The more you know, the more you know that there is more you don’t know besides what you know, so you know more you don’t know;
The more you know, but you always know You only know what you know, you cannot know what you don’t know, and therefore you cannot know more than you don’t know.
Such a question is indeed true on both sides. Today I happened to read a few words about "knowledge" by teacher Zhang Zhiyang, which has the same truth:
"Knowledge" has two levels. Meaning: "Knowing" and "Knowing direction". Those who "know something" focus on the "knowledge" of the ultimate ontology, while those who "know nothing" focus on the "knowledge" of the ultimate domain. In the same way, "knowing what can be known" focuses on "knowing"; "knowing what cannot be known" focuses on "knowing direction", that is, "knowing direction" is always on the interface of knowing - the field of "unknown", and finally on the interface of human beings. Go to "Knowledge" - the "unknowable" realm of God. Therefore, it is the two meanings of "knowledge" that reveal the "existence-nothing" paradox of "knowledge": "knowledge of existence" means "knowledge of nothingness".
The distinction between "knowledge" and "knowledge" has inspired me a lot. However, as far as "knowing direction" is concerned, we have already preset an ultimate schema. In other words, we have set a purpose, which is within the scope of "knowing". However, if the true meaning of "knowledge" is: the ultimate unknowable, then the presupposed "unknowable" is wrong; because since its essence is unknowable, how can you say it is "unknowable"? You can't say whether it is knowable or not. Once you say it, it means that you have "knowledge", and it should not be set by your reason.
But this paradox is inevitable, because if you want to "think", you must have "something to think about"; if there is no "something to think about" and you say you are "thinking", then it is not "thinking". ”, so “thinking” must “think” about the direction and goal as a whole. The same is true for "knowledge".
Socrates said that "one knows one's ignorance" and Descartes said "I think, therefore I am", which reveal the essence of "knowledge" from two aspects at the same time. In detail: The essence of "self-knowledge of ignorance" is knowing that one is ignorant. That is to say, the "knowing direction" of "knowledge" does not point to the object but to itself, thus there is "knowledge", and this "knowledge" is "no knowledge"; this "no knowledge" is "no knowledge" The ignorance of "self" thus affirms the existence of "self"; affirming the existence of self, "self" is in a state of freedom due to ignorance, and can "know" at any time, that is, "knowledge" is sent out to find an object. , thereby achieving yourself. Similarly, when Descartes said "I think, therefore I am", he discovered the truth after doubting everything. This truth is that "I" exist. From the unreliability of "knowledge", Descartes believed that all external objects, including God, were illusions, denied the reality of "knowledge", discovered the hidden "knowledge direction", and thus discovered the deep hidden truth. 's "self".
“Self” is the basis of concepts such as democracy, freedom, and equality in Western philosophy. Many people believe that it was brought about by the Christian God. However, ancient Greek philosophy also laid the foundation for it, but it was not revealed. . If we further examine Socrates and Descartes, we will find that "knowing" or "thinking" is an important factor. That is to say, "self" as an ontology is difficult to discover. All we can discover is "use" - knowing or thinking (knowing or thinking in modern Chinese may have a difference between outward or inward, but As far as Greek and Latin are concerned, I don't know if there is a difference, let's just think of them as the same word for the rational function). In other words, the true self is "self as body, knowing and thinking as using" (knowing or thinking also includes people's emotions and feelings, not just theoretical rationality), and every person is the unity of body and use.
Let’s next examine Chinese philosophy. Lao Tzu said, "Tao can be Tao, but it is not Tao. Names can be named, but they are not names." There is also a profound connotation hidden in it. The first "Tao" is the ontology. If it is "taoable", that is to say, if the objective ontology enters the scope of human understanding, it must not be the eternal "Tao", because the eternal "Tao" transcends human reason, and humans cannot completely Know this "Tao". Not only that, the first "Tao" is also "unTaoable".
Why? As the ontology of "Tao", does it define itself? This is unknowable because it is a matter of "Tao". But theoretically speaking, on the one hand, it cannot set itself, because once it is set, it becomes "extraordinary". Only if it is not set, can "Tao" pervade all things and become the fundamental reason and absolute ontology for the existence of all things. At the same time, it can maintain the transcendence of "Tao" itself and not be limited by reality or reason. However, if "Tao" does not set itself, it will always remain objective and meaningless to human beings, so "Tao" must set itself. How does "Tao" set itself up? Set yourself up by being "kedao". Since Lao Tzu said that the "Tao" of "Ke Dao" is an "extraordinary Tao", it also implies that "Ke Tao" is not the "normal Tao". If we seek "extraordinary Tao", then this "Tao" will be "Taoable". Laozi's statement itself is a definition of "Tao", so there are several prerequisites for the establishment of this sentence: Tao, Ke Tao, Chang Tao, and Extraordinary Tao. These factors must be present.
However, how do we make "Tao" "Taoable"? In other words, the existence of "very Tao" is because of "Tao"; then what is the reason for the existence of "Ke Tao"? There is only one reason, which is the limitation of "Tao". Who will limit it? In the current situation where we don’t know whether all things have reason, we say it is “name” (in fact, even if all things have reason, Laozi also denies their definition of “Tao”). "Name" is human beings' understanding and grasp of external objects. Human beings use "name" to present "Tao". In this sense, we can say that "name" means "use" and "道" means "substance", such as "I don't know its name, but it is called Tao."
Not only that, there is an interchange of two very important concepts here: "Kedao" also becomes "name". If "Kedao" is not a "name", it still has not entered human understanding and remains in its original state. And when "Tao" becomes "Ke Dao", then "name" pursues "the usual way" and is no longer "Tao". "Tao" and "Constant Way" lie in the intervention of "name", that is, the intervention of human reason. Since "name" seeks the "constant way" through the setting of "Tao", it will make "Tao" and "name" the same, which will make "ti" tend to be used instead of "ti", and this " "Tao" is not "Constant Tao". Therefore, Lao Tzu also said that "a name can be named, but it is not a name." That is to say, if the "name" of "Tao" can be grasped or understood, if another "name" can be used to grasp or recognize this "name" (because of understanding or grasping Reason is always reason itself, and there can be no other), then the first kind of "name" is not a "constant name". In other words, the understanding of ontology is no longer the ontology; if we still recognize this kind of understanding, it does not even count as understanding. There is a more critical question here: What is the relationship between Chang Ming, Dao, and Chang Dao? We rewrite Lao Tzu's words: Tao can be named, but it is not a regular Tao; a name can be named again, but it is not a regular name. It can be seen that there is an isomorphic relationship between the name of Tao and Changming and the name of Changming. If "Changdao" is regarded as the core of "Tao", "Changming" is regarded as the core of "name", and "Kedao" becomes "name", then "Kedao" is the core of "Changming". If we say that "constant names" are truths set by human beings' self-rationality, then this kind of truth is not wrong. It is just that it is set by humans and is not "constant Dao", let alone "Tao". How amazing is Lao Tzu's profoundness!
Not only that, Laozi also unraveled the relationship between human beings as ontology and Tao. Laozi said: Man follows the earth, earth follows heaven, heaven follows Tao, and Tao follows nature. Then man, earth, heaven, Tao, and nature are connected. This is the so-called "unity of heaven and man." Then "self" is also "very self", that is, the "incomprehensible" of "self". The "incomprehensibleness" of this "self" is to return to the unknown-free state of the "self"; this free state means that everything is done by oneself, that is, freedom. This is exactly what the Chinese philosopher explained nearly two thousand years ago when Kant's "Critique of Practical Reason" finally affirmed that "self-will is free."
If Socrates and Descartes affirmed the absolute existence of "self" through knowledge, then Laozi attributes all existence to "Tao", where "body" is obvious but "use" is not.
On the one hand, he affirms that all things are the embodiment of "Tao", thus warning humans to respect others; on the other hand, ascribing to "Tao" can easily be converted into real authority. For example, Han Feizi's Legalist philosophy proves its ontology through "Jie Lao" Yes, very sorry. Although people have always said that Confucianism was the national ideology of feudal society, Taoism is actually similar to Confucianism at the level of "great unification." One is the realistic "fixed in one", and the other is the abstract "Tao generates one". They all fail to recognize the absolute status of the ontology of all things from an individual perspective.
The introduction of Buddhism relatively broke some of this situation. Especially later theories such as "Inexorable Nature" recognized the meaning of the existence of all things from the original sense. However, it is a pity that it also returns to "one" (fortunately, Buddhism such as Huayan teaches "one thought three thousand" and "one more than two"). These backgrounds of Chinese philosophy are actually a historical reason why Marxism can succeed in China. Why Marxism? Because the supremacy of the "state" is fundamentally a modern version of "fixed in oneness", "Tao gives rise to oneness" and "the hearts of all living beings are the Mahayana", we cannot move towards true democracy. In my opinion, the premise of democracy is to affirm the absolute ontological status of everything, but this seems to be contrary to our "tradition". This is not the case. There are many elements of democracy in our tradition. Laozi's "Tao" affirms all things, Confucianism's "nature is inherently good" affirms that "all people can be Yao and Shun", and Buddhism's "all sentient beings are regarded as Buddhas", all pave the way for democracy. Flat road. However, because its "use" is not obvious, and Marxism is better than the means of "class struggle", so we are like this today.
If I have a mission for the future, I think this mission is to establish the absolute status of all things, that is, everything has value.