How will we expand our toolbox? My idea is that we can expand the thoughts of some famous philosophers through their own lives, and take this as the key link to expand our content.

These philosophers are divided into 10 groups. 10 philosophers are Socrates and Plato. This is the first group. The second is Aristotle, and the third is cynicism and some schools related to it. The fourth is Machiavelli, the fifth is Hume, the sixth is Kant, the seventh is Hegel and the eighth is Schopenhauer. The ninth is Nietzsche, and the tenth is Sartre. Their thoughts summed up various philosophical methods to solve life puzzles.

Let's first look at the ancient Athenian society faced by Socrates and Plato. Although technically different from today's, the basic problems they face are common in today's society, and that's all.

Many people's enthusiasm for public affairs is completely led by several big V's. The so-called public opinion relies on brushing traffic, not brushing IQ. At that time, the so-called big V, that is, for the ancient Greeks, was the so-called "wise man". "Wise man" is not a wise man today, but a proper term at that time, referring to a group of literati who paid money to help people wash the land.

Socrates and his student Plato felt that the moral life of the Athenian people was so degraded at that time that they needed a systematic and rational rescue plan to help them get rid of ignorance and the influence of the Great V. Their prescription was to expose the rational basis of public problems themselves with sincere debate. Anything that is intellectually unacceptable will be ignored.

As a result, this practice angered the citizens of Athens. Unfortunately, Socrates was sentenced to death by angry Athenian citizens. Finally, he had to drink hemlock juice and ended his life. Plato himself has been to Syracuse, which is now Sicily. He hoped to save people's lives there with reason, but he was not very successful.

Some people will think that Socrates and Plato's idealism is too stubborn, and it is strange to give an excuse not to hit the wall for everything. Plato's disciple Aristotle decided to give their idealism a discount, to say the least.

He believes that the happiness of life lies not only in rationality, but also in how to realize your ideal in practice. Even if it is achieved halfway, it is better than nothing. (Aristotle)

Therefore, in the specific operation process, you have to solve all kinds of detailed problems faced by doing good deeds, which forces you to make some compromises in reality. Aristotle believes that there is nothing shameful about compromise, and the key is to conform to the mean. This "golden mean" refers to the golden mean of our China culture, but it is not the same thing.

That is to say, in Aristotle's view, a moral person is a person who can do things in the golden mean. If you can do this, your life will be very happy.

So if we sum up Socrates and Plato's thoughts in four words, these four words are the supremacy of ideals. The core idea of Aristotle's philosophy of life is to seek the middle way or the mean. I will also spend some time discussing the differences and connections between Confucian golden mean and Aristotle's golden mean.

Well, we can see that the philosophy of life has reached Aristotle's step and made a big step towards reality. Since some people compromise the first step, some people compromise the second step. If we compromise further, it will be the so-called cynic.

The society faced by cynics is a late Greek society, a bit like today's society, that is to say, the whole society is changing informally, and various major events are constantly being screened. If you have a cell phone.

What is the answer given by diogenes, the founder of cynicism? If we use today's language to explain his thoughts, it is to quit WeChat, turn off the mobile phone, learn from Li Shangshan to cut wood, not be isolated from the world, not be tired of worldly fame and fortune, eat only warm clothes for three meals a day, and be only one of nature, just be happy.

So if we compare the cynic's position with Aristotle's, Aristotle's idea is to struggle with reality, and don't give up this. But when struggling with reality, we can give a small discount to the ideal, that is, the discounted ideal is still the ideal.

What is the cynical philosophy of life? Don't dwell on reality. All you have to do is despise reality, which I despise. I want to go up the mountain and live my own monastic life. Hiding in the small building has become unified, and it cares about spring, summer, autumn and winter.

Therefore, their philosophy of life can be called a kind of moral indifference. Please note that this position can easily become another position. I don't care about right or wrong in the real world at all. Early cynicism, there is also a scholar's character facing powerful people. But it is precisely because they don't want to get involved in this complicated practical entanglement that they can easily become indifferent people.

For example, we all know that hannah arendt and hannah arendt are famous female philosophers who wrote Eichmann in Jerusalem. She also mentioned a very important concept called "the evil of mediocrity". In other words, some guards in Nazi concentration camps excused them from killing Jews on the pretext that they were just carrying out orders. Is such an excusable attitude similar to cynicism? This is another matter of opinion.

There is no doubt that cynicism represents the overall fading of ideal passion, which is not only discounted, but also faded. If this idea spreads, it may lead to the overall degradation of the passion for human social construction, but not everyone believes in Buddhism so much.

If some people do have a strong desire for success, but at the same time they are influenced by cynicism, and their enthusiasm for moral ideals is not so high, what new ideas will be born when a strong desire for success is combined with indifferent moral feelings? This leads to the fourth group of philosophy of life that I want to introduce here, namely machiavellianism.

What is machiavellianism? This is of course related to the Italian philosopher Amartya Willy. His core idea is to pursue whatever you want in life, as long as it is realized, and don't care too much about moral issues. If you do something, someone will automatically defend you. History is written by winners. Therefore, this characteristic of machiavellianism is moral indifference and utilitarian enthusiasm.

In this respect, it is slightly different from cynicism, because cynicism is pure moral indifference, but it has no enthusiasm on the utilitarian level. But there are always many people in the world. Machiavellianism is selfish and hard-hearted, but there are still some people in the world who are soft-hearted.

Seeing Machiavellianism is so cold, some people have to confront it through a life philosophy that advocates warmth. This is Hume's moral sympathy. Hume's thought is also the attitude of the fifth philosophy of life that I want to introduce here. In short, his idea is how to walk on the road of life and guide you according to your own moral feelings.

Hume attaches great importance to the role of emotion in the construction of the relationship between self and others. He thinks the most important emotion is sympathy. When someone is in pain, you sympathize with him, which will make you feel his situation. He sympathizes with you, and he will feel you, which will lead to the construction of positive interpersonal relationships.

This structure means that if you make him feel better, you will feel better yourself. If you want to be happy in life, you will try to make those who sympathize with you happy.

According to Hume's philosophy of life, it is meaningless to pursue one's own interests without pursuing the happiness of others. Before Hume, although many philosophers also discussed the status of emotion, no one ever attached so much importance to emotion as Hume did.

Emotions are very, very changeable. In love, sometimes you like someone and suddenly you don't like someone, which are all ups and downs.

Therefore, some philosophers think that Hume has been talking about feelings and is too subjective and casual. For example, the feelings between husband and wife will always fade, and you can't divorce just because I feel less about you today. Isn't that like playing?

Therefore, many philosophers would argue that reason should take a step back, but it would be even more retro if we completely returned to Socrates and Plato's position. Just like the stage of cynicism, Hume did not go through this stage, so some philosophers developed a set of eclectic life philosophy with a high version, which is called pretending to have idealism to distinguish it from real idealism.

This is the philosophy of life of Kant, the sixth group of philosophers and the German philosopher. In fact, I don't know if the ideal is illusory. He honestly said I don't know, but pretend to be ideal, otherwise the world will be chaotic and personal life will not be happy.

Kant's society is a modern society, which has completely walked out of the Middle Ages. Although there was no industrial revolution, Newton's physics had been popularized at that time, and scientific thinking had penetrated into every aspect of life. Moreover, scientific progress can fully defend itself through its various positive consequences.

But morality has not become more stable with the development of science. On the contrary, Kant, who has seen the great harm caused by the black powder war, is very worried that the future of human history will have greater conflicts because of the progress of science and technology, destroying the happiness of many individuals and ordinary people. He dreams that mankind can achieve permanent peace.

How to establish a philosophy of life that can live up to your dreams and conform to today's complex real world? Kant's method of constructing life philosophy is this: he first found the best ideal life state that everyone agrees with. Please note that whether this state can be achieved is another matter, but everyone agrees that it is the best.

For example, there is no war in the world, and then what are the logical premises of these States? This method of constructing philosophy is called transcendental philosophical method.

Transcendental philosophy has certain logical persuasiveness, but it has certain hypocrisy. Because the author of the theory doesn't even know whether this ideal or dream he put forward is true or not. So it will be discovered by more sincere philosophers, and others will attack it.

If Kant's philosophy is a degenerated version of Platonism, there will probably be some other version of Aristotelian to challenge it, which involves the seventh philosophy of life that we are going to talk about, hegelianism.

If the core of Kant's philosophy of life is to pretend to have ideals, then Hegel's thought is an idealistic explanation of reality. What the hell does this mean? Like Aristotle, Hegel believes that ideals must be realized in reality.

However, unlike Kant, Hegel believes that ideals are real, not virtual. You don't have to pretend that ideals exist. They are there, and there is one of the greatest ideals called absolute spirit. Every detail of our life has absolute spirit. Every breath we take, every time we punch in at work, and every time we scan WeChat to buy things are all manifestations of absolute spirit in a certain aspect, so secular life has its own ideals and sacredness, and the boundaries between doing small things and doing big things are blurred.

Some people say that this philosophy of life seems to be nothing, it just gives every little thing a sacred meaning. But this philosophy of life has its uses, which can provide a general explanation for various philosophies of life. In Hegel's words, what is true is reasonable, and what is reasonable is true. Everything that exists or is real can provide reasonable service and reasonable explanation.

But Hitler is planning to destroy the Jews. What can I say? Hegel meant that I didn't say Auschwitz was worth encouraging.

So Hegel's philosophy of life is actually a super hot pot, and everything can be cooked. But it also has some disadvantages. What are the disadvantages? It can't understand the phenomenon of contingency well, and all interpret contingency as a certain embodiment of inevitability. In this way, the independent status of contingency itself disappears.

In the theory of the German-speaking world, it is Schopenhauer who severely criticizes Hegel's philosophy of life, which is the seventh group of philosophers we are talking about here.

Hegel's philosophy of life is summed up in this sentence. Whatever happens in your life is part of a great plan, so don't panic. Schopenhauer's philosophy of life is such a sentence. There is no great spiritual plan as Hegel said. Let me tell you what the truth of the universe is. This is a great will to live. This will to survive doesn't know what plans it has.

However, Schopenhauer does not advocate that people panic because of this. The whole universe has no purpose or plan, and the whole history has no purpose or plan. We are afraid, don't be afraid. He will ask you, why are you panicking? Why are you afraid? This is because you think your life goals will fail. But Schopenhauer tells you, do you think that the satisfaction of all life goals will make you feel at ease and happy? I'm just telling you that's not the case, because the satisfaction of the goal will bring greater emptiness, so achieving the goal is more terrible than failing.

Therefore, the essence of Schopenhauer's philosophy of life is to teach everyone not to care about those illusory goals, but to keep their original intentions. Schopenhauer's philosophy of life can be summarized in two more concise words, and these two core words are tragedy. He finally saw that the struggle of life was ultimately a meaningless tragedy.

Obviously, Schopenhauer's thought is a comprehensive sublimation and systematization of cynicism. This Schopenhauer-style cynicism of Buddhism is bound to meet with a dynamic thought to confront it. This is the routine we have always seen, and any kind of thought will encounter another kind of thought to refute and confront.

How can we fight against Schopenhauer and inherit the essence of Schopenhauer's thought? This leads to the eighth group of philosophers we want to mention, that is, Nietzsche, a basic attitude of Nietzsche's philosophy of life that everyone is very familiar with. What can we sum up in four words? It's superman legislation.

This idea of superman legislation can be broken down into many small links. The first link is that God is dead, and God refers to the absolute norms of moral standards. There is no god, and there is no ultimate goal of huge history as Hegel said. This is all nonsense. Idealism failed. In fact, Schopenhauer will agree with this view more or less.

The second view is perspectivism. What does perspective mean? Just look at the perspective of this problem. What do you mean? Look at a chalk box. What angle do you look at the chalk box? What is a chalk box? We should decide what kind of life we want, and also look at the problem from our perspective.

The third factor is master morality, which is different from slave morality. Morality means that the core words of our standard of living are good and bad, what is good for me and what is not good for me, rather than distinguishing between good and evil. Distinguishing between good and evil means that you are a loser, a slave, and a slave's morality. The real master does not discuss good and evil. The person who has this idea is Superman, that is, Superman.

But at this point, we are still a little vague about the life of Superman. But one thing is almost certain. Since many of us don't understand Nietzsche's superman, nine times out of ten we are not superman and nine times out of ten we are mortal.

On the premise of god's death, how can mortals establish their own foundation for living? This involves the tenth group of life philosophy that we want to mention, which is Sartre's existentialism. The core meaning of Sartre's existentialism is nothing more than three words, relying on oneself.

The philosophy of French philosopher Sartre is a radical libertarianism, which is contrary to determinism. The so-called determinism means that any life decision we make in this world has a premise in front of you.

For example, if you think you want to enter Beijing Film Academy, being an actor is your free choice. But in fact, you were born in a family environment related to the film industry. You've heard of it since you were a child, and you've heard of it, which determines that you are likely to take this road, so there is no free will at all. This is called determinism.

The theory of free will is the opposite. You did enter the Beijing Film Academy of your own free will. Even if your parents are actors, your choice has nothing to do with your parents because it is still possible. You are not interested in movies. You went to other industries.

Sartre thinks that people really have such freedom, and he does admit that God is dead, just like Nietzsche, so he admits that there is no absolute standard of living, and people are judged to be free, but he does not think that there are masters and slaves between individuals.

Instead, Sartre thinks that everyone must be responsible for himself and everything for himself, because a person does not exist voluntarily in the world, but once he exists, he is free, but at the same time he is responsible for everything he has done. Freedom is not a pure compliment to Sartre, but it is still tragic, which means that you are helpless and have to rely on yourself.

He has a famous saying that others are hell. For the elaboration of Sartre's thought, I want to combine some of Sartre's dramatic works, because Sartre himself is a thinker with great attainments in literature, and I also want to talk about the ideological entanglement between Sartre and Camus, a contemporary literary philosopher.

Let's sum up a general point between these ten chapters. Our program is divided into ten chapters. In fact, we are going to talk about the different philosophies of life of so many philosophers, and this arrangement order is a bit like a person's growth process.

I'm not saying that the story of philosophy of life ended in Sartre, but we can see the development process of the whole human life, and the development process of each individual life is the conflict between different values. First you have a very simple value, and then you find that this simple value can't cope with reality, so you have to look for the opposite force, and then you become a compromised value, but this compromised value itself will split, become different types, and then spiral up, reflecting different attitudes towards life.

I don't want to give a very clear answer about which of the ten philosophy methods I want to offer you is good or bad. Of course, it is inevitable that I will reveal my preference for some life attitudes from time to time. But I am defending, my real purpose is to let everyone find a life path that suits them best in such a different way of thinking of life philosophy, find a systematic plan to defend their life choices, and let themselves live clearly.

Please note that the ultimate goal of philosophy of life is not so much to make everyone happy, but to provide a set of philosophical defenses for everyone's life choices. Everyone feels that their life choices will only lead to happiness under the guidance of these philosophical defenses. Happiness is not a ready-made thing. Happiness needs a philosophical explanation, and we provide such a philosophical explanation.

But because there are many people who can't feel happy now, if we can make them happier through a philosophical explanation, I think I am more or less contributing to the happiness of the whole society. For example, different people get different life philosophy guidance from my thinking toolbox, and then get happiness in different directions, which is actually conducive to the diversified development of our whole society.

Finally, I want to point out that recording this program is also a great test for me, because I have said that there is no such a fixed branch of philosophy as philosophy of life in the whole course of philosophy in our university. It exists, but it is marginalized.

Think about a problem

From Socrates to Sartre, their philosophy of 10 summed up various philosophical solutions to life puzzles. With the explanation of the 10 group of philosophers' thoughts introduced today, some people will say that we should not be so stubborn, because there is no absolute right or wrong in the world, and we must combine the specific context to get a correct judgment. And be flexible and sing what songs on what hills.

In the philosophical thoughts of Socrates and Plato, people can't live without principles, and they must stick to what is right, even if it costs them. Therefore, morality is paramount, and it is feasible to sing any song on any hill without violating morality. This is also within the scope of Aristotle's thought, and it cannot transcend morality and get rid of moral constraints;

Cynicism philosophy does not care about what is right or wrong, but a seclusion thought divorced from reality. Just like a lyric, turn off your cell phone and don't go to a regular meeting about right and wrong. So this discussion is meaningless to cynicism, morally indifferent, and there is a feeling that the world has nothing to do with me!

Machiavelli's philosophy can explain what songs I advocate singing on any hill, as long as it is beneficial to me, immoral or not, then I will do it. Hume's philosophical thought is that we should sympathize with others from the perspective of others (I understand this sympathy is different from what we know now), so that we can really get happiness and happiness, so Hume's philosophical thought also advocates what songs to sing on the hills to a certain extent;

Hegel's philosophical thought agrees with what songs to sing on the mountain. Hegel's famous philosophical thought: Being is reason. Schopenhauer's thought is the sublimation of cynicism, and he advocates respecting his own heart.

? Nietzsche's superman legislation and Sartre's existentialism are still a little difficult to explain this sentence. The next step is to explain the existing answers in the manuscript for each philosophical thought in order to understand the memory more deeply.

?

?

?