What Mr. Chen said, I can boil it down to:
The knowledge of humanities and social sciences is a special kind of knowledge. About a certain knowledge K of the knowledge object X of humanities and social sciences, when you know this knowledge, K no longer holds water, but is transformed into K'. I can think of a simple example: there is a "spotlight effect" in psychology, that is, people tend to overestimate the attention of others, especially when they are embarrassed or embarrassed. The experimental method is to let the subjects try to wear strange clothes, and then let the subjects evaluate the attention of others to clothes. After knowing this knowledge, the derivative influence of "spotlight effect" will weaken for me. Although I feel nervous or embarrassed when I speak in public, every time I think about this knowledge, the effect will weaken.
I seem to have seen this definition in Mr. Ye Feng's paper (maybe I remember it wrong, but Mr. Ye Feng and Mr. Chen Jiaying are both professors of Beijing Normal University, so there must be communication). I was surprised at that time, but now I think there are still many problems to prove. Perhaps the most realistic thing is that there are quite a few repeatable quantitative studies in the field of social sciences. For example, some students asked whether there is substantive and objective knowledge even in the field of natural science. Of course, the problem itself needs to be clarified. However, a completely positive answer to this question may be dismissed as metaphysical realism, and as Mr. Chen said, the answer to this question basically does not affect the significant difference between the two concepts of "happiness" and "electromagnetic field", which requires different ways of inquiry.
Here, Mr. Chen may prefer to express himself from the opposite side. The understanding of self is not a natural science problem like "what is electromagnetic field".
First of all, the process of cognition is not through pure meditation without seeing the "appearance" of the subject, but more like the "touch of the hand" in which the subject participates, revealing the existence of the subject from time to time. The purpose and result of cognition is not an objective and accurate answer, but the process and result of cognition itself, and it is also shaping itself. This conclusion can be extended to the whole field of humanities and social sciences.
For the young people in contemporary China, it is even more necessary to reflect on the words and ideology that we are used to. Are they really credible and can guide our lives? Teacher Chen gave an example of patriotism and talked about whether the so-called patriotism is really good for the country. I couldn't agree more. What I think of patriotism basically belongs to hating the country and even betraying the country on others.
Let me talk about my own views on the concept of "self".
In the past, many of my articles and thoughts were entangled in questions about self, the world and meaning. All kinds of questions are interlocking, but it is actually difficult to write. However, the recent in-depth experience and reflection on games, novels and the second element have made many problems clear. In fact, teacher Chen also mentioned a very important point when answering questions. Self is not ready-made, not chosen, not designed, but developed and understood through "doing things".
It may be difficult for me to answer "what kind of person am I" today, but I can calmly say "what kind of things I want to do"-"write some interesting stories, play some fun games, and maybe do a little philosophy when I have the chance". The answer to this question does not need much significance and rational support, but simply you can do what you want (this is indeed the privilege of modern people). Because of the answer to this question, all kinds of questions such as "what is a good life", "what is love", "what is good politics" and "what is a good world" will become easier. For the infinite entanglement and reflection that is purely inward, the importance is greatly reduced, because people can develop and reflect themselves more easily and comprehensively in "doing things".
Another question that comes to my mind is, is the concern and sincerity for "self" really brought about by modernity and popularization? Teacher Chen Jiaying mentioned elsewhere that the Greek world and the understanding of the concept of "self" are very different from those of modern people, but I think this may not be a matter of time dimension. At least in the Confucian tradition (actually including Taoism and Buddhism), self is still a center, and honesty is also a problem closely related to self. In the chapter "University Honesty", it is said that "Honest people do not deceive themselves." Few villains in the history cited by Mr. Chen think they are despicable, but they are not much different from self-deception in their self-righteousness integrated with self-deception. However, universities tend to think that villains know the difference between good and evil, while Mr. Chen thinks that defining philosophy as second-order knowledge, that is, the specialized knowledge of humanities and social sciences mentioned at the beginning, is more complicated. However, from the moral view of Confucian emotionalism, honesty, as a Confucian cultivation effort, is integrated as a whole.
However, Mr. Chen may have played a joke that I care about very much. He said, "It's easy to be sincere at your age. At my age, you are deceiving yourself. " But I don't think his lame example is appropriate. Is this enough to deceive yourself? Although I can't be the noblest, can't I be the most sincere? Sincerity may be difficult, but the price of hypocrisy is also heavy. Besides, why "all"? According to my understanding of Mr. Chen, this is still a joke on the whole, but if we go deep into the society, there may be more and more "forced".
Finally, because the students were too enthusiastic, this question was not asked, and there was no explanation for communicating with the young teachers of Jiaotong University. However, in one episode, I mentioned that I finally gave up the re-examination of Sun Yat-sen's philosophy and made game planning directly. Jiao Tong University teacher said that a liberal arts champion was admitted to Peking University Law School and worked on game planning for two years. He likes writing novels and plays, and later went abroad to study philosophy. Although the top liberal arts scholar and I are not in the same level, two years is too short for the game industry, but I did think that I would go back to campus to study philosophy after 30 years old, and writing novels could be a lifelong career.
Generally speaking, this lecture was given by Mr. Chen, with laughter and applause. Who says Jiaotong University is a cultural desert?
But some students are really ungrateful to ask questions, what's more, some people express that they don't ask questions, and asking questions has nothing to do with the topic. The main idea of this lecture is that many questions do not need ready-made words and answers, but need to be realized and reflected in your own life. It is impossible to expect a great philosopher to solve your deep confusion in a few words. The thinking and expression of other students are outrageous, which can not help but remind people of the cancellation of philosophy undergraduate and general education courses mentioned by teacher Chen. I hope this lecture can at least make some students realize that there are also philosophy departments and related courses in the cultural desert!
In addition, it is completely wrong for a layman to study Heidegger. It can be seen that students are still interested in philosophy, but it is a pity that they are behind closed doors. There is a good chance that they will practice magic skills. I suggest you start with professional introduction and philosophy history, such as Solomon's Introduction to Philosophy and Big Questions. Skirbekk is more recommended in the history of western philosophy. The development of philosophy after Hegel and the rise of analytical philosophy can be seen in Zhao Dunhua's new edition of Modern Western Philosophy. In fact, for students who do not intend to take the academic route, it is direct. If you are interested in Heidegger, you can read Chen Jiaying's A Reader of Existence and Time (although I haven't read it), while Zhong Zhe has read at least four books. Otherwise, everyone likes Liang Shuming personally in modern times, and you can read his memoir, Will the World Be Fine?