I'm a little obsessed with reading the history of literature recently. I just take a book and put it in the background of the times. I didn't think deeply enough. My notes belong to others. This is not good. This is not good ... every era has a dark side. There are always sprayers and philosophers. As for myself, opening my mouth is how dark the times are, and how advanced human beings are, and my thoughts are easy to solidify. Moreover, my history and philosophy are not up to standard, and I am far from qualified to evaluate the works of my predecessors from a historical perspective. Instead of parroting, it is better to calm down and write down your own thoughts, even if they are immature and stupid-it is frustrating to stand still, but false growth is undoubtedly a more shameful retrogression.

However, we still can't relax the pace of progress. If you don't force yourself to think more deeply, this year will really be wasted-how many years can there be like this in this life?

Always remember, this is for yourself.

That's true, but when I send it to the public, I always feel that others can see it, even praise it. When I write, I think of my imaginary readers, so I dare not throw anything too negative. In addition, I went to see the diary written in QQ space before, and the whole article was full of the words "moaning without illness"-that was really for myself. I can't wait to delete that thing because I know I can't write any more now, so I'll keep it (of course, I don't know if "future self" will be deleted for other reasons). So in the end, no matter whether the target audience is future self or other people who don't know whether they exist, what I write here will not be all my psychological feelings.

Of course, this does not prevent me from writing a reading note with a book as the background when I find that the ideas revealed in it are very similar to myself (I finally got this thing that is about to become a log back after so long).

Ramo's nephew is the work of Diderot, a French progressive writer and a representative of "Encyclopedia School" in the enlightenment era of18th century. He found a "Diderot effect" in psychology, also known as the "robe effect", that is, when a person gets a gorgeous robe, he wants to change a bedspread commensurate with the robe, and he wants to change a beautiful bedspread.

This book, written by Diderot in the first person dialogue, describes his conversation with a rogue who has a musical talent but is idle, that is, the nephew of the musician Maura. The first person "I" in the book can be regarded as the representative of traditional thinking, while the strange ideas pursued by Maura's nephew (in fact, his name is Maura, hereinafter referred to as Maura) are wrong at first glance, but on second thought, they can't be said to be wrong.

The dialogue between the two began with the discussion of talents and morality. Mora despises the so-called "genius" and thinks that under the same (low) moral level, ordinary people are more beneficial to the people around them than "genius". Then the topic rose from "perfect man" to "perfect world", and Maura made clear her attitude: Go to hell with the perfect world-if I don't exist in it.

Normal people think that "genius" is important, worthy of admiration and praise, and brings value to human progress, while Mora thinks that the progress of human thought is not as good as giving me a few more dollars; Normal people think that the world should be progressive, better, peaceful and perfect, while larmor thinks that it's none of my business for the world to get better. Anyway, I can't get better if I live, so what's the use of the world getting better if I die?

Actually, it sounds reasonable when I'm waiting for P people, huh?

Of course, I won't say this in public, just like I won't write a bunch of diaries complaining about nothing: because people always show themselves to the society as normal gregarious people, we will talk about morality and progress, even if we don't agree with them.

So Mora said, "People praise virtue, but people hate it".

How did this contradictory situation come about?

It is "the tendency of education to constantly transcend molecules" that makes people "advance obliquely on the road of life"-"molecules" here refers to the instinct that people inherit from their parents, and in Mora's family refers to the degradation of musical talent and morality.

But we can extend this narrow scope to everyone: the second stage of discussion revolves around a "stupid mistake" made by Ramo, that is, "gaining reason." In the past, Maura was a person who ignored dignity and morality. For her own benefit, she could bow and scrape to others and even do bad things. But one day, he gained reason and began to pay attention to dignity, so he was driven away by the rich who made fun of him and lived a hungry and cold life.

..... Dude, you may have accidentally eaten the apples in the Garden of Eden.

Seriously, Ramo's words show that human beings are born with animal instinct, and there are no necessary factors for human beings, such as morality, rationality and dignity, and where do these things come from?

From education.

Education has brought contradictions to human beings, that is, the contradiction between instinctive evil and moral goodness (so Mora certainly disapproves of "the beginning of life is inherently good"). This contradiction will not affect Maura, who is proud of ignorance, but will affect the vast majority of ordinary people.

So what is the use of education? If it's just a hypocrite who makes people hypocritical and talks about morality, but follows the evil instinct in his heart. In fact, when the "I" in the book righteously criticized Mora for laughing at the benefactor's behavior, he easily refuted it, using only a theory similar to the sentence "flies don't bite seamless eggs", that is, all people betrayed by others are flawed themselves.

In this debate, Mora herself gave the answer: since she was betrayed by the wicked because of her lack of moral cultivation, she tried to raise her morality to a height that the wicked could not reach.

As for whether this moral standard can be achieved, this is not a question that our unscrupulous Mora should consider. He said, "What is a good education? Isn't it a kind of education that is neither dangerous nor unfavorable? " Obviously, there is no need for him to bring moral education, and his "education" does not conflict with his pleasure instinct.

As for himself, Mora showed me what he thought was evil art. He thinks that "evil only hurts people occasionally, and the external characteristics of evil always hurt people", so he only reads Moliere's works to hide his disgust as a character in the writer's works (the textbook says that Moliere describes the appearance of evil in a funny way in order to make the comedy ironic, while Maura takes advantage of this.

At the same time, he showed his extraordinary musical talent and once again strengthened his inner contradiction-who said he despised genius just now, how could he be a genius? Since there is such a genius, why doesn't Ramo work hard? It turned out that he had struggled with his talents, but he gave up because of an accident. From then on, he lost his dignity and became a mime. "I" cited the example of Diogenes to show that I can live with dignity without giving up. However, the hedonistic Mora could not accept the poor lifestyle, so the dialogue ended.

Maura's idea is really common. If a person has never thought of these thoughts, he will probably become a Buddha soon (laughs). However, there is a long distance between ideas and realization, so the author didn't create a work to praise larmor's ideas-I don't want to improve the author's moral level, since he has presented these ideas with his own role-whether to write a work of "persuading people to evil" has nothing to do with the author's moral level, but only with his intellectual level: when the author realizes that his work of "persuading people to evil" will spread all over the world,

Universal values can be widely spread because if others abide by them, personal life will be much more convenient-so whether an individual wants to abide by them or not, at least he won't stop it from spreading. To sum up, we don't need to discuss whether the "I" in the article is really the incarnation of the author himself, just know that he is also a supporter of universal values.

Mora is an opponent of universal values, but his depth of thought, familiarity with human nature and pursuit of evil art are not like an ignorant rogue-he is also a philosopher and an agent for the author to examine universal values from the perspective of opposition. If his existence is for educational purposes, then the author may want to show the readers "How?" Do you have his evil ideals and evil pursuits? If not, don't be evil like others! "

However, I prefer to believe that this book was not originally used to educate the general public (this book was never published before the author's death, and like Diderot and I, I felt that this kind of thing was not written for others). Whether it is demanding an absolutely impeccable moral height or choosing diogenes's lifestyle in order to preserve dignity, it seems too extreme-yes, as a member of the general public, I want to say with the same pride as Ramo: I can't do it. ...

Then, why does the author set two unattainable extremes between universal values and their opposites, so that these two values collide? I'm here to record some thoughts of "myself now":

First of all, the promotion of morality needs the popularization of education, and the popularization of education needs the development of productive forces. It is impossible for productivity to rise rapidly in a short period of time, and it is unrealistic to achieve moral perfection.

Secondly, animal instinct is opposed and endorsed by social morality (for example, the desire for a better life urges people to struggle). Moreover, people as animals, this instinct can not be erased, and blind denial can not get results.

Therefore, it is the best practice that modern society can do to find a balance between morality and instinct, that is, the preservation of human race (morality determines social order and maintains the stability of life, while instinct takes the survival of race as the highest requirement).

This practice still has its shortcomings, because the essence of morality and instinct is separated, so conflicts will occur outside the junction. The most famous example is the moral dilemma, such as the tram problem-killing five children without pulling the pole is a morally correct decision, because the other child has done nothing wrong. Instinctively, animals should choose to save more chances for survival.

It should be noted that the moral dilemma is a problem of all mankind, not a problem of one person-one's own emotions and his interpersonal relationship will affect his decision, but there is no such problem in the context of all mankind.

Think about it, what should we do when all mankind really encounters moral dilemma?

Well, my answer is, get someone to pull a pole and run over a child, and then "borrow your head."

Sounds evil, doesn't it?

In the context of all mankind, when there is a conflict between moral order and national survival, national survival is the priority-people are dead, and naturally there is nothing moral to talk about. After the survival of the ethnic group was guaranteed (five children representing the majority were saved), morality re-entered the scope of consideration, so some people wanted to take the blame for the immoral things just now.

This is probably "losing humanity, losing a lot, losing animality, losing everything" in three body 3 (by the way, I personally think that Cheng Xin's behavior is no problem, and morality and the survival of ethnic groups are not contradictory to her-at that time, no one in the book was sure that the curvature spacecraft was the only way of life for the earth people. I compare this matter with the moral dilemma.

Liu, the author of "Three-body", also showed his discussion of human nature in many other works, such as the short story "Mirror". Because of the existence of a "mirror" that can spy on all privacy, human beings have unexpectedly reached "absolute morality" However, the ending ... this opens another question for us, that is, whether the moral end point pursued by countless people can be realized.

There is a light novel in the Destiny series (recent animation), in which the villain tries to liberate all mankind by depriving people of their desires. Similarly, Haba, the ultimate BOSS friend of the comic book Death, hopes to integrate the soul world with the human world and achieve a new world in which everyone no longer has to fear death. As bosses, these two are naturally defeated.

In other words, no one seems to be optimistic about the end of morality in the fantasy works I have seen. Of course, it seems absurd to infer the end of the world with the imagination of several creators of popular works, but Diderot is not without relevant arguments: one of the few things that "I" and Ramo reach a consensus in the book is that "the perfect world" gives up human beings. Ramo's point of view has been mentioned above. While criticizing the existing order, "I" responded that "if everything in the world is excellent, there will be no Excellence"-they don't realize that it has given up its existence-whether individuals can temporarily reach the peak of morality, but if all mankind reaches the peak of morality, the world will no longer belong to mankind.

This passage shows his understanding of the end result of morality, and more importantly, it expresses his deep thinking about the opposite connotation of universal values in Lammer's image-the latter is more important, and people rarely consider the role played by animal instinct when imagining the limit that morality can reach.

For example, the "perfect world" is the sun, human society is the earth, and the yearning for morality is gravity. The earth does not plunge into the sun because of gravity, but revolves around the sun in an eternal orbit, because the initial velocity is perpendicular to the direction of gravity. The moment when human beings are born is just the moment when they have just evolved from animals to humans (if there is such a "moment"). The "initial speed direction" decided at this moment will naturally not be the moral system gradually established after moving towards it, but the survival of animal instinctive needs. As mentioned above, existence and morality have something in common, so these two directions are not opposite, but vertical, so this uniform circular motion will continue without external interference, human beings.

In other words, if you want a perfect world, you need to give the earth a new direction. Both the study of the holy grail "mirror" in France and the study of Haba, a friend of "omniscient and omnipotent", represent a force far beyond human ability, just like suddenly kicking the earth out of the universe and into the sun.

So the questions of morality and instinct, human nature and animal nature become the questions of productivity, that is, whether human beings can exert a great external force for society to move towards a perfect world-well, look at the first sentence of my paragraph again, this time the requirements for productivity are higher, and after the world is completed, human beings will no longer be human beings.

So should we give up treatment like Ramon?

I don't know.

Liu, I'm from the East. Kubo doesn't know.

Even Diderot doesn't know.

Thinking.

Do not stop thinking.