中国自然哲学面临巨大压力。英文作文
China is now a big era, and logically speaking, there must be great scholarship in the big era. However, this kind of requirement has become a stone of Mount Tai on the current Chine scholars of philosophy and social sciences, and it is the dilemma of Chine philosophy and social sciences.
Science is easy to say. It turns out that China is a blank sheet of paper. The prent natural sciences in China are all bad on western natural sciences. Therefore, the scholarship of Chine natural sciences and that of western natural sciences are in the same strain, with common academic discour and expressions, and there is almost no requirement to establish a natural science scholarship with Chine characteristics.
China's failure to establish a natural science academic with Chine characteristics is mainly due to the fact that it has nothing to do with ideas. In fact, western natural science academic is related to ideas, such as God and religion. For people, once all academic activities have nothing to do with ideas, they can't grow.
The Chine philosophy and social sciences are different. The original China was not a blank piece of paper, which was very complicated. Although it didn't have the beauty of a real ancestral temple and the wealth of a hundred officials, it did. It can't live without it, and without it, it has no value. The value was established by philosophy and social sciences. Otherwi, what kind of ancient civilization did the original China become? This also constitutes the dilemma of Chine philosophy and social sciences.
There are two urgent tasks for Chine scholars of philosophy and social sciences. One is to establish an academic system of philosophy and social sciences with Chine characteristics, and the other is to open up academic systems in China, the West and Malaysia. This is not only very important for establishing an academic system of philosophy and social sciences with Chine characteristics, but also for Chine philosophy and social sciences to go global.
The academic thoughts of the West and Malaysia can be connected at once. The hor is originally a branch of the West, but it is China, the West, China and Malaysia that are di
fficult to get through. The difficulty lies not only in the cognitive angle and cognitive method, but also in the words of expression. That is to say, the expressions of China, the West and Malaysia are simply two kinds of words that have nothing to do with each other and are easy to cau misunderstanding and ambiguity. For example, both the West and Malaysia have the word "being", and it is the foundation, but it is completely abnt in Chine literature, and it is difficult to understand.
For example, Li Zehou, a wi man, is known as the first person in China to get through China's West and Malaysia. In fact, he can only understand China's West and Malaysia, but he is still unable to get through China's West and Malaysia. Look at his Critique of Critical Philosophy, which is full of academic discours of western philosophy, especially Kant's philosophy. A "law" will make you suffer from hysteria for half a day. Maybe it's too hard for Li Zehou. It's hard to get through China, the West and Malaysia, but it's easier to rebuild. But after all, rebuilding is different from getting through.
Tao is a basic concept of Chine philosophy and social sciences, and it was ud by hu
ndred schools of thought and later schools, but no clear conceptual explanation was given. This was not a problem in China, but after Xi and Ma entered China, it became a problem to ask for a clear conceptual explanation of Tao, so it was difficult for masters such as Zhu Guangqian and Zhang Dainian to know whether Tao was "material" or "conscious".
Zhang Dainian said, "I interpret Laozi's so-called' Tao' as the highest principle, that is, I understand Laozi's theory as an objective idealism. However, after liberation, I reconsidered this issue, and felt that the esnce of Laozi's theory should be examined from its opposition to religious ideas, and Laozi's so-called "Tao" should be understood as the total existence of primitive and indistinguishable materials, that is, being confud. Therefore, Laozi's cosmology should be said to be materialistic. " However, Zhang Dainian's different understanding of "Tao" is not only an academic issue, but also a political issue, which is the difference between philosophy and social science and natural science.
Why "Tao" was not a thing, but now it is a big deal, just becau it didn't require clarity, but it can be ud. Now it requires clarity and can be explained logically, that is to say, it doesn't talk about logic, but now it talks about logic. Why did you talk about "Tao" as "reason" or "qi" in the past, and now you talk about "Tao" as "material" or "consciousness"? It is becau now another academic system has been introduced, and the two academic systems have to be combined, so you can no longer do your own thing behind clod doors.
The dilemma of Chine philosophy and social sciences is not just about logic. Of cour, this is very important, but the most important thing is the fear of political inaccuracy. It is the most politically correct to transform Chine philosophy and social sciences with hors, but the difference between them is too great, and it must involve the west. When it comes to the west, it must involve the political inaccuracy, and it is impossible to establish a philosophy and social science system with Chine characteristics.
