When I was in class, I put a fart - very ordinary fart. It is neither stinky, of course, it is absolutely not fragrant. Terrible is that professors are telling dialectics. "Please judge this ass," Professor said, "Is it good or bad?" I have to say: "No." "Wrong," Professor said, "Anything has contradictory, there is it In a bad side, there must be a good side of it. "" So, isn't it right? "I asked. "Of course." Professor said. "It's not good." "Wrong. You only see the contradictions on the opposite side of the struggle, did not see the side of the unity." I have to look at this serious problem, think about it, think about it, "this The fart is not good, but the bad side is the main thing, it is in the dominant position. "" Wrong. You are looking at the problem with a stationary point. The contradictions will conversion, today is in the dominant position, tomorrow must be in Secondary status. "" Do you mean that the whole human beings will jump in order to give me this fart? "" Don't do this, but you can't deny this development trend. "I stunned for a while, I had to say hard and said:" I The fart is not good, it is neither good. It may be good today. It will be good tomorrow. Today may be good, tomorrow may not be good. "" This is a thorough doubt On the view of the dialectics. "Just like this, I became a skeptic because I put a fart. Professor then lectured: "The power of dialectics is not only to refute any views easily, but he can easily find the theoretical basis for any point of view." "But I have no basis for my fart." I protest. "That's because you didn't find it. Professor: "Let's not talk about the fart, talk about a more complex question: a watermelon, a sesame, no matter how you choose, there is a theoretical basis." I quickly said, "I want to pick up watermelon, lose sesame." "Very good." Professor said, "You have seized the main contradictions, that is, you have grasped the key to solving the problem." "Then I picked up sesame, throwing watermelon." "" "First has changed, can achieve Quality change. You solve the problem of problems. "" I have to be watermelon, and I have to seize the main contradiction, and I will not let go of the secondary contradiction. You are watching the problem with a comprehensive look. "" I am To smash the watermelon, I have to step on the sesamethorn. "" Very good, you are watching the problem with development. New things are negative for old things. Everything is inevitably destroyed. The destruction of old things is generated by new things. Prerequisites. "" I have to eat watermelon, I have to smash the watermelon. I have to pick up sesame, but I have to step on sesame. But there is only one watermelon, a sesame, what should I do? "" You are a dialectic Into the door, the important thing is that the contradictions are not only opposite, but also there is a unified side. You have a reasonable side of the watermelon, but you have to smash watermelon, but it is not intended. Only will be unified, I can enter a higher level of struggle. "I opened my mouth, stunned:" However, you didn't solve my problem. "Professor smiled and said:" The dialectic does not solve any problem, its use is to turn people into fools first If someone is not a fool. "" Do you say 'first'? "I asked." "Yes, then leap from the fool to the scholar." Professor began to organize the lectures, "Why not solve the problem, how to turn people into fools, and how to achieve the leap from fools to scholars, this is the next class Content. "Professor is a jump and walks out of the classroom. Second Class: Professor: "Let's talk about the use of dialectics.
We have to give a more complex example: How to treat Chinese traditional culture? "I said:" That must use the dialectical point of view. ""Correct. We have many large-name dialectics, they will make full use of the three laws of dialectics, the theory is related to the actual, and the arrival of the Bo, crossing. The pen is thousands of words, tight around the body. Finally, give you a conclusion: I have to take it, go to it - do you admire? ""Yes. Is the dialectic not very useful? "I used to think so." Until I saw a wild dog of a funeral - it changed my opinion. "" Wild dog? "I am inexplicably." Yes. There is a garbage pile after my home, one day has come to a wild dog. It doesn't look at other things, '哧 哧' a bit, bit a bone. "This is not surprising, all dogs will be like this." "I said." Yes. " The problem is for the dog, this bone is 'essence', in addition to the bones in the garbage, there are bricks, iron blocks, broken buckets, etc., why should he be the essence of the bone? How do he know that his essence is taken, go to it? Is it possible to fully understand the discussion of large-scale scholars? "" It seems that it will not. "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" " In this case, why should we cheer for them, worship them? "Yeah, why? "The only explanation is that the dialectics have successfully turned you a fool. ""I understand. "You know later, you must ask: You are useless. Take the essence, you know anyone. The problem is the essence, what is a mess. "Yes, see what he said. "" You are not difficult to fall, he will make full use of the three laws of dialectics, the theory is related to the actual, and the bypass is from the booth. " The pen is thousands of words, tight around the body. Finally, give you a conclusion: specific problems, specific analysis. Gao Ming is not high? "" It makes sense. "" But I think: This is not only bored, useless, is nearly rogue. "What is this? "Is there a specific problem, abstract analysis? The mourning dog, who came to the garbage pile, would you like Aristotle, first make a variety of things into a separate class, clear its connotation and extension, and then summarize the interpretation, and finally determine whether it is eating bricks or eating bones. ? is it possible? ""impossible. In that case, he is likely to eat bricks. "Yes, scorpion can teach." No one will 'specific questions, abstract analysis', 'specific questions, specific analysis' this sentence, is equal to not saying. However, dialectical practitioners like to use abstract methods to analyze specific questions. Because the dialectics are universal truths that are in the four seas. So if you see a dog who eats bricks, you can't make a small look, it may be a famous scholar. "The professor also packed the lectures and said:" The simplicity of the dialectics is the use of 'comprehensive, development, linkage ". Like all lies, this sounds very realistic. The origin of the next class tells the reputation of the dialectics, and its relationship with it. The "Third Class" has so far, and human beings use three methods to study the world. "The professor is not polite, single knife direct," The first is 'butfler', most scientists are this way. They analyzed the world's minimal part.
The study of biological does not study all organisms, and some only studies animals; research animals do not study all animals, some only study mammals; study mammals, some only study monkeys; study monkeys Tail. They only see trees in their eyes, and they don't see the forest. It is an extremely view of view. "" Not a dialectic point of view. "I said." Yes, "professor will then say," Not only that, they try to cut the research object with other things, try to see what he looks like if he is not subject to interference. Scientists spend a lot of money construction laboratory, not experimenting on the street, mainly because it is here. Now some experiments have to get in space, even air gravity should be isolated, visible, in order to cut things, these scientists are unscrupulous. "I said:" "" The opposite is the point of view of the dialectics. "" It's right, but still more than this, they still don't care about a monkey, how is it, only take a knife, look at it, look at it. They use a thorough standing point. "" Very brutal, and very awkward. "I said." So I called it 'butfric'. " But this is the basis and source of all of our scientific knowledge. Without these people, there is no science. They should be respectful - their personality, talents, and methods they use, should be respected. "Who doesn't respect them?" "There are a lot, you may be one. ""how do I say this? "They use isolated, stationary, one-sided way, this method has a name, do you teach you?" "" Calling and goesome, but it is a derogatory term? "Yes, it is called to go to school, this is the past scientists in the past, now most scientists use methods. "" Why is it a derogatory term? " "" Because it is incompatible with the dialectic, it is relative. Some people not only think it is correct, but also the other people are wrong. Surprisingly, the dialectics talked about all the day, and the collapse and dialectic is aligned. He refused to be the same, but to the attitude of killing. ""I understand. "" It is also a scientist using the second method. I call it 'robber', this scientist is more important. They don't do anything, and scientists who have equal shape and go to school have studied relatively exact results. Based on this basis. Thousands of scientists studied thousands of animals, plants, and microorganisms, and Darwin took a synthesis, and proposed evolution. "This is very easy." "" Little is not easy, and you need a higher intelligence and wider vision. Einstein is one of the best. His vision is very open, and even studied dialectics. But he said that dialectics did not help with his research. "" What is the dialectic? "" The third method of studying the world is the method of dialectics, I call it a method of 'God's "." That is, the content of our next lesson. "The last lesson" I was expelled, "Professor said," the last lesson today. Please ask questions first. "I said:" Some students said that your view is a bit biased. "" He said right, I am not only biased, but there is a mistake. I deliberately set a common sense of common mistakes, but you didn't give me it. Now I have to teach you the most important thing: no one is all right, up to it is correct. If the world is the elephant, we are the blog of the group. We want to know the look of elephants, but we can't finish this elephant. All my blinds are also impossible, if your life can only touch the tail of elephants, you must take care of it.
If you are confident that you fully understand this tail, you must insist on your own point of view. Don't listen to others say that elephants are like a pillar or like a fan, it will easily change your point of view. Bode is not terrible, terrible is that the wind is rain, there is no otter. If you insist on, it is not very much, you must have a smarter who pointed you out. Science is this to extract a truth in thousands of errors. But if you are right, you didn't persist, the world lost an opportunity to advance. "In addition, you have to remember: no matter what you are wrong, you just know a small part of the elephant. To listen to how to say anything. Can't believe, you can't believe. You don't have a choice, only use you. Rationality, it may have a lot of shortcomings, but it is your only thing that can trust. A person is very rational, and many people are rationality. If you don't know the rationality of many people, then I tell you - That is science. There is also a deficiency in science. It will be better in the future. However, you need a lot of people smarter than Erinstein, it is not you me. "Rationality, criticism and tolerance are the most important thing I said. . "I didn't ask questions this time, and there is no other person to ask questions." The words returned to Zheng Chuan and continue to talk about the dialectics. "Professor has to say," dialectics is also a blind man, but he does not touch. "He didn't want to know the elephant?" "I asked." He nustly wants to understand the elephant, but he thinks that the touch is not used, or there is little effect. He believes that the elephant is running around, and it is constantly increasing, and there is an unlimited connection with the forest, earth, or even the solar system around him, and the Milky Way is in the shape of 'Iso, still, and one-sided'. Use the dialectics of "comprehensive, development, contact" to make the elephant look. "But he didn't touch it, how to comprehensively, develop, contact? "I don't know, my ghost doesn't know, only God knows. So I call it a method of 'God's style'. The dialectics were originally popular in China, Fuxi gossip, yin and yang five elements, Confucius's "more" Evil can't invade "all the dialectics. Only Aristotle proposed the prototype of dialectics, neither, not specific. Engels said he expounded the basic principle of dialectics, I don't know where to say. However, this is not a need, the dialectics in the modern sense is starting from Hegel, this point Engels and me, and anyone else will have any opinions. "" You just say Engels, why don't you mention Marx? " "" Marx and dialectical relationship are not big. " "Dialectical materialism is not the soul of Marxism?" "I disagree with this point of view, Marx has written a" sacred family "," common logistic theory ", and pan-logistic theory, including dialectics. I didn't see how he said in the future. Until his oldest philosophical book "The Second Edition of the Capital", he joked himself to the dialectics. But what is the dialectics, Marx's life, has not answered. "So how do the dialectics enter Marxism?" "" "The" Natural Dialectics "from" anti-Durin "to Engels caused by the death of Engels, and dialectics become the so-called soul of Marxism. Like this view, Marx does not agree with the 'dialectical materialism'. This is entirely the needs of future generations. However, "anti-Du Lin" is the agreement of Marx, this is the fact. "What are the dialectics? "" First is three major laws: first, quality intervals, from Hegel "Logic" first "presence".
Second, the contradiction is unified, from the "Logic" second "nature". Third, the negative negative law is from the "Logic" third "concept". This is something on the surface, that is, Marx's "mysterious profile". It is worth seeing problems with comprehensive, development, contact. Its essence is hidden after the two majorities: first, truth. Multivariate and relativeism against truth. This has already become a history of trash. Second, the truth is unparalleled, the truth of local affairs is part of the overall world, and the isolated study found these truths. Only looking for trees in the forest, you can't start researching forests from trees. This is not only extremely absurd, and it is unrealistic. "Why is not realistic?" "There is a very good professor in the West: It is the best way to study things, isolated, stationary, one-sided to study things, and it is best to understand things in human existing understanding. The essence. Because of the connection between things, if all the associations are considered, it is equal to anything, just like our old ancestors, can only hold a "Taiji two instruments, two instruments "This thinking is lazy. It is a very cautious observation and study of all kinds of traits and laws to things. The Chinese traditional thinking is always a big fat man, and it is generally proposed in the overall view. This tradition with the characteristics of the original thinking is unable to match, or the dialectics is only a modern table of ancient Chinese ideological methods. The Chinese never lacks this way of thinking. It is necessary to make up the class is isolated. , The one-sided place to study the stupid efforts of things. "How did the dialectic come?" "" How did your middle school textbooks say? " "It seems to be a comprehensive summary of the objective world, human society, and the law of thinking." "This kind of saying is extremely absurd, and it is completely regardless of any facts. It is a thorough mistake. First, don't say that Hegel is alive, it is in the 21st century, human beings are only a little bit of the objective world, very small. Only some people know half of the society. It is not possible to understand the laws of thinking. One elephant we just learned a few joints on the tail, a few hair on the legs, plus a piece of skin on the ear, talk about what comprehensive summary, correct summing? It's purely a dream. "Second, you can take a look at" Marx Engerator Collection "Volume 3 469, 12th line to Chapter 14:" There is a depreciation of the Dialectical Outline of Hegel, although it is a complete error The starting point is developed. "Engels said in less than 20 places. The starting point of this mistake is idealism. Who knows that Engels so-called dialectics from Hegel's" Logic ", as he said, but" Breaking the housing of Hegel's idealism, "Take the reasonable core of his" dialectics ". Do you believe? Human beings have to go to the detour from the perceived starting point, and a professor called Hegel However, from a wrong starting point, "comprehensive, correctly" summarizes the objective world, human society, and the correct laws of thinking. Is this what people say? "I never believe it. Just tied me to the hot criminal column of the new context, baked my death for two hours, I still don't believe it! "I don't believe it." "I whispered." But I believe it is quite. Since the shackles of Christianity, the dialectics is the biggest obstacle on the road of scientific development. He prepared modern science to go to school, mechanical theory. Make science stagnates in some places. In the 1920s, a dean of the former Soviet Academy of Soviet, lost his head because of the hybridization of crops.
