Peak 208 opening is now open

Because it can be seen very clearly that once the mouth is opened, he will not be limited to knowledge issues, but will definitely be trapped in the 18th century, at least in the issue of faith that is very important to Westerners. He cannot shake the issue of faith. What should he do in this situation?

In 1792, someone anonymously published a book, which was a skeptic living in Greece in the first century BC. I publish anonymously and am unwilling to reveal my real name to others, just like when I write a book and say I am Hui Shi. Nowadays, people often use Hui Shi as their username or pen name online. My name is Huisi, and he wrote a book criticizing Leibniz's views on three main points.

Firstly, he said that both Leibniz and Kant introduced the concept of the thing in itself.  

Speaking of the thing in itself, it is the reason for the appearance and sensation of our subject. Kant said that although we cannot know the thing itself, why do we have various sounds, colors, tastes, and sensations in front of us? All kinds of sensations must have an effect. Although we do not know the external object and cannot know everything, we deduce from the effect to the cause. Why?

If you don't push me, I won't feel anything. But if you push me, I will feel like someone is pushing me. Obviously, we will push back based on such things, and we will admit that we have ourselves. But in the way of reasoning, he advocates against yourself, which is the limitation of Kant and Leibniz's own theory, that we do not know ourselves and cannot know the thing in itself. He is just an assumption. How can you now know the reason why he makes us feel? You are not ignorant of it, and the most important understanding is that the thing in itself is the ultimate cause of all our appearances or sensations.

Of course, it is an understanding, not a setting because it is deduced based on reasoning. Only then, it is not a setting, but an understanding. Then, you have violated your own theory on this point, because your theory is based on the assumption that the thing in itself is unknowable, it is just a hypothesis, and the hypothesis is limited to being a hypothesis. We have no regulations on it.

Secondly, Leibniz once talked about a concept called consciousness, in which the subject distinguishes between appearances and between subject and object, and relates it to both. This statement is very high, and in fact, consciousness is also very clear. What is consciousness?

In fact, consciousness is composed of three parts: a subject, an object, and the representation of an object. Then, our subject combines the representation of the object with the object. Although we know the surface of the table, what I now know is the surface of the table, it is not the surface of the chair, it is not the surface of the teacup, nor is it the surface of us humans. It is the surface of the table, and I have the surface, but the subject can connect the surface with a real object. The fact called consciousness, in fact, Kant is the same. There are three components in consciousness, and he said that this is a fact of consciousness.

But Hu Suls is saying that this is not a fact at all, why?

The feeling of pain does not correspond to the subject, appearance, and object, which is a pattern of the tripartite classification. That's right, because pain is just a manifestation of ourselves, without an object or an individual. Therefore, for him to use an example like this to deny the fact of the consciousness of the three parties, both of these denials hit Kant and Hall's theories, the most fundamental and fundamental viewpoints.

The third point is that all Leibniz's consciousness contains appearances, which will cause infinite regression. Why?

A self-conscious subject needs to have its own representation, and the subject needs to have a representation that is connected to itself. This means infinite regression, which can be seen clearly. Criticism is also correct. In Hu Sul's view, Kant not only did not doubt this, but also constructed our ideas about physical objects as a hypothesis. We do not have true knowledge about things, only our subjective state knowledge.

The first three criticisms, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, are generally agreed upon. They believe that Kant's direction is correct, but Kant's own theory can cause many problems, and ultimately cannot solve the problems Kant wants to solve. I do not have definite knowledge.

And we have a brand new theory about the concept of the subject, which Kant cannot achieve. Nowadays, the international academic community refers to Fei, Xie, and Hei as post Kantian philosophy. The main driving force behind the initial work of these post Kantian philosophers is.

Fichte happened to have an opportunity when he came to Siena to report. The book "A Trial Evaluation of All Apocalypse" was probably still highly regarded by the intellectual community at that time, so he was asked to write a book review.

In the book review, some basic characteristics of his later philosophy have indeed begun to be revealed. His book review further elevated his status, and he indeed has extraordinary insights. In the book review, he accepted many criticisms from Hu Sul that were equivalent to Leibniz's viewpoint. He believed that Leibniz's efforts to pursue the first principle were normative in nature, rather than factual.

Very important, the first principle must be normative rather than factual. When I mentioned that the subject needs to have its own appearance, it will cause infinite regression. If you take the subject that serves as the final starting point as a norm and propose it as a normative concept, the problem will be resolved, and if you propose it as a factual concept, you will inevitably lead to infinite regression.

So, when Hegel talked about the second part of reason in his Phenomenology of Spirit, which is the individuality of being in itself and doing for itself, he was also completing a fundamental turning point, from the previous understanding and observation of reason, to the development of modern natural science. Why was it not successful? Why is it that the subject and object cannot always be consistent and are always divided into two parts? How to ensure subjectivity and objectivity? At this point, theoretical philosophy must be transformed into practical philosophy.

Why do I say it's simple. Because you are easy to explain, you do not understand the specific meaning of turning theoretical philosophy into practical philosophy. Ideas are useless to you, you are just an applied student. When others say that theory becomes an event, the key step in how to turn it into an event is to transform the final principle and starting point of theory from factual concepts to normative concepts. This is our regulation, this is a rule.

In fact, in Chinese philosophy, we talk about Dao and Tian Li, which is like this. Yesterday, during the oral examination of Chinese philosophy, Tian He was a trajectory of the development of objective things, what is it, and what is its form? Later, I laughed and said, "Did you read it in a textbook?" He said, "He believes that Laozi's Dao must be a factual thing, whether it is the movement of things, the form of things, or an ultimate thing. It is always a factual thing. He talked about his Dao, using Aristotle's views on things and properties to explain Dao. This is the learning method of Chinese philosophy now. Chinese philosophy does not have any problems with it. Here it is.

Let's not talk about this step now, it's very crucial. Fichte's step shows his extraordinary ability. His vision is indeed unique. The first principle cannot be a fact, what is it?

He said the first principle, and the second sentence is a very powerful one. The first principle is action guided by norms, and the concept is crucial to him. In German, it generally belongs to our moral behavior, which is behavior guided by norms.

Fichte's first principle is that being guided by norms is action. Why do I say he is also a groundbreaking creator?

On the one hand, if we don't see the agent as a principle of action, we will see it as a theory, or as Kant put it, a prescriptive concept like ours. When we see it as an action, please think about what intention is implied here?

The intention contained, ultimately serving as a first principle, is a practical thing that is not a predetermined theoretical requirement, but rather an unfolding of practice in its original sense. He believes that only in this way can there be a fundamental breakthrough. When we are involved in the ultimate reality of things based on the world, as well as our ultimate principles and first principles, a theoretical framework and concept based on any subjective or objective sense, using Hegelian terminology and any observational rational sense, are useless.

Kant, such a talented person, exhausted all these possibilities, and this path is not feasible. It was a common idea shared by Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel later on. Let me tell you, our current research has not reached a certain level. I am sharing some of my own experiences to see the thoughts of the next three people.

The problem consciousness of great philosophers is that history leaves its mark on them, except for the three criticisms of Kant. In the end, Sulz's conclusion is incorrect. These three criticisms are indeed a philosophical approach based on old philosophy or theoretical philosophy. Westerners always like to say that reading is a noun and a verb, and this approach has been exhausted. Fichte originally intended to turn philosophy into practical philosophy. We would rather regard his entire theory as a practical philosophy. Fichte's philosophy can be seen as a practical philosophy.

Although his main work is called epistemology, which is a very misleading name, it is not actually my invention. Wenderbahn has already mentioned Fichte's breakthrough in the history of philosophy textbook, which is a breakthrough in practical philosophy. You can see how he is, he is very good, he is not ostentatious, and his report is called Fichte's political philosophy.

In fact, he used Fichte's political philosophy as a perspective to succinctly summarize almost all aspects of Fichte's philosophy. I can say that he is a master, and in the eyes of the general public, Fichte has political philosophy. For example, the concept of politics comes from him, but if you say that Fichte is political philosophy, or if we can grasp Fichte's philosophy from the perspective of political philosophy, I'm afraid it's not right?