What is philosophy? This is a question, both simple and complex. We say it is simple because it should be the most basic provision of the subject of philosophy. Anyone who studies philosophy must start with this question. If a person who studies or studies philosophy says that he does not know what philosophy is, it seems to be a mistake. A very ridiculous, funny and incredible thing. However, this is indeed true. We say it's complicated because it's still a problem today and probably always will be. For beginners, the question "What is philosophy?" is easily solved by looking through a philosophy dictionary or encyclopedia, although they may not really understand what it says. But those of us who claim to study philosophy, or who think we “know a little bit” about philosophy, cannot do this, because it does not solve the questions in our minds. It is unbelievable and makes us feel ashamed. Although the subject of philosophy has existed for thousands of years, the question "what is philosophy" has not yet been concluded. Since this problem is too big and difficult, even if there are countless tomes with this title, we do not want to (in fact, it is impossible) to solve the problem of "what is philosophy" here, but just want to Treat the question as a question in itself and see what the answer is. Looking at the question itself, "what is philosophy" can be expressed in two ways: "what is philosophy" and "what is philosophy". On the surface, these two expressions mean the same thing, both are about the basic provisions or definitions of philosophy. It seems that there is no fundamental difference whether you put the "what" in the question at the end or at the front. When talking about "what is philosophy" or "what is philosophy" in Western languages, it is actually just a sentence, such as "what is philosophy" in English and "Was ist die Philosophie" in German. Although when we translate them into Chinese, they can be translated as "what is philosophy" or "what is philosophy", but usually there is no intention to highlight the difference between the two, but in fact here There is a certain difference between the two expressions, and this difference is not only a matter of translation, but also a matter of meaning. Don't think we are playing with words, because different expressions can indeed have different meanings. When we ask "what" something is, we usually logically ask about its "essence" or "nature", that is, the "definition" that stipulates "what" it is. However, the so-called "definition" can express either the actual state that has been or is the case now, or the ideal state that will be the case or should be the case in the future. The former talks about "how", while the latter talks about "how it should be". ", one is "actually" and the other is "should be". Under normal circumstances, there is no such difference in the basic provisions of a discipline, or the above two aspects are unified, but this is not the case in philosophy. Since philosophers have never reached a universal understanding on the issue of "what is philosophy?", we only know the different definitions of philosophy in the past, but cannot determine the general definitions of philosophy. Therefore, in the "What is philosophy?" A distinction arises between "what" and "what is philosophy." In a sense, "what is philosophy" asks what philosophy has been and is as a historical fact, while "what is philosophy" asks what kind of philosophy we can call it. Philosophy, that is, "what" philosophy is in a universal sense. Some people may say that such questions should not arise for a discipline that has existed for thousands of years, and philosophy can also have general provisions, such as "worldview" and "methodology" and so on. This is true in theory, but in fact it is not the case, because philosophy is a different and very unique science. Not only that, for a discipline, the length of its existence is not actually important. The key is whether it has become finalized. The reason why we do not raise such questions to other sciences is that they have long been finalized. No matter how their content, methods, or even the scope of objects change, the definition of a science usually remains unchanged. . Philosophy is different. Because philosophy is unlike any science, we simply cannot regard it as a science. Although it is difficult for people to accept that philosophy is not a science, especially for those who take philosophy as a profession, anyone with a little knowledge of the history of philosophy knows that this is indeed a fact of historical significance. For more than 2000 years, philosophers have debated endlessly on almost all philosophical issues, and it is difficult to reach a conclusion even on the object of philosophy. Although we all hope that philosophy is a science and believe that philosophy should be a science, it does not have the basic characteristics that a piece of scientific knowledge should have. Therefore, even from this perspective, philosophy is not yet what it should be. Why is philosophy not a science in the general sense? There are many reasons, and the most obvious reason is that philosophy is not a process of knowledge accumulation like science. In other words, what philosophy leaves us is not knowledge, but many questions. For example, as far as mathematics is concerned, we usually think that there is only one kind of mathematics, and all other kinds of mathematics are branches or different stages of development of mathematics. But we cannot say that there is only one philosophy in history, and other philosophies are branches or stages of development of philosophy.

Hegel once argued that there is only one philosophy in history, and other philosophies are just different stages of philosophical development. Nowadays, few people hold this vulgar evolutionary view, because it is at least inconsistent with the facts. It is undeniable that philosophy also has its own development process, but this development process is not a process of knowledge accumulation. Philosophical thoughts in history do have a certain inheritance relationship, but their basic views on most philosophical issues are difficult to reconcile. Inappropriately speaking, natural science is similar to a certain kind of "straight-line movement" of knowledge accumulation. We can ignore the history of science and just use its accumulated results. Philosophy is different. It is more like a "circular movement", trying different solutions one after another around some eternal unsolvable problems. So although there is indeed a relationship of inheritance and development among philosophers, each philosopher's theory has its irreplaceable value, and this value does not lie in its knowledge content, but in what it provides. Such a unique way of solving problems. Obviously, people today are unmatched by the ancients in terms of knowledge possession. Any medical student has much more "advanced" knowledge than Hippocrates, the founder of medicine. However, even those who study philosophy are extremely Few people can reach the level of thought of Plato or Aristotle, although the knowledge content they express has long been outdated, so philosophy is difficult to measure by "progress." First of all, the above distinction inspires us that the general provisions of philosophy are different from the general provisions of science, and it has a wider "tolerance" and "historicity". The regulations on philosophy should reflect its research field and scope (this field and scope also have its uncertainties). At the same time, there should be no attempt to replace all philosophy with one philosophical thought, unless this philosophical thought can indeed contain Covers all past, present and future philosophies (if so, it would not be "a" philosophy). Because the problems and objects of philosophy are rooted in the highest ideal of human beings who want to transcend their own limitations and reach the infinite realm of freedom. As far as human beings are rational, they will definitely produce such an ideal, but as far as human beings are limited, they cannot It is possible to realistically realize this ideal. Although he cannot realize this ideal, he cannot not pursue this ideal. Philosophy is born from this "paradox". Since there is an insurmountable gap between the finite and the infinite, reality and the ideal, this shore and the other shore, the temporary and the eternal, and we are destined to try every possible means to transcend this gap, so the real philosophical question Not only is there no ultimate answer, but it will never be out of date. Therefore, philosophy is manifested in the different ways of answering the same philosophical questions in the past, present and future. It can be seen that philosophy cannot exist in "one" philosophy, but can only exist in all philosophies, because any philosophy only represents a way to answer philosophical questions, and cannot represent philosophy. All solutions to the problem. The reason why we insist on making a distinction between "what philosophy is" and "what is philosophy" is to illustrate the truth that philosophy is ultimately the history of philosophy. This means that whoever wants to define philosophy must take into account all possible philosophies in the past, present and even the future. We cannot define philosophy in the same way as science, because once philosophy has With this definition of science, philosophy is no longer philosophy. We have not directly answered the question "what is philosophy", and perhaps we will never be able to solve this problem. In the eyes of some people, it is really sad that although philosophy has existed for more than 2,000 years, it still faces such a dilemma today. But from another perspective, this may not be a blessing for philosophy. Because it means that philosophy and philosophy alone is a truly open, never-formed discipline, and this is perhaps the charm of philosophy. Of course, even if we never solve the question "what is philosophy," it still makes sense to understand that there is a difference between "what philosophy is" and "what is philosophy," because those are two different ways of thinking. However, although they are two different issues, they are actually related. This is not because we mean to show off "dialectics", it is just the fact. No one can imagine "what is philosophy" without philosophy. Such a question can only be raised when we are not satisfied with the actual situation of philosophy. In this way, researching and studying the history of philosophy has never been about dealing with outdated history, and it itself has "realistic significance". Studying the history of philosophy means studying the thoughts of philosophers in the history of philosophy. Therefore, it can be regarded as our thoughts "thinking" about the thoughts of philosophers, or as a "dialogue" between thoughts. Since the thoughts of philosophers are preserved in their works, learning the history of philosophy is also "reading", so "dialogue" with philosophers is usually achieved through "reading". However, although the philosophers in history have passed away, when we read their "books", we do not just read rote books. Although most of the content of these books is outdated, the way philosophers solve problems is not and will never be outdated, because philosophical problems are not outdated. These problems are not only difficult problems they face, but also difficult problems we face, and even It can be said to be a problem that mankind will always face.

Since there is no ultimate answer to philosophical questions, no one way of answering can replace or be replaced by other ways of answering. All ways of answering have their own unique meaning and value. It provides a variety of possible options for future generations. Therefore, for those who study the history of philosophy, studying the history of philosophy is nothing more than thinking about what the human spirit has thought about, walking through the ideological path that the human spirit has already traveled, and then choosing or creating our own path. . It can be seen that when we study the history of philosophy, we do not stand outside the history of philosophy. In a sense, the thoughts of our predecessors form an integral part of our current existence. The reason why we say that studying and studying the history of philosophy itself has "realistic significance" is this: when we have a "dialogue" between ideas with philosophers, their ideas are "resurrected". This does not mean that the philosopher’s thoughts are “dead”; it is our “dialogue” that “resurrects” them. In fact, philosophical thoughts in history are originally "living" because they constitute an indispensable part of philosophy, so their "resurrection" is not "retrospection". In other words, the thoughts of philosophers are both historical and at the same time transcend history and are realistic at any time and under any circumstances. Therefore, the history of philosophy has never been an accumulation of dead materials, but a living rhythm of thought. As far as philosophy is the history of philosophy, and studying philosophy is to have an ideological "dialogue" with philosophers, the intellectual dialogue between us and philosophers is not a "one-way" passive activity, but a "two-way" one. Interactive activities, this kind of dialogue between thoughts are similar to what modern hermeneutics calls "fusion of horizons." The thoughts of philosophers are preserved in their works. Reading their books requires "understanding" and "explanation", and the process of "understanding" and "explanation" is also a process of "recreation" to a certain extent. In the past, traditional explanation theories pursued the objectivity of knowledge and regarded understanding and explanation as pure reproduction of the original work of this article. But modern hermeneutics tells us that it is impossible for anyone to completely reproduce the so-called objectively existing text, because the ancients had their "vision" and we have ours. In other words, the ancients and we are in a different history. Under the background of , culture, society, personal environment, etc., we can neither completely "copy" the vision of the ancients into the modern era, nor can we completely get rid of our own vision and purely immerse ourselves in the vision of the ancients. middle. In this sense, understanding and explanation are actually the collision and blending of different horizons, and it is precisely because of this that human culture can progress and develop. What exactly is philosophy? Philosophy is a kind of thinking about how to become smart and wise in life. This kind of thinking is metaphysical and intangible, but it is essential. Because the purpose of life is to pursue happiness, then you must think about how to be happy. Happiness only requires two conditions, one is material and the other is spiritual. To obtain material happiness, you must be diligent; to obtain spiritual happiness, you must learn to relax yourself. Can a lazy person be happy? I think the answer should be no. It is relatively easy for everyone to be diligent, but it is not so easy to relax oneself. Because each of us is always faced with confusion, and this confusion is even inherent. Because we always can't figure out some things, it's also a wise way not to think about it, and it's also a wise way to try to give an explanation. Both actions are philosophical, but the former is a negative action and the latter is a positive action. Provoking thinking should be the first priority in learning philosophy. If students learn philosophy without thinking, it is a failure in philosophy teaching. What is the meaning of human life? Where do people come from? Where should people's lives go? etc. These are the overall issues of the life world that philosophy wants to think about. The purpose of philosophical thinking about these issues or the function of philosophy is to make people clearly realize that man or his survival is the ultimate goal of life and social development through continuous questioning of these questions, so that people can use this goal as a standard "Correction" of one's behavior. Philosophy is not a castle in the air. We often talk about philosophy originating from life and being higher than life. In fact, philosophy is all around us. I can always find an entry point in life during teaching. A story, a detail, and a character are all good teaching materials. It's just that life itself is not philosophy, thinking about life wisely is philosophy. International investment guru Peter Lynch said: "My success in stock trading is due to the fact that I put aside all economic principles when operating." This may seem to despise knowledge, but it actually turns knowledge into wisdom. This is the secret of his success. Therefore, it can be said that philosophy is the inner wisdom of life. It is neither mysterious nor identical with life itself. Now that we have clarified the relationship between philosophy and life, let’s look at the issues mentioned earlier. "What is the use of philosophy?" This question itself is already a reflection on life. It can also be said that wisdom has already come into play. Of course, the "use" mentioned by the questioner is "practical" in life, not philosophical use. Later, in Mr. Jiang Chao's "Philosophical Revelation", there was a good statement: "Philosophy teaches us to do things correctly, and science teaches us to do things correctly." Quite profound. Philosophy can help us how to live, because philosophy comes from life. It is a method of teaching people how to live. I remember President Roosevelt once said a famous saying: The greatest fear is fear itself.

Yes, we are often controlled by inexplicable fears. We rarely think about what we are afraid of, so we will not be able to eat and sleep well. So I looked pitiful all day long. Such a life is meaningless and of course worthless. It can only become a burden to others. Of course this is unwise and unreasonable. In fact, life is about philosophy, but we have not planned our lives systematically.

Philosophy can make your life better