Famous philosopher, special professor of the Department of Philosophy of the Capital Normal University
Zhou Yan
Professor of Philosophy of Renmin University of China
hostbroadcast
Hao Han
Ideal National Podcast Naive Cafe anchor, Master of Sociology of Libertz University
Ideal National Podcast Naive Cafe anchor, Master of Sociology of Libertz University
*Podcasts will update the public account of the “Naive Cafe”. In order to facilitate everyone to listen, long programs are also launched on APPLE PODCASTS, small universe, Himalayan, Netease Cloud Music and other audio platforms. Searching “Naive Cafe” on the above platforms can also be listened.
Bleak
You will hear this issue
5:36Liu Cixin’s “scientificism” theory: Science cannot solve but can cancel our problem of “purpose of life”
11:20The philosophical debate is “true, good and beautiful”, scientifically explores “red or blue”, and the scientific revolution has made philosophy get rid of the state of “controversy”?
16:28The reason why natural philosophers Galileo and Newton want to figure out the laws of scientific operations in the world, because they believe in God
19:25Can scientific methods solve all non -scientific problems?Such as a good life, justice society, free will …
33:15Why is the restoration theory of opposition?Natural substances can be restored into particles.
39:39Is the “third culture” other than scientific culture, humanities and culture?
53:42Thirty years of Hedong, thirty years of Hexi, the liberal arts from the university from high respect to the marginalization
Bleak
Recommended book
Click the applet to buy
“Common Sense of Philosophy and Science” Chen Jiaying
“Open” Zhou Yan
“Enlightenment Now” Stephen Pin Ke
Bleak
Background music
Between Worlds-Roger Subirana
Bossa Antigua-Paul Desmond
Disclaimer: The content of the podcast involves the point of view only represents anchor and guests. Welcome to provide discussions on different opinions.
Contact us: [email protected]
01. Two major nature of things
Zhou Yan: I am glad to come to Naive Cafe on weekends to do a exchange with you.Today, like everyone, I came with the attitude of learning, because I was an old student of Teacher Chen for many years. In 1996, I took the class of Teacher Chen in 1996. It has been twenty -four years since it has passed.
Teacher Chen learns Chinese and Western, especially in Western Xue very deeply. He not only translated the works of Heidegger and Wittgenstein, but he also has a deep research on science and humanities for many years.Ten years ago, he had a book called “Philosophy, Science, and Common Sense”. I still think that it is the best book in the Chinese science in the complicated and faint relationship between the Chinese society to introduce philosophy and science.The theme of “Scientific and Scientific Spirit” was proposed to Teacher Chen first, because I am very interested in this theme, but many issues are unclear, so I want to take this opportunity to continue Teacher Chen’s class.
nowGod is the guest host. The lecture is Teacher Chen. As a guest host, I throw a small problem first. In fact, it is not a problem. I read a conversation between Liu Cixin and Jiang Xiaoyuan in the past two years. Everyone should be very familiar with Liu Cixin.Not too familiar, he is one of the best people in the domestic Keyo.
Chen Jiaying: At least one of the most famous.
Zhou Yan: Yes, you add“one“I agree, because the most famous one is still sitting here (laughs).I was shocked after I read this conversation, because Liu Cixin threw out his own scientific position. What is scientificism?He has a basic saying,He said I think technology or science can solve all problemsEssenceJiang Xiaoyuan was shocked after hearing it. Can Jiang Xiaoyuan say that science can solve the purpose of life?Liu Cixin’s answer surprised Jiang Xiaoyuan again,He said that science may not be able to answer the purpose of life, but we can cancel this question through scienceEssenceIn my limited reading, I think it is the most extreme scientific idea.I want to hear Teacher Chen, what are your comments on Teacher Liu Cixin’s view?
Chen Jiaying: Okay, let’s talk nonsense anyway.
We talk about science, which is a big concept. From ancient times to the present, China, foreign countries, ancient, and modern.But in general, we are looking for modern science. About the end of the 16th century, half of the seventeenth century, or the whole seventeenth century, the names we think of, such as Cinnie, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Hawks,Probably these people represent the scientific revolution we call.No matter how science develops, everyone recognizes the ancestors and returns to the ancestors, and regards this as the era of modern science.
I can now have this problem with Zhou Yan or Liu Cixin. It may be a little bit long, not a small problem.
What are the characteristics of science, how does modern science come from other ways of thinking or exploring the world?From the perspective of the effect, from the results, this is quite clear, that is, in modern science, the structure of the world finally understands the structure of the entire world, the structure of the universe, and our physiological structure, weDNAThe structure, etc.Through science, we can see roads, buildings, and bridges. Our nuclear power plants, nuclear bombs, computers, and mobile phones can not be talked about without modern science.But what is given a modern scienceMagicThe entire clue is clear. There are so many ethnic groups in the world. After thousands of years, no one can imagine that we are now these computers or spacecraft. These are modern science. They start from Galileo.Give them such a kind ofPOWERorMagicEssence
Long Story, Galileo himself has said something, one of which can reveal the scientific characteristics and the power of science in the future. He said that philosophers have been arguing since ancient times, because when Galileo did not have yet“science“There are no Italians in this word, nor in English. Everyone calls them philosophers. They also consider themselves philosophers and inherit Plato and Aristotle.He said that since ancient times, he has been to Plato for about two thousand years. He said that philosophers have continued to controversy. After the debate, do we have improved?We are still arguing about the problems of Plato and Aristotle, and none of us feel that we have more clever insights on these issues than Plato and Aristotle. What are the problems with philosophy?He said that this is probably the same. In the world, everything has a lot of nature. For example, the cup is cylindrical, hollow, plastic, and the water inside is colorless, tasteless and transparent.Everything has a lot of nature. These philosophers or people who love to think about the nature of all things, see how this nature is related.He said, but they did not find a fundamental way to distinguish this nature. What is the distinction?That is, there are two types of nature, one major nature, he is calledFirst typeWe translate into modern words can also be said to be objective nature. The second type of nature, not to mention it is a subjective nature, at least it is linked to subjective.
Speaking of which can be distinguished here, such as cups are cylindrical, which is an objective nature. It is not only cylindrical to people, but it is also cylindrical to other quilts.If you put a cup in a box, you can know that if this cup is square, such as a box can be put in a box16indivual.If it is round, the same volume of cups cannot be put so much, this is because of its volume specification.For example, the hardness of this cup or the hardness of the table, this hardness is the first type of nature, which is objective. Not only is it so hard for people, it is also so hard for stones.Classification.
What is the second type of nature?For example, it is more prominent, the most second type, good -looking.You said that you look good, Zhuangzi said, Shi Shi came over and people said it was beautiful, but Shen Yu Luo Yan, what monster seemed to see a monster, and quickly flew away.What monsters seemed to walk away, and hurriedly walked away.Of course, now we say that Shenyu Luoyan is a good word, and Zhuangzi means that seeing the monster quickly avoid it.Good -looking, this matter is subjective.You feel good -looking, monkeys do not necessarily look good.The monkey feels good -looking, you don’t necessarily look good.And you feel good -looking, I don’t necessarily look good.This is related to the people who watch.
Further, this good -looking is quite subjective, which is easy to say.But there are still a lot of subjectiveness. We may not be aware of it at first, such as red colors, green colors, and yellow colors. Unless you are color blindness, I have argued with Zhou Yan, but we have no about red and green.Controversy, unless a person is color blindness.However, things themselves are not green, indifferent to red, and indifferent yellow.For example, you all have seen the color in the dog’s eyes. How did it simulate? We see that the colorful world is gray in the dog’s eyes, because the dog does not mainly rely on vision, it depends on the sense of smell.We are different from what we see in the eyes of the dog.For another thing, such as color is meaningless to water.
Now we divide the nature of things in this world into two categories. One is the first type of nature. We can be said to be objective today. No matter what, it is effective.The second category is to be subjective. I don’t say that it must be subjective. It does not matter if it leaves the people, the listening person, and the person who touches.Ordinary people care about the second type of nature. People on the street say that this person is really beautiful. This painting is really beautiful. This is really delicious and that is so ugly.We just care about these things. As a result, philosophers think that they are noble than ordinary people. They are actually installing ordinary people. He is also discussing what is beauty and what is good. He did not really catch the world of that world.In essence, the essence of that world is in the first type of nature.
Speaking of which, Galileo said that our new philosophers (that is, we later called scientists) will change. He said that we will never discuss the second nature in the future.One type of nature and the second nature are clear. The second thing is to study the first type of nature.The first type of nature will not be because you are a man, I am a woman, and our views are different. It will not be the same because you are a Christian or I am an Islamist. He is completely objective.Aware of it, that’s the same.What are the benefits of this?Whenever we realize a truth, it is really truth. The next day you realize a truth. It is the second truth. In this case, our knowledge will bring us to continuous progress.Decades later, we will find that we realize more truths than decades ago.One or two centuries, of course, even more.From then on, we have got rid of the dilemma of the argument of the old world philosophy but traveled in place, so that philosophy has embarked on the road of continuous progress.
Galileo is a genius, and there are probably few people who will be more talented than Galileo. Anyway, he says this. He said that at the initial point of the scientific revolution, but the scientific revolution has experienced it now.What is clear, what is science, and the science society will improve.Of course, this is just one aspect of many aspects, but I want to say that you think that science is a very good starting point from this perspective. You can see the difference between science and philosophy, the difference between science and religion, science and ordinary, ordinary and ordinaryPeople understand the difference between things, and it does help explain the continuous progress of science and the power brought by this progress.
Back to Liu Cixin’s statement, in this way, we only talk about the scientific changes and great progress brought by the first type of nature. What are the problems of the first type of nature?Galileo said the old philosopher, these old philosophers, they always care about the second type of nature, beautiful, beautiful, good, good, just unjust, they have their truth, what is their reason?We live for these things, you want to know what, what kind of paintings, because you want to see beautiful paintings, you don’t want to see ugly paintings; you want to know what is delicious, because you want to eat delicious foodWant, don’t want to eat unpleasant; you want to know what is good and what is evil, because you want to be a good person; what you want to know is justice and what is unreasonable, because you want a righteous society.In other words, these things provide goals for our lives.On the one hand, Galileo discovered a pure and objective world, but Galileo himself is not a scientist. He just said that our new experimental philosophers, which are later philosophers, must be concentrated in the first type of nature to make progress.EssenceBut he did not say, andHe does not think that humans should be satisfied with the nature of the first type and living in the first type of the first typeIn fact, this is impossible. It is impossible for humans to care about the first type of nature and not care about beauty, goodness, justice and justice, because human life has the goal.
I have said it too long, but I have to make up for it anyway.We know that the year of Galileo’s death was the year when Newton was born. The two people were seamlessly connected. One person created a scientific revolution and a person’s scientific revolution.In Newton, everything cannot be reversed, because he has said something clearly for thousands of years, and said clearly, and laid a good foundation for future research.Newton’s road is walking.
Of course, Newton is walking along Galileo’s road, but he is not a scientist.Everyone knows that Newton has almost no physics in the last ten years. If he wants to do it, there will be a lot of major discovery and promotion, because if you vote for people in history, Newton may be genius genius.No.1EssenceBut in the last ten years, he did not do physics or mechanics, and optics. Why?He was studying the Bible, and of course he also did a little bit of gold and alchemy,, I don’t like to say this in our textbooksAt the beginning, I did n’t love to talk about this passage at the beginning. I always feel that it is a bit inconsistent with the glorious image of Newton.As a result, there was an economist named Keynes. He was still an antique collector. He collected a box. This box happened to buy a box of manuscripts. It was Newton’s manuscript. LaterIt’s right.Everyone found that Newton has been studying theology, especially in the last ten years, and has been concerned about alchemy, especially in the middle for a long time to indulge in alchemy.
Newton’s laptop in the mid -late 1960s
Since then, we have another image of Newton. This image is not contradictory, but it is not the same as the image of Newton’s scientists we imagine, because for Newton, he must figure out the structure of this world. He believes that God believes in God.A world will never be confused. God is fully rational. He must be based on a very rationalPlants New PrintCreate this world.So we are going to study the structure of this world, which is a path to God.To understand God through what God do.Therefore, the purpose of studying physics is to better believe in God and better understand God.This is a complete Newton image, but we look like this is a split Newton, but weIf you experience it, he is not a split Newton, this is a whole Newton’s wholeEssence
These modern scientists do not define scientificism, but we do not necessarily define it. Anyway, we are clear.Imagine that they came from Galileo and Newton, but they took half of them. Of course, Galileo’s most important thing was science. The most important thing about Newton was science and not theology, but you can’t say that for Newton himself.It is not from Newton to look at him himself.
In the last sentence, for Newton and Galileo, their attitudes in both aspects are easy to join together. In other words, unlike scientificism now, it may conflict with many things. An important reason, or even the main reason,It is because they believe in God.I am not advocating to believe in God, I just explained.Because they have faith in God behind, it doesn’t matter how I do that first type of nature, because compared with God’s beliefs, compared with that spirit, this is always a small piece. The big things are there.EssenceThis is different from our contemporary people. The things behind the contemporary people are gone. As soon as you do this, there is only this.
02.Is the third culture possible
Zhou Yan: I and Teacher Chen sort out the course of modern scientific development. I feel very clear and wonderful. I want to make a little bit of supplement.
Speaking of Galileo, we know that he and Newton are claiming to be a natural philosopher, but he studied nature. He studied not humanities or society.This is very different from the philosopher we understand today.As a natural philosopher, Galileo’s very prominent contribution is that he has made a distinction between him. He made the distinction between the so -called objects and related statements.It sounds very abstract. For example, we give you an example. For example, when we see a girl’s eyes, the eyes are good, the eyes are beautiful, and the smile is cheerful. You think how beautiful her eyes are. This is my related statement.Some people may feel that big eyes are very beautiful, some people feel that the eyes are too big and scary. Everyone’s feelings are different, or the weather is hot today. Some people say that it is not hot today. I still feel very cold.EssenceI often have similar arguments with my mother.What should I do?How to solve this difference between people?There is a good way to adopt the statement related to objects. Today is37Degree, Zhao Wei’s eyes are diameter5Centimeter or6Cm (laughs).You will find that there is a benefit of statements related to objects. Whether you look good about Zhao Wei’s eyes or not, you have different opinions, but you will admit how many centimeters of diameter is. We have reached a consensus at a level and solved it solvedDifferential.Whether you have a different view of the heat or coldness, but you are right37Degree or35Agreement reached consensus.
What is the introduction of statements related to the statement?It is a mathematical language or scientific language. Teacher Chen talked about this problem. It was stripped out of our sensible things. The rest was quantitative expression.Layers and effective reasoning can help us better grasp the first nature.In a sense, what it may cancel is the second nature, or it does not discuss the second nature, because even if we5CM reached a consensus,We still cannot reach consensus on the United States or ugliness. It still maintains a suspension attitude towards the second natureEssence
Therefore, this distinction made by Galileo actually greatly promoted the development of natural science. We adopt statements related to objects and adopt quantitative language and mathematics language.Scientific knowledge can be gradually accumulated.But at the same time, the issue of the second nature and the concerns about the humanities world is still a suspended attitude.But the question comes. In the period of the Enlightenment, philosophers from ancient times to the present have always been very troublesome to make such great progress in science, and why do we still walk in place?We are still arguing about the discussions between Plato and Aristotle two thousand years ago. What problems did it happen?The answer to the words of philosophers is to say that because the research methods of philosophy have not followed science.Therefore, in order to solve the philosophical disputes, the only feasible way to solve the problems of problems in the fields of humanities and social sciences is to follow the science and establish a philosophical theory.
After the Enlightenment, because people have made such great progress in natural sciences, a group of philosophers have begun to be confident. They try to solve the second nature problem with scientific methods to solve the problem of justice.What are the issues of good life, life purpose, beauty and ugliness.After the Enlightenment, to this day, there are a group of philosophers or a group of scientists who really think so. They will think that all problems, all traditions that are non -scientific problems, can be used by scientific methods to use scientific methods to give it tosolve.
When it comes to the characteristics of science, in addition to the issues that Teacher Chen just talked about, including the things related to the things I just introduced, I have a very large characteristic of scientific research methods.Someone once said that if I have been asking why, I must ask the particle level at the end, and the arrows of all disciplines are facing down.What does that mean?For example, today we talk about aesthetics, philosophy, psychology, sociology, economics, and then down, such as biology and physics. In the end, it may be things at the molecular and particle level.The problem of restoring to the particle level.Today we are talking about classic philosophical problems, physical and mental problems, free will, and when talking about these classic problems, there are a group of brain neurosciences who want to talk about this issue from the particle level.One of the most fundamental impulses of scientists is from the Related Bo and Demolut in ancient Greece to today, this is the longest tradition.
If the restoration theory is really established, many people will think that scientificism is justified, although we have not defined scientificism just now, butIt probably means that scientificism can use scientific methods to explain all problems in all non -scientific fieldsEssenceBut my personal understanding is that restoration theory is only one dimension of our thinking about problems, and there is another dimension. After you restore it to the particle level, you will also construct from the particle level to the level of organic body.One of the important reasons for my personal opposition to scientificism is that I think that restorism may be established, but in turn, the opposite of the theory is constructivism. It may not be returned to the original road.borrowP. W. Anderson’s statement,More is differentMost of them are different. In the process of restoring, you must lose something, so that you can’t build the original thing.
Let me give you a very simple example. This is a very interesting phenomenon,Sometimes the overall is easier to describe than partEssenceFor example, this cup, we can describe it well, it is a cylindrical body, how much height and diameter.But if I accidentally miss the cup on the ground, it shatters into many fragments, and when you describe these pieces, you will find that it is much more difficult than describing this overall difficulty.I don’t know if everyone can understand this question.
There is also a very interesting phenomenon in science, we all know todayBig bangThe theory is the theory of the Big Bang, and we can relatively describe the problem of the origin of the universe.However, the previous two days before Beijing claimed that there was a heavy rainfall warning. Everyone was waiting for the rain. Some people said that they were because the East China Sea Dragon King did not enter the Beijing certificate or did not do nucleic acid testing.What happened in the second of our science can develop the Big Bang today, but we couldn’t predict what the weather in tomorrow is, and why does this happen?In fact, what I just said, the overall is easier to explain to some extent.
“The Big Bang Theory”
As each living individual, each of us sit here and listen to Teacher Chen to speak to me. In fact, everyone will have a variety of thoughts in their hearts. Three thousand thoughts, you will have a lot of ideas and feelings.These ideas and feelings, it is difficult for you to describe it or describe it from the particle level, and it is difficult to predict from the particle level to predict what your reaction is in the next second, why?It is very close to the few points I just said. One is that the overall is easier to describe than part, and the other is that it is no problem, but the reverse construction itself is very difficult.
It is based on these considerations that I will think that the optimism of scientists so far is quite skeptical.However, there will be several different response methods in the face of the challenge of scientificism. One response is to continue to adhere to the idea of scientificism. Their theory may say so. Yes, now our scientific level may not be goodConstruction can not describe the detailed problems well, and we cannot explain the various emotions of the organic body well, but this is just because science has not yet developed that step, the facts we have mastered are not sufficient enough. Once we have controlled itIn all facts, we can still realize the ideal of scientificism.This may be a subtext behind Liu CixinEssence
What is another reaction?It is to allow science to return to science, religious religion, or humanities.These are two kinds of attitudes.Perhaps there is still a third possibility. I especially want to ask Teacher Chen to ask Teacher Chen for the third possibility today. Can science and humanities form some kind of combination and integration of knowledge?The so -called third culture?I briefly explain the third culture and give the microphone to Teacher Chen.
You may have never heard of a nameSnow(Charles Percy Snow) People, but Mr. Chen must have read his book. He wrote a book called “Two Cultures”.One of the representatives of a culture is human intellectuals or literary intellectuals. They particularly like to talk about the issues of mind, talk about beauty and ugliness, and are particularly romantic.Another culture is the so -called scientific culture, and the representative is a physicist.He said that these two cultures are basically in a state of ignoring each other. No one understands what the other person is talking aboutEssenceFor example, the representative of science and culture, they never read Shakespeare’s works.Literary intellectuals or representatives of humanities and culture, they never understandhotforceLearning the law and do not understand quantum mechanics, they do not care about it.There is a state of serious gap between each other.
Charles Percy Snow
The current question is whether it is possible to form a so -called third culture. With the understanding of modern science, we can let us grasp the themes that Humanities and Social Sciences care about.At the same time, humanities and social sciences can maintain their relative independence, not completely devoured by scientific, and will not be completely restored to particle levels.In the past few decades, someone has been talking about the possibility of the third culture, but it has never appeared very clearly.I think if you want to respond to scientificist challenges,Is the third culture possiblePerhaps it is a way to respond to scientificism on the front.Otherwise, you can only stay simply at no denying, saying that scienceism is too vulnerable.But it is useless to negate, because people are still confident, so you need to have a positive response. I don’t know if Teacher Chen has his own consideration in this regard?
03. HOW and WHY
Chen Jiaying: From your perspective, the third culture, I personally tend to be impossible, but I may recommend the fourth culture, which is another topic.But I still said a few more words about Zhou Yan.
Zhou Yan’s discussion immediately deepened my theme. I just talked about the two properties. These two properties have a little bit like the relationship between Zhou Yan’s follow -up. The first type of nature is to any matter. This shape and hardness.It is established for any material, electromagnetic.The second type of nature, or the establishment of people, or the establishment of animals, or what is established, in short, it is not established to everything, probably the case.Then Zhou Yan talked about two, one was scientific mathematics. He didn’t say a lot, but he mentioned it.There is also the original theory.
They are all related to the relationship between Gali’s objects and things. For example, mathematicalization, the relationship between things is clear, or so, the relationship between things is more direct, I ask Zhou Yan when I see the red color, I said you see you seeWhat color is it?He said red.If he said it was green, no matter how they argued, at least I knew he saw green.But how do you know the relationship between things, the shape of this cup is established for everything?It knows that it is not established for me, and I know even if Zhou Ye was established, because I can ask him.But now I want to advocate that it is established in everything. Where does this come from?
I just gave an example. If you want to see the shape of the shape, you try it.If you install the box, there is no doubt that you have to install the box in the factory. You have to measure. What is the diameter of the cup?And what is the biggest volume of you.OKYou start to measure. Measuring this idea can achieve objectivity.As early as Plato, because of the problems that Galileo saw, although Plato was two thousand years earlier, he did not see it. He wanted to overcome the limitations of the limitations between me.In fact, our early science, until now, is also one of the most important means or links. At the earliest measurement of atmospheric pressure, everyone knows these.The measurement is the first step.Just now Zhou Yan also raised these examples. For example, if you are hot and cool, see the temperature, how does the temperature come?The temperature is measured.If you measure everything, we enter the connection of things.
Of course, we can talk a lot in this direction, but I am now talking about it.It has made great progress in a sense of restoration theory. What I just talked about was that scientists came to study the relationship between things.When I study the relationship between the objects clearly, I can better understand why I have such a relationship.Let me give me the simplest example. Copernicus said that the sun is not moving, we move, the earth turns.The earth turns, we will immediately think of a problem, the earth turns, the wind is full, we are dizzy!Turning so hard a day, turning so fast.Copernicus, of course, thought that someone would refute this. Copernicus said that you cross the boat?At that time, there was no train, and there was no high -speed rail.Does he say you have taken a boat?When the boat is stubborn on the water, you are clearly moving, but you don’t feel it. You look at it, you look at the shore, the mountain is moving.He said that as if you were on the earth, you stayed steadily, and you looked at the sun, because the earth turned relatively stable.
This is an example. When he talked about the scientific principles, he conflicted with our common sense. At first, we would not feel that it was a wonderful truth, but from his perspectiveIt feels like you.
One of the typical examples now is red color. We say that this world is not red, red, green, and you have to use your eyes to see red or green.But at the beginning, regardless of red and green, we only have the frequency of light.We just know that you see red in this frequency, you see green at that frequency, you can’t see that frequency, your visible light is this range.But why do you see red and green, I don’t care about this.Slowly, we have developed biology. We know how the eyes are light.Study such a frequency that projected into our retina.There are two kinds of sensitivity systems in the retina. One of the sensitivity system is the light sensing strength. The other can feel the color, but you can’t feel so many colors.After how can it be adjusted, it can be very simple to match a very complicated color, five lights and ten colors?That is, we have passed the restore. This restoration is called analysis and synthesis in Newton.
“madman”
Analysis and synthesis, people who learn philosophy may know that there is an art that is not exactly the same as Newton, but Newton is in front.Newton said that the world must first put all kinds of things, including mathematics, and his analysis is actually from calculus.The meaning of calculus means that the time is getting smaller and smaller, and finally becoming infinitely small, which can explain the change of speed.Now I divide the world first, the smaller the better, and then we use the integration that Zhou Yan just said, and we build it again.The earliest world of perception seems to be left. We only talk about the world of analysis. When we are comprehensive, we are back again. Why do we feel green and why you are angry, then check your adrenaline.Why do you think this beauty, we check his body fluid, and we check my nerves.
Zhou Yan: Why are you generous because you are because youDNACause.
Chen Jiaying: Yes, why is the sense of justice so strong and be a sense of justiceCTSee why the sense of justice is so strong.He explained these through analysis and synthesis.This is the process of Zhou Yan’s talk. Let me give me two examples to explain how we take the path of restoring first, then take the road of construction, and finally tell it.
Liu Cixin, he said, I don’t know what Liu Cixin is the point of view. I just heard him say it, but what he said was that many people did think so. Scientifically do it first, and do it with science.It seems that you can poetry, what you can be philosophy, we will do it for you, this is called scienceism.Scienceism is what he said,,By doing science, we think you can’t do science, and the results will be done by you, and even everything will be done.EssenceIf there is nothing to do, it is not home yet.
Let’s chat, he just talked about two cultures, and asked me the third culture.SnowThis book1951When it comes from the year, the world has become really fast.1951When he wrote “Two Cultures” year, he was not looking at scientists.Originally, you should pay attention to both humanities and culture, and we should pay attention to the general science, science and culture we are talking about now.He said that it was reality that he was scientifically looking down on literature. He was a Shakespeare, and he was a professor of university.What kind of creatures do you do, you are an experiment.Professor, professor, and professors are called professors, and the experimenters don’t know anything. You know that you do experiments and then get the formula. This is not good.soSnowIt is wrong to say that it is a university. Of course, the liberal arts professor must also respect, but the professor of science and engineering must also respect.
Thirty years later, when I went to college in the West, there was no time. The professor of physics was a professor, and the liberal arts professor followed the light, because the university’s funds were all from engineering.No money, no money.What is the Department of Philosophy?At that time, the Department of Philosophy was mainly relied on the logic of education. As a philosophy, you could not make money, so we had to open a lot of logical lessons, because logic must be cultivated by any student.You also know that when American students hear mathematics, this thing is too difficult, let’s cultivate logic.It is more difficult than mathematics, but he doesn’t know. He thinks that the logic is better, and he will learn logic.In this case, the Department of Philosophy has established its reasons and reasons for existence. We have issued so many logic lessons, and we all teach logic.You really can’t really teach philosophy, no one listened.It is only thirty years, but in Hedong for thirty years, thirty years of Hexi, five to eight years, it has completely turned, let alone today.
Back to the restoration theory, Zhou Yan just said that the theory of restoration has also been there. Atomicism is the original theory, leaving Kobo and Demolut.However, the clue of Richo’s atomic theory was that the scientific people later felt that the Greeks were really amazing. As early as two thousand years ago, atomicism was proposed. Although it was not a complete scientific atomic theory, it was incredible.I personally think that you have to read it. He is not talking about atomic theory. He will change a lot of atoms he envisages.However, Plato did not buy it, Aristotle did not buy it, they felt that atomic was not good.I won’t talk about the specific reason, and then Zhou Yan’s topic, since I do a footnote, I will do it in one breath.
The road that Zhou Yan said, in fact, had been there of more than 2,000 years ago, but at the same time, there has been a upward path for more than two thousand years. It is not the first analysis and comprehensive road I just said.As soon as I come up, I will go up. I give an example. Have you heard of the concept of Plato?IDEAIntersectionThe ideal country, the ideal country, is notIDEA?probably?
Zhou Yan: No, you see what it is in English.
Chen Jiaying: There is really no trademark consciousness (laughs).The ideal of the ideal country is this is thisIDEA,fromIDEAarriveIdealEssenceSo Plato’s “Will Drink”, you have heard of it even if you haven’t read it.I guess the goddess in “Will Drink”, I guess it is beautiful, but there is no illustration.This goddess is to lead us from relatively low -level beauty, how to rise step by step to more advanced beauty.I know that there are many girls here, and they feel beautiful in the mirror, but it is a low -level beauty.Human beauty and beauty are low -level beauty, and the beauty of the soul is more advanced.But the beauty of the soul, the beauty of personal mind is still low, the highest level of beauty is the ideal beauty, the concept of beauty, and go to this concept.
Let me give another example, like Aristotle, he said that there are four reasons, four aspects, called four causes.The most important reason is that the reason for the thing is the form of form.This form isform,,formthat isEIDOSGoing upEssenceBergson said life is a creative process. Where does life come from?From Naturally, how can Wuji come to life naturally?Because Wuji is naturally a process of creation.In this world, it is an endless creation. What is the creation?Of course, it is moving towards higher things.Some of contemporary art is not so think so. Some artists think that as long as I have never seen this thing, they are called creation, but ancient people did n’t think so much. People used to say that I created a garbage.Create a better thing than the present, that is called creationEssenceTherefore, Bergson’s “Creation Evolution Theory” has never been read.
Berguson and Einstein
Everyone in Nietzsche has heard that the whole world is the process of continuously going up. Of course, the real process is declining, but as far as our internal impulse is concerned, what we launch continuessupper man, Superman.What is the goal of people?If you want to say so, is the goal of a person?No, he said that people’s goal is Superman, upward.
Of course, you can give a lot of examples. It is not to restore first and then comprehensively rising. It says that the world is a process of inner rise, so you do n’t know that the rising world cannot understand the world.Plato is very simple,If you don’t know the idea of beauty, you can’t understand beautyEssenceHow do you know it is beautiful?That’s because you have given you the concept of beauty in your last life, but you are suppressed by you stupidly. The concept of beauty does not require others to teach you, you just need to slowly pull your own silly thing.Just find the concept of beauty.I do n’t know if it ’s true, he means that.
We talk about two ascensions, analyzing comprehensive rise in the future, and a natural rise.Is Plato, Aristotle, Bergson, Nietzsche?This is what scientificism is. Did n’t you say it for a long time, and in the end, you have to do it scientifically. As an ideal, as a poem, as a personal comfort, you have no explanation to the world.Therefore, science does not mean that other things cannot be available. You can have a little feelings, a little bit of thought, a little dream, this is okay, but we have to come true and scientific.
You want to really know how to see red colors and science.Science tells you what kind of frequency is the red light, and also tells you what the frequency of receiving this red light is, what retina, what structure, and neurons.Does it really tell us how to see the red color?I will change another example now to make this problem more vivid.
Now there are several Palestinian children walking there, Israel’s tanks have come over, Palestinian children throw stones immediately, and a child made a homemade bomb himself and threw it on the tank.Israeli soldiers raised their guns. Fortunately, Israeli soldiers are more restrained. It is not that they will not shoot in a state of war, but there are any fires and fires. You see the report and indeed kill the children of Palestine.In other words, Palestine’s children have at least risky.Why did he do this?We got the child in the hospital to check their body fluid changes. What did he see?How to see what is turned in the brain nerve, which body fluid adrenaline is improved after the transfer, and how the adrenaline improvement causes his results through the nervous system.If science is well -developed, we don’t need to let him go to the hospital. As long as we insert various electrical grades in his mind, we will record the whole process, and explain what it is clear to make him throw this homemade bomb.
But why do people not throw bombs at Lebanon, and they are so welcome?We can also check the body fluid circulation of the Lebanese.But a question is very obvious, why does Palestine’s children see such body fluids and nerve changes when they see Israel’s army?Why is Israel’s children see another change?
This means that,After you use the restore and then comprehensively explain the whole thing, it is still not explained that the first one that Zhou Yan proposedwhy, Galilei said, we have towhyThrow the questions, let’s askhowEssencehowandwhyThe question is intertwined, but you have to say science and answerwhyThe question, why do we see red, thiswhyis stillhowFor part of the part, when you say why Palestinian children throw stones or bombs, when you measure his body fluid and nerves, you still usehowAnswerwhyWe asked at the beginningwhyI still haven’t been answered, and I can even say that I still haven’t been asked, because the beginning is along Galileo’showOn the road to science, you will not walk after walkingwhyCome back, it will never come back.He asked the third culture, I said that there will be no description like you, that’s what you mean, you will not followhowThe road slowly recovered thatwhy, But you may forget that there is still onewhyBecause the later youwhy, All fromhowComposition.
04. Science may be the greatest achievement in human history
Zhou Yan: The last part of Mr. Chen was particularly shocking. When I listened, I was very excited, proving that it was meaningful to do political philosophy and moral philosophy. My existence was valuable.
Chen Jiaying:That’s what I mean.
Zhou Yan: So I am particularly grateful, and the courage after hearing it has increased a lot.
Teacher Chen just made a lot of footsteps. I also wanted to make some footsteps for Teacher Chen. You found no. People who are academia like to do footnote, and the longer the feet in academic works, the more academic explanation.
Just now when it comes to restoring theory and construction, Teacher Chen uses analysis and synthesis. In fact, you can also use a pair of ordinary people to be more familiar, that is, simple and complex.Because restore is simply restoration of complexity, construction is from simplicity to complexity.I especially like a popular science writer, and I can’t say that science writers are, that is, Shi DifenInPing Ke, I think he is the best contemporary comprehensive science, philosophy, and social sciences. He has a recent book called “The Enlightenment Now”. Everyone must find it.
Chen Jiaying: I insert a few words, Shi DifenInPinke was born to write a book. The writing was really beautiful, but the first books he published first became well written.
Zhou Yan: His first book, one is “Language Institute”, and the other is “White Ban”. These two are very good.”Good Angels in Humanity” is not good, but I still like “Enlightenment Now”.Ping Ke said that many people who criticize science today will take reduction theory as the original sin of scientists, because they lose a lot of complexity as soon as they restore, just like Teacher Chen just said, only askhowDo not askwhyThe problem.butPing Ke believes that in addition to the original theory of good scientists, he wants to retain the original theory and complexity at the same time,,“In fact, using deep principles to explain complex things is not to abandon its rich connotation.“
Shidifen Pinke
Wilson said in “Great Integration of Knowledge”. He said: He said:“Art is art that loves complexity but does not adopt restorerism. The complexity of love and also adopts restoringism, which becomes science.“What are the characteristics of human intellectuals?It is only the idea of only complexity and no restorationEssenceIt was just what Mr. Chen just cited, such as Plato, Bergson, Nietzsche, who started to rise directly from this place to go to the most good world or the world of ideas. He did not talk about restoration.
I personally want to keep the theory and complexity at the same time. Of course, I don’t know how to maintain it. I think this is a better direction.Speaking of anti -scientificism, of course, my position and I have the same position as Teacher Chen, but both of us are not anti -science people. Everyone must experience the difference between the two.What are the greatest achievements in the past?Not art, not music, not anything else, but science.Science may be the biggest achievement in human history, and there may be no oneIt has completely changed our lifestyle, understanding and self -understanding of the world, and in the visible future it has been penetrating into the field of humanities and social sciences.But we must understand where the meaning of science to us is clearly compared with two cultures, where is the significance of scientific and cultural significance for human culture.
There are two sayings in Pinke. One is that science tells us that the world is understandable.At first listening to this sentence, I feel humble.But he means that science is not a letter of mouth, not to understand the world in an image, prophecy, or a myth. It has a specific way to understand the world.In this specific way, we have just talked a lot just now, such as understanding the world through the language of mathematics, and understanding the world by repaying the theory.This is a enlightenment that science has given us. The world is understandable.Einstein said a word,He said that the most incredible place in the world is that it turned out to be understandableEssenceWhen I read Einstein’s words, I was also very shocking. Although I didn’t understand the theory of relativity, I was not a scientist, but I could imagine and appreciate that scientists suddenly realized that the world could understand this way. ThenWhy do you say that poetic romance?becauseMany anti -science people think that science is the process of solving charm, which eliminates our poetic understanding of this world.EssenceBut I read some scientific opinions by myself, and they will put forward different ideas, such as Ferman, and Ferman said in his speech that understanding the world in a scientific way is not a poetic romance?It may be a more poetic romance, but we are bound by the traditional way of thinking.For example, the earth turns around the sun, and people stand on the earth. It may not be like the sky like us. It may be facing down. This earth is not only revolving and rotating, but the universe is infinite.He said that this is actually a poetic romance. Why do you say that there is no poetic at all?I think this idea is very interesting.
Back to Pin Ke, his second statement is,Let the world tell us, whether our views on it are rightEssenceThis sentence sounds humble, but carefully pondering what he mean?It’s not that I tell me whether my idea of this world is right or wrong, either Mr. Chen told me that the idea of the world is wrong or right, either a community tell me, what is it?The world itself tells me whether the understanding and ideas about this world are right or wrong.In fact, in this sense, from ancient times to the present, many of our understanding of the world and ourselves have been subverted.The world tells us that the earth is the center of the universe, which is a wrong idea.The earth is not moving, this is a wrong idea.Man is a divine or man’s image according to God’s image. This may also be a wrong idea, at least it has no idea.
I oppose scienceism. I don’t think science can explain all the problems in life, especially the fundamental issues.But at the same time, I respect science, respect the various achievements of science so far, andI believe that although science cannot replace humanities and cannot replace the culture and ideals of humanities, it can limit our various ideals. It is limitedEssenceFor example, Teacher Chen mentioned Bergson and Nietzsche just now, of course he is a good self -understanding of people, but today we do believe that the theories of Bergson and Nietzsche are a literary imagination.Scientific.Of course, you can read it as an individual and help you deepen your self -understanding by helping you, but I think it is just some individual choices, and it cannot be placed well in today’s overall atmosphere and environment. It cannot be a modern times.Science, I do n’t talk about co -production, but at least not contradictory.
So when I return to the third culture, I am still trying to think about this possibility. I don’t think science and humanities are completely split.What is the purpose of life, the problem of life and death, and the problem of justice or not. Of course, these problems cannot be completely restored to the activity of our brain nerves or the cycle of body fluids, or adreno hormones, hormones.But it cannot be restored to these things, and it does not mean that science’s explanation about the first nature will not have an impact on the moral theory and political doctrine we are trying to construct.Where, I don’t know yet. In fact, the most important purpose of my coming today is to listen to Teacher Chen about this part, but he does not seem to agree. He thinks this is an unlikely thing.
05. Feeling quality is a life -threatening of everyone
Zhou Yan: I want to talk more about it. I don’t know when Teacher Chen just talked about the children of Palestine. For example, when I saw the different reflections of the red people, I saw the different reflections of the tank car.It’s very close, can you say that?
Chen Jiaying: Different, butIt must be connected.
Zhou Yan: When we talk about the quality of the feeling, for example, when you see the wavelength of light, you say red, I say red, but our feelings of red are not the same. The scope of the spiritual philosophy falls the scope of this discussion in a very narrow place. YouIt is necessary to expand it to such as political understanding, or the background of history and culture, but I think there is still a possibility of expanding. Just now there is a noise theory on the scene“connected“As well as“connected“I think it seems to be a mother’s tone today. We try to connect all problems together, but we must say its differences while connecting.
ReturnQualityThis problem is considered to be the hardest problem in the philosophy of the mind.hard question,noeasy questionIt is that feelings are difficult to be explained by brain neuroscience. This is one aspect. It cannot completely explain the quality by repaying the original method, because everyone feels very different about the same thing.There is also the most important thing for each individual to call it the individual. I remember Charmers said that the feeling of feeling is a life -threatening thing for everyone. The reason is thatIt is the most important factor that allows each individualThis may be something that science cannot explain so far, and this is also the significance and value of our existence of human and social sciences.
I do this for Teacher Chen.
Chen Jiaying: On these issues, I and Zhou Yan even include some other issues. The large framework and large direction are very close, but at one point, such as Pingke’s book is particularly well written.It is always consistent.I understand a bit that Zhou Yan said that what he cares about most is how science has become now like this, but the third culture, that is, science is already a fact. The scientific community has developed here. You say that it is one -sided truth.What you say, but you can’t deny it, it is there.You go to reject, neither of us is reject science, but the reject is not enough. You have to include it to tolerate it. In the overall understanding of the world, science is part of it.He is particularly concerned about this. Of course, if you want to come there, you must be the most concerned about this, not to reject science or irrelevant.
But today we have not launched this part of discussion, because this part of discussion needs to come to today, not to mention how to understand science today, you have to know it well.It’s like you don’t want to criticize China. Now the question is how to get the next step, but if you don’t know how China is doing this, you don’t know how to get the next step.It is necessary to know how to go positively or negatively to this day, how you want to get in the next step, how can China be slightly reliable.We are too late to explore and try to discuss what the third culture looks like.
One point mentioned by Zhou Yan is relatively obvious. In terms of science’s restrictions on any serious thinking, this role is quite obvious.For example, I am doing ethics now, and I say that people are a very noble thing. Everyone doesn’t care about his desire. As long as people are willing, he can exceed his desire.This is a bit of scientific basis. He investigated many people and studied many people. He also had a lot of anatomy for people’s physiology. He did have these desires, and people’s efforts were connected with desires.You understand science or science can not have restrictions. If anyone suddenly proposes the ethics of particularly idealism, this is weird.
However, in this regard, I personally don’t think that the rapid progress of science seems to have many new restrictions. Before science, people such as Aristotle know that they have proposed idealistic ethics and moral theory and political theory.Not because of the lack of scientific restrictions, it is simply a lack of philosophical restrictionsEssenceWhat I mean is that he just thinks about it.Whether a good philosopher is scientific is not that ideas.I slowly explore this with Zhou Yan.
Just now Zhou Yan mentioned that Bergson’s lack of scientific basis for the creation of evolution. As a separate thing, my opinion with Zhou Yan was not exactly the same in this matter.Bergson is a very scientific philosopher. He is not only a very good understanding of biology, but also in physics.
By the way, I will give a White Sea, because White Sea is also claiming to develop philosophers, echoing both Bergson and a bit of echo, and a very scientific philosopher.At that time, the theory of relativity came out, Einstein made the theory of relativity, and the whole ideological community felt very interesting, because Bergson’s theory of evolution and evolution was very tight as time. Bergson’s doctoral dissertation was later rewritten into his first book.The English translation is called “Time and Freedom”. Creativity and free will, free will and time. I won’t talk about these. You can think of contact with your head.The study of time is the key areas of Bergson.Now Einstein makes relativity, and the concept of renovation of relativity. Many people want to know what Bergson thinks of relativity.
As a result, a huge dialogue was organized in France, which was a prosperous or expectation of intellectuals around the world. This was the biggest philosopher and the largest scientist at the time and finally encountered an intersection.This dialogue is on schedule. There is a book called “Berguson and Einstein”. The ins and outs of this dialogue, and then Yu Bo keeps, including two cultures who occupy the upper hand, who occupy the wind, and its changes, not a oneThis is a great book, but this topic is quite interesting.
Of course, Nietzsche’s scientific education is not bad. Although it is not as good as Bergson and White Sea, but then, Nietzsche is 50 years earlier than them. At that time, science itself did not have relativity, quantum mechanics, and even evolution theory just started.There is no heredity.Therefore, the scientific types of Nietzsche are not the same as science in the twentieth century.
At least these people we talk about are those who are more scientifically educated in philosophers.Of course, I don’t deny the general point of view that Zhou Yan said,A philosopher does not know how science is going on, just want to make a set of philosophical theories, and the facts and establishment that the science has establishedThe scientific cognition conflict, this is not spiritualEssence
The last part of Zhou Yan just said, in fact, he defined another part of our topic today, that is, the scientific spirit.The spirit of science is that you must respect science, do your best to understand science, acknowledge the facts of the facts established by science and the truth of the truth that you find or the restrictions formed by your speculation. You must look at these facts and theories positively.InsteadThese are part of the scientific spirit. We did not talk a lot in this part. Just now Zhou Yan talked, it is equivalent to the other half of this topic.
06. Some understanding is impossible to isolate self -knowledge outside
Zhou Yan: Thank you, Teacher Chen, Teacher Chen is really an experienced old teacher. We talked about one and a half hours of scientificism. Without discussing the scientific spirit, Mr. Chen described the scientific spirit in one minute, and took our lectureCome back, it is particularly powerful.
The time is limited, and there are nearly 20 minutes. We open to the readers to ask questions and welcome everyone to ask questions.
Small flying: Our event registration venue is limited. We also solicited questions from online readers. This netizen calledWMFHe wanted to ask the teacher’s two points.His understanding, science is used to transform the external world, philosophy is used to transform the internal world, and wants to ask the two teachers. From this point of view, philosophy is used as a research in the internal world. Is philosophy laid the foundation for science?
Chen Jiaying: This question is very good. People often quote Delphi’s motto.“Knowing yourself“Essencebut“Knowing yourself“I often want to remind this matter,“Knowing yourself“It’s not in the mirror or look down at your navel eyes, then staring at yourself can’t know yourself. You can only know yourself if you put yourself in the world of thousands of worlds.So knowing yourself, if you really have this wish, you can’t have a strong desire to know the world, you may also be lost in this world, or you are lost in the world.If you say science and philosophy, it is always between the two, or more specific, because when you know the world, you do not forget to know yourself.
This topic can be further extended. Some of our knowledge of the world does not include self -knowledge. In fact, this is an angle. I first talked about from Galileo that modern science is conscious.To get to know this world, he has made great progress, and the limitations it causes for himself is that he always has to isolate himself.butSome understanding cannot be isolated from self -knowledgeFor example, Zhou Yan just talked about it, and we can find a way to be objective for politics, and find a way to separate our feelings and positions, but this approach must be restricted.I do n’t talk about where restrictions are, but you can rest assured that there will be no one who talks about politics in the end to be completely separated from his political opinion to talk to us any interesting things. It is completely impossible.
Zhou Yan: I give Teacher Chen a small note, I also especially like the motto of Delphi TempleIntersectionKnowing yourself.We know that in ancient Greece, there was a famous Sphinx’s mystery. I asked what animals had four legs in the morning, two legs at noon, and three legs in the evening. The answers were well known.I think that knowing your own philosophy, you can actually extend in both directions. One is“you“Do a full name proposition understanding, that is,“What is“EssenceAnother one is this“you“The understanding of the first -person singular order is“who I am“Essencein my opinion,“What is“and“who I am“It is two problems in different directionsEssenceThe development of modern science has greatly subverted the self -understanding of human beings, which is what human understanding is. It cannot be expanded here. Teacher Chen is very familiar.For example, what is the person in the universe view of Aristotle?People are embedded in the level of the universe in the theory of purpose. People have a specific location and are a stage in the process of natural or universe towards the development of the best goal.However, a consequences of modern science, including religious reforms, and Renaissance are that the purpose of this world is lost, its hierarchy has gone, and the world has become a quantitative, homogeneous, and aimless existence.People are thrown away from the original level sequenceEssence
The scientific revolution or modern science has greatly subverted the self -understanding of people. In the general sense, the self -understanding of people in the general sense is that a consequences caused by this is that from the perspective of the first person’s single order, that is, that is, that is, that is, that is,“who I am“This problem has also undergone tremendous changes.One point of view after the Renaissance is:“I am what I am“Items“What do I want to be, what am I“EssenceI can often see when I buy a picture book for my daughter, for example“Become yourself“”You are“”You cannot be defined by others“In other words, you can only be defined by yourself.
Chen Jiaying: This starts with advertising selling things. All its products are tailor -made for you.
Zhou Yan: Although it is an advertisement for selling things, this concept has been greatly promoted, and this concept can be traced back to the cosmic view of the Renaissance, religious reforms, and the scientific revolution that completely subverts the traditional purpose theory, leading to a change in self -understanding.
“The Big Bang Theory”
So in this sense, I still want to say that science may not eventually help us answer the meaning of the first person’s single -called single -digital“who I am“This problem, but science is indeed greatly restricted“What is“The problem, or it has greatly changed“What is“Understand, and then partially limited“who I am“Understanding, it has a strong binding force.I will do this.
Bleak
