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

㊣Mysteries are mysterious, and they are the door to all wonders.

(Mysterious and mysterious, profound and profound, it is the mysterious door of the heaven, earth and universe.) "Cool Talk about Laozi" Chapter 1 (24) Russell vs. Einstein: There is no objective truth in the world, only Subjective explanation?

1.

At the end of 1918, the First World War had just ended. Liang Qichao, Jiang Baili and others traveled together in Europe. In order to find a way out for China at that time, they visited more than a dozen European countries until they returned to China in the early 1920s.

After returning to China, they each wrote a book:

Liang Qichao wrote "Videos of European Travels" and Jiang Baili wrote "History of the European Renaissance".

Liang Qichao’s view is:

Science is definitely not omnipotent. The blind pursuit of material civilization will inevitably create a society of "the weak and the strong". The essence of World War I was superstitious "science" Almighty" retribution, so European civilization has come to an end. ①

Jiang Baili’s view is the opposite:

It was the Renaissance in Europe that successfully pushed religion off the altar and allowed people to rediscover "people" and the world. The "world" has been rediscovered, so European civilization is a spring thunder for the spiritual world of all mankind, and it is also the "dawn" that the Chinese nation dreams of. ②

Then the question is:

Why did the two of them travel around Europe, eat in the same restaurant, stay in the same hotel, and go to the same place? Come to the opposite conclusion?

You might say:

It’s because they think differently.

Then let me ask:

The two of them are facing the same "objective facts", and their writing relies on the same precise logical deduction. Logically speaking, the two of them are The conclusions people draw should be highly consistent, so why do they have different ways of thinking?

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 in unison:

This is by no means subjective bias, it is entirely our own independent thinking based on objective facts The result comes out.

Then the problem is even bigger:

There is only one truth, how can the results 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 choose?

2.

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

Also around 1920, Russell, the master of philosophy, and Einstein, the master of science, came to China for an inspection respectively. Russell’s view was:

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

Russell even asserted:

“If the Chinese have a stable government and abundant funds, then in the next 30 years, they will create remarkable achievements in science. Achievements, they are likely to surpass us."③

Einstein's view is exactly the opposite:

"The Chinese... are quiet and reserved, even their children. They are all listless and look slow."

Einstein even made some racist remarks about the Chinese nation:

"Even those who are forced to do things like bullshit and horses. People who work the same way will never show a sense of suffering. A strange herd-like nation...they are more like robots than humans."④

Then the question arises:

Why did Russell and Einstein both visit China, both go to Shanghai, and both eat Chinese food, but they came to completely 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 in unison:

This is by no means a subjective bias, it is entirely our own based on objective facts The result of independent thinking.

Then it comes back to the bigger question before:

There is only one truth, how can the results of independent thinking be different?

So, only Two possibilities:

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

Excuse me, which one do you choose?

3.

Perhaps you feel that the category of nationality seems too general and it is difficult to make unified conclusions. . Well, then, we might as well narrow the topic to another dimension, to the perspective of outlook on life.

The famous poet Wilde once said a famous saying:

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

How about it? Does it sound reasonable? Isn't that what life is like? We will be bored if we get what we want, and we will be miserable if we don't get what we want. It is simply an unsolvable tragedy!

But please wait! Freud, the master of psychoanalysis, scorned this view. Freud retorted:

Human beings also have two major joys, one is not getting what you want; the other is getting what you want.

How about it? Does it sound more reasonable? Isn't that what life is like? If we get what we want, we can taste and experience it; if we don't get what we want, we can pursue and create. It is simply a human comedy full of sunshine!

Then the question is:

When they are both facing life, why do they come to different conclusions?

And if you had the opportunity to travel back in time and interview Wilde and Freud, they would definitely answer in unison:

This is by no means a subjective bias, it is entirely based on our own objective facts The result of independent thinking.

Then it comes back to the bigger question before:

There is only one truth, how can the results of independent thinking be different?

So, only Two possibilities:

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

Excuse me, which one do you choose?

4.

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

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

The principal happened to pass by during a meeting and said angrily:

"Sleeping as soon as you read a book is useless!"

The dean of students also happened to pass by during his inspection , but instead of being angry, he said happily:

"Reading can make you tired enough to fall asleep, you have a bright future!"

Then the question comes:

See In the same scene, why do two people come to different conclusions?

And if you have the opportunity to interview the principal and dean, they will definitely answer in unison:

This is by no means a subjective bias, it is entirely our own independent thinking based on objective facts. result.

Then it comes back to the bigger question before:

There is only one truth, how can the results of independent thinking be different?

So, only Two possibilities:

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

Excuse me, which one do you choose?

5.

In fact, the above four completely opposite views have only one reason - different psychological presuppositions! What does it mean? Let us finally look at a koan in Zen Buddhism and we will understand:

One day Ananda said to Sakyamuni: "Master, I encountered a strange thing when I entered the city today!" Sakyamuni asked : "What's weird?" Ananda said: "I watched a band singing and dancing in the city, but I don't know why. After leaving the city, I suddenly felt that everyone was looking sad, and there were births, old age, sickness and death everywhere."

Guess how Sakyamuni solved this problem?

Sakyamuni smiled and said, "I encountered a strange thing yesterday when I entered the city!" Ananda asked, "I wonder what strange thing you encountered?" Sakyamuni said, " I watched a band singing and dancing in the city, but I don’t know why. After leaving the city, I suddenly found that everyone was happy and happy, and everyone was living and working in peace and contentment.”⑤

Then the question is, Why did Ananda and Sakyamuni both go to the city to watch singing and dancing, but what they saw after leaving the city was a different scene? In fact, the answer is very simple. There is a theorem in psychology called the "pregnant woman effect", which means:

When a woman is pregnant, it is easier to find pregnant women on various occasions.

But in fact, it is not that there are more pregnant women around, but that women do not pay attention to pregnant women at all before they become pregnant. It is only after pregnancy that they suddenly start to pay attention to pregnant women. The same principle applies:

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

If you are pessimistic, then all you will see is birth, old age, illness and death; if you are optimistic, then all you will see will naturally be joy, kindness and kindness. The reason why Sakyamuni deliberately said something completely opposite to Ananda's point of view was to remind Ananda:

The appearance of the world depends on the way you look at it.

6.

When it comes to this, everything becomes clear.

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

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

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

So, the two of them used the same logic, but came to opposite conclusions.

Russell’s psychological presupposition and logical premise is that the Chinese nation is industrious and outstanding.

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

So, the two of them used the same logic, but came to opposite conclusions.

Wilde’s psychological presupposition and logical premise is that people will eventually die, so every achievement in life will be in vain!

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

So, the two of them used the same logic, but came to opposite conclusions.

The school principal’s psychological assumption is that this is a poor student!

The dean’s psychological assumption is that this is a top student!

So, the two of them used the same logic, but came to opposite conclusions.

7.

So, what do you want to explain by talking about these four sets of psychological presuppositions? What I want to say is:

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

In fact, China's Zhuangzi also made a conclusion on this more than 2,000 years ago:

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

< p>Yes! If we change the angle of each other, right and wrong will be reversed, so how can there be any right and wrong? It's like looking from the perspective of the earth, the sun and the other eight planets are revolving around the earth; but if you look at the sun as the center, you will find that the earth and the eight planets are revolving around the sun.

In fact, is there any absolute center in the universe? It’s just a different angle!

The reason why we choose the "heliocentric theory" now is just because it is more convenient and faster to calculate the orbits and laws of the planets. The "geocentric theory" requires many additional mathematical formulas to barely complete the same task. . The same applies to our human society. The reason why there is right and wrong, morality and law 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 philosophical sense, there really isn't. To express it in eight words:

Only a position, no opinions.

Because any point of view must be based on a fixed position. There is no point of view in the world without a position, even when we face the same person and the same thing.

8.

There is a very typical case in ancient China:

During the Spring and Autumn Period, there was a beautiful man named Mi Zixia who was the favorite of Wei State. Because his mother I was sick and eager to visit, so I secretly drove the carriage of King Wei Linggong back home. After being reported, according to law, one of his feet should be chopped off.

But Wei Linggong sighed:

"Mi Zixia is such a filial son! He is willing to risk his life for his mother."

So not only did he not Condemning the crime only made Mi Zixia more favored. A few days later, the two of them visited the Royal Orchard. Mi Zixia picked a peach and ate it. It was crispy and delicious, so he handed the remaining half of the peach to Wei Linggong. If an ordinary person faced this situation, he would at least roll his eyes. Unexpectedly, Wei Linggong not only did not dislike it, but also said very movedly:

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

However, a few years later, Mi Zixia changed from a handsome and handsome boy to a middle-aged greasy man. Wei Linggong's attitude immediately changed 180 degrees, and he often told people:

Did you see it? This is the guy who stole my car and gave me leftover peaches! ⑥

You see, this is human nature.

9.

When we like someone, the shortcomings are also the advantages.

Speak directly - it doesn't matter, this is called having no scheming and being sincere! It doesn't matter if you are slow to do things, this is called being honest, steady and reliable! Calculate carefully - it doesn't matter, this is called seriousness, rigor and carefulness!

When we don’t like someone, the advantages they once had will immediately turn into disadvantages.

Speak directly? Really ungrateful and uneducated! Things are slow? Jane is so stupid, dull and slow to react! Budget conscious? What a stingy, stingy person!

In fact, there are so many rights and wrongs in life. They are essentially just our personal "likes and dislikes".

In the final analysis, it is all a matter of stance.

This is true whether it is as small as an individual or as large as a nation. If you particularly like the United States and feel that 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 a mask during the COVID-19 epidemic It can be a kind of freedom to prevent government tyranny.

The most important thing is that these explanations are completely logically impeccable!

This is the fundamental reason why we can never convince a person with logic, unless you make the other person actively change their logical premise through emotions. To put it bluntly, people - they always believe in something first, and then they will reason and construct a whole set of value systems based on it.

In other words:

Everyone’s position comes first, and their opinions are just a follower.

So, whether multiple people are facing the same thing or one person is facing the same thing, as long as their positions are different, their opinions will be very different. In other words, as long as you are a human being, you are bound to be subjective and cannot be 100% objective. Because as long as you are a human being, you must have desires, and it is impossible to be 100% desire-free. The so-called desirelessness is just another kind of "desire" with makeup.

10.

We have already mentioned before that this phenomenon of the unity of opposites is called "Xuan" by Laozi, so what does "Xuan Zhi Xuan" refer to? It's actually not difficult to understand. For example, when we understand that two seemingly completely opposite viewpoints are essentially just different positions, we will naturally draw a conclusion:

There is no objective truth in this world, only subjective interpretation.

Yes, this conclusion is indeed transcendent, and it sounds like it is objectively judging the rights and wrongs between Liang Qichao and Jiang Baili, Russell and Einstein. But here comes the question, isn’t this conclusion itself also a subjective judgment? In other words:

When we say "There is no objective truth in the world, only subjective interpretation", the sentence itself is precisely a subjective interpretation.

Since this sentence is a subjective interpretation, it is not the truth. On the other hand, if this sentence is true, it means that there is indeed a 100% purely objective truth in this world. However, doesn’t this just overturn the meaning of the sentence itself?

So, can we stop and make a conclusion after reasoning at this point? No!

Because when I just judged that the sentence "There is no objective truth in the world, only subjective interpretation" is self-contradictory, my judgment itself is essentially a subjective interpretation.

Since my judgment is a subjective interpretation, it is not the truth. On the other hand, if my judgment is the truth, it means that every truth in this world is self-contradictory and contains the denial of itself. However, since "any truth is self-contradictory and contains the denial of itself." So I would like to ask:

Does this sentence itself - does it contain the denial of itself?

If it is included, it means that this sentence is not the truth; if it is not included, it means that there is indeed a 100% purely objective and non-contradictory truth in this world. However, this does not exactly overturn the purpose of the sentence itself. What does it mean?

So, can we stop and make a conclusion after reasoning at this point? Not yet! We can still continue to play this logic game, repeating it over and over again, to infinity...

11.

You see, this is the ideological "ghost against the wall" ".

We followed the logical route and wandered around in the "forest of thoughts". We originally thought we had encountered a supreme road of truth, but when we set foot on it, we discovered that this road of truth is not only Instead of leading us out of the forest, it is like a spiraling circle that keeps spinning, constantly negating and covering up the certain path we have taken before.

If you use a metaphor to describe it:

The road to truth is like a rope with two grass threads intertwined with each other, constantly denying downwards and climbing upwards. That's right, this is called "mysterious and mysterious". If you don't understand this logical paradox, you are likely to suffer a big loss.

For example, there was once a Brahmin leader who went to see Sakyamuni to debate, and the two made an agreement:

Whoever loses will be beheaded to apologize!

When we arrived at the scene, the first thing Sakyamuni asked was:

What is the purpose of your teachings?

The leader didn’t know that this was a routine, so he responded very confidently:

“I believe in not accepting anything.”⑧

This sentence The superficial translation is:

I aim not to accept everything!

Actually what he wants to express is:

I don’t think there is any truth in this world!

That’s right! This is exactly what we discussed earlier:

There is no objective truth in the world, only subjective interpretation!

But unexpectedly, Sakyamuni asked directly:

Do you accept the idea of ??"not accepting everything"?

I have to say that this rhetorical question hits home. The leader who asked the question at that time was speechless and walked away in anger. However, halfway along the way, the more the leader thought about it, the more "mysterious" he felt, and the more he thought about it, the more he felt that this rebuttal was reasonable, so he went back to behead him to apologize. But Sakyamuni didn't care and said:

"You just need to return to the Tao, there is no need to do this."

So the leader immediately gave up Brahmanism and led five hundred The disciples joined Buddhism together.

But please think about it, if this leader had understood the principle of "mysterious and mysterious", would he still lose this debate? I'm afraid it's not that easy to conclude.

12.

Yes, when we understand that truth is always "mysterious", always transcends language and logic, and is always in a state of "negation of negation" Only then can we truly understand that "Tao can be Tao but not Tao", and only then can we truly stand at the threshold of "Tao". That's why Lao Tzu said:

"Mysterious is mysterious, the door to all wonders."

Reference materials:

1. Liang Qichao's "European Journey to the Heart Video Record? Seven? Science" The Dream of Omnipotence"

2. Jiang Baili's "History of the European Renaissance? Introduction"

3. "Wu Deng Hui Yuan? Volume One"

4. Russell "Comparison of Eastern and Western Civilizations? Chinese Character"

5. Rosencrantz "Albert Einstein's Travel Diary: Far East, Palestine and Spain (1922-1923)"< /p>

6. "Han Feizi? Saying Difficulty"

7. "Zhuangzi? Theory of Equality of Things"

8. "Wu Deng Hui Yuan? Volume One" Author: Zi Xia Lang, born in the 90s, writes like crazy, the night is like ink, and the moonlight is like me.