The sixth sentence in the first chapter of the Tao Te Ching:

The mysterious is the mysterious door.

(mysterious and mysterious, profound and far-reaching, it is the secret door of the universe. )

Chapter 1 of Cool Talk about Laozi (24) Russell vs Einstein: There is no objective truth in the world, only subjective explanation?

1.

At the end of p>1918, the World War I had just ended. Liang Qichao and Jiang Baili traveled together in Europe. In order to find a way out for China at that time, they traveled to more than a dozen European countries and did not return to China until early 192.

After returning to China, each of them wrote a book:

Liang Qichao wrote A Record of My Heart's Journey to Europe, and Jiang Baili wrote A History of European Renaissance.

Liang Qichao's view is:

Science is absolutely not omnipotent. The blind pursuit of material civilization will inevitably create a "law of the jungle" society. The essence of World War I was the retribution of superstitious "science is omnipotent", so European civilization has come to an end. (1)

Jiang Baili's point of view is the opposite:

It was the Renaissance in Europe that successfully pushed religion off the altar, which enabled people to rediscover "man" and the world to rediscover "the world". Therefore, European civilization is a spring thunder in the spiritual world of all mankind, and it is also the "dawn" that the Chinese nation dreams of. ②

Then the question comes:

Why do they travel to Europe, eat in the same hotel, stay in the same hotel and go to the same place, but come to the opposite conclusion?

You might say:

It's because they think differently.

Then ask again:

They both face the same "objective facts", and their writing relies on the same precise logical deduction. According to the truth, their conclusions should be highly consistent, so why do they think differently?

And if you have the opportunity to travel back to the Republic of China to interview Liang Qichao and Jiang Baili, they will definitely answer with one voice:

This is by no means subjective prejudice, and it is entirely the result of our own independent thinking based on objective facts.

Then the problem is even bigger:

There is only one truth. How can the result of independent thinking be different?

So, there are only two possibilities:

Either there is no unique truth objectively or there is no independent thinking subjectively.

excuse me, which one do you prefer?

2.

Perhaps you think that the category of civilization seems to be too vast. Some people like the East, while others prefer the West. It is really impossible to make a unified conclusion. Well, we might as well narrow the topic to the category of nationality.

Also around 192, Russell, a great philosopher, and Einstein, a great scientist, visited China respectively. Russell's view is:

The Chinese nation has "indomitable national spirit, indomitable perseverance and unparalleled national cohesion".

Russell even asserted:

"If China people have a stable government and abundant funds, they will make remarkable achievements in science in the next 3 years, and they are likely to surpass us." ③

Einstein's view is just the opposite:

"China people ... are quiet and stiff, even the children are listless and look dull."

Einstein even made some remarks about racial discrimination against the Chinese nation:

"Even those people who are forced to work like cows and horses will never show their sense of suffering. A strange people like a herd ..... They are more like robots than humans. " (4)

Then the question comes:

Why did Russell and Einstein both visit China, have been to Shanghai and eat Chinese food, but they came to diametrically opposite conclusions?

And if you have the opportunity to travel back to the Republic of China to interview Russell and Einstein, they will definitely answer with one voice:

This is by no means a subjective prejudice, but the result of our own independent thinking based on objective facts.

Then we go back to the bigger question:

There is only one truth. How can the result of independent thinking be different?

So, there are only two possibilities:

Either there is no unique truth objectively or there is no independent thinking subjectively.

excuse me, which one do you prefer?

3.

Perhaps you think that the category of nationality seems too general, and it is not easy to make a unified conclusion. Well, then, we might as well narrow the topic down to one dimension and the category of outlook on life.

Oscar Wilde, a famous poet, famously said:

There are two tragedies in life, one is not getting what you want, and the other is getting what you want.

well, does that sound reasonable? Isn't life like this? If we get what we want, we will be bored, and if we don't get what we want, we will suffer. It is simply a tragedy without solution!

but please wait! Freud, the psychoanalyst, scoffed at this view. Freud retorted:

Human beings also have two great pleasures, one is that they don't get what you want; One is to get what you want.

well, does that sound more reasonable? Isn't life like this? We get what we want, so we can taste and experience it; We can't get what we want, so we can pursue and create again. It's a human comedy full of sunshine!

Then the question comes:

Facing life, why do they come to different conclusions?

And if you have the opportunity to travel back to interview Wilde and Freud, they will definitely answer in unison:

This is by no means subjective prejudice, but the result of our own independent thinking based on objective facts.

Then we go back to the bigger question:

There is only one truth. How can the result of independent thinking be different?

So, there are only two possibilities:

Either there is no unique truth objectively or there is no independent thinking subjectively.

excuse me, which one do you prefer?

4.

Perhaps you think that the scope of outlook on life seems too broad, and it is not so easy to reach a unified conclusion. Well, we might as well continue to narrow down the topic to one dimension and to the scope of daily social interaction.

One night during self-study, a student in the classroom crawled on the table and fell asleep, holding a book in his hand.

The headmaster happened to pass by during the meeting and said angrily,

"I sleep as soon as I read, it's no use!"

The dean happened to pass by when he was on patrol, but he was not angry. Instead, he said happily,

"Reading can make you fall asleep, which is promising!"

Then the question comes:

Seeing the same scene, why do they come to different conclusions?

And if you have the opportunity to interview the headmaster and the dean of education, they will definitely answer with one voice:

This is by no means a subjective prejudice, but the result of our own independent thinking based on objective facts.

Then we go back to the bigger question:

There is only one truth. How can the result of independent thinking be different?

So, there are only two possibilities:

Either there is no unique truth objectively or there is no independent thinking subjectively.

excuse me, which one do you prefer?

5.

In fact, there is only one reason for the above four diametrically opposite views-different psychological presuppositions! What do you mean? Finally, let's look at a case in Zen Buddhism.

One day Ananda said to Sakyamuni, "Master, I met a strange thing when I went to town today!" Sakyamuni asked, "What strange thing?" Ananda said: "I watched a band singing and dancing in the city, but I don't know why. After I left the city, I suddenly felt that everyone was sad, and everywhere was born and died."

Can you guess how Sakyamuni solved this difficult problem?

Sakyamuni smiled and said, "I met a strange thing when I went to town yesterday!" " Ananda asked, "I wonder what strange thing you met?" Sakyamuni said: "I watched a band singing and dancing in the city, but I don't know why. After I left the city, I suddenly found that everyone was smiling and everywhere was living and working in peace." ⑤

Then the question comes. Why did Ananda and Sakyamuni go to the city to watch the song and dance, but after leaving the city, they saw two scenes? In fact, the answer is very simple. There is a theorem in psychology called "pregnant woman effect", which means: < P > When a woman is pregnant, it is easier to find pregnant women in various occasions.

But in fact, it's not that there are more pregnant women around, but that women don't pay attention at all before pregnancy, but suddenly start to pay attention to pregnant women after pregnancy. By the same token:

What you see is often your inner projection of the world.

If you are pessimistic, you will naturally see birth, old age, illness and death; If you are optimistic, then what you see is naturally joy and kindness. The reason why Sakyamuni deliberately said something completely opposite to Ananda was to remind Ananda:

The appearance of the world depends on your gaze.

6.

At this point, everything comes out.

Why did Liang Qichao and Jiang Baili use the same academic logic to draw different conclusions? The reason is very simple. Logic is only a tool for reasoning, and it has nothing to do with right or wrong. What really determines right or wrong is the premise of logic, that is, psychological presupposition. For example,

Liang Qichao's psychological presupposition and logical premise is that Chinese civilization is superior to Europe.

Jiang Baili's psychological and logical premise is that European civilization is superior to China.

So, both of them used the same logic, but came to the opposite conclusion.

Russell's psychological and logical premise is that the Chinese nation is hardworking and excellent.

Einstein's psychological presupposition and logical premise is that the Chinese nation is lazy and barbaric.

So, both of them used the same logic, but came to the opposite conclusion.

Oscar Wilde's psychological presupposition and logical premise is that people will eventually die, so every item of life will go up in smoke!

Freud's psychological presupposition and logical premise is that people will die eventually, so every harvest in life is happiness earned!

So, both of them used the same logic, but came to the opposite conclusion.

The psychological presupposition of the school principal is-this is a poor student!

The psychological presupposition of the dean is-this is a schoolmaster!

So, both of them used the same logic, but came to the opposite conclusion.

7.

So, what do you want to say about these four groups of psychological presuppositions? What I want to say is:

In fact, there is no objective truth in this world, only subjective explanation.

In fact, Zhuangzi of China made a conclusion about this as early as 2, years ago:

"He is also right and wrong, and this is also right and wrong." ⑦

Yes! From another angle, right and wrong will be reversed, so what is right and wrong? It's as if from the perspective of the earth, the sun and the other eight planets are all rotating around the earth; But if you look at the sun as the center, you will find that the earth and the eight planets are all rotating around the sun.

in fact, what is the absolute center in the universe? Just a different angle!

The reason why we choose "Heliocentrism" now is only because it will be more convenient and faster to calculate the orbits and laws of the planets, while "geocentric theory" needs to add many additional mathematical formulas to barely accomplish the same task. The same is true of our human society. The reason why there is right and wrong, there will be morality and law, and its fundamental purpose is to make society run better and make people's lives more convenient and faster.

what? Have we come all this way just to say that there is no right and wrong in the world? Yes, in the ultimate sense of philosophy, there is no. It can be expressed in eight words:

Only positions, no opinions.

Because any viewpoint must be based on a fixed position, there is no standpoint-free viewpoint in the world, even when we are facing the same person and the same thing.

8.

There was a very typical case in ancient China:

During the Spring and Autumn Period, a handsome man in Weiguo named Zixia Mi, because his mother was ill and was anxious to visit, secretly drove home in the carriage of Wei Linggong, the king of the country. After being reported, according to the law, his foot should be cut off.

But Wei Linggong lamented:

"What a filial son Zixia Mi is! I am willing to take risks for my mother. "

Therefore, instead of reducing the crime, Zixia Mi was even more prized. A few days later, the two of them visited the Royal Orchard together. Zixia Mi picked a peach to eat, which was crispy and delicious, so he handed the remaining half of the peach to Wei Linggong. If ordinary people face this situation, they should at least roll their eyes. Unexpectedly, Wei Linggong not only didn't dislike it, but also said with emotion:

Zixia Mi really has deep feelings for me! In order to let me taste delicious food in time, I forgot to leave my saliva on the peach.

However, a few years later, Zixia Mi changed from a handsome boy to a middle-aged greasy man. Wei Linggong immediately made a 18-degree turn and often said to people:

See? This is the guy who stole my car and gave me leftover peaches! ⑥

You see, this is human nature.

9.

When we like a person, shortcomings are also advantages.

speak straight-it doesn't matter, it's called true temperament without scheming! Slow-it doesn't matter, this is called honesty and stability! Careful calculation-it doesn't matter, this is called serious and rigorous mind!

when we don't like a person, the advantages we once had will immediately become disadvantages.

speak straight? It's really rude and uncultured! Slow? Jane is so stupid and slow! Careful calculation? What a stingy miser!

In fact, there are so many right and wrong in life, which are essentially just our personal "likes and dislikes".

in the final analysis, it's all a matter of position.

from individuals to nations. If you especially like America, and think American values are a beacon of human civilization. So in your eyes, the legalization of guns is a kind of freedom for citizens to protect themselves, the legalization of marijuana is a kind of freedom for citizens to choose happiness, the legalization of corruption is a kind of freedom for citizens to play political games, and even not wearing masks during the COVID-19 epidemic can be a kind of freedom to prevent government tyranny.

most importantly, these explanations are completely impeccable in logic!

This is the fundamental reason why we can never convince a person with logic, unless you let the other person actively change his logical premise through emotion. To put it bluntly, people-always believe in one thing first, and then they will reason and build a whole set of value system on this basis.

In other words:

Everyone takes a stand first, and the viewpoint is just a follower.

Therefore, no matter how many people face the same thing or one person faces the same thing, as long as their positions are different, their views will be very different. In other words, as long as it is a person, it must be subjective, and it is impossible to be 1% pure and objective. Because as long as you are a person, you must have desires, and you can't be 1% without desires. The so-called no desire is just another kind of "desire" with makeup.

1.

As we have said before, this phenomenon of unity of opposites is called "Xuan" by Lao Tzu. What does "Xuan is both mysterious" mean? Actually, it is not difficult to understand. For example, when we understand two seemingly completely opposite views.