Reflections on Reading History of Western Philosophy
The whole history of western philosophy is like a vast starry sky, shining with the wisdom of various philosophers and the philosophical starlight of Socrates' philosophers. In the thoughts of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, the long river of western philosophy shines with rational light.
To tell the truth, when I read the book History of Western Philosophy, I was really entangled. On the basis of studying philosophy in high school, my mind is still half-paste and half-water, and I can't deeply understand the spirit of these philosophical sages. Here, I want to talk about my own views on the topic I am interested in: the debate between philosophical idealism and materialism between science and theology in the history of western philosophy.
In the introduction of the book: Russell said that philosophy is something between theology and science, which, like theology, contains human thinking about things that cannot be determined by exact knowledge; But like science, it appeals to human reason rather than authority. As for the proportion of these two factors in the philosopher system, every philosopher is very different; In the pre-Socrates period, theology and philosophy were combined in ancient Greek philosophy. In this history of philosophy, I read more heroic myths in Homer's time, looking for philosophy from them. In Aristotle's time, he tried to
Philosophy is as clear as scientific research. Regarding philosophy and beauty, Aristotle chose the latter, whether it is pure metaphysical speculation or strict logic observation and grasp of all things in nature. Explain philosophy from a scientific point of view and understand philosophy. However, only when they coexist to some extent can they form the characteristics of philosophy. Of course, for myself, I prefer philosophy to scientific rigor and grasp of nature.
It occurred to me that Russell said that philosophy is between science and theology. For us Marxist believers, this statement should undoubtedly be more firmly believed in the former and more acceptable to us. From the materialist point of view, the world is matter and its subject. For the study of matter, what we need is science, which is to understand matter from practice, not as illusory as theology. So I personally understand that philosophy is actually biased towards these two theories. More metaphysical idealism, I think, so I am thinking, and I think it is moving closer to theology. What they emphasize is just like the worship of heroes and gods in ancient Greece. These gods can change the world and history with their subjective will. More from the perspective of idealism. Marxist materialism and medieval simple materialism are moving closer to science. more
It emphasizes the study of philosophy with the spirit and attitude of positivism, and develops and enriches its consciousness by distinguishing matter from practice.
I think that in the primitive history of western philosophy, this debate between science and theology is embodied in two masters:
Plato and Aristotle, the two greatest philosophers in the history of western philosophy. They created all philosophical propositions, but there is such a huge boundary between them: Plato is a poet, and he is passionately experiencing the beautiful unity of the universe; Aristotle is a scientist. He uses calm reason to regulate the order of the cosmic machine. In their later years, in the world of _ _ _ _ _, almost all their ways of thinking run through human consciousness.
In the long history of western philosophy, I found that the development and progress of western world philosophy have been developed in a religious environment for a long time. Therefore, the development of philosophy has not left the influence of theology. Under the influence of theology, more rational philosophers think about the objective world. Plato wants to expel poets like Homer from his utopia. With the poet's power to touch every corner of the universe, it is time for his student Aristotle to study the world and understand science with a rational and scientific attitude. We found that philosophy began to shine with the light of reason. I suddenly understand a lot when I write here. In the initial stage of the history of western philosophy, it is not a dispute between materialism and idealism, but more a fanatical and perceptual understanding of religion and a rational and scientific understanding of philosophy. Of course, I admire Aristotle's research, and the distance between man and nature has narrowed. Among the three ways of understanding in human consciousness, namely, philosophy, religion and science, the power of scientific understanding is getting stronger and stronger, which also shows that the boundaries between human beings have become obvious. Aristotle inherited the calmness and rationality of his teacher Plato, but he abandoned passion and poets more thoroughly than Plato. When observing everything in the universe, he is more like wearing a microscope. He thinks that the whole universe is a physical or biological universe with rich order and so machinery. When he was looking for the cause of everything in the universe, he found the "immobile promoter" or "the first driving force". It can be said that Plato was completely immersed in a fantasy about beauty and found an "idea", while Aristotle introduced everything in the universe based on a calm observation of reality. I think this is also the reason why Aristotle's research was regarded as a classic by medieval ideological circles in the following centuries. However, I have more doubts, probably because I don't know Aristotle's thoughts deeply enough. I can't understand why his scientific and rigorous research, using a rational rather than religious point of view to study philosophy, was regarded as an authority by the feudal Vatican in the Middle Ages, and even had a long period of ideological imprisonment in the Middle Ages. So that the blood and courage of countless philosophers in the Renaissance broke the imprisonment of Aristotle's theory in the later period. This is what I don't understand. Why rational and scientific research has become the best weapon to suppress science under the religious background.
With regard to the reading of the history of western philosophy, I feel that I have only caught a glimpse now, and I have only a limited understanding of some thoughts of Aristotle and Plato. As for the influence on these thoughts, I think we must look at them from the perspective of development, combine the long river of western philosophy and its religious, historical and humanistic background with the overall thinking, and understand them with western thinking, so as to better understand their thoughts and their wisdom. I will continue to study the book History of Western Philosophy, find more doubts, enrich my present Marxist materialism, really enrich my understanding, develop my consciousness and better guide practice.
Reflections on Reading History of Western Philosophy (Part Two)
The History of Western Philosophy introduces ancient Greek philosophy to modern world philosophy, in which philosophers elaborated the main schools of thought in western history. To sum up, it is four words "the power of reason". Both Socrates in ancient Greece and the Enlightenment in modern times emphasized people's independent and rational thinking, which is essentially different from our traditional thought of China.
The first thing that western philosophy is worth learning is their way of thinking, that is, "logical reasoning". What is "logic"? Western philosophers believe that "logic" means that "one thing must be related to another. When one thing appears, we can infer another thing, and logic is created by human beings." How do western philosophers use "logic"? For example, Elijah scholars believe that "existence and thinking are the same thing, because everything that is inconceivable does not exist, and everything that does not exist is inconceivable" or that "nothing can be produced from nothingness and become nothingness, so change is relative, not absolute". In their conclusion, there is no empty theory, but very strict logical reasoning.
The second point that western philosophy is worth learning is that they pay attention to the reflection and thinking of human nature. Western philosophers generally believe that human beings have two unique things: emotion and reason. Plato believes that "this world is the world of ideas, the universe is the logical system of ideas, all knowledge is memory, and all learning is an awakening", emphasizing the "spiritual power" of people, which is commonly known as "idealism". Modern philosophers have further studied human nature. Hobbes thinks that "human beings have feelings of self-preservation", Locke puts forward that "human beings have three passions: desire, happiness and sadness", and "human beings take egoistic hedonism as their destination, and happiness and pain are moral teachers". These studies on human nature had a far-reaching impact on democracy and freedom in the later Enlightenment.
The third point worth learning from western philosophy is that they led philosophy to politics, influenced western politics and participated in the construction of western political system. It can be said that the western political system has a profound ethical and philosophical foundation, so the western political system has super stability in western countries. For example, Rousseau put forward that "people's feelings have absolute value, people are equal because of private ownership, freedom means obeying their own laws, and people give up their original freedom in exchange for citizenship." Modern concepts of "right" and "freedom" have been profoundly explained. This view is put forward by inheriting and developing the "right syllogism" of the British philosopher Hobbes. It can be seen that western philosophers have played a great role in the construction of politics, pulling philosophy from the religious world to the secular world and then to the political world.
Looking back on modern China, we were invaded by foreign powers because we didn't have a strong ship and a strong gun. Now that we have it, can we really catch up with Britain and America and realize the rise of the Chinese nation? I don't think this is enough. What China really lags behind is not the military, economy and politics, but the "popular support"! China still lacks an "ideological system" that can conquer people's hearts. This "ideological system" can not only combine China's national conditions, but also be far-sighted. China is a country without thinkers, and a country without thinkers is like a ship without a helmsman. Its future is full of dangers, accidents and unpredictability.
Reflections on Reading History of Western Philosophy (Ⅲ)
I have been reading the history of western philosophy intermittently recently, because of interest and because I feel it is necessary. Let's talk about why we should read some philosophy first.
Everyone may be influenced by Mao Jue and Ma Yuan, and when they hear philosophy, they will stay away. We should think about why this is so. We have no desire for knowledge, but we are afraid and alienated. Knowledge should be a powerful weapon to arm and sublimate oneself. If we hate what we have learned, it can only show that this knowledge has little to do with our lives, and it is difficult for us to realize his existence or his influence on our lives. If someone tells me that if he doesn't study advanced mathematics every day, he will feel uncomfortable. If he doesn't study every day, he will not sleep well and think he is crazy. I think such people are either crazy or genius. What about philosophy? The reason why we study philosophy is because we have put it into our spiritual bag, so it is always right to know more. As Mr. Hu Shizhi said, philosophy is the study of settling down. For example, the "dichotomy" that we often use in our life, the "three views" that we often talk about together, and even the political issues that we relish all belong to the category of philosophy. If we observe carefully, we will find that philosophy is everywhere, and this is precisely the greatness of philosophy: we will analyze small problems in detail and draw earth-shattering conclusions, which are very shocking.
Maybe everyone will think that the space above is too wide. Let me give an example to talk about the relationship between philosophy and our real life. For example, almost everyone thinks that democracy is a good thing and should be democratized as soon as possible, but is this really the case?
Democracy is a good thing, but does it suit us now? If the country proposes the rule of law now, I will definitely support it with both hands: but if the country says that universal suffrage is now realized and power is delegated to the people, I will swear to oppose it. It's not that we don't want democracy, nor that democracy is not a good thing. At this time, someone came out and said: China is not suitable for democracy, but should be power politics. We can understand the meaning of this sentence in this way: one day our eyes were hurt and we could not see anything. Quack told us that since we can't see, we shouldn't see the outside world again. This is nonsense. We oppose universal suffrage and radical democratic reform because we know that the great moment has not yet arrived. What conditions do we need to achieve true democracy? Let me give you a few examples first: When you have time, you can go to see Gore's and George W. Bush's speeches after they lost the election. They're great. There is a central idea that the country is independent of political parties, and he encourages his voters to support George W. Bush's policies and think of the country. Gore, as a defeated politician, we can't see his regret and loss, but more is a deep blessing to this country and this nation, which the people of China lack; In the twenties and thirties of last century, Argentina's economic strength was comparable to that of the United States, but in the second half century, we saw crying Argentina, where the politics of a few people and the politics of mobs took turns. Every political party gets popular votes by hating the last one. After taking office, it got rid of the last political group. In this way, every ruler will inevitably bleed to power again and again, and it will also bring down the Argentine economy. How can political instability develop the economy? In high school, the class leader was elected when the class started. Everyone chose a bully to fool him. The head teacher was so angry that he had to appoint himself. Taiwan Province Province has achieved democracy, but what is the situation now? A-bian shot himself, slandered the Kuomintang, and then voted to seize power. The situation of buying and selling tickets at the grassroots level emerged one after another. My story is over. I have no idea how you feel. We should have confidence in future democracy and be more patient. It is like a newborn sun, which will shine on the earth one day. So what can we do? I think we should start with education, improve the quality of citizens and the cultivation of the whole people, and let citizens have the consciousness of participating in and discussing state affairs. Now citizens don't have this awareness, but they need to participate constantly and exercise their abilities in this area. By the way, civic literacy has little to do with the level of degree knowledge. Perhaps in the west, as Reagan said: democracy has no genes and needs to be cultivated from generation to generation.
People who read "Thoughts on Reading the History of Western Philosophy" also read:
1. Reflections on the History of Western Philosophy
2. After reading the history of western philosophy.
3. Experience of reading the history of western philosophy
4. Reflections on Strange Tales from a Lonely Studio
5. Feeling after reading successful philosophy books
6. After watching the winning or losing.
7. Philosophical composition