Chapter 83 kind aesthetic

Various philosophical concepts are not born randomly, but are born opposite each other in various relationships and kinship.With a sudden momentum and a stubborn character, it stands out from the history of thinking.But just as the parts of the animal kingdom of a certain area belong almost to the same system, and finally appear in the fact that philosophers of all stripes have repeatedly set a certain basic model for possible philosophy. Seems to be the safest.Under an invisible magical trend, they always rush on a circular track in a swarm, thinking that they can obtain different feelings with independent criticism and systematic will; Guided, and in turn brought into a particular order, like a certain native conception and kinship.In fact, if their thinking is a kind of re-recognition, it is more accurate to say that it is a kind of discovery and re-recall; it is a kind of return and identification with the ancient soul substance, and that concept is germinated from this soul substance from a certain point of view, the remarks of these philosophers are the highest level of atavism, which is fully reflected in all the philosophical discourses of ancient Greece, India and even Germany.Especially where linguistic kinship is manifested, it is inevitable that, thanks to the public philosophy of grammar—and I mean to express, thanks to the unconscious domination and guidance of the same grammatical function—everything is It is prepared to promote the similar development and arrangement of philosophical systems; other than this, other ways to worldview seem to be unworkable.Philosophers in the languages ​​of ancient and ancient Asia (albeit abysmal interpretation of the concept of the subject) "seeed the world" differently with considerable probability, and finally caught a line with Indo-Germanic or The clues that Muslims get are completely different: the charm exuded by certain grammatical functions is ultimately the charm of physiological value judgments and racial conditions.If it has something to do with the origin of ideas, then Locke's superficial arguments also need to bear some responsibility.

Its own reason is the best example of self-contradiction that has been conceived so far. It not only violates logic, but is also an unnatural thing; however, human overconfidence and pride have reduced it to the point where it is comparable to nonsense , It's terrifyingly deep.Regrettably, the clamor for "freedom of the will" has become dominant among those metaphysically superior minds—that is, among those ignorant minds.To do so is to claim full and ultimate responsibility for the consequences of his actions themselves, in order to relieve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society of their responsibilities.All that is involved is to serve as the self-cause of this consequence, with a vision bolder than the adventure of the explorer Munchausen: to make being by pulling oneself up by the hair in order to escape from the morass of nothingness.If any one were to follow this famous "free will" as slowly as a foolish farmer, and delete the word "existence" from his mind, I would have reason to urge him to take what he understood The "Enlightenment" moves one step forward and at the same time removes that non-concept of "free will" from his mind.Note that I am referring to the concept of "non-free will," which led him down the path of abusive causality.It is entirely wrong to concretize "cause and effect" relations—as the naturalist (who now naturalizes them in thought), acting under the influence of the obtuse mechanism that reigns, This dullness causes the cause to be squeezed and collided until it "produces the result"; "cause" and "result" should be used as pure concepts, even if they perform the traditional customary function of describing and informing rather than interpreting.In the concept of "for itself", there is no "causal connection" involved.However, "necessity" and "physiological unfreedom" cannot draw the conclusion that "the result affects the cause" anyway, because there is no "law" to follow.Reason, sequence, each other, relative, coercion, number, law, freedom, foundation, purpose, etc. are all fabricated by them. If we fill this series of symbols into things as "for-itself" and mix the concepts of things, then we must Play this game again—mythological—that's what we've been playing.Mythology is "non-free will".Strong and weak will are the main concepts involved in real life—it seems to have always been a symbol, and it becomes less full when it is placed on the infree will.If a thinker has some compulsive, unfree feeling in all "causality" and "biological necessity," then such a feeling is betrayal—one's own personal betrayal.If my observations are correct, it is entirely possible to read "non-freedom of the will" as a subject in a profoundly personal way from the diametrically opposed point of view: some people are unwilling to give up "responsibility" anyway, unwilling to Abandoning confidence in oneself, unwilling to give up the rights due to one's own superiority (such are the vain races); Feeling, retreating into a corner.If the latter want to write, they are used to siding with today's criminals and to imbue themselves with a certain socialist compassion, which is their usual disguise.Fatalism is actually a lifeline for the weak-willed, a self-deceptive glorification of itself.If it is really classified as a religion of suffering in human nature and is good at guiding itself, it must be based on its attribute of "good aesthetics".