I have been thinking about this problem since junior high school. Because of my sensitivity and fragility, I live in a normative way (what I should be) and a generative way (how I am). I grew up respectfully, being a "three-good student" without interruption, and marching towards the "ideal" step by step until the "ideal" was realized-I was admitted to the normal school and was envied by many peers. But there's always another voice in my heart. When I arrived at the normal school, this kind of thing broke out in an all-round way, and my adolescence was full of absurd confusion. After many years, I understand that this is an existential anxiety. My first composition in normal school is to ask: Why do people live?

This kind of questioning made me waver in different existential philosophies and formed what I called "Hamlet". Many times, the reason why I am not too persistent about fame and fortune stems from the deep questioning of existence rather than moral quality. This kind of questioning makes me particularly obsessed with modernist literature, which makes me calm in appearance but often suffers from torture in my heart.

I have always thought that I am particularly suitable for simple and monotonous work to balance my inner richness and sensitivity. Such as librarians, assembly line workers, etc. Deliver the body to the programmed work and let the soul flow in another place. But unfortunately, I became a teacher and embarked on a road that would never be stable.

Simple and monotonous work can easily provide a stable sense of satisfaction and accomplishment, which is related to the sense of accomplishment and specialization. But when I entered the profession of teacher, I was dismayed to find that it was impossible for a teacher to become a real profession in my lifetime. The professionalism of this profession is very vague, and it is a void full of many trivial events. What's even more frightening is that I'm back between canonical approximation and generative approximation. Due to the lack of professional standards, these approximations have become very random and chaotic.

The real occupation has boundaries, including boundaries with other occupations and boundaries with self-life. However, for teachers, the boundary with other occupations is not clear, and a non-normal student may be more suitable for the post of teacher than a normal student. It's not so much about major as about personality. The most terrible thing is that the teacher's career is endless, soaking for 24 hours-many nights, I stood on the podium in my dream, shivering. This kind of infinity often makes people feel scared, feeling that there is no life outside of professional life, you have nowhere to run, no one tells you to "get off work", and you have been working. I believe that many teachers are both escaping and have nowhere to escape, so in fact they are in an existential embarrassment, in a floating state that they can't go up and down until the end of their lives. So education is the most developed place of cynicism.

I lack firm belief, and my idealism is based on such existential anxiety. Therefore, idealism is not so much a moral appeal as a search for self-affirmation, in order to solve the problem of "I" in constant search.

Because of this position, every time I face a choice, I always return to my heart: what do I need? What's the most important thing for me? Will I find the meaning of life because of this choice? People are always captured by many opportunities, thus losing themselves.

My friend asked me why I joined the new education, and I said it was because I couldn't bear it. I walked from the countryside to the county to the city, from west to south to east, from primary school to junior high school to high school, from teaching to public welfare to scientific research. During this journey, all kinds of confusion, helplessness and hesitation encountered by teachers and students in China are part of my anxiety that I personally experienced and went deep into my life, not those experts and scholars observed from the outside.

Over the past year or so, I have experienced a profound and painful fission of new education, and I have also seen possible prospects and difficulties in the future, which makes me excited and gives me a glimmer of hope for education in China.

Therefore, I often think that maybe all new education members have some degree of anxiety. When this existential anxiety bothers us, we will have existential doubts, rethink the meaning of life, and understand that life should not be an accessory of a seat or a hat, but itself.

Only in this sense, I think it is meaningful for Teacher Zhu to say that "everyone is a passer-by for new education". This is not a general sense of dedication and sacrifice, but a rewriting of the meaning of one's life. Only in this kind of writing can we get rid of the shackles of fame and fortune and live a happy and complete educational life. Otherwise, our lives will be in danger.

There are the same dangers in new education.

As an organization, it is also possible to get lost in all kinds of dazzling opportunities. Too many external projects and opportunities will make you unbearable and eventually collapse, because it is only external accumulation. Sailing in the endless reef, it is easy to be tempted and lost.

It is always easy to pick up things constantly, which is human nature and the nature of many organizations, but it is very difficult to learn to lose things. However, only those who dare to lose something can make real substantive progress. Only when Protestant talents change from additive thinking to subtractive thinking can they touch their own "existence" and be truly liberated.

2

Who am I? An Interpretation of Man (Rosso)

I think people have four attributes, naturalness, sociality, consciousness and thinking. Each attribute is divided into five layers. I haven't thought about blanks yet.

Natural attributes express me: self is changed by external stimuli, such as disease (the same below)

Self: body

True self: physical and psychological needs

Id: metabolism

The original self: genes

Table 1 of Social Attributes: Friends Organization (Party) Group (Company)

Self: family, national level

True self: family national class

Id: blood clan

The original self:

Conscious attributes express me: temperament and emotional potential

Self: character and tempering ability

True self: personality talent

Id: interest in human temperament

Original self: selfish and willful

Thinking attribute expresses me: image view

Ego: an abstract concept

True self: thinking of image will

Id: Logical Ideal of Impression

The original self:

Everything about people can be found here. Self always changes with external stimuli. The ego is also changing, but there is a process. The true self needs self-adjustment, but it can be suppressed or encouraged on the surface, but it cannot be changed from change. This is a temporary solution, not a permanent cure. If you accidentally go back, it's called persistence. Self is more difficult, you can't change it, and you can't change it if you want to. If you insist on changing it, you are either crazy or dead, which is called terminal illness, or mud can't help the wall, dead mice can't touch the cold, and you can't cry when you see the coffin. Of course, you can also call it rather die than surrender. As for me, you can't touch me. This is the difference between them. You can try it on yourself, especially the attribute of consciousness.

The content of the lower level will affect the content of the upper level, but it seems that they cannot decide and influence each other.

The content of ID is not a lie to everyone. It is said that it is allowed to send brilliant models to illuminate the poor and the poor, and it is also said that it is allowed to transport models to the emperor. I'm sorry. I'm sorry I was wrong, but I'm sorry I was wrong. Sorry, I was wrong, but I was wrong. /FONT & gt；

One more question. Have you noticed that the original self with social and thinking attributes has no content, because they exist subjectively, while the nature and consciousness attributes exist objectively. This is derived, and it is also a problem that bothers me. Consciousness exists objectively, which is serious. There may be a "conscious child" whose soul has a home. I can't deny its existence. I want to do some popular science here. China people have two understandings of human spirit, one is called soul, and the other is called spirit. Soul is the sober side of human beings, and spirit is the primitive side of human beings. For example, the ancients thought that zombies were people who were troubled by wits. This kind of person is disowned by no one's relatives and has unlimited power, but he has basic physiological desires, including falling in love. In today's words, the soul is thinking and the spirit is consciousness, which is quite scientific, showing how powerful our ancestors are.

Although modern science is great, it is still far from a clear understanding of human consciousness. But what is certain is that the soul will definitely disappear with the death of people, but the spirit is hard to say. Perhaps the soul will die like a body turned into mud, but the substance that makes up the soul will not disappear. Of course, what is the difference between the composition of spirit and body needs the development of science.

I also want to talk about anthropology. For a long time, people have been deeply impressed by their study life and values, and most of them are full of teaching tone for children to see. But my understanding of human science should be comprehensive, and all knowledge about people should belong to it. Including soul, morality, epistemology, axiology, aesthetics and so on. It used to belong to philosophy. Humanism should be independent of philosophy. Many philosophers are actually anthropologists, and Nietzsche is the most typical one. Kant said that he answered three questions, all about man (me), so Kant is also an anthropologist in essence. Li Ming said that he initiated the transition from philosophy to human studies. I don't know if he meant it, but I haven't studied it. But this statement is wrong. Nothing is greater than philosophy. Many disciplines are divorced from philosophy, and philosophy seems to be getting narrower and narrower, but this is only a superficial and narrow philosophical concept. Philosophy studies existence (movement). No matter how independent, it will always be existence (movement), and it will never escape from the clutches of philosophy. Philosophers are often poor and unemployed, but it can also be said that all scientific research can be outdated, and only philosophers will never be unemployed, forever, forever. . . . . . . . Even if he dies, he will be studied by future generations.