Gadamer's aesthetics in the paper is interested in philosophy, and now it has been tested in my name, worthy of the name.

When she was a freshman, the first problem she encountered was how to enter the door of philosophy, and to enter this door, except

There are few other ways except reading, so how to read philosophy books, what books to read, what to read first, and what to read later?

Yao, we "old horses" know our way a little.

Through my observation and experience over the past few years, most of those who switched from other majors to philosophy research are interested in philosophy.

Interesting, so their question is how to strengthen the training of philosophy, that is, how to read books on philosophy.

Over the years, I have formed an idea that we who study philosophy, especially western philosophy, still

Let's start by reading the works of German classical philosophy. The German classical philosophy here refers to18th century.

German idealism went from/kloc-0 to the end of the 9th century, that is, from Kant to Hegel. We are.

This is how I learned. Although the philosophy of this period was idealistic, it originated from Marxist philosophy.

The origin of Marx and Engels is affirmative, so it is necessary for our generation to learn philosophy. I

I think it is of great benefit that we have this foundation.

For the philosophy of this period, there was a rebellious mentality in the early 1980s, and Hegel was so extreme.

End, I have read a lot in the past, and I want to read new books, introduce new ideas and study this philosophy for a while.

Monographs and periodicals are not easy to publish. It is certainly right to learn new thoughts, especially when we are young.

It has been closed for many years, and it is more important to pay attention to the introduction of new ideas at the beginning of opening up. But academically,

These new thoughts are rooted and active, and German classical philosophy is an important part of this root.

. Now it is clear to all that Sartre, the most fashionable man in those days, was almost associated with "freedom".

And his "freedom" is the theoretical exertion of Kant's philosophy, and so is the "freedom" in this sense.

Maybe not as happy as some people thought at that time, but this is a very serious problem, a little jittery.

It means walking on thin ice, because it is inseparable from "responsibility".

With the introduction of new thoughts, people gradually talked about existentialism, Heidegger and Foucault, and now they talk about it again.

We began to talk about Levinas and Deros, and gradually, our philosophy kept pace with the times.

It is good to be in line with international standards. It is self-evident that it was not very in-depth at first, and even a little different.

However, things will gradually become accurate and in-depth. It should be said that the books of these characters are not very good.

What I read is also difficult to read abroad.

The main difficulty in reading these books is that they all contain rich historical knowledge. Without this,

Some students may understand the words, but they can't grasp the ideological content, so it is not easy to connect them ideologically.

To the philosophical level.

In the 1990s, people loved to talk about Heidegger, and his books naturally attracted us because of Heidegger.

Karl emphasizes timeliness and historicity, which is similar to China's traditional Confucianism, and his "human life is poetic"

"The Earth" is very similar to China's traditional Taoist thought. This is because philosophical thinking varies from time to time.

Today, regardless of China and foreign countries, there are places that can pass; But as far as Heidegger's ideological origin is concerned, it cannot be separated from Europe.

The tradition of African philosophy, although he has a lot of criticism of this tradition, his attitude is negative, but he himself has

I saw something valuable in the philosophy of Kant and Hegel. After being and time, he immediately

Published "Kant and Metaphysical Problems", when German academic circles were cursing Hegel, and the sea

Dege also affirmed Hegel's great contribution. Now our descendants come to read their books and feel deeply that there are many.

Place, Heidegger did talk about the Tao that has been included in Kant's and Hegel's philosophy but has not yet played a role.

Reason. It is not that Heidegger's thought developed after reading Kant and Hegel's books, but

It means that if our descendants also read Kant and Hegel well, it will be very helpful to understand Heidegger.

Help! By the same token, reading Heidegger's books well is very important for understanding the current "postmodern" philosophy.

This will also be beneficial.

For example, "postmodernism" talks about "fracture" and "space", which seems to be the same as from German classical philosophy to the sea.

Dege's exposition of "time" and "history" is very different; Of course it's very different. However, we are the only philosophers.

From the perspective of studying history, we still think that their logic can still be communicated. Classical philosophy takes "time" from

In the concept of "space", because the concept of "space" at that time was Newtonian mechanics, and "time" came from

This "space" stands out in its "pocket (frame)", showing its own "indivisibility"

The spirit of "endless life" in classical philosophy embodies this time and historical principle.

Heidegger's contribution is that in this principle of "time" and "history", he emphasized "finiteness"

The concept of "death" takes Hegel's "finiteness" a step further in the thought of "infinity", and does not

"Finite" is dead. It is a world of experience, and it also means "noumenon" and "death".

Nor is it a general change of material form, but it has metaphysical significance, which makes "time" enter "

After "ontology", "space" is accepted into the problem of "ontology" and has metaphysical significance. this

This kind of meaning is exactly what the "postmodern" gentlemen in France are doing now. We need to start from the "ontology"

After the "space" problem to understand their work, otherwise they will return to Newton's concept of mechanical space.

This may be something they don't want to do. As for the specific operation process, is there anything they can't grasp?

This is a specific research problem.

French philosophy also thinks deeply about the problem of continuity, even Berg, who emphasizes "continuity" the most.

Sen, also can't say that he didn't see the problem of "broken". Anyone who likes philosophy knows that he put forward a "continuity"

The concept of "time". "Continuous" means "continuous cutting" and "inseparable". The concept of

It is indeed "ancient". As we know, the "atom" proposed by ancient Greek atomists was originally "no"

The meaning of "divisible", so what did Bergson say more, which is commendable?

You see, the ancients once thought about the problem of "inseparability", but they had no idea why it was "inseparability"

The explanation only says "flawless". There is no seam, it can't be opened, and it is "seamless". Say, "No.

"Gap" is based on imagination. How can there be something sewn in the world? There is no windtight wall. cypress

Gehlsen changed his thinking to understand the reason and basis of "indivisibility". He said that continuity is "inseparable"

Cut ",not because it is" too simple "and" monolithic ",but because it is" seamless "

"It's too complicated", and various "factors" are intertwined. You have me and I have you, so you insist.

When it is cut off, "it" is not "it" and its "nature" has changed. "Continuous"

Time is a matter of quality, not quantity. So, you see, Bergson is also involved.

Speaking of "disconnection", if the "tangled chaos-chaos" is disconnected, there will be one world after another.

Things that occupy different properties of space, but in the initial stage of this concept, Bergson's work focuses on

Explain the "chaos" of his concept of "continuity". As for what appeared in space, he attributed it to.

The mechanical world, I think, the thinking of our future generations will think that these concrete things with space are

In the sense of "in time", it will not be all mechanical, but will be understood in a more fundamental sense.

Whether "concrete things" include "infinity" in "finite" and "connection" in "discontinuity"; more

It is "finite" in "infinity" and "discontinuous" in "connection".

So, is "space" understood as "postmodernism" in the fundamental sense of philosophy?

Questions to discuss?

These meanings may be too difficult for "freshmen". I just want to say most.

Even young people like philosophy, they also like those new schools and trends of thought, plus the current "fracture"

I have always heard that "history" and "time" can be written off, or just "dead learning"

In fact, as long as you read these people's books carefully, you will find that the outstanding married people in "postmodern" are rich.

Learning a lot and being knowledgeable, from "not reading" to creating "post-post-post-post" modernity, is undoubtedly a fantasy.

Open. "

The reason why I often emphasize the significance of studying German classical philosophy is that there is another way to consider.

I used to tell my students that German classical philosophy in 18 and 19 centuries is more professional.

Mature philosophy, at that time, philosophy gradually became a major, and for individuals, it became specialized.

Professional, you can specialize in philosophy teaching when you enter the school, not just the so-called philosophy professor in a broad sense.

, generally not called philosopher (who). According to my experience, as a discipline, philosophy "

Systematization has been strengthened.

I specialize in ancient Greek philosophy, and when I did this work, I already had an ordinary philosophy.

Basic knowledge, but when writing the first book "A Study of Pre-Socrates Philosophy", I can only do some historical materials.

I wrote my second book Socrates and his philosophy after sorting out the materials, but I dare not go on.

Written; After that, I studied modern European philosophy, and constantly reviewed and tutored from Kant to Hegel.

The philosophical thought of this paragraph, when I was working on the topic "Two Ways of Thinking in Western Philosophy: Science and Religion"

, and write this part of ancient Greece, the weight of philosophy has increased, and also dare to write to Paula.

Figure, Aristotle. After repeating it up and down several times, I confidently told the students

Starting from the philosophy of Kant or Hegel, I am used to reading philosophical books.

Reading their books can help you understand what "philosophy" is faster and more directly.

Of course, this is not the rule. Every teacher has his own way of teaching students how to get started. I chose this one.

The way will make students encounter difficulties as soon as they come up, because Kant and Hegel's books are notoriously difficult to read. I

I didn't want to scare students from the beginning; I found it difficult at first, but I am not afraid of difficult books in the future.

Because philosophical books are different from literary works after all, only very special people take philosophical books to "relax".

There is one more question to explain to the students. The philosophy of Kant and Hegel is usually criticized as divorced from reality.

, is the philosophy under study, this criticism is of course very pertinent and reasonable. Philosophy walks into the lecture hall of the university,

To become a "professional" "occupation", you will deliberately create your own unique world and emphasize your own characteristics.

So as to be divorced from other knowledge and life practice. This is a practical problem. I always thought there were some things in Britain and America.

Philosophy is too professional. I understand that the reason why they do this is to stabilize themselves in college with skills that others can't.

Living in my own teaching chair may be a misunderstanding, but I have this impression for a long time. It's closer now.

It is French philosophers who actually live.

Of course, hiding in the study and being divorced from reality is not only a practical problem, but also a theoretical problem.

. The thinking of Kant and Hegel emphasizes that "philosophy" should be "pure" and "pure", which is "pure"

Refers to the exclusion of all empirical, passive and acceptable factors. It has been emphasized since Plato and Aristotle.

This kind of "pure initiative" has been brought into full play by Kant and Hegel, so that reality, sensibility,

The problem of intuition, in this philosophical system, is always difficult to solve, although after Hegel, until Houthi.

Eh, both emphasize "intuitive rationality" and "intuitive rationality", but this "intuition" is still "active"

How "pure" "philosophy" accepts "passivity" needs further study.

Yes

It is very interesting to talk with "freshmen" about how to read philosophy books, and it is also a way of continuous conversation.

We'll talk about it later. (Written on February 9, 2000, 65438)

Ye Xiushan: Researcher, Institute of Philosophy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

Ye Xiushan's Collection of Western Philosophy (1998-2002).

[Keywords:] Ye Xiushan

10. 1 1.2002

It is difficult to draw a clear line between philosophy and the history of philosophy. Learning philosophy doesn't necessarily mean learning all the history of philosophy. If you study philosophy, you can learn a book, a school and a great philosopher. Teachers can also help you choose according to your own situational interests. You can learn about philosophy, including the history of philosophy, by studying this person and a school. Of course, this does not include details, but an outline. Basic issues can be understood, and important issues will also be involved. In a sense, it may be a shortcut to learning philosophy. This is the method experience accumulated by predecessors. Based on this, you can go anywhere and be interested in all kinds of knowledge, but you can't change your religion. This purpose is how to get out of this book and how to come back. Since you have entered the philosophy department of Peking University, it is necessary for me to exist in this field of philosophy. Where I exist, there is my place, that is, I will choose from the books I recommend.

Let's read German classical philosophy from Kant to Hegel. Why is it called classical? (It's just called classical philosophy in China) Because I have studied their books, I understand what philosophy is and what I want to do. In the past, we just looked outside to see what philosophy was doing. Now, we are going to enter the door of philosophy, so German classical philosophy is the only way to get started. There are many schools of philosophy, and their ideas about philosophy itself are quite different. They can have different ideas and different understandings, but they must be well-founded, and the research from Kant to Hegel should be put in.

"Philosophy is the way to grasp the world", so to speak, but on what basis, what is the way to grasp the world and how to grasp it? Or the most general way to grasp the world, but what is the most general, what is the most common and what is conceptual, so the concepts given to us every day are far from enough. Only through Kant's so-called philosophical concept and universality can we have a special understanding. They know more and think more than the average person. I'll tell you what philosophy is useless, or you should learn it yourself. When we form our own concept of "what is philosophy", we still have to study it ourselves and read their books without prejudice. Only in this way can I understand what philosophy is. Philosophy has its own training and problems.

Let me briefly introduce what Kant and Hegel have said and why they have covered the basic problems of philosophy. The basic history of philosophy is summarized.

Kant's main works are Critique of Pure Reason (A version 178 1 and B version 1787), Critique of Practical Reason (1788) and Critique of Judgment (1789). Of the three books, Critique of Pure Reason is a program and a foundation work, but it is more difficult. The three books have different emphases (Critique of Practical Reason focuses on morality and Critique of Judgment focuses on aesthetics), but as far as philosophy is concerned, the three books are a complete philosophy and should be read together. The so-called Kant's critical philosophy is that they are all investigating the role of reason. Kant is a rationalist, and his criticism of pure reason laid the foundation of his critical philosophy.

This book represents a change, changing the perspective and position of people who do philosophy. He himself called it the Copernican Revolution. This involves a basic attitude of philosophy, a philosophical attitude that dominated in the past: to grasp the world, we must first know the world, know the world through feelings, then summarize, synthesize, analyze and refine the feelings, and then summarize the laws. Grasping the world means grasping these laws, and learning knowledge means grasping the laws of objective things. With laws, you can never change from sects. This law is universal, but where does it come from? In a sense, experiments, analysis, synthesis and summary are needed to form a generally effective and reliable rule method. Rules have become a system and a science. Philosophy tells us that knowledge must come from feeling, and the so-called science is abstracted from experience, so this is the foundation of knowledge, and experience, theory and rules should be summed up by accumulating experience.

However, Kant reversed all this in Critique of Pure Reason. The foundation of this knowledge is not solid, and it is built on sand. From ancient Greece, it was put forward that feeling is unreliable, feeling can deceive people, feeling can change, and feeling cannot provide reliable experience. The most famous is the proposition that the sense of movement is unreliable, and the Zeno paradox that the arrow does not move. How to pass an infinite number of points in a limited time feels no problem, and how to prove it in theory. Feeling provides an object, theory is the subject, and it is the credit of the Greeks to separate the subject from the object. According to common sense, the subject is around the object, and understanding should conform to the reality of the object, but at the philosophical level, there is a problem. You can't prove that all the experiences and feelings are reliable. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason made a revolution on this issue, which made the object feel around the subject. This is the so-called Copernican Revolution. Bacon believes that human knowledge is like bees gathering honey, and knowledge is produced by brewing. After we have materials, we have to process them before we can turn them into knowledge. According to this idea, knowledge actually has no reliable foundation and no ultimate reason. There is no theoretical guarantee. Only common sense and empirical reliability. From Bacon in England to Hume, we all raised a question: Everything is just an agreement and a habit. The science building thus established is unstable. There is no way to prove that it will be like this. Hume is a person who directly faces Kant, and his Critique of Pure Reason is aimed at this problem. I can't reason by feeling. Reasoning requires infinite experience, not once. Now let change revolve around reasoning.

Another goal of Kant, the Copernican Revolution, is not only about form, but also about content. Science must have content. In Critique of Pure Reason, he also proposed to transform formal logic. The current epistemology is not formal logic but scientific logic, which not only studies the inevitability of form, but also accepts content, which comes from experience. These two things should be combined, and neither can solve the problem alone. It is on the basis of doubting experience that empiricists attach the most importance to logic because it is reliable. The rationalists in continental Europe only care about society, life and the value of life. Kant believes that logic cannot come from sensory experience, and logic only cares about inevitability, that is, transcendental comes from the past, regardless of content, and comes from inference. This prior does not depend on experience, nor is it summed up from experience. Philosophy needs experience, but people who study philosophy can't be required to exhaust all their experience to learn philosophy. In philosophy, things that do not depend on experience are considered (not without experience). Kant's revolution does not want to get rid of either side of experience and logic. Science must have experience. Kant's pure solution is that my scientific content is empirical, but it comes from reasoning, and the necessary knowledge with empirical content is based on transcendence. Philosophy means that our science is inevitable and based on reasoning, not just the habit that Hume said. Kant defends the greatness and inevitability of science here. It is pointed out that science is directional and well-founded. The basis of knowledge is transcendental, not from experience, but from content, not pure logic.

Copernican revolution means that perceptual things that can be accepted by reason can be inferred, and this inference is not transferred by concrete perceptual experience. Physical chemistry and so on have a priori basis. Reason holds the initiative here, and reason is the legislator. What reason doesn't accept is the thing itself. What comes in is all phenomena and appearances acceptable to human senses. These can be objects of knowledge. The task of philosophy is to establish rational authority in the kingdom of experience. Kant maintained the legislative power of reason, accepted the experience of being willing to follow reason, and formed a kingdom of knowledge. Everything here can be inferred and reliable.

The initiative of reason is not only manifested in scientific knowledge, but also in morality and teleology. This is what Kant has to do in the field of this thing itself. Kant also said that we should limit knowledge and leave room for faith. This is what he did in his last two criticisms.

First, what is philosophy?

This is the most uncertain and frequently asked question to answer. Literally, "zhe" means smart, clever and reasonable in Chinese. For example, there is a saying in the Book of History: "If you know people, you will speak". Sometimes it is also synonymous with "wise man". Such as Zuo Zhuan: "Lai Qianzhe to avoid". The so-called "wise man" is also called "philosopher", which is the antonym of "fool". "Philosophers" are smart and kind, while "fools" are stupid and mean. The Book of Songs Xiaoya said: "Wei, a philosopher, called me a hard worker; Wei Pi is a fool and calls me arrogant. " Chinese characters "wisdom" and "knowledge" both come from "vector". That is, the arrow, which is characterized by quickness and accuracy, means that smart people know faster and more accurately than ordinary people. China had the word "philosophy", but he didn't have the concept of "philosophy". Philosophy comes from the ancient Greek word "philosophia", which means "philem" and "sophia". It was translated into Philosophy by Japanese scholar Western Zhou Dynasty.

Philosophy is the study of wisdom and understanding. But in real life, people who study philosophy often appear "stupid" and "absurd" because everyone has different standards of "intelligence". When the "fool" is thinking hard about the meaning of life, the wise man has arranged life very comfortably; The ancient Greek philosopher Thales looked up at the sky and studied astronomy. He accidentally fell into a dry well and was laughed at.

Can philosophy make people smart or stupid? The wise China ancients unified the two in one sentence: "Great wisdom is foolish".

What exactly is philosophy? Philosophy is not a religion, but it also gives people faith; Philosophy is not science, but it also endows people with truth; Philosophy is not morality, but it also inspires people to be good; Philosophy is not art, but it also gives people aesthetic feeling. Philosophy is not the specific subject mentioned above, but it is closely related to every specific subject. By comparison, we can understand what philosophy is.

1. In terms of depth, philosophy is a knowledge of inquiry. People live in the world and are not satisfied with knowing all kinds of things in front of them. "What is it?" There is also a strong desire to know "why?" The motive force of philosophical exploration is curiosity. From this perspective, children are the closest to philosophers. They keep asking "why", which often makes adults feel embarrassed. In life, most people only know the essence of many phenomena, without asking why. They only pay attention to flowers and fruits, branches and leaves, and do not pay attention to decisive roots and stems. Philosophy, on the other hand, requires people to get to the bottom of it. Sun Zhengyu said in Introduction to Philosophy: "Philosophical wisdom opposes people's ready-made acceptance of popular life attitudes, ways of thinking, values and aesthetic tastes, and opposes people sleeping in a hotbed where no one doubts and sticks to the old ways. Philosophy is the wisdom of reflection, criticism and change. " Philosophy can make people think deeper and see farther. The ultimate thinking on some big problems of people in trouble: for example, what is the world? Is the essence of the world material or spiritual? Who decides who is the relationship between matter and spirit? Is there any reaction between spirit and matter? What is human nature? What is human society like? Is there any law of development? How to explain people's subjective world and various spiritual phenomena? How to treat the value and significance of life? Thinking and solving these problems have made many philosophers and thinkers.

In truth, philosophy can make great people; Judging from the results, great people must have their own philosophy. Whether a person's theory is great or not is not self-styled, but is told to people after practice and testing. The village party secretary of Huaxi Village has successfully led all the villagers to become rich and well-off, and his ideas are also very unique. Theoretical circles have not been able to answer "what is socialism and what is productism?" When he asked this question, he already had his own answer: "Socialism means that all people in China live a happy life, and capitalism means that people all over the world live a happy life."

2. Broadly speaking, philosophy is called "the study of all kinds of knowledge". The research object of philosophy is the "universal law" of "the whole world", and there are philosophical problems in any specific subject, so there are branches such as economic philosophy, mathematical philosophy, social philosophy and political philosophy.

In real life, everything has a philosophical shadow. Broadly speaking, all social revolutions and constructions first occur in the philosophical sense. Lenin said, "Without revolutionary theory, there would be no revolutionary movement". Therefore, great revolutionary leaders will become philosophers: Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong. Socialist construction is also inseparable from the guidance of philosophy. China's great practice of reform and opening up began with a philosophical discussion on the standard of truth. The essence of "Deng Xiaoping Theory" guiding China's reform and opening up is the philosophical thought of emancipating the mind and seeking truth from facts. On the other hand, the big mistake is also the deviation of philosophical thought in the first place. For example, Stalin's purges and expansions started from the wrong viewpoint of "consensus theory". The guiding ideology of the "Cultural Revolution" is obviously metaphysics and idealism.

From a small point of view, only philosophy can answer the question of "settling down". A person's philosophy of life has changed, and his life will really change.

3. Philosophy is the essence of the spirit of the times, the core of all cultures, the embodiment of national spiritual life and the symbol of civilization maturity. Philosophy is the reflection of civilized human beings on their own destiny, which can guide human beings to rationally choose their own path.

What is the essence of today's era? One sentence can't cover it. But one of the most important aspects is "serving the people". This sentence is simple, but profound. All theories of Marxist philosophy point to this goal. Materialism's principle of "material first", epistemology's principle of "practice first" and historical materialism's principle of "masses first" are in the same strain. The development direction of society is to eliminate class and exploitation and let more and more people get freedom. Advanced political parties must conform to this trend and "represent the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the people". On the contrary, being divorced from the masses means being divorced from practice, materialism and idealism.

Everything we are doing now serves the spirit of this era. For example, the motive of "planned economy" in the past was "serving the people", but unfortunately it was not the right way. Practice has proved that "grasping the three civilizations together" and building a socialist market economy can effectively increase social wealth, arouse people's enthusiasm and guide people to build a gradually rational society, from "people don't harm me, I don't harm others" to "everyone for me, I for everyone" and then to "everyone loves me, I love others". Constantly overcome defects and make progress. College students' study at school is actually to study hard the ability to serve the people around the essence of the spirit of this era.

In fact, there are many answers to the question "What is philosophy", but everyone has been dissatisfied and still has to ask. This is the charm of philosophy. Some scholars believe that philosophy is the Olympics in the field of thinking and a knowledge that challenges the limitations of human thinking. At the same time, philosophy is closely related to our life, and it is inseparable knowledge, depending on whether you "pay attention everywhere". Therefore, we should treat philosophy like sports and combine "improvement" with "popularization".

Second, why do you want to learn philosophy?

A person's philosophical accomplishment marks his cultural taste; The philosophy of a political party is related to the success or failure of its cause; A nation's philosophical theory is related to its future and destiny. Engels said: "If a nation wants to stand at the highest peak of science, it can't be without theoretical thinking for a moment."

Why study philosophy? In a word: be a man. Liang Qichao said: "China's philosophy takes human studies as the starting point, and the most important thing is how people behave: how to behave?" As a "human", the most fundamental difference from animals is having a rich spiritual world. And "philosophy itself is the hometown of human spirit (Hegel)."

To be a man, we must increase our philosophical cultivation. Feng Youlan said: "Everyone should study philosophy, just as westerners should go to church. The purpose of learning philosophy is to enable people to become people, not to become some people. " Learning philosophy can make us become people, and learning other knowledge can make us become "some kind of people". We must be human first, then others.

To be a man, you must have lofty qualities. Beethoven, a master musician, once said: "Philosophy is the crystallization of charged essence; The goal of philosophy is to seek a foundation with basic principles, and the mind needs the help of philosophy to reach a lofty realm. " Noble people must get rid of mediocrity. Someone asked the philosopher Aristotle, "What's the difference between you and a mediocre person?" The philosopher replied, "They live to eat, and I eat to live." A person who aims at filling his stomach does not need philosophy, and a person who is content with mediocrity does not need philosophy. The university campus should be a place where elites gather and cultivate. College students should reject kitsch, set up a lofty mission and become the elite of society. The so-called "elite" is not a person who enjoys any privilege and shows his identity with luxury cars, but a person who bears special social responsibilities, has a philosophical mind and actively contributes strength and intelligence to social development and progress.

To be a man, you must have profound thoughts. Profound, that is, profound insight, can see the essence through phenomena and seek truth. In order to do this, some people have to spend their lives, even at the expense of their own lives. Although the road to truth is full of thorns, it still can't stop people from moving forward. The soul of a philosopher with a clear mind, full of wisdom and no distractions is happy, and this inner happiness is enough to offset all utilitarianism.