Notes from Today’s Xindao Salon 09-04-11

• The previous few times I was rather lazy; starting today I’ll try to jot down a few fragments after every salon, so friends who didn’t take part may be able to get a rough idea of what we talked about indirectly (of course I won’t record everything), and friends who did take part may be able to consolidate what they gained, or find a few more hints on related topics (things I didn’t mention on the spot will be marked in bold).



• First of all, friends who have no particular topic they especially want to hear or speak about are welcome to come as they please (if you’re worried the conversation will go flat, you might as well bring a book to read or bring a computer to go online; how nice it is that while reading you can at any time gripe to someone), but students who are preparing to discuss a specific topic may as well let me know roughly what it is in advance via the campus network, the blog, or some other contact method, so I can prepare beforehand; then the discussion may yield more. Of course, if your topic cannot sufficiently attract my interest and that of the other students present, then it may also be resisted~



• The significance of Datu and the National Library lies mainly in foreign-language materials; as for Chinese books, especially in certain fields, friends should actively make use of the Gujia Library; at the very least, you can talk with me about it. (As for borrowing books, generally it’s first come, first served; of course, when several people want the same thing at the same time, some people will have higher priority ^ ^)



• If you study alchemy, of course you should learn Latin~ Although Chinese people researching similar fields never have conditions as good as those of Westerners, it is still certainly worthwhile to try to develop it.



• As for Plato, the Theory of Forms is after all the core of his philosophy, and from ancient times to the present there have been countless annotations on Plato. To overturn the academic world’s general understanding of this is a tremendous thing; there ought to be sufficiently strong documentary evidence, and one cannot just make sense of things by one’s own logic and be done with it. See Speaking of How to Write a Reading Report.



• A formal logic at least starts from Aristotle, doesn’t it? Why is (Liu Zhe) entitled to explain Parmenides, Plato, and later philosophical schools that did not agree with that kind of logic, while still making reasonable use of your system of logic?



• In Plato and some philosophers, so-called truth or knowledge does not seem to be understood as that kind of formalized sentence, or proposition, let alone a proposition derived from syllogistic logic. Plato’s truth seems to be something “seen”; unlike the intuitive grasp of real objects, true knowledge is obtained through intuition of the Forms themselves. In activities like mathematics, one intuits the world of Forms. But note that Euclid came long after Plato, and even mathematics like Euclid’s, based on rigorous logical demonstration, still seems very distant from the formal logic used by modern people. Besides, why did Plato say that mathematical knowledge is still one level lower than the highest world of Forms? And why did Plato use dialogic dialectic to unfold his arguments? Doesn’t that mean Plato thought this interactive dialectic was more suitable than a step-by-step demonstrative form for showing truth? In short, on what grounds do you always use your system of formal logic to explain philosophers’ lines of thought? Of course you may explain your own extension and elaboration of them, but if you want to stress that what you are explaining is Plato’s own philosophy, then this method does not seem reliable.



• Schopenhauer’s interpretation of the Theory of Forms is quite interesting too (of course it is also a free elaboration). Schopenhauer occupies a position linking Kantian philosophy and modern Western philosophy, and his prose is smooth and easy to read; I recommend that beginners give him a try. Of course one should read his one complete, hefty major work rather than those scattered essays. (As for Schopenhauer, my related writings (not well written) include An Attempt to Discuss Schopenhauer’s Rationalist Spirit, Schopenhauer Reading Report, Heidegger and Schopenhauer: Impression Notes, and so on)



• Today a certain Little Bear student was rather disappointing, as he did not report to everyone, as he claimed he would last week, his reflections on language (could it be because a certain listener didn’t come and so he lacked motivation……).



• One very beneficial thing about the salon I organize for everyone is that it provides an opportunity and some listeners for you to express some of your immature thoughts. By expressing and exchanging, you can help organize your own thinking. The more one speaks, the greater the gain, so don’t keep making me the main speaker……



• When speaking, don’t immerse yourself in your own train of thought without considering the audience you are communicating with. If you are explaining to someone who lacks background knowledge on the issue, you might as well imagine the other person as your earlier self; your views and understanding are not innate, so what were you like before you had them? Through self-reflection, reorganize the process by which you acquired your views, and then tell it to your earlier self.



• As for “concepts,” although this has little to do with today’s discussion, you may refer to The Labyrinth of Concepts and Ways of Creating Concepts.



• First show what exactly is interesting about the issue you are discussing (is it interesting?), and then, taking proper account of the other person’s background, explain it in a line of thought that you yourself feel is clear and straightforward; when paraphrasing other thinkers, there is no need to be rigidly bound to their logic—just present it in the way you understand it.



• There are still quite a lot of women majoring in philosophy of science and technology (our cohort is an exception), after all the student intake in philosophy of science and technology often consists of comrades who have found science and engineering too hard to keep studying, so although the field leans toward the theoretical in relation to philosophy, it is still easy to understand why there are more women. Does the phenomenon of there being relatively many bachelors when entering the philosophy of science and technology major also follow a similar principle~? I heard the next cohort, the class of ’09, will have lots of beauties? (Unfortunately, for me that is no longer good news~)



• As for imagistic thinking and thinking in language, for ordinary people the dimension of self-reflection is always linguistic, but the pre-reflective part may be a more “fundamental” mode of thinking, perhaps connectable to Freud’s “unconscious”/“preconscious.” Regarding autistic patients and animals, and so on, I mentioned the book Why We Don’t Talk.



• Actually, there’s a lot I could talk about regarding language…… Today I lent Little Bear the book Linguistics in Philosophy (I hope he’ll read it and then talk about his impressions and insights; actually, on the philosophy of language I recommend even more the book Language Philosophy written by Chen Jiaying himself), and today I originally wanted to promote The Origins and Functions of Marxist Terminology in Chinese. The first two chapters of that book very simply and roughly introduce “the forms by which Chinese absorbed European-language vocabulary” and “the history of the emergence of scientific and political vocabulary in modern Chinese,” but such an introduction does not seem very common in current Chinese-language literature, so at the same time I could talk about the influence and important significance of foreign loanwords (the eastward transmission of Western learning) on modern Chinese, but I never got the chance to say it…… I even wanted to give it to someone, and it was refused T_T…… (For somewhat related writings, see: Chen Jiaying: The Influence of Translation of Western Thought on Contemporary Chinese Reasoning and A Small Part of Japanese Loanwords in Modern Chinese, and so on)



• Philosophers pursue astonishment and are willing to share their astonishment with others; don’t just go “wow” and leave it at that—say what exactly it was that astonished you. Although words often cannot effectively convey emotion, people can after all still obtain some emotional resonance through linguistic exchange, can’t they?



• As for the issue of “I think,” the “I,” and its “identity,” there are truly too many things involved, and my own thinking is still rather rough, so it is natural that I cannot explain it clearly; I am only touching on a few points in hopes of opening up everyone’s line of thought a bit. The “I,” through second-order reflection, observes and contemplates the “I think”; from “change” it “manifests” the “identity” of the “I,” and in a certain sense this makes the world become this “one” world. For earlier related writing, see the few words in the last paragraph of “Talking Again About the Meaning of ‘Suixuan’”; of course I won’t go into a more specialized and detailed discussion of it at present.



• As for my way of reading, see How Do I Read?. As for the specific “method” of reading, it cannot be conveyed, and everyone has their own style; it is best to figure it out slowly on your own. All I can say is: read a bit more relaxedly, and let reading itself become a pleasure.



• The linguistic turn in contemporary philosophy, the “upending” that begins with Marx, the logical positivists’ ambition to clarify language and create formal languages, Wittgenstein’s later rebellion (see Late Wittgenstein and the Mathematical Philosophy of Intuitionism), the phenomenological-hermeneutic approach, and other scattered remarks—enough.



• Superficial discussion related to SSK, enough.



• Discussion of Marx’s “species-being,” “alienated labor” and its four forms, and their relations, and so on, enough. (For Marx, see Viewing Marx’s Anthropology from the Perspective of Philosophy of Technology; earlier pieces include Supplement to Classroom Questions in the Lecture on Marx in Philosophy of Technology and How Am I a Marxist?, and so on. As for introducing the theory of alienation to laypeople in an accessible way, especially regarding human beings being enslaved by things / the alienation of labor products / related modern predicaments, perhaps one could use the line of thought I mentioned in “What Exactly Does Philosophy Study? Introducing Philosophy to Ordinary People,”)



• As for persuading stubbornly paranoid/superstitious people, of course I am willing to strike hard and shatter their fantasies, and I believe my words would still be quite powerful, but the premise is that he must be willing to explain his creed to me. Of course, if he truly can sort out his views clearly, then his belief becomes rational and no longer superstitious, and then I can seek common ground while reserving differences and respect his deviant belief; the so-called persuasion process is in fact just using communication to draw out his capacity for rational reflection. Of course, reason may not eliminate suffering, and emotionally my persuasion is still cruel, so I will only say something when he is willing to communicate with me; otherwise I won’t take the initiative to go argue with him. It’s like if you come to me asking, then I’ll counsel a breakup; there won’t be any situation where I go charging over on my own initiative to counsel a breakup when nothing is the matter.



• Don’t lightly deny your own understanding; of course, don’t lightly deny a philosopher’s line of thought either. When you discover that the understanding that first seemed self-evident to you conflicts with the philosopher’s specific statement, that is where the “entry point” for writing a paper appears! There is certainly something to be done there; don’t give up easily or shift your gaze away.



• Present today: sjc/byz/dr/jr/xxj



• Possible topic for next time: undecided.

Latest Comments

• Some Bear

  2009-04-11 23:48:50 Anonymous 124.205.78.60

  Although you say。。。but I’m still more concerned about why: I heard the next cohort, the class of ’09, will have lots of beauties? (Unfortunately, for me that is no longer good news~)



• Gu Chu

  2009-04-12 05:37:40

  ……although what?



• benj

  2009-04-14 11:09:01 Anonymous 124.205.76.52

  Philosophers pursue astonishment and are willing to share their astonishment with others; don’t just go “wow” and leave it at that—say what exactly it was that astonished you. Although words often cannot effectively convey emotion, people can after all still obtain some emotional resonance through linguistic exchange, can’t they.
  – -I really did just go “wow” and then forget it……sorry desu

Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.