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 complicated example: How to treat Chinese traditional culture?" I said: "That must use dialectical views." "" There are many dialectical dialectors who will make full use of the three laws of dialectics, the theory links to actual, the next guilty, crossing the body. Next, I will give you a conclusion: I have to take a conclusion: I have to take the essence, go to the meal - - Do you admire? "" Yes. Does the dialectic are very useful? "" I used to think so until I met a wild dog of a funeral - it changed my opinion. "
"Wild dog?" I inexplicably. "Yes. There is a garbage pile after my home, one day, a wild dog. It doesn't look at other things, 'Kakawa', bites 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', except for the bones in the garbage, there is a tile, iron, broken bucket and so on, why should he ask this essence? How do he know how to take it? Its essence, is it bad? Is it possible to fully understand the discussion of the big-name scholars? "" It doesn't seem to be. "" It is certainly not, so the big scholars will be discussed, and the exquisite conclusions are actually Even the wild dog of a funeral is so early. In this case, why should we cheer for them, pay for them? "" Yes, why? "" The only explanation is: dialectics has successfully changed you It became a fool. "" I understand. "" You must ask you later: You are useless. Take the essence, let's go to the mortuary, everyone knows. The problem is the essence, what is a mess. "" See what he said. "" You can't don't fall him, he will make full use of the three laws of dialectics, the theory is related to the actual situation, the next signing, the road, the next pen, the main body. Finally give you a conclusion: Specific Question, specific analysis. Gao Ming is not high? "" It is reasonable. "" "But I think: This is not only boring, useless, it is nearly rogue." "How do you say?" "Is there anyone in the world?" Specific questions, abstract analysis'? That funeral, the wild dog came to the garbage pile, would you like Aristotle, first put a variety of things into a class, clear its connotation and extension, and then summarize the interpretation, and finally Is it possible to eat bricks or eat bones? Is this possible? "" "It's impossible. That, he can even eat bricks." "Yes, scorpion can be taught. No one will 'specific problems, abstract analysis',' Specific questions, specific analysis' This sentence is equal to nothing. However, dialectical practitioners like to use abstract methods to analyze specific questions. Because dialectics is the universal truth, if you see a brick Dogs, can not be small, it may be a famous scholar. "Professor also packed the speech and said:" The similation of the dialectics is to use 'comprehensive, development, contact' viewing problem. 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 lesson "So far, human beings use three methods." The professor is not polite, "single knife direct," The first is' butfric ", most scientists are this way. They cut the world into extreme Small parts were analyzed. The study of creatures did not study all organisms, and some studies only animals; they did not study all animals, and some only studied mammals, and some only studied monkeys; Some of the monkeys only study the tail of monkeys. They only see trees in their eyes, do not see forests, is an extremely picture. "" Not a dialectic point of view. "I said. "Yes," professor will then say, "Not only that, they try to cut research objects with other things, try to see what he is in the case of it. Scientist spends a lot of money construction laboratory, but Not experimenting on the street, the main reason is here. Now some experiments have to get in space, even air gravity must be isolated, it can be seen, these scientists are unscrupulous. "I said "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" " They use a thorough stay. "" Very brutal, and very awkward. "I said. "So I called it 'Butcher'. But this is the foundation and source of all of our scientific knowledge. There is no science. They should be respectful - their personality, talents and them The method should be respected. "" Who doesn't respect them? "" There are a lot, you may be one. "" How do you say this? "" They used isolated, stationary, one-sided way, this Method has a name, do you teach you? "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" " "Why is it a derogatory term?" "Because it is not compatible with the dialectics, and it is relatively good. Some people not only think it is correct, but also conclude that other people are wrong. Weird And the shape and the dialectics are opposite, but he refused to be the same, but to the attitude of a stick to kill. "" I understand. "" It is also a scientist in using the second method, I call it 'robbers' This kind of scientist is more important. They did not dry, and scientists who were equal and analyzed. They were studying relatively exact results. On this basis, I was sublimated in this basis. Thousands of scientists studied thousands of animals, plants, and microorganisms. Darwin took a comprehensive, it puts forward evolution. "" This is very relaxed. "" "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 the dialectics did not help him. "" What is the dialectic? "" The third method of studying the world is the dialectic method, I call it The method of 'God' s style '. It is the content of our next class. "
The last lesson "I was opened," said Professor, "Today, I will ask questions." I said: "Some students say that your point of view is a bit." "He said yes, I am not only biased And there is a mistake. I deliberately set a common sense of error, but you didn't give me the most important thing. Now I have to give you the most correct, most It's just a part. If the world is the elephant, we are the blind man of the group. We want to know the elephant, but we can't touch this elephant. All of my blinds It's impossible, if your life can only touch the tail of the elephant, you must be carefully touched. If you are confident that you fully understand this tail, you must adhere to your own point of view. Don't hear someone to say elephants It is not terrible like a pillar or like a fan. It is not terrible, terrible is that the wind is rain, there is no such thing as a master. If you insist, there is no big deal, you must have a smarter. Errors. Scientific is this to extract a truth in such a thousand mistakes. But if you are right, you don't stick to it, the world has lost an opportunity to advance. "You have to keep in mind: no matter what you are right Is wrong, you just understand a small part of the elephant. What to say how to listen to other blinds. Can't believe, you can't believe it. You have no choice, only use your rationality, it may have a lot of shortcomings, but it is the only thing you can trust. A person's rational is very limited, and many people's rationality is huge. If you don't know how many people are rationality, then I tell you - that is science. Science is not enough, it must be broken in the future. However, it is necessary for people who are smarter than Erinstein, certainly not you. "Rational, criticism and tolerance is the most important thing I said." I didn't ask questions this time, and there is no other person. "The words returned," continued to talk about the dialectics. "Professor had to say," Dialectics is also a blind man, but he does not touch. "" He didn't want to know the elephant? "I asked. "Of course he wants to know the elephant, but he thinks that it is not used, or it doesn't matter. He thinks that the elephant is running around, and it is constantly getting bigger, and the forest, earth, and even the solar system around him. , The Galaxy is unlimited, with 'Isolate, Static, and Side', I'm going to learn in vain. Only use 'comprehensive, development, contact' dialectic point of illustration, in order to get a clear elephant. "" But he is not like Touch, how to fully, develop, contact? "" I don't know, ghosts don't know, only God know. So I call it a 'God's type' method. Dialectics initially popped in China, Fuxi gossip, yin and yang five lines, Confucius's "Overwhelming", Laozi's "Anti-Tao", "Easy" "One Yin Yushu", "Yellow Emperor" Reeddo is a prototype of dialectics, neither, nor specific. Engels said he expounded the basic principle of dialectics, I don't know where to say. But this is not a need, the dialectics in the modern sense is from Hegel At the beginning, this point Engels and me, and anyone else, "" You only speak Engels, why don't you mention Marx? "" Marx and dialectic relationship are not big. "" Dialectical materialism is not Marx Did the soul? "" I disagree with this point of view, Marx has written a "sacred family", the "common logic", and the pan-logistic theory, including the 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. "
"What is the dialectics come?" "What is the general summary of your middle school textbook?" "It seems to be the full-scale summary of the objective world, human society, and the law of thinking." "This kind of saying is extremely absurd, and it is complete Any facts. It is a complete misunderstanding. First, don't say that Hegel is alive, it is in the 21st century, human beings are only a little bit, very small for the objective world. I only know half of the human society. I haven't learned about half of the law. 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 is purely a dream. "Second, you can take a look at" Marx Engerator Collection "Volume 3 469, 12th line to Chapter 14:" There is a dialectical outline of Guangbo's writings, although it It is developed from a completely wrong starting point. "Engels said in more than twenty places, the starting point of this mistake is idealism. Everyone knows that Engels so-called dialectics originating from Hegel's "Logic", as he said, but "crushed Hagl's ideal case," took his "dialectics reasonable kernel ". Do you believe? Humans have to go to the detour from the departure point. A professor called Hegel's empire, but it can start 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 will never believe it. Just put me on the hot criminal column of the new context, baked me for two hours before burn, I still don't believe it!" "I don't believe it." I said. "But believes quite a few people. Since the shackles of Christianity, the dialectics is the biggest obstacle to the scientific development road. Hemoned modern science to go to school, mechanical theory. Mechanical theory. Make science stagnation in some places. II In the 1920s, a dean of the former Soviet Academy was throwing his head because of the hybrid improvement of crops. "" What is it? " "Are you very familiar with the former Soviet Union?" "I am most familiar is China, I have been living here for a few decades. But play the flies on the head easier." I asked: "For the dialectic attack, science is How to counterattack? "" Western philosophy uses exclusiveism, logical experience, the modern science does not sound. It is only constantly developing, producing more food, steel, machine, and human except for spiritual needs Everything. When this has become an irreversible trend, the dialectics suddenly discovered that although it is swearing others, the shame is himself. "" Dialectic does not have anything else? "" Some people say the dialectic is a premature product The freak, although the current stage of human understanding is not applicable, but his overall point of view is indeed very attractive. The overall theory of modern science has begun to take shape. But this is not the return of dialectics, but in science In the development of itself, if the principle is hidden, it is uncomfortable after all, and the science never let go of any development possibilities, even the minor hope, there will be a hundred times effort. In 1984, A large group of scientific masters have established Santa Fe Institute in the United States. They include many Nobel Prize winners. It is the top figures in many scientific fields, and the big boss of money is also famous. The financial kills Solos. Their goal is to study the possibility of "Yuanyuan Theory". Of course, who will not believe what dialectics, do not study "one yuan".
