Peak 269 Scientific System

In other words, the scientific system of truth is the form of truth that exists within it. Some may argue that this is nonsense? Isn't it synonymous repetition? Yes, but this synonymous repetition makes sense.

If we say that the absolute reality of the whole is the universe, and if we have read Western philosophy and read it a little deeper, we would say that this is not a form of Benoism, it is definitely an infinite unity.

However, Hegel believed that saying that was one-sided. In my opinion, the correctness of my viewpoint can only be proven by the systematic description itself. Don't rush, you have to wait until my entire system is unfolded before you judge whether my attitude is right or wrong.

In my opinion, the key to all problems lies not only in understanding and expressing the true thing or truth as the subject, but also in understanding and expressing it as an entity, which is the famous proposition in the history of philosophy that the entity is the subject.

Why?

Because we generally believe that the entity is truth, which is no problem, and the truth must be real, which is no problem. If we talk about the subject, there is a subject, especially the Chinese subject, which reminds us of subjectivity, and subjectivity is not necessarily truth.

Don't be too naive, subjective meaning is not truth. Therefore, in Western philosophy before Hegel and also before classical German philosophy, there is no relationship between subject and truth. Truth is the goal of the subject, but it cannot be said that the subject is truth. In the local context, the entity is the subject, the entity is truth, the subject is truth, and he is also an entity. This is a very profound idea.

Hegel's subject, strictly speaking, is absolute here. After all these years of answering this question, none of them have answered correctly on this point. According to our general textbook, how can we desperately argue for entities? In fact, it is the unfolding of subjective spirit. No, strictly speaking, the subject here is absolute, but since absolute is the subject, what is its object?

The only possible answer is that his object is himself. In fact, Schelling is about to break the distinction between subject and object, and he is definitely thinking his own thoughts. Since he is absolutely in his own thinking, his thoughts are definitely spiritual, and he is the subject of infinite self clarity and self-awareness. I'm a bit confused here, why?

Because according to our way of speaking, our habitual way of speaking is that the subject is me, the subject is human, or in other words, the subject is human, subjective consciousness. Is it absolutely human? If absolutely human, is there any difference between Hegel and Kant?

There will be such a problem, don't rush. Absolute, it is a biochemical process of the universe, a process of generation of the entire universe. We call it Quanta, we call it Absolute. Since it is a comprehensive collection, humans must be included and an inseparable organic part of it. This reasoning is acceptable.

We cannot say that the universe is a single entity, and we cannot remove humans. Since the universe is a complete entity, it must include us humans, and it is not an external entity.

The outside of the classroom includes our desks, chalk, and us people. This is called external inclusion, but it means that we humans are actually an organic part of the universe. Although some parts may seem insignificant in terms of quantity, scale, or volume, it doesn't matter. Therefore, any human nature is also the nature of the universe. Can we accept it?

His entire reasoning is like this, because we humans are an organic part of the universe. As we put it, the muscle and nerve cells in our bodies are an organic part of us as a whole. This can be understood. Therefore, can we accept the characteristics of these muscle and nerve cells, which are the characteristics of us humans?

If this approach is acceptable, what we need to tell is that both Schelling and Hegel understand the universe and the totality in terms of organisms. Since the universe and the totality are an endless organism, of course, our human spirit and the universe possess such a spiritual nature, and can definitely be a spirit.

Absolute is spirit, which is the highest definition in Hegelian philosophy. Our human knowledge is actually an absolute process of self-awareness, and there is nothing wrong with it. Many people compete with him, saying that he is talking nonsense. How can our understanding of the world make the universe understand itself?

In fact, it's not surprising to put it bluntly. He separated humans from the universe. Humans are humans, and the universe is the universe. Of course, human thinking cannot replace cosmic thinking because it has no life, no thought, and no brain. However, the separation itself is illegal. He forgot why he was so righteous, because he was based on our common sense. The fear lies in the place, and common sense is wrong.

He would say, 'I'm going to ask him, do you think you're outside the universe?'? We can really ask him, do you really think you have nothing to do with the universe? Are you standing in a place outside the universe, thinking about the universe? Or are you a part of the universe?

I want to ask him, but because our world is unreasonable, many people believe that as long as it is common sense, it is as solid as 2+2 equals 4, and you cannot make any rebuttals at all. People's thinking is not easy to break through, and the difficulty of innovation lies here, not elsewhere, but in being bound by their own thinking habits.

And once we break this, we can really do a lot in terms of thinking.

What I just talked about is about understanding Hegelian philosophy and its importance, because if you don't understand these key points, you will immediately accept criticism from others and be a liar. These are important for us to understand his entire thought process.

When it comes to the idea of absolute self thinking, Hegel is clearly repeating Aristotle's definition of God, because Aristotle also said that God is the idea of self thinking. However, Hegel's thoughts here are fundamentally different from Aristotle's. For Aristotle, when he talks about GOD, he is indeed a transcendent God.

What Hegel is talking about is not absolute, it is the whole, it is the totality. He wrote very clearly in his works, repeatedly stating that this is a whole, and decision-making is a process. However, the process is indeed a process of self reflection, and Aristotle easily accepted a God who can think.

Hegel is not easy to accept, why?

Because modern natural science has long made you feel that how the universe can think, just kidding, is definitely a process of self reflection, gradually getting to know itself. It is absolutely through us humans that we come to know ourselves, because we are an absolute part, an absolute organic component. Will Hegel lead to a more extreme idealism that completely denies nature? No, Hegel and Schelling never denied nature.

On the contrary, Hegel has always emphasized that nature is a necessary prerequisite for the consciousness of ordinary people, because he provides an objective field. Without an objective field, a subjective field cannot exist. Hegel always believed that on the one hand, we emphasize the connection between subject and object, and on the other hand, we emphasize differentiation, because Hegel would say that my unity is a unity with differences, not without principles, without subjectivity and objectivity, there is only one. He would not say that this is Schelling, not me.

I am exactly the opposite of others. I admit that there are subjective and objective domains, but my two domains are interconnected and unified. This is Hegel.

In Hegel's view, both the subjective and objective domains are elements of absolute life, expressing themselves as objectivity in nature. When we talk about his objective spirit in the future, we will delve deeper into the issue. In Hegel's view, there is no question of whether nature is real or not, or just a subjective concept.

Before him, British empiricism was completely rejected. He simply believed that there was no such thing as this, and that nature was just our concept. However, it was in the realm of human consciousness that it absolutely returned to itself. Absolute as a spirit, it is indeed within the realm of our human consciousness. Therefore, human philosophical reflection is absolute self reflection, and the history of philosophy is the process of achieving absolute self-awareness.

The rationality of philosophy regards the entire history of the universe and human history as absolute self expansion, and this insight is absolute self-awareness of oneself.

In pre Qin philosophy, Chinese philosophy actually had a similar approach, but unfortunately. Nowadays, people who pursue high school have more or less perceptual and unconscious ways of thinking, which are the Western intellectual ways of thinking they received during their undergraduate studies. It is difficult for them to accept the idea that Mencius must be developed. He believed that Mencius calmed down the subjectivity of our Chinese people.

So, the moral standards of the entire universe are determined by our subjects. He missed the one ahead. Human beings are born, and Mencius also emphasized that he never said these words. However, their Mencius only sliced and cut them off, saying that humans are completely determined by heaven and that humans are born of heaven. He did not say this. In their writings, humans became primitive creators, giving the Tao and ethical principles of the entire world. Then, when it comes to Song Ming Neo Confucianism, it is even more outrageous. Song Ming Neo Confucianism is more necessary and easier to explain in this way. But the original theoretical engine of Song Ming Neo Confucianism, Zhou Dunyi, Zhang Zai, Shao Yong, all constructed their main philosophical framework from the Book of Changes, and they ignored it. They always spoke based on several quotes that conform to the theory of mind and nature. The entire philosophical framework of these people, they won't talk about it. At most, they can casually say that the universe is an endless cycle of life, and ultimately the endless cycle of life becomes the endless cycle of human life. Whether there is a unity with differences or a unity without differences is not to be discussed.