"Can thoughts grasp the essence of the world?”" Most philosophers in the past believed that there was an original world behind the phenomenal world perceived by the senses. The difference was that some philosophers asserted that we would never be able to understand this original world, while others believed that we could rely on the ability of rational thinking to break through the deception of feelings, see through the essence of phenomena, and grasp the face of this original world. However, in the past hundred years, this long-standing dominant position had been fundamentally shaken.
Could rational thinking really grasp the true nature of the world? To answer this question, we must first understand what rational thinking is. The so-called rational thinking is the process of using universal concepts to make judgments and reasoning. Let's use the simplest addition example to explain this process. For example, if there was an apple on the table and an apple on the chair on the hill, and you were asked how many apples there were, you could answer without moving the two apples together: "Two." In fact, when you gave this answer, you had already done a quick calculation: “1 l=2。”This was enough for rational thinking. After careful analysis, the process went like this: You first transformed the concrete phenomenon of "one apple" into the abstract numerical concept of "1", then used a mathematical formula (judgment)"1 1=2", and finally derived the concrete conclusion of "one apple plus one apple equals two apples" from this formula.
The problem now was that we couldn't perceive abstract concepts like " 1 " and " 2 " or abstract proposition like " 1 l=2 " with our senses. Then, where did they roar from? There were three possible answers to this question:
First, we can perceive specific things one by one with our senses, and we can also perceive their collections. The abstract concept of numbers and arithmetic proposition are derived from our sensory materials. Assuming that this case is correct, then rational thinking based on unreliable feelings is also unreliable. It is no closer to the original world than feelings.
However, there was a huge loophole in the first answer. Our senses can only perceive specific phenomena. How can we get abstract concepts from them? The phenomena perceived by the senses are always limited. How can we get the universal truth that applies to all phenomena from them? For example, we can only see an apple, a teacup, a person, and so on. We can never see the abstract " 1 ". Why does our mind abstract them as " 1 "? We can only see an apple and a set of apples, etc. How can the mind conclude that " 1 is always equal to 27 "? Because perceptual experience cannot explain the origin of abstract concepts and proposition satisfactorily, some philosophers have found another way out, so there are the following second and third answers.
Secondly, abstract ideas and universal proposition are inherent to human rationality. They are like the texture of marble, hidden in human rationality, and will appear in the process of cognition. For truths like " l l=2 ", human reason can intuitively conclude that they are absolutely correct. It is precisely by virtue of these innate forms that reason can process and organize sensory data. This answer is only a hypothesis that can never be proven. Let's assume that it is correct, and we can only draw this conclusion: The form of thinking only belonged to human rationality and had nothing to do with the original world.
Third, the original world itself had a rational structure, and human rationality corresponded to this structure. However, this is exactly what needs to be proven, and the philosophers who advocate this view have not provided us with any convincing evidence.
According to.
In any case, whatever reason we have for not trusting our senses holds true for thinking. Therefore, it seems that we have to admit that as long as we know, whether we use feelings or thoughts, what we grasp are all phenomena, and they are at most different in depth. Once the world enters our knowledge, it will be refracted by our senses and organized by our thoughts. Therefore, it will no longer be the so-called original world, but a phenomenal world.
19. Was there a true face in the world?
Well, let us admit that the world that we humans know is just a world of phenomena. Then, behind this or many phenomenal worlds, was there an original world that was not a phenomenal world? Kant said that there was, but we would never be able to recognize it. That was why he called it the " Thing-in-itself." Let's assume he's right, let's imagine what it would look like.
But how? It was simply unimaginable! As long as we try to imagine, we must regard ourselves as a knower and put this so-called original world in our relationship, so that it is no longer the original world, but the phenomenal world. Perhaps we can imagine ourselves as gods, and thus see it all at once in an omniscient way? However, the so-called omniscience was nothing more than having the most perfect senses and the most perfect thinking, so that one could understand it from all angles and using all methods. The result of doing so was nothing more than obtaining countless phenomenal worlds. Unless we call the sum of these countless phenomenal worlds the original world, we can't even imagine that there is an original world.
This was the truth: whether it was human, God, or any other living creature, as long as they wanted to understand the world, they had to have a perspective. You could change the angle, but there was no angle that could not be recognized. From different angles, one could only see different phenomenal worlds. Apart from all these possible phenomenal worlds, there was no world at all. Of course, there was no so-called original world. There was an apple in front of us. A little boy saw it and said, I want to eat. What he saw was an apple, a food phenomenon. A botanist saw it and said,"This is the fruit of some kind of plant." What he saw was an apple that was a plant phenomenon. A biologist saw it and said,"This apple is made of cells." What he saw was an apple as a biological phenomenon. A physicist saw it and said,"No, its most basic structure is molecules, atoms, electrons, and so on." What he saw was an apple as a physical phenomenon. A Christian might talk about the apple in the Garden of Eden and the original sin of Adam and Eve. What he saw was the apple as a religious cultural phenomenon. There would also be different people who would make different judgments about this apple and see it as a different phenomenon. If you say that all of this is just a phenomenon of the apple, and not the apple itself, then please tell me, what is the apple itself? Where is it?
Since there was no original world behind the phenomenal world, some philosophers believed that everything was an illusion and a dream. In this aspect, Buddhism was the most thorough. It believed that everything was an illusion and that the entire world was empty. However, we might as well change our way of thinking. The so-called truth and falsehood, reality and illusion, were all relative. If there was an original world, then compared to it, the phenomenal world was an illusion. Now, since there is no such original world, can we say that all phenomenal worlds are real and have the right to exist? A poet sang," On a flat land, the sun rises from the east and sets in the jungle in the west.”At this time, even if you were Copernicus, you couldn't refute him."You're wrong. The earth isn't flat, but round. The sun doesn't rise and set, but the earth is rotating.”"Self." The ancient Greek philosopher, Socrates, regarded 'knowing yourself' as the highest requirement of philosophy. However, knowing oneself was more difficult than knowing the world. The above example shows that it includes at least the following three problems:
First, I have a body and a soul. What is the relationship between them? Some people said that the soul was just a function of the body. If that was the case, why would the soul sometimes rebel against the body? For example, why would it endure torture and even sacrifice its life for an ideal? If that was not the case, then the soul was different from the body and higher than the body. Then, it must have a source that was higher than the body. What was the source? How could two things that were so different be combined? Since it did not originate from the body, why would it die with the body? Or on the contrary, could the soul continue to exist after the death of the body?
Secondly, what exactly was a soul? If it refers to all my mental activities and inner life, then it is a very complicated thing. On one hand, it included rational thinking, concepts, knowledge, beliefs, and so on. On the other hand, it included irrational emotions, emotions, desires, impulses, and so on. Which aspect represented the true 'ego'? Some philosophers advocated the former, believing that rationality was the essential characteristic that distinguished humans from animals. Therefore, the real difference between different individuals was the strength of rationality. Some philosophers advocated the latter, believing that rationality was only the social side of human beings, and that the true uniqueness of individuals and the true motives of all their actions were hidden in the irrational impulses of the unconscious. Who was right and who was wrong, or did they both have a reason?
Third, I have experienced many changes since I was young. Why should I say that I am still the same "me"? Is it based on my memories of the past? So, if I lose my memory temporarily or permanently because of some disease, am I still me? Is it based on my consciousness that I am still alive, the so-called 'self-consciousness'? However, the problem was, how did I realize that it was me who was still alive? What was this self-awareness that kept me consistent in the midst of change?
Now, I'll leave these difficult questions to you to think about.”
This book is provided by FunNovel Novel Book | Fan Fiction Novel [Beautiful Free Novel Book]