Peak 150 if there is no doubt

Another one is to establish a naturalism without skepticism, which will demonstrate the laws of physics that apply to nature itself. It does not mean that the laws of physics can be applied to everything, they are only suitable for nature itself, and they do not lie in our habit of associating impressions together. The laws of nature are not like Hume said, they are the habit of our psychological association, a function of psychology. No, they are the things themselves. They are indeed objective laws, but they are constructed by us. However, they are constructed rationally in isolation and can be applied to the natural world, but this is Kant's position.

It sounds very unbelievable. Indeed, when Kant's critical philosophy was proposed, his contemporaries fiercely attacked him because they couldn't understand how you could talk about problems like this, because you have been accustomed to speaking in this way for thousands of years. How can you turn things around now.

Therefore, critical philosophy should avoid the tension between naturalism and rational criticism of the Enlightenment movement. Only by solving these two things can we solve another problem, which is freedom. What exactly is freedom. Because this is not an epistemological issue that can be explained through rational reasoning. However, once you establish these two, you will know that the issue of the first freedom is not a material problem, and the issue of the second freedom is also a problem beyond rational criticism.

After eliminating these two wrong paths, we can have a meaningful and positive discussion about the problem. If these two problems are not solved, when you talk about freedom, someone will bet on you, and then someone will come to you, making it even more difficult to understand. Either they will tell you that humans have no freedom at all. As a part of nature, humans are subject to various objective laws, natural laws, biological laws, and as social beings, we still obey social consciousness. How can there be any freedom?

Freedom is relative, not absolute. The correlation between freedom and human dignity has been completely removed. So, due to the issue of time, that issue is also extremely important for Kant. After completing the first two parts of the work, he felt that the issue of freedom could be easily discussed, otherwise there would really be no freedom.

In fact, under the French Enlightenment movement, several philosophers openly acknowledged that there is no freedom in human beings. All of our human behavior is like the parts of a clock, and it can be calculated according to the laws of our biology or other laws. There is no freedom.

So, of course, the idea of controlling people through high-tech means, which became extremely evil in the end of the 20th century, is also a result of this line of thought that has been passed down through generations. So, many Westerners have said that modernity is prose, and now we need poetry. Prose is the beginning, the end, and the end, and it looks very strict step by step. You cannot escape from heaven and earth. Poetry often has earth shattering things, ingenious strokes, and many unimaginable combinations. You can break through the limitations of reason.

I personally think, can we persist in attending classes? In fact, when it comes to cultivating personality, the key is to develop a good habit during the Two Sessions, whether one can be serious in doing things and end up doing good deeds, rather than thinking about their own feelings. There are always different opinions about the issue, and some of them he dislikes very much. He will feel that he wants you to take care of me. But there are also some that he will say are right.

Why do I have to call for a review for this course in the past?

To be honest, as a teacher who has been working for decades, it is only in these two years that I have started to evaluate. This mainly has a somewhat special meaning. I hope to say that you signed up because you are interested. Of course, there was also a student who came twice, but later gave up. He failed his studies and received a zero score in this course.

There are always one or two students in every class who completely give up. They come once but don't come anymore. After they don't come, how will the class be counted? Some of them are just that I won't take this course anymore. Or some people say that I still have to come, which is not good. I'm talking about it. Actually, living alone in the world, you may feel that calling a teacher is too outdated now.

I think that a person's success in the world does not necessarily mean being recognized as having an objective or quantifiable indicator, but rather that in the future, we should "live up to heaven", have cultivation, be upright in personality, and demonstrate something in the world.

I think the four years of college are very poor compared to our current general education and primary education. Once a person truly understands, they will enter university. At this point, if you act recklessly, the most important part of your life will encounter problems.

What will happen to them in the future?

Because you want to go one level higher, of course you can pass the exam, but you are a bit overwhelmed and unable to get off the ground. It seems that what you have learned below is useless, and you are also very excited. This is to give me a ticket to a university or something. I hope these issues can be taken seriously. Think about what I am telling you now, because I have read two assignments given to me today, which are really of a very high level.

I just feel that this is the quality we have. Of course, don't misunderstand, I didn't ask you to do anything in the future. This is a matter you discussed with your parents and has nothing to do with me. Based on your current foundation, if you succeed, it will definitely exceed those of us who are currently pursuing graduate studies. Because we feel heartbroken that among the people currently pursuing graduate studies, the most suitable ones may not have come in, and those who are not very suitable account for 70-80%, which is a very distressing thing for our teachers.

He's also here, he's going to get into the exam. You can't say you don't want him to come, but it's not the right material. There's nothing either, what I'm telling is the truth. You said you want to become a teacher and do many things, it's not like that. Everyone has their own strengths, and everyone also has their areas where they are not very good at it. If the best thing we can do is to focus on what I am best at and what I am best at, then I will develop in the right direction. If I am not good at it anymore, don't force me, then it will fall. You should think about what to do on your own.

I personally think so. Two, but these two assignments, their thinking, have raised some very worthwhile questions for discussion. Today, I want to spend some time discussing these two questions. Why is philosophy like this? This is philosophy.

What I hate the most is our current teaching of the history of philosophy. I really dislike it. It can be seen that I do not advocate using this method, and there is no problem explaining philosophy as a knowledge. Who was born in a certain year and month, and what works did they write on a certain day and month? What are the main viewpoints? 1234. And what I advocate is that everything we learn is a reflection on our common problems.

Including Plato. Some of the questions he is thinking about are quite childish, and he may think that his teacher's things are all strange. We don't have time for any classes now, but if we have time, I can talk to you slowly. Of course, it's our daily routine today. If you want to think, you will inevitably encounter problems. We are all here today because of these two things. One of the questions he is going to answer is an exam question, and the other is the difference. Ideas are about understanding why the object is set and how it is understood.

What is the concept involved in it? Because according to our education, it seems that there is only one thing in the world, material. Ideas are just a transformation of matter. Ultimately, they can be things produced by the action of matter, such as peptide organisms. So, the writing is very good, the theory is clear, and the language is also clear. It is the most valuable quality for those of us who are engaged in philosophy, because now I know that in graduate school, there are some things that you really have to say a lot to him because when you go back and rewrite, you are not sure. The consciousness of what needs to be said is not clear. If you haven't explained it clearly, you just haven't thought it through. If you have thought it through, you must be able to explain it clearly. This is actually what my supervisor told me back then, because at that time, I had a senior brother who was doing a doctoral thesis. And for my doctoral thesis, he said that the topic of his thesis was much easier than yours, but he couldn't explain it clearly. In fact, he didn't think it through clearly. If you think it through, you can explain it clearly.

I took this idea from him, and he believed that ideas do not belong to me. In fact, our orthodox education believes that ideas belong to me. We are of course the big self, we invent ideas.

Ideas do not belong to me, nor do they belong solely to the world. I am not satisfied with the original two paths. I want to take the third path. What exactly does the concept belong to? What exactly is it? What kind of concept does that belong to? He asks himself and answers, and I appreciate this approach. He asks himself and answers, and concepts belong to a holistic structure. In fact, he is the element that constructs this structure. The reason why the structure is holistic is because both I and the world are seamlessly embedded within it. Some people may ask, but if you look at him, it's just a problem, a problem with constant consciousness, and an engine that uses problems to create articles.

We can pay attention to this when writing theoretical articles in the future. Using questions as the engine to drive the article forward, rather than simply stating it, some people may ask why I am tightly integrated with the world in this structure, as if I use ideas to explain the world, as if the world is completely according to my ideas, whether it is Hegel or something, the whole class or our good and evil, all kinds of things are tightly integrated with ideas.

He asked why someone would say that I and the world are tightly embedded in this structure, and he answered himself. This is because the cognitive principles that I have reflected on belong to me, and the conceptual rules of objects that belong to the world that I have grasped belong to the object. In this structure, there is a corresponding relationship between the cognitive principles that I have reflected on and the conceptual rules of objects that belong to the world, and there is a corresponding relationship between them in the overall structure.

Although this correspondence is not uniform, which is also quite clever, there will never be a situation where a certain principle of cognition cannot find an object, concepts and rules correspond to it, or a concept and rule of an object cannot find a principle of cognition corresponding to it. It always corresponds, in other words, it always fits perfectly, otherwise we would not be able to connect.

In fact, we have never encountered such a situation of being unable to connect in the world. What I have to say, there is always an object I am talking about, and when someone presents an object to me, I can always use my ideas to describe it. From a conceptual perspective, this is just his conclusion on the matter.