselves already superficial, to rebut them specifically still inevitably remains shallow. My opposition to scientism is not to be based on little tricks like emotional fervor, sarcasm, or abusive mockery, nor on drawing lines by elevating everything to a political litmus test. I will use my entire philosophy to oppose scientism. Perhaps precisely because of this consideration, in my miscellaneous essays so far I have rarely launched a clear-cut attack on “scientism”; merely sticking labels on each other and playing around with them does not have much meaning.
Chu He
2008-05-03 23:56:20 [reply]
I wanted to see your view of that article
How do you think Chinese medicine and herbal medicine should be treated?
Gu Bo
2008-05-03 23:49:46 [reply]
Of course Fellow Student Xiao Fang is the most typical scientism advocate, hehe~
Chu He
2008-05-03 23:23:54 Anonymous 218.19.175.248 [reply]
Fellow Student Gu Bo, I discovered this blog some time ago. Your blog is very well run, and I’ve learned quite a lot here
You call yourself an anti-scientism advocate. I’d like to ask you to take a look at the article below; what do you think of it, and does it count as scientism?
Looking at Chinese medicine and herbal medicine scientifically
http://www.fxkz.net/viewthread.php?tid=581&extra=page%3D1
Linghun Chaosheng
I haven’t come here to sit and chat for a long time, because I’ve been busy filming, and lately I’ve hardly read at all or thought much, for fear that I wouldn’t be able to calm myself enough to read your words carefully. But it should be possible to shake off this state very soon.
I read your reply to that post of mine, and it gave me quite a bit of inspiration again, hehe. Thanks!
Looking forward to new work ^-^
Gucu
No matter through what medium, in the end people always grasp the world intuitively. Philosophy, poetry, art—all of them, through different paths, seek to call forth the power of intuitive insight in people. I simply chose philosophy as my path. The mission of philosophy is to weave a net of concepts, but the purpose of that net is not to make people sink into a jungle of concepts and lose their way. On the contrary, it is meant to help people break free from the fog of concepts, because human beings do after all exist in language and inevitably are constrained by concepts. And the web woven by philosophy is meant to make concepts interconnected everywhere, so that, as Teacher Chen Jiaying said, philosophy is “transparent throughout” (I think that’s how it was said). The weaving of philosophy is precisely to make the entire conceptual system accessible to intuition at every point.
Burning in Empty Stillness
Whether game theory counts as valid or not is irrelevant to me; I rely on intuition to grasp the world, and the linguistic form of poetry is best suited to being grasped through intuition (this intuition is intuition after experience)~ Form is greater than content; intuition comes from experience, and experience is greater than experience itself—this is my basic view. (Please forgive the laugh.)
Certainly, the primary function of language is to unconceal, but in fact it often also conceals more things. Even between lovers, there are often no shared words.
Can language accurately express thought? Does language have its own independent internal logical system? Once speech leaves the author and becomes language, is it no longer under the author’s control? Is there a genius of the author, or a genius of the reader? Or is it that the power of language itself is limitless?
All this should probably stop being judged. I only rely on my own intuition to grasp everything. For example, when I read your words, from experience I feel that you are very serious and very accomplished. But intuitively I would think you’re very cute. You have a doll-like face, you smile happily, and you smile knowingly~~~ That kind of smile is the smile that comes from the heart after gaining some kind of intellectual satisfaction or after an argument!
Finally, let me give you a sentence from Dai Zhen: Do not let others obscure yourself, and do not let yourself obscure others! I believe you will achieve great things, and I also hope you will soon establish your own metaphysics and faith. Chinese people need metaphysics. Dai Zhen’s intention was not philology, but the reconstruction of faith; unfortunately, he did not complete it. Later scholars—Tan Sitong or Xiong Shili—also did not complete it. I hope that in our time someone can accomplish such a mission. This mission cannot rely on people over thirty; it will certainly have to appear in the generation born after the 1980s!
Gucu
Actually, many times I really do have a strong desire to chatter incessantly; once I start discussing something with someone, I can’t stop, especially as long as the other person is still talking, I will keep talking too, and won’t stop until I force them out of the discussion.
Apart from habit, I have a reason for this.
When facing any problem, I always have something more I want to say. Discussing with others is only a stimulus; in fact, I’m just using it as an occasion to talk to myself.
In fact, when we read the classic texts of philosophers, we often find that the core of their thought is usually just a very simple point—what is called “holding to one thread throughout.” The whole philosophy is strung together by a single main line. So with great philosophers, they can, as if by magic, connect all sorts of different problems together, making it seem as though they are just saying the same problem over and over. You can see that Kant’s philosophy is nothing but repeated use of the critical method, and Heidegger is, over and over again, truth = freedom = unconcealment. So when people say “a philosopher thinks about only one problem in a lifetime,” that has its reason. Ordinary people lack a philosopher’s ability to connect things through, so in their discussions the boundary between one problem and another is very clear, and even when they focus on one problem, it is hard to expand outward from it.
I believe my style is closer to that of philosophers: on any specific problem, I can keep talking endlessly. Why? Because any problem, as long as it has meaning, can certainly draw out all the other problems from within it. That’s why I often say philosophy is “a net”: as long as the net is woven tightly and firmly enough, grabbing any single thread will inevitably pull the whole philosophy out.
The discussion of the style and attitude of “insulting people” is directly related to the attitude of philosophical discourse, and also to the attitude toward the “other”; it also involves the spirit of ancient Greece, and the basic life attitude of play and seriousness. All of these can directly touch the core issues of philosophy. Moreover, these are also things I’ve been thinking about a lot recently. My first task upon returning will probably be a clarification and sorting out of “the attitude of philosophy.”
Burning in Empty Stillness
Su Xuelin scolded Lu Xun on the basis of respecting Lu Xun. In fact, she wasn’t scolding Lu Xun himself, because she only began her half-century-long denunciation after Lu Xun had died. She was not scolding Lu Xun, but another political attitude and political ideal! Actually, the thing you are aiming at may seem concrete on the surface, but in essence it is also a critique of another ideological stance. So I saw the shadow of Su Xuelin, that is all!
Let this discussion end here. I want to see something new from you, whether serious or cute, rather than entangling yourself with some thing and chattering on and on~
Gucu
The object of my criticism will only ever fall into two categories. One is a general discussion, such as “modern people” are like this or that, “X ideology” is like this or that, and so on; it will not be specific to any one person, though I may cite some representative views. The other is criticism aimed at one specific person; if it is the latter, then this person must be an opponent whom I respect, and absolutely not someone I hate. I would never scold people the way Su Xuelin did, full of hatred. Everyone can look at all my articles: have I ever degraded the personality of any specific opponent?
So my way of “scolding” is typically masculine and heroic; only those I respect are worthy of being my opponents. Otherwise I would never lower my own worth by mocking and ridiculing the weak. Of course, when faced with an opponent who confronts me upon our first meeting, I will at least adopt a minimally respectful attitude toward them first.
Any friend who wants to engage in deep exchange with me must understand my attitude: I will never scold people because of hatred, nor will I hate because of scolding. Mutual opposition and equal struggle will only highlight both sides’ independence and freedom, as well as dignity.
Gucu
An ancient Greek, masculine, childlike desire to win.
As for “philosophical language,” that is not what I desire.
In fact, there has not yet been any great philosopher writing in modern Chinese who has been born. So I don’t know what modern Chinese “philosophical language” actually looks like.
See for reference (http://hps.phil.pku.edu.cn/bbs/read.php?tid=523&fpage=1&toread=1)
Just wait and see; philosophical language will be like this~
Burning in Empty Stillness
But it’s still a childlike desire to win.
So that’s why I say you’re utterly adorable!
By the way, your language is very good, but from what I can see now, it is more suitable for commentary language, with a strong flavor of Su Xuelin scolding Lu Xun, gentle yet severe. To turn it into philosophical language, it still needs some tempering!
Gucu
Seriousness is precisely for the sake of play. The more serious a game is, the more replayable it tends to be, and the more it can stir up people’s lasting enthusiasm.
Gucu
Because my thinking is aggressive and combative.
In terms of my usual style, this response is nowhere near what one would call a “serious long essay.” If I were really to get serious, I’d be far more overbearing and sharp-tongued~~
Gucu
Since you said, “I’ve been following your blog for a long time, but I’ve never spoken before,” how could I dare not take this breakthrough first comment seriously?
UNI
Burning in Empty Stillness
I merely made a harmless joke, and it drew out your serious long essay. Looks like you really are adorable beyond measure~
Gucu
But thought is after all a mark of civilization. If no one thinks, there will be no “brilliant” discussions, and no rich culture.
What is the purpose of thinking? If the purpose of thinking is merely to guide practice, then a considerable amount of thinking—especially philosophical thinking—must be “superfluous,” because not only does it often fail to provide convincing guidance, it sometimes instead shatters people’s existing creeds and leaves them even more at a loss.
The criticism upstairs, that it is “of no avail,” does not work on me. Because my thinking was never undertaken in order to be “of avail” in the first place. I think only in order to understand and to question; what philosophy pursues, in the final analysis, is merely to persuade oneself that one has clarified a problem, not to persuade others to do something. If you want to evaluate the success or failure of my thinking, you may say that these thoughts are useless for answering the questions I raise, but you may not say that these thoughts are useless for whether you choose to do something, because I was never thinking for you to begin with, but only for myself.
It cannot be denied that some people’s “thinking” is done for others, such as “think-tank” people and propaganda writers. But philosophers absolutely must not think for others. Philosophical thinking must pursue independence; it must not bind itself with external purposes. No matter whether such purposes arise from selfish desire or from noble dedication, they are harmful to philosophy. Philosophical thinking has only one purpose: “thinking” itself.
Bu Yan Kongjing
Also, I’ve followed your blog for a long time, only I’ve never spoken before. Seeing you return, I’m very happy, and I look forward to your work!
Chu He
I hope to see an article with your views on Chinese medicine
Gu Bo
To develop Chinese medicine, it is not necessarily required that Chinese medicine and Western medicine coexist institutionally. For example, one could completely remove Chinese medicine from comprehensive hospitals (which may reduce the danger of Chinese medicine becoming Westernized), and encourage Chinese medicine to flourish in various forms such as pharmacy resident physicians, barefoot doctors, private clinics, and so on; that may also be a better choice. In short, technical questions are not simply a matter of taking a stance and “declaring” it.
Gu Bo
—I refuse to answer this kind of question. Philosophical discussion is not a political declaration.
If I answer you now, “Agree,” so what? Have you gained much more understanding of my thought? Perhaps the prejudice and misunderstanding that this answer adds to you will outweigh the help it offers your understanding of me. Only when I can make clear in precisely what sense, and for what reason, I am expressing agreement will my answer be meaningful.
Chu He
According to your view, should Chinese medicine and Western medicine long coexist in hospitals?
Gu Bo
Where, after all, do our standards for judging correctness and error lie? If this standard is provided by science itself, then a self-contained alternative science possesses independent standards, and the standards of mainstream Western science have no right to adjudicate another mode of existence that does not belong to it in the first place. And if the standard for judging right and wrong lies outside science, then people have no right to rely on Western science to determine what is right and wrong in Chinese medicine.
Chu He
Agree, or not agree?
Gu Bo
As for what philosophy I mean when I speak of philosophy, sorry, that of course refers to my own philosophy! One can only read, study, and criticize other people’s philosophy; one cannot possibly take another’s philosophy and make it one’s own, because philosophy, in any case, refers to free and independent thought.
Chu He
Does “alternative science” help human beings understand the world?
Gu Bo
Chu He
What kind of philosophy are you talking about?
Chu He
http://news.sina.com.cn/pl/2008-03-23/084015205934.shtml
Do you agree with the views in this article?
Chu He
And Chinese medicine and herbal medicine and the like should have nothing to do with philosophy; they are objective, right?
Gu Bo
Chu He
How do you think Chinese medicine and herbal medicine should be treated?
Gu Bo
Chu He
You call yourself an anti-scientism advocate. I’d like to ask you to take a look at the article below; what do you think of it, and does it count as scientism?
Looking at Chinese medicine and herbal medicine scientifically
http://www.fxkz.net/viewthread.php?tid=581&extra=page%3D1
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply