What can either I or my philosophy say to those who are mired in hardship?
Of course, although my philosophy leans toward “black magic,” it is not incapable of providing positive force. But to be precise, what philosophy can provide is a certain immunity or resistance, so that once I encounter a difficult situation, I will be more likely to face it with calm, composure, or humor. Yet I know very well that it is not an effective cure, let alone an all-purpose tonic that can cure every illness.
It is like getting a vaccination: only when you are in good health, or when the disease has not yet broken out from its latent stage, does vaccination make sense; but if you are already sick, or in extremely poor physical condition, a shot might even make things worse, bringing on certain side effects and complications… Because a preventive medicine is, in the final analysis, still some kind of toxin—only this toxin has had its destructive power properly constrained, thereby perhaps stimulating the body’s own immune potential. In the end, the point of prevention is to awaken the body’s own strength and guide a person to grow on their own.
I have a very deep understanding of the nature of my own abilities. Three years ago, after I broke up with my girlfriend, I began to sink into a long period of low spirits. But this gloom was not caused by the breakup itself; it came precisely from my philosophy. The shadow of the breakup quickly dissipated, but my philosophy never quite got free of the entanglement, because I began to doubt my own principles, and then lost sufficient confidence in my own “identity” (forgive me for using this odd term for now; I’ll explain it later), which caused me to fall into a long period of emotional depression. Of course, I eventually underwent a nirvanic rebirth: through affirming love, life, and the self, and through harmonizing philosophy with life, I emerged from confusion and gained a steady stream of strength. But what if there had been nirvana and no rebirth? What if, over these three years, I had not held on, but instead allowed my emotions to go further astray? That was entirely possible too.
So I say that my boat can only save those struggling in the shallows by the seashore: they are in an unsettled state (inner contradiction and tension), but they can also easily climb ashore on their own; at that point, if a boat is moored beside them, they have another option. But for those already in the inland or the deep sea—whether they are in a stable state or mired in a quagmire—my boat is helpless. It is like saying that a vaccination is only suitable for those who are always at risk of falling ill but have not yet become sick; as for those who are far from danger and those who are already sick, the vaccination is harmful rather than beneficial.
Of course, ordinary communication does not require the use of those ostensibly philosophical things. No matter what state my friends are in, communication can always go on. But everything should happen naturally; I will not deliberately try to cure or ruin anyone.
On the other hand, in emotional terms alone, at least in my current state, I am even less capable of healing. Although I may seem aloof, in fact I do not hide my emotions. When I am in high spirits and riding high, I show it as such. But when a person is in pain, what they may need more is emotional resonance, rather than this kind of stark contrast. Of course, I am willing to be a listener, but how could you expect me to actively comfort someone in distress?
I may be a person favored by the god of fate; all the way from childhood to now, things have gone almost entirely smoothly for me. Even those disappointments that seemed such at the time often turn out, in retrospect, to have been great blessings. For example, being assigned by recommendation to the philosophy department, or suffering setbacks in love—looking back later, both seem to have been the most exquisite of designs. So if, instead of stumbling by chance into the Peking University philosophy department, which suits me like a fish in water, I were to walk into a world that runs counter to my nature (whether by compulsion or by my own choice), how would I face it? Of course, I believe I could certainly resolve it with ease, face it with humor, adapt as circumstances require… but all of that is merely me talking off the cuff. Since in fact I do move so smoothly and so effortlessly, what kind of tone would you have me use to console those who are not so fortunate? No matter how I think about it, it all seems like the stance of someone standing and talking without having back pain, and so I do not know how to begin.
April 2, 2009
Latest Comments
- fog
2009-04-02 13:47:28
As you said:
“Of course, ordinary communication does not require the use of those ostensibly philosophical things. No matter what state my friends are in, communication can always go on. But everything should happen naturally; I will not deliberately try to cure or ruin anyone.”
Now there are two levels: one is ordinary communication; the other is healing.
We need not worry about “healing.” As for ordinary communication, if everyone follows your “naturally,” and if A and B are both introverted people, then I’m afraid A and B will never have any friendship-level communication in their entire lives…
Try thinking of two EPRs—they would probably die old without ever exchanging a word…
Besides, occasionally sending the other person a text or leaving a message, in the sense of “ordinary communication,” is a very natural thing for friends to do; there is nothing abrupt about it. The content of the text or message also does not need to have any deep meaning. - Gu Chi
2009-04-02 20:02:12
First, this is my ku-so personality: if everyone were like me, this world would be finished, and I am very clear about that. But if everyone were like Lei Feng, the world would not be much better off either. My “naturally” and your “naturally” are different kinds of “natural.” A world in which all people’s communication with one another is “naturally” so would be an ideal world, but if all communication had the same style, that would be terrifying. It is because there are all kinds of people in the world that this world is a good one. BTW, I am a unique copy, no other branch; if there are similarities, they are purely science fiction.
Second, it must be admitted that for the past three years or so I have been a bit too closed off, almost completely losing my initiative. And this year is the year I recover my initiative, so I have started using “Schoolmate,” and will also occasionally drop by old friends’ places. If I have not been dropping in much on certain people, it is entirely because I have not yet found anything worth roasting; unlike you, I do not keep tossing things around and self-destruct after two days. Since I’m using Schoolmate, I’m definitely going to be active for the long haul—why are you pushing me?
Finally, the above constitutes a general defense. Someone has already called me on the phone; thanks for your concern.
- unic
2009-06-12 18:37:40 Anonymous 115.155.143.90 http://ywbeing.blogbus.com/
A chronic illness is still okay.
An acute one would simply die in such a situation!
A chronic illness turning acute under the stimulation of a vaccination is also possible… - unic
2009-06-12 19:16:35 Anonymous 115.155.143.90 http://ywbeing.blogbus.com/
In terms of whether it has healing power or preventive power, can we attach value judgments to this? For example, that having preventive power is good, and having healing power is good? Or rather, “I hope someone’s philosophy has preventive/healing power”?
- unic
2009-06-12 19:25:31 Anonymous 115.155.143.90
“…But everything should happen naturally; I will not deliberately try to cure or ruin anyone.”
Please explain what “naturally” and “deliberately” mean here.
I think that changing “deliberately” to “forcefully” might make it easier to understand.
2009-06-12 21:54:31
Of course, you can add corresponding value judgments. But these judgments seem hard to absolutize. At certain times, immunity is not necessarily always a good thing; perhaps immunity increases unknown risks, or perhaps sometimes it is simply a certain disease itself that gives a person immunity to other diseases. Maybe philosophy itself is also a kind of illness.
It is not the sense of “imposed” either. I mean, for example, when curing psychological illness: sometimes your mind has knots in it, and you meet certain people. They are not coming to talk with you in order to cure your mental knot, nor are you willing to talk with them in order to overcome that knot. But the process of communication may in fact help dissolve your inner blockage, and that is what I mean by “naturally.” If, because your mind has knots, you specifically go seek out a friend to confide in, or even go consult a psychotherapist, or if your friend sees that you are depressed and then wants to find a way to help you get out of the shadow, then that kind of communication is deliberate, carried out with healing as its purpose. This kind of “deliberate” does not mean “imposed”; a psychotherapist does not force you to do this or that, but his communication is still deliberate.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply