peak 247 Observation of mode

The objective world that we humans obtain, which means that we can observe in a certain way, is a principle of Schelling.

This truth, of course, is basically understood by westerners today, but we Chinese still think that because I just talk about our primary school to college politics class, it is too effective for people's education, and he can't help it. It is hard for ordinary people to think about it. Such a simple principle, if you give any example, he should understand it.

This kind of world, however, according to Schelling, we must acknowledge that the world can only be partially presented to us in our experience of Him, and the absolute totality and absolute knowledge are God himself. This is Fichte's viewpoint.

Why does Fichte say absolute knowledge, which refers to the knowledge of the whole, the infinite whole, but it is impossible for God to exist? What we master is a part of the world, not the whole world. Therefore, Schelling's theory of ideas does not oppose realism at all.

It can be said that idealism is a higher form of realism, and the realism of ordinary people like you is too low-level because you have not seen how this reality is presented to us specifically. Ideological theory is a higher form of realism, rather than reflection. He said, 'Of course, because the ability to revise our conceptual reserves based on experiential transmission can itself be cultivated as a higher ability.'.

Our understanding can be constantly improved, and when it reaches this level, they can reflect on their actions and innate thoughts. When we reach such an ability, our experience of the world can reflect on these innate thoughts.

Reflection and experience are not directly related, because reflection is not a condition for the possibility of experience in the objective natural world, it is only a practical requirement that we exist in some way. Therefore, theoretical philosophy transcends its boundaries and enters the field of practical philosophy that is unconditionally required to be established.

That is to say, why does the world appear to us like this, and why can we only see the world in this way?

Xie Lin said that this is not a reason. This is a practical issue, and we can only practice in this way. This is our autonomy. When we become the object of reflection, that is, when we are reflecting on our own autonomy, we should see that spontaneity is only a relatively low force in the encounter with the world's experience.

The autonomy consciousness of people who directly react to things is still relatively low-level in Schelling's view. That is, when things interact with us on the spot, we can do it, which is still relatively low-level, or the realization of our human freedom is not fully realized. The more complete realization of autonomy is in autonomous action.

This is similar to Kant, who responds to various effects on the surrounding world in daily life, which is a lower level of autonomy. Higher levels of autonomy exist in our free activities as individuals.

Kant's philosophy of empiricism. It also revolves around the subject. However, Kant believed that when it comes to self-discipline, it is still a matter of power and a lower level. On a hierarchical level, we allow the world to impose reasonable limitations on human cognitive activities. If not restricted, our cognitive activities remain unchanged, and at such a spontaneous or self disciplined level, the division of subject and object is inevitable.

That is to say, we are subject to various constraints of the external world. Our understanding cannot be complete, although it is spontaneous or what we call autonomy, it is not absolutely complete, absolutely unrestricted, on the contrary, at this level of power. The problem is that there is a higher power that needs to constantly rise, with a lower degree of autonomy power and a higher degree of fully autonomous will power, which means that it will develop to a higher degree of fully autonomous will, and at this level, it will always be limited by its own limitations.

However, German classical philosophers, unlike some individualistic philosophers in Britain, are limited only by their own will, which does not mean that there are no limitations at all. If a person looks at it purely from an individualistic perspective, you can see it as a limitation. However, if we can have a more intersubjective perspective or pay more attention to the necessity of interpersonal relationships, any action we take is carried out within certain interpersonal relationships. But if it's not a limitation, why?  

Because we humans do not live in the world on our own, when it comes to human actions, they must be carried out among people. If we look at it this way, we would not consider such a necessary restriction as a limitation.

This phenomenon is not a problem. Kant said that the global historical direction is changing. If they legislate themselves, it is correct, but if the law legislates itself, they must use my unique and special features.

Note that self legislation is never limited by location. Self legislation is just self legislation. Xie Lin mentioned that self legislation always starts in a specific place, and he has his own global and historical construction. In fact, this should be the way to solve it. However, if we start from somewhere and he says, if we understand him as being involved in some kind of pre reflection, pre consideration of rules and principles that we did not decide for ourselves from the beginning, we must start with legislation for actors outside of their own activities.

That is to say, in the world we live in, when we come into this world, there are already various predetermined rules and regulations for everything we do. This is not something we choose not to choose, but rather a choice we make before reflection, because it is our social existence. Any of us who come into such a world, I think British philosophers will also admit that we have such ready-made rules and limitations from the beginning, which are not our choices. Moreover, if we respect the facts, each of us must start from this rule in order to exist as a human being.

If you say I don't recognize the rules of civilized society, then you are a wild man and cannot establish yourself in the human world. Therefore, German classical philosophers, we must start with such a principle. We also need to start from such a background, so that the entire concept of obligation is not generated by us, but is related to our requirements, that is, obligation.

Children should be filial to their parents, or in other words, parents should be responsible for their children. It is not decided by anyone, but by society and is related to our demands. However, the legislation that generates such demands, why should I abide by these obligations, is indeed a very remarkable idea of Xie Lin.

Because according to the way of thinking based on ethnicity, for me, it's not a matter of choosing or not choosing. Anyway, I exist in a specific society and I have to accept these things. How can we talk about self legislation? All rules are social products, or products of productive forces, or something like that. They are not determined by us, but by all sociological factors. We can call them history, productive forces, or something else?

Call it cultural tradition, etc. Xie Lin, I think he is great. He recognized a former rule in the local area and pointed out such a habit of obeying this requirement. As a Chinese, we should obey the habit and finally show filial piety to our parents. It's not like many people online now say that this is forced, who gave me the rule that children must be filial to their parents. The intellectuals online still argue that because of the small-scale farming economy and patriarchal society, everyone lives together, and everyone will have a grateful mentality and want to repay. This will now be an independent society, where everyone is an independent object. I won't implement this rule. This is the intellectual way of thinking.

Firstly, he affirmed that everyone living in their own world is an independent, conscious, and self determined individual. Only when they agree can the rules be effective for them, which cannot be said because I have no choice. Living in 21st century China, the products of Chinese society from two to three thousand years ago have anything to do with me. If I disagree, I can refuse to accept them, and they can use things beyond history to negate all traditional obligations. For example, if a couple must be loyal and faithful, he may think that being loyal and faithful is also wrong. You see, all these current strategies use a hyper historical autonomy to negate any historical product, in fact, they are also a historical product themselves.

The person who speaks these words cannot deny that their life is only a few decades, and they also lived during a specific period of time. Later, looking at their way of speaking, it is meaningless to speak under a specific historical condition. They do not understand this and are extremely vicious.

So, the entire obligation requirement is related to these things, which are accepted from Kant's national ideology and are legislative requirements. In fact, they are mutually reinforcing and imposed on each other. If I legislate for you, you legislate for me. One side is subject to legislation, and the other is subject to legislation.

By the way, in the first lecture at Masda, Li Zehou played a trick and said, 'What's the difference between my views and Samuel's? It's actually quite simple.'. He said Samuel gave him an example, there was a train with only five routes to take, and there were people standing on the railway. Which one would crush first. He said that this kind of problem is unsolvable. Why is the question unsolvable?

Because if you don't put any moral obligations and moral behaviors in the context of certain cultural traditions and customs, this kind of question cannot be completed. One of Samuel's biggest problems is that he takes away the historicity of human beings, which I have expressed and Li Zehou has not expressed yet. In my opinion, he only said that all moral obligations should be discussed in a certain special social background and a certain era background. Therefore, the German approach is similar to the current British and American approach.