Coffeehouses are not, properly speaking, places for dates, but places for encounters. Whether in the broad sense or the narrow sense, I won’t be arranging any dates in a coffeehouse this year.
Nowadays, coffeehouses seem to have been fashioned into places with a special “atmosphere,” seemingly best suited to friends meeting up, especially couples on a date. But I want to revive the spirit of the coffeehouse and restore coffee to its original face.
What I mean by not dating in a coffeehouse chiefly contains two layers of meaning. First, with regard to the broad sense of “dating,” I will not meet anyone at any agreed time in a coffeehouse. I am only telling people this: during a certain stretch of time, I will be haunting some corner of a coffeehouse. If you come over, you can find me, and I can buy you coffee and chat with you. But this is by no means an appointment. You can come at any time, and you may just as well not come at all; you can also bring along other people I do not know. At the same time, although I should indeed appear at the promised time and place, I am not going there in order to keep an appointment. When no one is coming to see me, I will be doing my own thing. Even if I occasionally invite specific people to come, this is not any kind of agreement. If someone else has already taken the seat next to me, then you will have to find another empty seat.
I hope to use my own strength to try to revive, to some extent, the distant culture of the coffeehouse. I promise that every Saturday I will be haunting Xin Dao, just to put everyone’s mind at ease—you will at least be able to “run into” one person. But of course, you may also run into other strangers. If you see that someone is already seated next to me, then you may insert yourself at any time, whether to join the discussion or to try to change the topic. Of course, if what you say is utterly dull, I very well may leave you hanging; or you may find other people with whom you have something in common to talk to, and leave me hanging instead. All of that is fine.
In short, if dating is a definite meeting between acquaintances, then an encounter is an uncertain collision between strangers. In my coffeehouse you may well encounter the “unknown”; it will be an expedition. Even if you happen to meet only me, I will keep showing you the unknown—you will keep discovering my “new faces.” No matter how familiar we become, I will still be able to bring you surprises. Even I myself am again and again astonished by the growth of my own thoughts, let alone anyone else. I will never fix myself in place, never exhaust my own possibilities.
A coffeehouse is originally just such a place full of possibilities for encountering unpredictable “strangers.” I already mentioned this in the previous reading note, and I will repeat it here: a coffeehouse was originally such a place—“When customers arrived at the coffeehouse, they could sit in any empty seat, beside the person who had arrived earlier than they had. No seat was reserved for anyone, and no one would refuse to let you sit beside them.”
But at that time women were excluded from coffeehouses, especially educated women; as for ladies of quality, there was no need even to mention them. Coffeehouses were forbidden ground for them. The women who haunted coffeehouses were, if they were not the proprietors, probably prostitutes. For it was a vulgar, stinking place, a social space for men.
Of course, my coffeehouse salon will not refuse women—but not because I want to make the coffeehouse more elegant. Rather, it is because refined ladies also have the right to be vulgar once in a while!
So, if you are a girl who wants to come to Xin Dao and have coffee with me, or if you happen to see me talking with some girl in a coffeehouse, then please do not misunderstand and do not worry: this is absolutely not some kind of high-toned date, much less a lovers’ tryst. Although, depending on the person, the way and style in which I talk with a gentleman or with a lady may differ greatly, that is because women’s ways of thinking often differ from men’s. In the magic performed on the spot, I certainly have to adapt to the circumstances and conduct different conversations with different people. But however varied they may be, these conversations will all be vulgar and everyday. Though I will make sure the conversation is never mediocre—depth or originality is by no means the same thing as refinement or professionalism.
It is worth mentioning that my notice recruiting mm is currently suspended. The suspension began because I once thought of recommending my blog to some junior female student, but I did not want others to lose interest because the blog was too large, nor did I want anyone to read too much without resistance, so I would recommend that you only need to glance at the articles on my blog’s homepage and that will be enough. But the problem is that this is fine for boys, whereas to grandly recommend this “homepage,” which is so proudly topped with a call for mm, to a junior female student really is something I cannot bring myself to do… The result was that she saw the pinned post and ran away in fright, or perhaps misunderstood that I had designs on her? These are all things I do not want to happen.
Then I continued to reflect on my current state: suppose someone else still applies recently, how would I feel? Suddenly I discovered that I was beginning not to want this to happen. Although in terms of the strength of my desire to find mm, I am certainly no less eager now than when I wrote the notice, one must know that once a strong desire can be suspended without being satisfied and without being extinguished, it will provide a steady stream of magic power. Since this year is my active year, why should I not make the most of this force?
Of course, once mm is found, when passion is at its height, one may obtain even more violent magic power; and as for after life has become stable, one may in turn obtain a more durable and inexhaustible strength. But in any case, even if I were to recruit mm right now, the process of adjustment, let alone any sort of blazing state, still seems far too distant. In order for me to concentrate and fully unleash my vitality in this year of my zodiac life, it would seem more advisable to prolong the most uncertain state of singleness. Of course, I would not arbitrarily restrict my own possibilities. I could still become tg at any time, but on the condition that the other party can offer me greater possibilities—that is to say, she must be someone who can significantly ignite my feelings without going through a long period of adjustment; or, to put it differently, someone whose philosophy (in other words, her way of life) is so marvelous that I can be made to fall for her or become entranced by it. In that case I might make the first move. But it sounds as though none of these situations is very likely to occur. Of course, even if I wanted to make a move, I would not choose to do so in a coffeehouse.
The second utilitarian consideration is this: since I am going to launch this coffeehouse salon activity, it seems wiser to remain single for the time being. On the one hand, this may give other single girls who are willing to have contact with me more room for imagination (the so-called yy). Don’t blame me for being too vain; when you have room for yy, your emotions and reflections will become more active, you will possess richer and more complex feelings, and you will also pay more attention to observation and reflection. In other words, discussion carried out in a certain yy-like state is the most creative. Once the relationship between the two sides becomes fixed (whether that means there can be no further relationship, or that the relationship has already been established), communication at that point often no longer remains lively. Important forces such as freedom, desire, and imagination may diminish, while scruples and entanglements may increase. In order to maintain a relationship that has been hard-won, both sides may consider the other person’s feelings more often; for example, if one knows full well that saying certain things will provoke the other’s resentment, or even shake the relationship between the two, then perhaps one simply will not say them. Or, even worse, many times this happens unconsciously: at least in the dialogue between the two, one will tend to follow the other’s preferences in one’s considerations, and as a result one’s imagination is constrained. Dialogue in an ambiguous and uncertain state, by contrast, can better stimulate free thought.
A side note: of course, one very important thread in my conception of love (or in my whole philosophy) is preserving the same while seeking difference. Because what I pursue and appreciate is difference rather than similarity, I will not consciously or unconsciously cater to the other person, nor will I ask the other person to cater to my views. In this way, even if my bodily possibilities are bound by another person, my thought will never be bound. Moreover, what I pursue is by no means some definite kind of love; fixed, unchanging feeling is only an illusion. The essence of friendship lies in the ability to tolerate one another’s changes. If philosophers are forever “children,” this means that they never stop “growing.” My thought will never become fixed, and of course my love and my conception of love will not become fixed either. I only want to find a fixed personal identity, and together with that historical individual sustain an ever-changing love. Besides, this conception of love is only my own unilateral thought; I do not require the other person to accept a similar idea either.
It seems that whenever love comes up, my philosophy becomes awkward again. That is because the interpretation of love occupies too central a position in my philosophy. With my present level of skill, I really cannot handle it in simple, plain language; I can only do it this way. I simply thought of it and wrote a little, so don’t mind. In short, the main point is that my conception of love can guarantee that romance will never suppress the vitality of my thought. But the problem is that I do not require, nor do I expect, my mm to be able to do the same. So even if there is a mm who is interested in my philosophy or in my coffeehouse salon and is also willing to try to establish a more special relationship with me, I would still advise you to slow down and not rush to confess just yet; let’s first chat casually and without scruples. I probably won’t be snatched away too quickly this year, so please rest assured. If you are still uneasy, then that is even better—the state of uneasiness will bring vitality to your thinking.
Of course, I welcome anyone, including girls and boys, to discuss “romance” with me, because this is the hub of my philosophy, and it is something I still find difficult to express in everyday, plain language; if I have the opportunity to temper it in conversation, that will certainly be a good thing. I only do not recommend that an already paired-off couple come to talk to me together, because my magic tends to be aggressive; it is more inclined to dismantle certain things that seem firm and secure. I am not very good at healing magic or support magic, though black magic can also be used indirectly for healing, I cannot guarantee its effect.
As for why I liken myself to a demon king, my philosophical speech to magic, and coffee to the devil’s strong liquor (the last metaphor was coined by people hundreds of years ago), perhaps I will explain in detail in another article. Of course, in my earlier articles I had already mentioned the relevant points long ago.
Originally I did not intend to explain so much; leaving more suspense would have been fine. But given that during the suspension of the mm-recruitment notice there actually came applicants and so on, it spurred me to speak some of the most basic strategic considerations aloud. Of course, I am still leaving more uncertain things unsaid, and even what I have said here is not very clear. There is no need to worry about these for now; everyone need only remember the title of this article and that will be enough.
February 18, 2009
2009-02-26 23:23:24
I did not “classify” you, so there is no need to mind Chern’s “classifying.” He really does study logic~~
Your “expressing outward” did not hit the mark of what I mean by “attack.” First, “attack” and “receive” are roles played within “communication.” The so-called attack and receive, like male and female, first of all refer to a kind of role-play (you do know the basic meanings of these two terms, right?), and then from that derive the corresponding personality traits of those roles, and so on. If one does not look at this within “communication,” and does not pay attention to the role occupied by the speaker in a concrete communicative context, then merely saying a sentence makes it difficult to comment on its characteristics. What I am talking about—attack and receive, public and private—does not mean that a person is simply uttering a monologue, and that this monologue has such-and-such characteristics; that would not yet show any characteristic. The key is what kind of environment the speaker is in, and what kind of attitude they are in.
What I call “expressing outward,” in my habitual metaphor, is “discharge.” Originally I placed emphasis on the part of the metaphor involving the digestive tract; applied here, it may be even more apt. (All right, it is becoming more and more XX; minors please read under parental guidance…) “Discharge” can be interpreted as the venting of desire, or as transforming an inward urge to speak into a tangible thing and venting it outward, while sometimes stirring resonance in the other person. Then this “discharge” is not necessarily “attack.” A man’s “discharge” is “attack.” Women also have “discharge,” but it is not at all “attack”; its form and characteristics differ in all sorts of ways from men’s. In fact, there are many subtleties in this difference that could be discussed, but they seem too XX, so I won’t say more for now.
2009-02-26 22:48:26 Anonymous 124.205.78.172
toboth: “inference” should count as a very everyday word, right? Don’t we often say “derive” in speech too? Maybe my argument as a whole is off, but I absolutely do not mean to be obscure for its own sake.
Feels hurt. I hope I won’t be classified.
To Gu:
Then if we simplify it, are you trying to express something like this?
Female mode of expression – privacy – expressing one’s own feelings – receive
Male mode of expression – publicity – rational argumentation and promotion – attack
This simplified handling may not be right, but the key point is that my view is that as long as one is expressing something, whether emotion or a clear rationally argued opinion, it is all outward expression, and therefore all counts as attack, so the two modes of speech are not essentially different. Also, I have never denied gender difference, nor refused to see difference.
2009-02-26 12:24:05 Anonymous 125.46.31.174
When talking about people, speak in human language; when talking about birds, speak in bird language. That is perfectly normal~~
But if, when talking about people, you speak in bird language, and when talking about birds, you speak in human language, then that is the meaning I have in mind—not speaking human language but speaking bird language.
2009-02-26 11:23:36
How come I feel that “not speaking human speech but speaking bird language” refers to that whole crowd of people who do logic…… They don’t speak natural language; they especially like speaking symbolic language. Is that human speech…… Forget it, I won’t argue with you anymore。。
A further supplement to what I said about active/passive and receptive/penetrative roles in speech:
A “penetrative” linguistic style typically says how and how I are not right, or that I am how and how justified. A “receptive” linguistic style, by contrast, typically says how and how my feelings are, how your feelings have aroused associations in me, and so on. The former emphasizes means such as argument and rebuttal, while the latter involves more emotional resonance or touch,
Judging when it is appropriate to use a “penetrative” style and when it is appropriate to use a “receptive” style depends by no means only on the object being discussed; it is determined by the context of the dialogue. For example, when talking about “democracy,” if a couple are watching a film about the course of democratization and the girl sighs, “Ah, democracy is so good,” then at that point the boy absolutely should not question or argue back; he should only express his feelings in a similar way, for example: “Mm. Still, despotism doesn’t seem all that bad.” On the other hand, if in a parliament people are discussing the standard menu to be established, and one person says, “Fried noodles are delicious,” the others may well stand up and question the grounds for that claim. If, in a public discussion meeting, one person says “XX is really good,” and everyone else reacts just like the couple watching the movie: “Mm, so good, really good,” “Oh, I feel good too, good too”…… then that is inappropriate. Conversely, if in an intimate setting everyone also starts questioning and criticizing one another, that too is inappropriate. We can see that from the early years of New China up to the period typified by “wenge” [the Cultural Revolution], Chinese society as a whole was in precisely such a state of “reversed active/passive roles”: at public discussion meetings, everyone echoed one another and all shouted long live together, while in private spaces people exposed and criticized one another, full of aggression. This was completely turned upside down, so one can say that it was a “deviant” age.
So what kind of context is philosophical discussion? On the one hand, whether from the standpoint of academic discussion or of writing, it is undoubtedly mainly a public form of communication; philosophy begins with questioning, that is, it begins with “penetration,” and there is nothing wrong with that. However, if one completely ignores concrete, private feelings, then if philosophy wants to say that some thing is “good,” what on earth can it ultimately rely on? Separated from private experience, forgetting to continually feel these things, philosophy increasingly moves toward formalism and emptiness, loses contact with the lifeworld, and can no longer substantively discuss questions of “good and bad”…… These are long stories; I am merely offering a quick reminder for now.
It is obvious that men have the advantage in public contexts of communication, whereas women dominate in private spaces. That is why at home it is often women who chatter on and on, while on the lectern it is often men who speak with torrents of eloquence. That is a factual situation. I am a typical man, and perhaps I will never be able to fully grasp the female way of thinking, but I do have a method by which I may perhaps slightly experience the difference between these two modes of thought. That is the two modes of Standard Mandarin and the Shanghai dialect. Having grown up in Shanghai, when I am in Shanghai I must use Shanghainese in all private communication, while when thinking, debating, and giving speeches I must use Standard Mandarin. Then we discover that for us Shanghainese becomes difficult to use for thinking and reasoning, whereas Standard Mandarin is completely unsuitable for intimate contexts. In fact, when a person is speaking Shanghainese and suddenly “switches into guoyu,” then mostly it means he is beginning to reason or to express his views clearly. Although Shanghainese is also a sufficiently rich linguistic system and, of course, fully capable of expressing thought, we discover that we are in fact unable to think effectively in a Shanghainese context. At the same time, when friends and relatives in Shanghai gather together, they must speak Shanghainese for it to feel warm and friendly. I can sense that there seems to be a switch in my mind, on the surface used to toggle between Shanghainese mode and Standard Mandarin mode, while at a deeper level it is switching between intimate-dialogue mode and public-speech mode, and therefore I can feel that these two modes of thought are indeed markedly different. Although in recent years, because I have been in Beijing for so long, I have increasingly forgotten the intimacy of speaking Shanghainese, and can also carry on private chats in Standard Mandarin, still every time I go home I can feel the difference here—the switching of accent is not merely the switching of accent; it is precisely the switching between public mode and private mode.
2009-02-26 09:07:22 Anonymous 219.234.81.66
Don’t insult logic。。。
Not everyone who says “deduction” is doing logic; some people may simply be not speaking human speech but speaking bird language, using certain terms to make a big show of profundity。。。
2009-02-25 17:12:38
I really do not understand what you mean by “deduction”? Could it be that you are studying logic? The distinction of characteristics is not deduced; it is “seen.” Then, to go on and connect it with the distinction between the sexes, in the final analysis that too is an act of judgment, not a deduction. Even if one later establishes certain relations that look like deduction (for example, because one is female, one tends to……), that is still not something obtained by “deduction.” What I am talking about, the difference in speech characteristics between the two sexes, is first of all seen with one’s own eyes, which is why I remind you not to daydream, but to use your eyes to look; the distinction between these characteristics is first of all a phenomenon, a fact before one’s eyes, and then I explain it and use it to explain other things. If you require me to deduce it for you, I cannot do that, but I can give examples, show, point out, and so on.
I do not know how you can say that “as long as one is speaking, basically one is attacking.” I cannot imagine what kind of terrible linguistic environment you inhabit! For example, if I say “Wow, the weather is so nice today!”, “Hey, this bowl of fried noodles is delicious.”, “Mm, you’re really beautiful.”, and so on—are these utterances all “attacking”? Attacking what? Of course not attacking, but conveying my “feelings.”
The demand for “deduction” is a characteristic of public speech. “Deduction” means starting from a more “low-level,” more basic, more universal premise and deriving the conclusion one wants to convey. Only in this way can you more effectively persuade others; as long as those basic premises are also acknowledged by the other listeners, and the logic of the deduction is clear and eloquent, then public speech has succeeded. But the same set of moves is not so effective in private communication; it may even produce the opposite effect. For example, if the wife says “This bowl of noodles is delicious,” the husband absolutely cannot say: “Oh, what is the basis for your judgment? What kind of fundamental distinction could be deduced to distinguish yesterday’s bowl of noodles from today’s bowl of noodles in terms of taste?……” Such a conversation is obviously way off base, and the husband’s response would be a serious failure. But in public communication, if someone says “Democracy is really good,” then listeners may well ask: “Oh, what is the basis for your judgment? What kind of fundamental distinction could be deduced to distinguish monarchy and democracy in terms of good and bad?……” In this context, such a response is forceful.
It is obvious that private communication is more suitable for discussing things that are individual, sensory, concrete, and rooted in private experience (for example, the bowl of fried noodles before one’s eyes), whereas public communication is more suitable for discussing things that are universal, rational, abstract, and shared among the public (for example, science and democracy). According to the mainstream of traditional philosophy, what philosophy pursues is of course universal, rational, abstract laws or truth, so the public style of speech naturally comes to dominate. To bring private forms of speech into philosophy as well obviously requires completely overturning the aims of traditional philosophy. This is not to deny the demand for universality and rational speculation, but at the same time one must add in the elements of particularity and sensory experience in order to make it healthy and complete. After all, before philosophy is a public activity, it is first of all an individual pursuit, and all rational knowledge ultimately still comes from sensory knowledge. If one stubbornly adheres to the style and attitude of public speech, one may always miss some of the most important things.
2009-02-25 16:21:40 Anonymous 124.205.78.106
A wonderful theory of active and passive roles. But when it comes to the characteristics of speech, then as long as one is speaking, basically one is attacking. If female speech today does have features of passivity, that does not seem to have much to do with privateness either. So I feel that sex characteristics also cannot so smoothly be deduced into differences in speech characteristics.
2009-02-24 20:30:35
I do not know about any “real” female characteristics or the like; I agree with Tannen’s view—treating sex characteristics as a kind of cultural characteristic. It is just like saying how Chinese culture is like this and how Western culture is like that; these distinctions are of course historical, fuzzy, not absolute or categorical. These distinctions merely give a trend-level description on the whole, but of course individual members vary enormously. Yet these distinctions are still meaningful, especially since every philosophy is rooted in its cultural soil; even things such as German philosophy and French philosophy are permeated by differences in the cultural temperament of the two countries, not to mention Eastern and Western philosophy, male philosophy and female philosophy? Do you want to deny the cultural difference between men and women? Then, like doing research in cultural anthropology, you can separately go into male social circles and female social circles to observe their differences in communication, behavior, etiquette, and so on. Do you think there are no differences that cannot be ignored? When a group of men gather together and when a group of women gather together, are their performances really not different in any directional sense at all? Don’t daydream, use your eyes and look! If you still cannot see it, then I have no choice but to admit defeat.
The distinction between public and private is not one I made up; I got it from the American linguist Deborah Tannen: http://epr.ycool.com/post.2987469.html
As for the distinction I myself use, well, let me announce my term in advance: though some people have used it long ago too. Remember, my philosophy is vulgar; the terms given below are a bit wicked. Those who do not understand are good children, mm…… and that is “active” and “passive.” One is active and aggressive, the other passive and inclusive. This distinction is actually too basic, because one could say that it is determined by the natural tendency of physiological characteristics. No matter how much you deny cultural and intellectual differences, you surely cannot deny the fundamental difference in the shape of male and female bodies, can you? Well then, active and passive are the beginning of everything, the most fundamental distinction. One particularly typical effect that the feminist perspective has brought to academia is the emphasis on “containers” in studies of primitive society. In the past, archaeology dominated by male thinking mainly focused on clubs, stone axes, bows and arrows, and other offensive tools; periodizations such as the Neolithic and Paleolithic were also determined according to the evolution of stone axes. But once the female perspective entered, attention shifted to tools that had not previously received sufficient emphasis, such as baskets, pottery jars, and other storage vessels…… So I am merely saying: this is active and passive.
What is called public communication, and so on (oratory and debate), as well as the entire Western philosophical and scientific tradition, all lean toward the “active” pole. The most typical slogan is conquering nature, controlling nature. It is overly concerned with how to seize the object, while neglecting to consider how to feel, endure, and receive.
2009-02-24 19:50:25 Anonymous 124.205.78.49
It is fine to say that there is an opposition between public and private, but one should not then simply map the two onto male characteristics and female characteristics. I do not think that true female characteristics are private conversations. As for some sex characteristics shown early on, they also cannot so smoothly be deduced into differences in speech characteristics.
2009-02-21 00:31:36
Actually, why bother dividing into male and female, yin and yang。。。
2009-02-20 21:13:01 Anonymous 124.205.76.80
I am not a feminist, but when I decided to choose philosophy, I did indeed set out with the intention of overturning male philosophy.
2009-02-19 23:13:20
Traditional philosophy is an activity with masculine characteristics, and I have mentioned this in many posts on my blog. As for masculine and feminine characteristics, one can tell from the games little boys and little girls play: boys tend to prefer games of fighting and competition, in other words, athletic games that produce winners and losers. Little girls, by contrast, prefer gentler, more intimate games, such as role-playing. Ancient Greece as a whole was a cultural environment saturated with a gay atmosphere; the Olympics were the source of philosophy, science, and the spirit of democracy—that was masculine “competition,” a demand to win and to measure oneself fairly.
In addition, masculine and feminine characteristics can also be seen in language habits: men are more inclined to and more adept at public oratory and debate, whereas women tend more toward private conversation. Public speech requires the pursuit of universal principles and an emphasis on the role of logic, while private conversation pays more attention to emotional resonance. And so on. Clearly, the whole of Western philosophy developed within a culture of public speech, as a continuous intensification of masculine characteristics.
So the entry of women will be able to shake philosophy’s most fundamental taste. But if one important aspect of this new trait is resistance to an unbalanced exaltation of public speech, then how can women establish their place on a public academic stage? That seems extremely difficult. Perhaps they need a mediator, for example a self-critical male philosopher, to translate for them, so that women’s gentle whispers, once relayed, become deafeningly resonant within the philosophical world.
I long ago said that I am half a feminist. This means that although my philosophy, in terms of temperament, is thoroughly masculine—strong, fierce, and destructive—I have left half of it for women, and sooner or later I will still have to borrow women’s strength, so that my philosophy may finally become complete.
2009-02-19 23:07:57 Anonymous 124.205.78.236
In the past, philosophy had concrete persons as destructive roles, but that is not enough to show that one sex can serve as a destructive role
2009-02-19 22:50:26
Every new philosophical age has been brought into being by great destroyers. Socrates demolished the tradition of the Sophists; modern philosophy demolished the routines of scholastic philosophy; Kant demolished the edifice of old metaphysics; Marx vowed solemnly to eliminate philosophy; Nietzsche and Heidegger overturned the entire history of Western philosophy; Wittgenstein went so far as to denounce traditional philosophy as utter nonsense…… Are these not what one calls “destructive”?
A truly revolutionary and pioneering philosophy is by no means merely a gentle continuation of the philosophy that came before; rather, it often has to overturn the old path from places that are as fundamental as can be, though it is also rooted in traditional soil, it gives a feeling of nirvana and rebirth. In Hegel’s language, that is the so-called “thesis—antithesis—synthesis” development. My philosophy will start from the classical; if “the classical” is the thesis, then feminism and postmodern relativism, and so on, will play the role of the antithesis, and new possibilities will be opened up in the “dialogue” between thesis and antithesis—that is the synthesis, that is Hegel’s dialectic, that is the so-called “sublation.” In my own terms it is more or less the same: philosophy is humanity’s self-critique of reason; philosophy does not progress through accumulation, but develops through continual destruction and rebirth.
2009-02-19 22:32:35 Anonymous 124.205.78.236
I don’t understand, because I do not see how “for philosophy, women will be the greatest destructive, that is, revolutionary force.” Why destructive? And then in what sense is the constructive affirmed again?
2009-02-19 21:51:15
Did I ever say they have a necessary relation? What does “necessary relation” even mean? What I am explaining is my motive; in which person’s action is the motive for doing one thing or another constituted by a chain of necessary connections? — “I took a piece of cake to eat because I didn’t want to go hungry at night.” Is there a necessary connection in that? In fact, not only is it difficult for us to give a “necessary” account of our own motives for action, it is also difficult to give a complete and absolutely truthful account; all we can do is state one line of thought that stands out particularly clearly in our minds.
Broadly speaking, I believe China is about to enter a new era of philosophy. Perhaps my generation happens to be just in time for it; perhaps we must wait several generations more. In any case, a group of philosophers using modern Chinese and born in the Internet age will add a weighty stroke to the history of philosophy. That is my prophecy. In other words, even without my participation, this era may still arrive; if that is so, then I will find myself outside the era. I am not satisfied with idle speculation, and even less willing to stand by and watch, so I want to take part in it.
Never has any great philosopher truly “appeared out of nowhere”; that is to say, philosophers often emerge in clusters, and within the same cultural soil, several masters of comparable stature will appear either simultaneously or one after another.
In my prophecy, the new age of philosophy will certainly involve the participation of computer networks, and it will also have the force of modern Chinese; there is one more thing, namely, the force of women. For philosophy, women will be the greatest destructive force—that is, the most revolutionary force. Thus, you will be able to understand why I look forward so eagerly to female philosophers,
2009-02-19 18:46:39 Anonymous 124.205.78.236
Witnessing, being inspired by, and female philosophers, and being outside the era, seem to have no necessary relation, it seems~~
2009-02-18 23:03:48
Make of it whatever you like… In any case, I really do have no good intentions, and my scheme is quite complicated; it would take too long to explain, so I won’t argue my case any further..
8g is also a source of magic. On the premise of not telling a single lie, I would very much like to create more 8g, if only I can find collaborators…
Frankly, I especially hope to witness, and even inspire, the emergence of a female philosopher; once I glimpse the faintest dawn, I cannot bear to place myself outside the era. Of course, in reality I was probably just seeing things, and there’s nothing to be done about that…
2009-02-18 22:09:03 Anonymous 219.234.81.66
About that part recommending [her] to some mm, my comment is: “there is no 300 taels of silver buried here” 
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply