This article originated from the intermittent discussion with Ji-woo, and was infected by the illogical discussion about China people on the Internet recently, so I wrote this letter by hand. There is a small example of sophistry: two people came to visit me, one was clean and the other was dirty. I invited these two to take a bath. Who will wash them? Can answer a clean man, because he has developed the habit of taking a bath; Dirty people think there is nothing to wash. If you answer a dirty man, it is because he needs a bath; And clean people are clean and don't need to take a bath. Are dirty people going to take a bath or clean people going to take a bath? Or both, or none? Why are there contradictions? This is explained by our familiar way of speaking, that is, sophistry has fabricated a non-existent logical connection. That is to say, if A is originally, it is not necessarily B, but sophistry makes readers mistakenly think that if A is, it must be B through ingenious structural statements. Sometimes, if A is C, but B and C are mutually exclusive, this leads to a seemingly contradictory result. Specifically, "If a person is dirty, he will go back to take a shower" and "If a person has the habit of taking a shower, he will take a shower" are all wrong inferences. The necessary and sufficient conditions for a person to take a bath include: he needs to take a bath, he is willing to take a bath, and the owner has a bathroom at home. Only when these n conditions are considered and confirmed, can we correctly draw the conclusion that guests should take a bath. The contradiction reflected by the sentence in quotation marks stems from the insufficient conditions required for the conclusion to be established. But why should sophistry deceive readers? Why don't readers realize that the argumentation process is not rigorous? In fact,/kloc-99 out of 0/00 dirty people will successfully take a bath. So we use intuition to substitute experience into prediction, and the conclusion of predicting bathing is established. This is the difficulty of constructing a successful sophistry: if you say, "He went out today, then he died in a car accident." Of course, no one will think that the argument is rigorous, because the probability that event A and event B happen at the same time is really not high, so intuition tells us that this sentence is absurd, and reason can take the opportunity to tell us that many conditions other than A must be found to make B appear. (In fact, the logical positions of "he goes out" and "he is dirty" are the same, and they are only necessary conditions. The sophistry structure can't use such a sentence, but needs two or more sentences, "If a person is dirty, he will go back to take a shower" and "If a person has the habit of taking a shower, he will take a shower", which are in line with the intuition of the audience from experience, so that these conclusions can not be noticed. In the last paragraph, I have actually led the problem to intuition-intuition comes from the experience of "if A, then B appears with great probability", which may make us ignore that there is not necessarily a logical connection between A and B, and intuition is not a thinking process. When we use intuition, we don't think of specific language expressions. Intuition is similar to conditioned reflex, but in life, we seem to use intuition more than logic. Zhiyu inspired me to think about the source of intuition. As irrationality, it is widely used and can definitely be said to be the source of human instinct. 100 dirty people will successfully take a bath 99 times, and they will try to kill primitive people 998 times when they see tigers. If we use logic, we will try to find sufficient conditions to prove whether the tiger is a threat to me. Do we think it is a sick tiger? Is this tiger in a good mood? Will there be a glass curtain wall between me and the tiger? Think about it, it's probably over long ago. So primitive people developed such an instinctive tendency to react instinctively to the emergence of some phenomena that have been confirmed by experience (directly or indirectly) without thinking, which is intuition. Intuition does not need to think, which greatly shortens the reaction time. This shortening is bound to produce more or less side effects because of illogical reasons. For example, if the tiger didn't catch up with the primitive man, the primitive man wasted his strength twice. However, in 1000 similar incidents, the chances of 998 primitive people saving their lives increased, and only two primitive people consumed unnecessary physical strength. Which is more important? Natural selection will help us make the right choice as a species. On the one hand, intuition is necessary, on the other hand, logic is unnecessary and may increase unnecessary consumption. On the other hand, it is ultimately related to "why China people lack logic". The life of primitive tribes is very small, and there are few animals and plants around them. There are always only a few kinds of edible leaves and fruits, so you need to fear several kinds of animals, so logic becomes useless. Eat by intuition when you see fruit, and chase by intuition when you see the opposite sex, without logical analysis. At this stage, barbarians all over the world have no logic, do not need it, let alone want it. However, things have changed with the development of agriculture. China's society presents strong local characteristics, and people live in one place for many years because of their dependence on land. Mr. Fei Xiaotong said: "The result of eternal change is that people grow not only in acquaintances, but also in familiar places. Familiar places can include a mixture of people and soil for a long time. The ancestors are familiar with this place, and their experience must be the experience that future generations will get. Time is long from the pedigree, and the theory that everyone can gain experience is repeated in this way. There is the same drama on the same stage, and all the actors in this team need to remember only one opera. Their personal experience is equal to the experience of generations. Experience doesn't need to be accumulated, just keep it. " In this way, the problem is obvious. Because of its stability and lack of originality, local China has preserved unnecessary logic, just as it has preserved unnecessary words and memories (Fei Xiaotong's Writing in the Countryside and Writing in the Countryside Again talked about the uselessness of words), and also preserved the superiority of intuition. On the other hand, Greece, as a poor place, had to open up the ocean early and sail around the Mediterranean in small sailboats. Different geographical environments in different places make the Greeks constantly encounter new situations beyond their experience. In the process of dealing with new situations, intuition can no longer reflect its superiority, but logic rises rapidly, because it helps to overcome stereotypes, analyze the inevitable consequences of brand-new what you see, hear and do, and find the most favorable choice for yourself. Therefore, conscious logic originated in ancient Greece, and the appearance of sophistry does not explain the backwardness of logic, but this game of thinking has constructed a special contradiction, which precisely reflects the pursuit and progress of Greek logical thinking. This is how the great philosophers of the East and the West parted ways in the Axial Age, and the Greek tradition later expanded into an important source of the whole western way of thinking. So we found an explanation: China people lack logic because the long era of small-scale peasant economy makes China people do not need logic. Next, we bid farewell to Malinowski and functionalism, asking: the country was forced to open up and industrialization began for so many years. As modern people facing endless new situations, we need logic, but why do we still lack logic? Intuition, which used to be beneficial to primitive instinct, often puzzles modern people, and we are fighting instinct. For two examples, for primitive people, darkness means great unknown danger, so primitive people developed an intuition to avoid darkness, but for modern people, logic will tell us that the probability of danger in darkness is very low. For another example, primitive people did not have a sophisticated political-media system, but for modern people, the misleading caused by political media using intuition may greatly affect the interests of the public. David Strand said: The Revolution of 1911 left China with a timeless political culture, which was characterized by inspiring speeches, noisy gatherings and demonstrations in rough mines. This political culture of "Who has the loudest voice" may have originated from the Revolution of 1911, but it really developed in the hearts of Chinese people after 1949. The characteristic of this ruling party is to mobilize the grassroots and destroy the rational intellectual class through repeated mobilization. In fact, the people have not become real political subjects, and party mobilization is the only baton for the masses. Although the only strength is political parties and mobilization, the embodiment of political ecology is the mob as a group of excited people. This is going to pull Le Pen again. The irrationality of the group is actually illogical and intuitive. Follow the person with the highest voice and seemingly the most correct words. In mass movements, you don't need to strictly demonstrate your views. What the masses have no patience to listen to is a few flowery and short slogans and a tweeter. The intellectual class may still be able to maintain logic, but the right to speak has been eliminated. The Cultural Revolution completely disrupted the logical world, and China people who had been excited for a hundred years almost completely lost their ability to keep logic in political participation. The display of logic needs a mild mentality to eliminate the interference of emotions, which is destroyed by the popularity of mass movements. During the Cultural Revolution, Xiong Shili naturally said to himself over and over again in a park in Shanghai: "China culture is dead." It can be seen that at least Confucianism is suitable for logical activities in mentality) and the natural anti-logic in Internet culture (Weibo 140), how do you closely cite various conditions that make the conclusion stand? Shouting slogans is the best way to attract fans of shallow reading), and the illogicality of China network is particularly serious. Don't like talking about politics, that's all. I wonder why my writing style has become so rambling.