Reading Zhuangzi's Homogeneity Theory, there is such a sentence, which is not very easy to understand, and I am also confused when I read it.
Literally, we can look at the full text of this passage: "If you refer to a metaphor, you don't mean it; if you don't, you don't mean it." A horse is not a horse, a horse is not a horse. A finger of heaven and earth; Everything is a horse. "It is not difficult to see that this kind of stagger should be quite understandable, because the key point is in the last sentence," heaven and earth refer to one thing, and everything is a horse ",virtual and real, virtual and virtual, referring to what is not meant, and the horse is not a horse. Zhuangzi means that the universe is unified and a whole, and the forms of all things are inseparable. Well, Zhuangzi, whose atmosphere is high-end, writes with great depth and level!
However, after studying Zhuangzi's old friend Keiko and Keiko's student Gongsun Zilong, I found that Zhuangzi doesn't seem so free and easy, and the theory of homogeneous things has become a debate book. What are you arguing about? Point! Horse! Just these two things! All China's linguistics, logic and philosophy began here. For thousands of years, we have been troubled by the glib words of these three people, and the three of them didn't notice that the enlightenment of China's philosophy turned out to be the bickering of brothers who couldn't sleep.
Zhuangzi and Keiko will not say, "If you are not a fish, how can you know the happiness of the fish?" "If I am not that son, how do I know that I don't know the happiness of fish?" Do you understand the mood of this unlucky thing and fish? If I were a fish, I would cry to death if I listened to your nagging every day. Many people may not know about Sun Longzi, but everyone may know that I said "a white horse is not a horse". In fact, this is not a worry-free product. In his prime, Zhuangzi was too old to argue with Zhuangzi. So he thought of a way. I can't compete with you, can I? Then I'll write a book to argue with you. Well, I just want others to see it. When you argue with me, you must hold on to my words. No, what I wrote, although the theme is unique, can be read and solved a thousand times. If you argue like this, I can't find any contradiction logically. In fact, Zhuangzi wrote the same thing. Always one word. If you want to distinguish me, there is no way!
Well, let's talk about what these sons are fighting for.
Note that the above words are as simple as possible. If the following words hurt your head, it's none of my business. You have to see for yourself.
For example. Look at Zhuangzi Keiko, Confucius and Mencius. It all starts with fables. It is easy for people to accept a truth and turn it into a story. This is what I want to express next.
Then A raised her finger, pointed to the moon and said to B, "What is this?"
B said, "This is the moon."
A said, "No, this is my finger."
A asked C again, "What did you say?"
C said, "It's a finger."
A said, "No, this is the moon."
Armour asks Ding again: "What do you say this is?"
Ding learned the lessons of B and C, so he grabbed A's finger and said, "Did you say that?"
A said no, and Ding decided to answer, "It's the moon."
A said, "You are wrong again. I said it was the moon, Chanjuan, Yutu, Guanghan and Wangshu, but it was not the moon. "
B, C and D were all startled.
The above story, of course, is fiction. If I am really afraid of being killed by three people, it is actually a metaphysical problem in philosophy.
The word "finger" has several different meanings:
1.A's "finger" to B is a symbol and the first step I want to express. It can be a kind of body movement, language or words, here is my finger;
2. The "moon" that A said to C, that is, the specific thing that my symbol is aimed at, is the moon here;
3.A's various appellations to D represent different meanings of this thing, that is, the meaning of "gist" and "gist". For example, it may be "wide cold", which means cold, or it may be "Chanjuan", which means human reunion. That's it. I think everyone should understand these points, but the word "meaning" has different meanings and meanings. The ancients could often distinguish between these two words, while modern people generally confused "meaning" and "meaning". Therefore, the "reference" here is divided into deep and concise "reference" and flowing "reference";
4. The actions taken by Party A to Party B, namely "pointing", "pointing" and "pointing", only describe an action and behavior we have taken to things;
You see, in an article, a finger has so many meanings. I hope you're not dizzy. Listen to me.
If we condense the meaning represented by the above-mentioned "finger" into a vocabulary that we can understand, perhaps the difficult and obscure articles of Zhuangzi and Gongsun Zilong will become easier to understand. The first kind of "finger" is regarded as a symbol, because it is a language (or body language) or a literal thing, so we can define it as "address"; The second kind of "finger" represents a material entity, so I named it "existence", indicating that it is a practical thing; The third kind of "meaning" represents the intrinsic meaning of things that actually exist. Because there are shades of meaning, I call what floats on the surface "meaning" and what converges inside "meaning". The fourth kind of "reference", since it is behavior, can be called "reference" or "reference". With these specific symbols, we turned to the Great God's articles, but it is estimated that Zhuangzi would jump with anger if he knew what was going on under the spring. "I'm just saying, words are not important, what is important is the unity of heaven and earth. You also subdivided the words for me. It's a pity, it's a pity, it's really old and the world is getting worse! " Well, let's ignore his wordiness and focus on our research.
Let's look at Gongsun Zilong's instruction theory. Of course, to understand it, we must first understand his other five books. There are six books in this book: Traced House, White Horse, Reference, Flexibility and Hard White. To understand the theory of referring to things, we must first understand the theory of name and reality, Bai Jian's theory and the theory of flexibility. Only in this way can the theory of referent be solved. It is called root, firm as stem, soft as branch, and refers to leaf. As for "On White Horse", it is actually to condense "Theory of Name and Reality", "Theory of Hard White" and "Theory of Flexibility" into an article with examples. It can be said to be a "flowering work". Therefore, Gongsun Zilong is famous all over the world for his theory of "white horse is not a horse", and that's how he came. But I don't want to guide you to read and understand this book completely. If you are interested, I can explain these strange articles in detail later. Here is just an explanation of the general outline to illustrate the point I want to express in this article. Since ancient times, many people have explained the theory of reference, and I am also a family. If there are different arguments, we can discuss them. It should also be noted that in Zhuangzi's and Gongsun's articles, the words "thing" and "horse" have the same meaning as the second kind of "finger", because the article should have aesthetic feeling, so it is not logical to "point fingers" throughout, so everyone already thinks it is very obscure, so the word "thing" that should be written should be replaced by "finger".
"Things don't refer to things, but refer to things", which is the general outline at the beginning of the theory of referring to things.
Isn't it puzzling? What are you talking about? It's just like nonsense. I think most people think so. Don't worry, change it to what I explained before and have a look. The meaning of "things do not exist, but do not exist" is obvious. "Everything just exists, and the name of things is not existence itself." We can further say that "the existence of things is not the connotation of things themselves, and the connotation of things and existence itself are not the same thing."
"There are no fingers in the world, nothing to say; Without reference, there is nothing in the world. Can you say that? " This is the second sentence of "The Theory of Pointing Things".
"If the whole world has no appellation, then things cannot be called things; If it is not the title, we can't recognize the material in the world, then can we still be accused? " . When we say that the first sentence refers to the general outline of material theory, it should actually be the second sentence, which highlights the dual necessity of language and real existence. If something can't be called, how do we know it?
"Refers to also, there is nothing in the world; Everything is also, everything in the world is also. Take the things in the world, nothing in the world, nothing ",this is the third sentence. This sentence is very important. Many people think that Gongsun Zilong wrote The Theory of Name and Reality to discuss the relationship between name and reality, so On Reference is about the relationship between the property of matter and the existence of matter itself, so the annotation of reference is basically about connotation and existence. In my opinion, connotation is not everything in the world, and I think Sun must think so. What didn't exist in the world? Is it the material itself, the material connotation or the language? Obviously, the only thing that didn't exist at first was the language itself, so the annotation here should actually be "addressing this thing, which was originally not available in the world;" Things themselves are real things in the world. "What should be the relationship between a name and an entity?" It is inappropriate to cater to things that don't exist in the world with things that already exist in the world. "The theme is clear. Matter is the carrier of name. Without matter, there can be no name, and names are attached to matter.
The following discussion of "the deixis of things" mainly expounds and demonstrates these three paragraphs. Let's forget about them for the time being. As can be seen from the above, the disputes between Confucianism, Taoism and famous artists (Mohism) in the Spring and Autumn Period basically took a lifetime to argue with each other. Because of the different fundamental views, these three schools cannot be integrated. However, it can be seen that after the reunification of Qin and Han dynasties, a hundred schools of thought contended, and Yu Confucianism and Taoism still existed. The Book of Songs advocates the learning of Huang Lao, that is, Taoism. After the Han and Wu dynasties exclusively respected Confucianism, Buddhism from the west gradually arrived, and the new relationship between Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism had to be based on the interests of the rulers, and extensive surgery was carried out on the whole body. At this time, the ancient form of existence that can be called "home" disappeared, and instead, "religion" became a brand-new subject, and its ideology also changed fundamentally. This is the origin of Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism, which has since formed the cultural foundation that ruled China culture for nearly two thousand years.
But unfortunately, although these three are called "teaching", they have not reached the height that religion should have. Although all religions in the world serve the ruling class in essence, the word "faith" has never changed. Religion should be based on doctrine, man is the purpose, and God is the unshakable foundation. And China's religion has become the weight of the negotiation between man and god, and naturally it has lost its religious significance. However, we have lost more than that. Philosophy should have been born from this. Starting from the world cognition, ancient Greece, ancient India and China all formed the seeds of philosophy in the Spring and Autumn Period, but only Greek philosophy was inherited relatively independently from religion, and our Confucianism, Taoism and Ming (Mo) were out of touch at this point.
We should not underestimate the role of philosophy. All scientific laws are based on philosophy, because philosophy is the basis for us to look at and understand the world.
Too much gossip. Now just talk about the Spring and Autumn Period. Generally speaking, Confucianism emphasizes "name", Taoism pursues "Tao" and famous scholars study "fen". What are name, Tao and separation? Confucian "name rectification" holds that "name rectification" means that "name" is above existence; Taoism's "seeking Tao" holds that "Tao" is the ultimate principle of all things in the world, and only seeking the right path from the essence of matter is fundamental. Language and writing are not worth mentioning and can be discarded. Famous scholars believe that existence is the foundation of matter, and language and words are things that exist without "existence", but they are indispensable, because only language and words can describe existence, and existence can only have its meaning through language and words.
Therefore, in these articles, we can find that arguments about references and things can be seen everywhere. This concept was not put forward by Zhuangzi or Gongsun Zilong, but was formed in the long-term debate of famous artists in past dynasties.
In his exposition, Sun directly refuted Confucianism's emphasis on names over things and Taoism's emphasis on things over words. The same is true of Zhuangzi, who said, "Don't refer to it by metaphor, don't refer to it by metaphor." This is a mockery of celebrity remarks. Before explaining Gongsun Zilong's argument in detail, let's take a look at what Zhuangzi said. The article on homogeneous things raises the question of the relationship between "word" and "thing". Can "words" really reflect "things"? Zhuangzi thinks not. Therefore, in a later article, Zhuangzi would say, "Words cannot be said, but words are not true". In fact, it means that this practice and strict naming of foreign objects by Gong Sunzilong are not feasible. Why? Zhuangzi also said before: "Tao is hidden in small achievements, and words are hidden in great glory." Why Cheng Xiao? Because later Zhuangzi would say, "The ancients knew everything." You don't have the time and energy to know everything, so once you achieve something, you will "go straight to the point", that is, small success. However, once words are expressed in language, they will be hidden in Yu Rongguang. There is a problem here: since there is no way to achieve great success through knowledge, Tao will be hidden in small success.
Is there no way to understand Tao? Of course not. The first sentence of Laozi's Tao Te Ching says: "Tao can be Tao." There is a way for us to know the Tao and get it. Doesn't that contradict the last one? In fact, it is not contradictory, but our approach is wrong. We can't get this word through "knowledge" or "discourse". But there are other ways. This is what this article "Homogeneous Things Theory" wants to tell us. Therefore, this article "Homogeneous Things Theory" mainly focuses on two issues. First, we can't get the word through "knowledge" or "words". Therefore, Zhuangzi made great efforts to say that the original intention will become intentional, because of what? Not love, but knowledge. Then he said that "knowledge" will be "extreme", which is a "small success", and there will be prejudice and right and wrong.
This part, the paragraph we have seen so far, is almost finished. Zhuangzi has been denying "knowledge". Then there will be another problem below: since you can't get the Tao through "knowledge", how can you get the Tao? There is a sentence above that says, "There is nothing better than light". Then what is "Ming"? The following will say: "To tolerate all kinds of mediocrity in order not to use it, this is called' clear understanding'." This is to tell you how to get the Tao if you don't get it through "knowledge" or "words". As for the specific meaning of this "no need", we will talk about it slowly later.
Therefore, Zhuangzi said here: "If metaphor refers to non-metaphor, then non-metaphor refers to non-metaphor; A horse is not a horse, a horse is not a horse. " It means denying the way that Gongsun Zilong knew foreign objects through strict naming. I think a better way is to deny "names" and learn about foreign things directly through them. From a certain point of view, Zhuangzi's "theory of homogeneous objects" can be said to be an extension of Sun's "theory of original names". Therefore, Zhuangzi used the metaphor of "referring to things instead of things" and "a horse is not a horse" here, and then said that "everything in the world refers to a horse".
Don't misunderstand this sentence. If we understand it as "there is only one name between heaven and earth, and everything can be equated with a horse", this is "Wuqi". And Zhuangzi is not "homogeneous", but "homogeneous". Here, "heaven and earth are one finger" and "everything is a horse" means that although there are many names of heaven and earth and countless things, we can all look at them from the perspectives of "pointing to non-pointing" and "horse is not a horse". Understanding things depends on the things themselves. Do everything like this. "You can see it this way." And think about it again, if we deny "name" and know foreign things directly from ourselves, will it be much easier from the feeling? That's why Zhuangzi said so smartly: "Heaven and earth are one finger, and everything is a horse."
This, after all, conflicts with the concept of Gongsun Zilong, but it is really strange that there is no contradiction. After all, it is the opinion of two schools.
The contradiction between Tao, name and Confucianism, that is, some "things" or "people" occupy language as appellation, which makes language a name that loses its referential function, and the chief culprit of the appellation "unreference" is Confucian's "rectification of name", "birthright" and even "mingjiao". Since appellation is no longer appellation, "thing" can no longer be correctly referred to. "Zhi" is no longer a title, and "thing" is no longer an existence, which leads to the situation that neither title nor existence is a reference. Zhuangzi and Gong Zilong both put forward their own sharp criticisms. Speaking of which, everyone should understand what this debate was about two thousand years ago. From a philosophical point of view, it is really profound. But for us ordinary people, we feel that these people have too rich material life, so we do nothing all day and talk nonsense. However, it seems that some grandfathers have gone a little too far, not only for themselves, but also for thousands of years of culture in China, which makes people feel sad from time to time. Until now, we know that after the West arrived in Greece, there were still crazy people like Hegel, Kant and Nietzsche. What about ourselves? Since Laozi and Zhuangzi, there has been no philosophical debate (philosophical debate is philosophical debate, and philosophy is philosophy, not to say that there is no philosophy in China's later generations), and perhaps there is Wang Yangming, a great scholar in the Ming Dynasty. Unfortunately, he and his thoughts never left the body of Confucianism, which really makes people sigh. ......
Write here for the time being and have a rest. . .