To some extent, I can attribute my initial thinking to thinking about subjectivity, or thinking about what I am and pursuing the task of knowing myself. Before we continue, I think it is necessary for me to explain what I really am. Just like this sentence, the first one I undoubtedly refers to the author who is writing something, while the second one is relatively conceptual, which makes us doubt ourselves. But what am I? It is easy for us to agree with what I am doing, such as recalling the past, I am happy for my friend's engagement, I raise my arm to shoot mosquitoes and so on. I am doing these things, but we don't know that I am doing these things. Maybe it's like we can't see the whole picture of ourselves because our eyes look at ourselves, and because we are "me", we can't see the real me. But if we admit that my own existence has no foundation (can't be proved), we can't deny its existence. Descartes said that when I was thinking, I was there because I was always thinking about something. This process of negation is just like Zhuang Zhou's dream butterfly in The Matrix, but this so-called most certain thing-me-is also so secretive that it is actually quite desperate in theory.

There is a classic question in philosophy: Who am I? Where did it come from? Where are you going? -From the problem itself, we can see its long history. After all, modernization is the mainstream now, and it is meaningless to ask people where they come from. Science will say that this is unscientific. Consciousness is the function of the brain. People will naturally disappear after death, and it is even more impossible to talk about people before sperm and eggs meet. In a word, my passion for this problem has been destroyed by science. After all, science has instilled a set of explanations in me before I am confused about life and death. But the fascinating science of who I am cannot be eliminated, precisely because this confusion has given us a more intuitive way, precisely because we feel me all the time (in an unspeakable way). Even if science claims that I am a brain, it can't explain the surprise it brings us.

Let me briefly talk about subjectivity. And I think this can be achieved by several questions: As we mentioned above, can we grasp the theme like a stone? I can't do it. Facing my nothingness, I feel more like I just need to exist. For example, we often talk about the soul. Do we really feel it? We can come up with smarter answers. Everything we feel is "myself", that is to say, "I" is the most basic attribute of everything we perceive, but we still don't know what I am. Asked with a smile, what is the difference between yes and no? Hegel once paid so much attention to negation, which is reflected in the differences, and its significance can be seen.

I want to clarify that I am thinking to show that my existence is absurd. Literally speaking, affirming "I am thinking" means affirming my existence. This reasoning is actually similar to the definition. This so-called backstepping is very strange. In the process of our real thinking, in what way do I want to ask "I"? Does it mean that we can intuitively feel "I" and its certainty is enough to realize the identity in the sense of intersubjectivity? If we really recall the process of thinking, we will find that "I" is always absent. I only appear in reflection, in other words, I am more linguistic and a common word with unclear meaning. Of course, some people here may retort that the soul only appears at this moment, and you can't find it when you recall it. We can look at this view from two aspects. First, even so, can such a "I" be known (generally this expression refers to the understanding in an empirical sense)?

On the one hand, we have no other examples to refer to. On the other hand, even at this moment, we can't reflect on the existence of "I". Therefore, to some extent, this rebuttal can only be further modified to explain my existence, that is, to classify my existence as something that appears in a new dimension (for example, the visual way can be considered as one dimension, the auditory way is one, and my existence is the form in the nth sense). But is it possible?

The second view is to give this rebuttal an affirmation. This kind of rebuttal actually makes me feel very kind. To some extent, I think so. Sartre and other metaphysicists have analyzed a model, and the first step is conscious things. Step two, I realized something. In the third part, I realized that I was meaningful. If you want to develop the fourth and fifth steps, you can push them yourself. The example given here only shows that I am always a real conscious person, and this conscious person has to keep retreating to some extent if he wants to capture himself. For example, when we stare at a tree, there are only trees in the whole world (or only trees can be admitted), but we know that it is-I am looking at a tree. In other words, "the world picture with only trees" should have an "I". But in fact, we can't add anything to that painting. We can realize that it is "I am looking at the tree" through the fusion of horizons-but then I appear behind the cognitive behavior. Don't be confused here. The "realized self" does not have the effect of proof, and the process of realizing me is a cognitive behavior. At this time, it is this cognized person that should really have the effect of proof, but it has not been recognized itself. By the time it is recognized, there are new acquaintances, and this "conscious me" will lose its meaning. We should pay attention to one thing in this discussion. Why is "conscious me" different? The reason is that the reason for saying "I am aware" is not sufficient. Except that the word "I" has been mentioned repeatedly, "I" has not exposed itself to any extent. In fact, as far as the current discussion is concerned, it is a gestalt and almost a delusion to say that "I" lies in the feeling at the moment.

Let's stop here and finally mention me in the physical sense. If a person openly claims that I am a corpse, then the ridicule can be imagined. In fact, psychological behaviorism has this tendency, and science has also taught me this tendency. However, if we discuss it from the perspective of philosophy (philosophy only refers to sex and wisdom), the body will certainly not be a visual body, because if so, all kinds of others in the world will not "self" one by one. In fact, it is more creative to think that I am a body. Phenomenologists have noticed that my body is fundamentally different from other people's bodies, and my body provides me with an opportunity to alleviate meaningless embarrassment. But on the whole, it is unreasonable to think that the essence of "I" is due to my body. After all, the imagination in consciousness and the flow of words generally do not belong to the body.

Let's not talk about the relatively professional topic below-in fact, we can simply say that I must exist, because we need the existence of "I" as a prerequisite for chatting or pursuing interest. To some extent, when it comes to meaning, I must exist. In fact, before we began to think about subjectivity, we had an idea about me. In fact, as far as daily life is concerned, it is difficult to ask "Do I exist?" For example, if you ask someone, do you think you exist? If he is your friend, he will not hesitate to answer you. Of course I exist. If you are a stranger, you are likely to return to a mental illness. In daily language, "I" is more of a state of being alive and not being oppressed. I am just a vague feeling of "inner desire"-this academic concept is the personality concept of psychology.

Our various desires: the desire for milk when we fall to the ground, the desire for nipple touch on our lips, the desire for proper temperature and touch on our bodies, greater love for toys, budding love for youth, and possible nostalgia for our parents when we leave home. )

This is an introduction to this subject,

I am original, I hope I can help you.