I often hear the saying, "Being is reality." For example, some ugly social phenomena are exposed, and some people in society will say so. Undeniably, this statement is quite profound in a sense, because it requires us to go deep into the reasons behind the phenomenon, rather than just focusing on the superficial analysis. However, its negative side is also very obvious: it often degenerates into a defense of ugly phenomena. The reason why this happens is related to our one-sided understanding of "existence is reasonable". First, existence is reasonable, of course, there is a side to defend reality, but it is not the main one; Mainly because of its revolutionary and critical aspects. This, Engels in Ludwig. Feuerbach and the end of German classical philosophy. He said Hegel's famous saying that "whatever is realistic is reasonable, and what is reasonable is realistic", "This obviously sanctifies everything that exists and is a philosophical blessing to the autocratic system, the police state, the court and the censorship of books and newspapers". However, what I think in this way is only "a myopic government" and "an equally myopic liberal". "In Hegel's view, whatever exists is by no means unconditional and realistic. In his view, the attribute of reality only belongs to the inevitable. " In this way, Hegel's proposition, because of Hegel's dialectics itself, is transformed into its own opposite: everything that is realistic in the field of human history will become unreasonable with the passage of time. For example, "the Roman Republic is realistic, but the Roman Empire that rejected it is also realistic". In other words, the existence of an ugly phenomenon is reasonable, but the beautiful phenomenon that appears after it is eliminated is more reasonable. Second, the establishment of "being is reasonable" is conditional. "Being is reasonable" is actually a popular (and distorted) expression of Hegel's famous saying "What is realistic is reasonable, and what is reasonable is realistic". Its establishment is based on Hegel's whole philosophical system. Hegel believes that the origin of the universe is absolute spirit (rationality), which owns everything at will, then externalizes it into nature, human society and spiritual science, and finally returns to itself at a higher level. Therefore, everything on this development track is reasonable (short for "rationality"), that is, inevitable and realistic. or vice versa, Dallas to the auditorium Of course, we should acknowledge the profundity of Hegel's philosophy, but we can't deny the fiction and transcendentalism of his theory. Today, when its whole philosophical system is questioned, its individual conclusions can still be established, but they need to be re-demonstrated. If you use it without thinking, although you share the word "bring" with "bring", it is actually brainless and violates the spirit of "bring". The German philosopher Hegel (1770— 183 1) is the pinnacle of the movement initiated by Kant in German philosophy. Although he often criticized Kant, without Kant's theoretical system, his system would never have been formed. Hegel's influence is gradually declining now, but it has always been great, and it is not limited to Germany, nor is it mainly in Germany. /kloc-at the end of 0/9 century, the first-class academic philosophers in the United States and Britain were mostly Hegelians. Outside the scope of pure philosophy, many Protestant theologians also adopted his theory, and his historical philosophy had a far-reaching impact on political theory. As we all know, Marx was a disciple of Hegel when he was young, and he kept some important Hegelian characteristics in the complete theoretical system. Even if (in my opinion) Hegel's theory is almost all wrong, but because he is the best representative of a certain philosophy, this philosophy is not so consistent and all-encompassing, so he still maintains an important position in a historical sense. Hegel asserted that what is realistic is reasonable, and what is reasonable is realistic. But when he said this, his word "realistic" didn't mean empiricist. He admitted, even emphasized, that all the facts made by empiricists were unreasonable, and they must be unreasonable; Only by looking at the fact as a whole and changing its appearance and character can we see its rationality. However, equating reality with reason will inevitably lead to some complacency, which is inseparable from the belief that everything that exists is just. For details, please refer to /view /view/386 1.htm. If you want to know more details, buy books on western philosophy or Hegel's works.