So in this case, in order to avoid falling into such an argument, we think we should fundamentally ask what philosophy means when it comes into being. In fact, if we just open a dictionary, we will tell us that philosophy originated in ancient Greece. In Greek, philosophia means to love wisdom, philos love and sophia wisdom. It is generally believed that the original intention of philosophy is to love wisdom. Because we can read it just by opening the dictionary. But you may not have thought of the meaning behind this simple etymology. That is to say, when philosophy was born, philosophers didn't say that philosophy is wisdom, or that philosophy is the embodiment of wisdom. They just said that philosophy loves wisdom. You are like Plato, a famous Greek philosopher, who once said, "I think the word wisdom is too big for only God." We can only love wisdom. "So in this sense, we can say that there is a difference between wisdom and knowledge. Knowledge or scientific knowledge is a tool and means for us to understand and transform the world, which has certain practicability and usability. But when people love wisdom, wisdom itself has no other purpose. This is why Aristotle, a student of Plato, said, "All disciplines are more useful than philosophy, but only philosophy is a free discipline". Because it has no other purpose, it exists for itself. Then we think, from philosophy as the love of wisdom to the study of wisdom. In other words, philosophers don't want to love only wisdom. I think if we all embark on this road, we will not be content to love only wisdom. We all want to be wise.
Therefore, western philosophy has embarked on such a road of trying to make philosophy a science and wisdom a science, which I call the scientific complex of philosophy. This has been particularly evident since modern science. Inspired by modern science, every subject has become a science, which has certain universal inevitability and is universally applicable. Then philosophy thinks that I should be the foundation of all sciences, and I should be science. But in fact, we can see that up to now, 2600 years have passed, and in modern times, 300 to 400 years have passed, and philosophy does not really have the scientific characteristics of natural science. Why? We say that in fact, in a sense, people misunderstand the essence of philosophy. Because, the difference between wisdom and knowledge is that it marks a supreme eternal and infinite ideal realm, while life is limited, knowledge is limited and thinking is limited. It is impossible for us to reach the pinnacle of such wisdom in this life, so what we can do is to love wisdom. On the other hand, we can also compare philosophy, science and religion to see the essence of philosophy. Science, religion and what we call philosophy are in between. Science is a tool and means for us to know and transform the world. It is appeal to reason and based on empirical observation. It is the understanding of nature and the formation of scientific knowledge with certain universal inevitability. What about religion? Is the ultimate concern of mankind. It tries to transcend a finiteness and reach an ideal state of transcendence. Then, in the view of religion, such an ideal realm and such a transcendental existence are beyond the reach of knowledge, and only faith can achieve it. In contrast, philosophy is also among them. On the one hand, we know that philosophy is a theoretical worldview, or we call it a theory or doctrine about worldview. So it's appeal to reason. On the other hand, it also stems from the ultimate concern, that is, to solve the deepest mystery of all things in the universe and the highest ideal state that life can achieve. In this sense, philosophy is in a favorable position, because science does not care, or does not pay attention to, or cannot solve the problem of ultimate concern. On the other hand, religion lacks theoretical rationality. In this sense, philosophy has its dominant position. But this vantage point is precisely its shortcoming.
Think about it, science can form scientific knowledge with certain universal inevitability for the nature it faces, but it is impossible for us to form knowledge for an object that ends with care, ideal and infinity. At the same time, philosophy also lacks the convenient method of faith owned by religion. In this way, philosophy is in an awkward position. It wants to know an infinite and eternal realm through reason, but that realm can't be expressed by rational knowledge. As a result, the philosophical question has become a difficult problem with no ultimate answer, but human beings have been asking it. In fact, this problem we encounter in our daily life can be divided into two categories, one is what we call the problem, and the other is what we call the problem. The so-called question is a question that can usually have an answer and a unified answer. For example, if 1+ 1 equals 2, there must be a definite answer. But what are the more problems we encounter? There is no standard answer, only various solutions. This kind of problem is called a problem. Philosophy is such a difficult problem, and it is a difficult problem among difficult problems. Then, when we use science to measure philosophy, you will immediately find that there are almost no uncontroversial problems, and there are almost no theories that can achieve even relative universal inevitability. In this way, people who criticize philosophy have a very advantageous and deadly weapon, that is, science. Those who maintain philosophy have indelible heart diseases. Because it is difficult for them to face this problem, almost all people who study philosophy are trying to prove that philosophy is science, at least in theory. Maybe it's not science now, but it will become science in the future. In fact, I think that whoever criticizes philosophy or defends philosophy, if science is taken as the standard, is actually caught in a prejudice and misunderstanding. He misunderstood the essence of philosophy. Philosophy is a discipline, but it is not a science like natural science. In fact, let's think about it, is it necessary to require all knowledge and all subjects should be like natural science? Natural science, including technology, is a tool and means for us to understand and transform the world. They are all practical and serve us, but we know that scientific knowledge is neutral, and tools and means always have a service object and a goal. In my opinion, philosophy should solve such a problem, that is, what are all our knowledge and all our life goals? It should undertake this task. So in this sense, we can regard philosophy as a broad philosophy of life.
Then we may ask, since there is no ultimate answer to philosophical questions, when we face these questions, it brings pain. Why do we ask these questions? Why do you ask these questions? I know that philosophy faces an unsolvable problem. Why don't we give it up and still pursue it? Let's go back to the example at the beginning, the myth of Eden. So in the myth of the Garden of Eden, it tells that Adam and Eve died because they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge and were driven out of the Garden of Eden. Christianity regards it as original sin. Therefore, from a philosophical or cultural point of view, it is not that people die because of wisdom, but that people realize and clearly know their limitations when they have wisdom. In this sense, realizing your limitations and knowing that you will die is the price of wisdom. The price of wisdom. We believe that when man stands out from nature and cuts off the umbilical cord with Mother Earth, he can finally exist freely and independently in this world. So what will happen in front of him? On the one hand, we humans are like all other natural creatures, like a stone, a grass and a tree. We should follow the laws of nature, which is an irresistible objective law. Man is limited, but on the other hand, because of his rationality, he has an ideal beyond his own limitations. So at this time, in front of people, there appeared an absolute, relative, infinite, limited, eternal, temporary, ideal, realistic, on the other side, with great impact. And there is an insurmountable gap between the two. In this sense, people who are dying will pursue eternity, but those who pursue eternity will also die, which is the most fundamental paradox for people to become human beings. And philosophy is born from this, which we call ultimate concern. Let's think about it. When the infinite and eternal sun rises from the horizon, it is impossible for human beings not to pursue this ideal and love wisdom. Can he be willing to be just a limited natural existence? Because you just exist as a nature and give up the pursuit of infinite and eternal ideals, this means that you still exist as a nature, and you are not a person. Therefore, we can regard the pain of wisdom as the baptism of becoming a person.
Then let's think about it. The dead will pursue eternal life, and those who pursue eternal life will die. In other words, in reality, we can't really realize our ideals, but we can't give up our ideals. In the final analysis, philosophical problems finally reflect such an ultimate concern. In other words, it reflects the rationality of human beings, and the human spirit tries to transcend its own limitations and reach an infinite realm of freedom. From this perspective, we can also draw another topic from the myth of Eden, that is, the issue of freedom. We don't consider religion, we consider nature. Usually we say that man is the product of the highest stage of natural development, and we say the highest stage. So far, we can still be proud of it. However, if we consider the development of human society and face a kind of destruction of nature, such as environment and environmental crisis, that is to say, human activities may be a kind of destruction of nature in a certain sense, we can also introduce a paradox, why does nature produce a product of self-destruction? I think there can be an explanation, so we regard man as the highest stage of nature, where he is tall and free. But human freedom is limited. A kind of limited freedom needs to choose and plan among various possibilities. Then, not everyone can foresee the consequences of his choice and planning. What will happen? There's an old saying in China, short deeds become eternal hatred, and then look back for a hundred years. Even when we plan freely, we should be responsible for it and bear the consequences for it. And our freedom is not God's freedom, but human freedom and limited freedom. You can't predict all the situations, so we say that freedom itself means adventure, and any planning and choice we make means adventure. Similarly, when we live in this free world, of course, there is limited freedom. For people, for a rational person, we are not only willing to be a natural existence, but also looking for some meaning and value in this world. A meaningless and worthless world is a world that people can't stand.
But what is the significance and value as a goal in life? No one can realize it with complete certainty. Then, it is also an adventure for people to exist in the form of value. So in this sense, wisdom, as an ideal realm, is actually a value orientation and an ideal goal set by people themselves. In other words, we have created an ideal world higher than the real world as the direction of our efforts. Such an ideal world is not only impossible for us to achieve in reality, but also our ideal. But also an open realm, an open realm. In this sense, there can be no ultimate answer to philosophical questions. When we try to face such problems, they are all kinds of solutions.
So, how do we learn philosophy? You say that your philosophical problems are eternal and unsolvable, but human beings have to ask questions. It is an intellectual pain, but it is indeed a baptism that people must go through. So how do we learn philosophy? I think all of you here may have had the experience of reading philosophical works, because philosophy is not only difficult to understand, but also philosophical works are notoriously obscure. Few people say that I read philosophical works such as novels. But if you want to understand philosophers' thoughts, you have to read their books, but there is a problem here, which I think is mainly a language problem. We only have one language, natural language or everyday language. When we use such language to express our daily life from natural life, we will have no difficulty. Even if a concept is vague, we can freely use it on different occasions without any difficulty. But when we want to use these languages to express our daily life, and we also want to use them to express philosophical problems and philosophical objects, we are in trouble. Borrowing the name of a play by Shakespeare, our language becomes "one servant and two masters". It is no problem to express daily life, but it would be troublesome to use it to express the infinite and eternal realm. So philosophers don't mean that they don't want to talk about it, that they can't talk about it seriously, and that everyone wants to be mysterious. I made this thing very rare, and everyone didn't understand it. No, that's good. Philosophers want to make their ideas very clear for everyone to accept. Unfortunately, he can't do it. So what are the difficulties we face when reading philosophers' works? In other words, he tries his best to find the right language to express his thoughts, and we should use his thoughts to get close to the objects he expresses. I find it difficult, but it is not without solution. The solution is to clarify the problems faced by philosophers, be familiar with the concepts he uses, follow his ideas and understand his thoughts.
So in this sense, learning philosophy should not be said to be learning. We sometimes say that philosophy is not learned, nor can a teacher stand here and teach it. It is not the teaching and learning of knowledge, it is a kind of thinking. And such a philosophical thinking is around this problem. Only when the philosopher's problem is regarded as his own personal problem, or his own problem is raised to the height of philosophy, can he really enter the level of philosophical thinking and get on the road and enter such a path of philosophical thinking. As the ancestor of philosophy in the 6th century BC, Thales left a sentence called "The earth floats on water". The British philosopher Russell expressed some feelings when he wrote here in the History of Western Philosophy. He said that people feel that studying philosophy is about to enter a sacred palace. What you are facing is the sentence: "The earth floats on the water", which inevitably makes everyone a little discouraged. Suppose you say that the earth floats on water. What philosophy is this? If you look at the content, indeed, do we think the earth is floating on water today? What does this sentence mean to us today? But from a philosophical point of view, we will ask what problems it will face and how it will solve this problem. Then at the beginning of the birth of Greek philosophy, it was to solve the origin of all things in the universe. According to Aristotle, the so-called origin means that everything comes from it and returns to it after being destroyed. Everything is changing, except the same. In fact, it originated from a very simple feeling in Greece. He saw the changes of life and death in nature. According to people's common sense, there must be death in life, but the nature we face is boundless and endless, with four seasons alternating and plants dying. It has not become nothing, but has always existed. So the Greeks found it strange. They think that there must be something immutable in this change, so they have to look for this immutable thing in nature. So Thales said that "the earth floats on water" means that water is the source of everything. At that time, when the Greeks were thinking philosophically, they didn't just use the concepts as we do today. They haven't come out from the sensory experience, and haven't formed an abstract concept. They can only express the source and change of water flow in a symbolic way. Let's think about it. Terez is facing such a problem. Should we solve it today? Have our world, our solar system and our universe solved the problem of where everything came from? No, this problem is also a problem we are still facing. So when we think about philosophers' problems and their theories, we don't just pay attention to what they express. Sometimes it is ridiculous to pay attention to its content. But you should pay attention to the way he solves the problem, and you will find that he also provides us with a reference and a choice.
Then, in this sense, we say that learning philosophy means learning the history of philosophy. Philosophy is the history of philosophy, and philosophy does not exist in any system. It exists in all the solutions put forward around philosophical problems in the past, present and even future. Only by combining all these can an open philosophical picture be formed. Let's think about it, if there is a problem that can be solved, then no matter how long you spend, no matter how hard you explore, we all know the result, and we can grasp it directly. But if there is a problem, there is no ultimate answer, and there are only various solutions, then you will find that among all these solutions, it makes no difference who is higher and who is lower. They are all equivalent, because the problem has not been solved, you have not solved it, and I have not solved it. In this sense, Aristotle cannot hide Plato's brilliance, and Hegel cannot replace Kant's position. Philosophers left us milestones. In this sense, they all transcend time and history. Then when we study the history of philosophy and the history of philosophy, we are nothing more than rethinking the problem of philosophers' thoughts and taking the road that philosophers have taken. Then when we embark on this road of thought through hard work, it is our thoughts that embody the philosopher's thoughts, that is, the dialogue between thoughts. Then this conversation is carried out through reading. Therefore, our students who study liberal arts and philosophy don't need a laboratory like those who study science. We need it too. Our laboratory is here, and our laboratory is our own thoughts. From this point of view, the thoughts of philosophers in the history of philosophy are historic. Of course, there is a relationship of inheritance and development between them, but as far as each of them provides his own unique method to solve problems, they all have independent value and are also realistic. You look like hundreds and thousands of years. Philosophers' thoughts, when we read their books and think about their problems, we are not thinking about ancient love, but only our love for classical things. We still want to think further about philosophy, push it forward, and plan, choose and explore our solutions. Then, of course, our solution should be based on our predecessors. You should think about what our predecessors thought in a short time. In the process of thinking and thinking, the philosopher's thoughts will be revived. Of course, resurrection is not retro. In fact, they are alive and have potential. We can make them come true through our thinking.
Then I think as an intellectual pain, it actually contains intellectual happiness. Being a man is a kind of pain, but at the same time being a man also has the happiness of being a man. Although it is impossible for philosophy to finally solve such a problem, all the significance of philosophy is contained in this endless thinking and exploration. From this perspective, I hope more people will learn philosophy and love it, which means more people will love wisdom. Because we are now in this society, we say that modern society is based on an increasingly refined modern division of labor. I think all our students with different majors have it. Each of us must find our place in the big machine of modern society and devote all our energy to this position. You will be engaged in this kind of work or that kind of work, or this subject or that subject. Each of us will engage in different subjects, such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, machinery and so on. Enjoy our achievements with each other. Only when each of us concentrates all our energy on a branch of research direction under two disciplines of a certain discipline, maybe you will spend your whole life on a problem. If you solve this problem, you can win the grand prize. You can go down in history. You do. That's impossible. This has led to a problem called occupational defect in modern society. In fact, each of us paid a heavy price. We all focus on a certain subject, a certain direction, and assume the responsibility of this society by sacrificing and giving up other abilities and hobbies. So we are called to enjoy our achievements. All of us will find a very interesting phenomenon. With the development of science and technology, its theory is certainly more and more complex and deeper, but its usability is more and more simplified and simpler. The most typical examples are computers, computers. Windows, the operating system we often use, I think there is an advertising word in Windows called what you see is what you get. In fact, the complex theory behind what you see is what you get is completely different from yours. But we don't need to understand its theory at all. We can use it by bringing it here. So in this way, in modern society, everyone is in the same position, you are engaged in an industry, a major, and enjoy each other's achievements. So can philosophy do it? Some people specialize in world outlook, outlook on life and methodology. Let's share it. It's impossible. Let's think about it. I think if philosophy is regarded as a broad philosophy of life, or you mean that philosophy is a world view, it needs thinking, consciousness and your own soul. You don't just hold it and use it. You have to think of yourself. So I think learning philosophy should not be just the work of experts. We can't just let some experts pay attention to the world outlook and the meaning and value of life. We don't care anymore. Then we use some of their outlook on life and values. We believe that the road of life is always our own. After all, it is our own life, not others'. So in this sense, philosophy should be something that everyone should think about. Philosophy should be everyone's hobby.
In fact, we should think that philosophical issues are closely related to our daily life, not far away from our life. For example, as far as the table I am talking about now is concerned, in fact, many philosophical questions can be asked from this table. For example, where did the table come from? What material is it made of? Why don't you call the table a chair? A table is a table because of its material. Or the concept of a table? If we say that the table can be made of iron, plastic, wood, stone and other materials, then it must conform to the concept of the table, so we call it a table, but the table can be born and died, and it is relative. We say that the concept of the table remains the same, but if the table is destroyed, where is the concept of the table? If you say that the table is determined by the concept of the table, what form does it exist in the table? Besides, our understanding of this table can form our understanding of this table. How can we be sure that our understanding of watches is consistent with watches? How do we compare what we know about the table with the table itself? These problems are all philosophical, and some of them have not been solved so far. So you look very simple, just a table in front of us, so you look that philosophical problems are far away from our daily life, but in fact they are very close to us. Just because of the way philosophers think.
Then philosophy has gone through a detour, making philosophy farther and farther away from social life. For example, we sometimes say this. We say that the world understood by philosophers is exactly the opposite of the world understood by our daily people. In our daily life, we think everything around us is real, but philosophers will tell you that everything around you is an illusion, and real existence is the universal essence behind it, which is different from the world we understand everyday. This is a way of thinking in classical philosophy. Then western philosophy tries to grasp the world through layer-by-layer abstraction along this line of thinking. When the road was finally judged impassable, philosophers went down again, just as we just mentioned about tables and tables. This is a problem that will appear after epistemology has the distinction between subject and object, so we can go back to the bottom and when we were dealing with tables before the distinction between subject and object was formed. In fact, what I want to tell you is that philosophy has its profound and obscure side, but it is actually closely related to our daily life. From the value and ideal of life to the specific affairs of our daily life, it can be related to philosophy, but this relationship is not a knowledge relationship or a direct relationship. Don't treat philosophy as if everything can be incorporated into philosophy. Philosophy has its object of concern.