Chapter 55 Outlook on Life and Science——Criticism on Zhang and Ding's Controversy (May 29, 1923)

(one) Zhang Junmai gave a speech on "Outlook of Life" at Tsinghua University, which caused Ding Zaijun to make a "Metaphysics and Science" to declare war on him.Our two dearest old friends suddenly became two rival schools in the academic world.I can't help seeing Lie Xinxi, and I want to write out my own opinions to add to the fun. Before writing, I would like to say a few words first: First, I am not joining the party to "join the war", nor do I want to mediate between the two parties as a "mediator", especially not worthy of being an "arbiter of an international court".I am just a journalist watching the battle, and I can just criticize the battle situation I have observed.Readers must also know that I am a person who has not studied science or metaphysics.What I am criticizing is not self-righteous.My two old friends, as well as other participants and spectators, gave me a heart-wrenching rebuttal to my criticism, and I most welcome it.

Second, the scope of the war this time has spread so much that it almost overwhelms the spectators.For the sake of convenience, I intend to criticize separately.After finishing this article, I plan to do a few more: (1) Scientific theory of knowledge and the so-called "metaphysics ghost". (2) Science education and super science education. (3) The attitude of the polemicists...etc.But how many articles I write depends on my taste. If I am exhausted, I may not write. Third, I heard that several of my friends were going to join the war. I originally wanted to wait until I had finished reading everyone’s big articles before making a general criticism. "Cui Hao's Poetry" told me to stop writing, so it's better to see where I can and talk about it.Therefore, this article is purely a criticism of Zhang and Ding's first exchange of words. If they defend each other for the second time, they have to save it for the next time.For the rest of the articles that have entered the war one after another, I look forward to appearing earlier, or I have the honor of continuing to criticize, or what I want to say is said, or my unwritten opinions have been refuted, then I have no choice but to say nothing .

(two) Any debate must first determine the content of the debate object: first recognize what A is and what B is, and then you can talk about the relationship between A and B.Otherwise, there will definitely be a "donkey's head is wrong with the horse's mouth", the authorities' debates will not come to fruition, and the onlookers will become more and more confused.I feel sorry for Junmai's article, but he gave a casual lecture in school and never gave him a definition of "view of life" and "science".In the king, you can only refute it when you pick it up.Whether the so-called "views of life" and "science" of the two of them belong to the same thing is not only unclear to us spectators, but also the leaders of the two sides may not be able to see each other.In order to reduce this confusion for readers, I propose to stipulate the content of these two nouns as follows:

(1) The life that human beings form through the harmony and combination of the mind world and the physical world is called "life".We hang an ideal to complete this kind of life, which is called "view of life". (The material world includes one's own body, human beings other than one's own body, and even the society one's own body belongs to, etc.) (2) According to the facts of experience, analyze and synthesize, find out a near-true common law, in order to infer similar things, this kind of knowledge is called "science". (Materials transformed by applied science or institutions constructed, etc., can only be called "results of science" and should not be discussed together with "science" itself.)

To explain the content of these two nouns, I dare not say that it must be correct.If I take the above as a standard, my answer is as follows: "Most of life's problems can be solved—and must be solved by scientific methods. But a small part—or the most important part is super-scientific." Therefore, I feel that Junmai and Zaijun have their own biases.Now let's refute Junmai first. Jun Li has never talked about "no life", so no matter how much he respects the life of the inner world, he cannot say that life is a thing that can exist independently of the material world.When it comes to the physical world, it is naturally governed by various laws of the environment—time and space—and it must not be as simple as Jun Li said, and one-sided decisions can only be made based on so-called "intuition" and "free will".Junmai listed nine items of "me vs. non-self". He thought that scientific methods could not be used to answer them. In my opinion, there are almost nine cases that should be answered by scientific methods.He said: "The monarchy is neglected, democracy is neglected, free trade is neglected, protection trade is neglected, etc., let me ask whether the common law of theory can prove whether it conforms to it or not?" Even if it is outside the scope of science.Little do they know that the common law that science seeks is: (1) Under certain conditions, certain phenomena will occur. (2) To change a certain phenomenon, a certain condition should be used.General and general judgments, no matter whether they are impossible or possible, are definitely not allowed by science.If you follow Junmai's argument, you can also say: "Clothes, fur, kudzu, aconite, osmanthus, rhubarb and mirabilis.... Let me ask whether the theory of Neo-Confucianism can prove whether it is consistent or not?" It must be ruled by common law. Is there such a reason in the world?Little do they know that the mission of science is not to prove absolutely and universally which one is compatible with the other, but it can prove that a person of a certain temperament must wear fur or a certain temperature under a certain temperature.The problems Junmai listed are exactly the same.It is of course impossible to say that the monarch is absolutely good, democracy is absolutely good, free trade is absolutely good, and protected trade is absolutely good... without the basis of facts.But in a certain social union it is desirable for a monarch, in a certain social union it is desirable for a democracy, in a certain economic state it is desirable to trade freely, in a certain economic state it is desirable to protect trade, . . . then, Theoretical explanations are naturally possible, and must be absolutely respected.What does Junmai think?Is it possible to deny this?In short, all the conditions belonging to the life of the material world are treated, and part or all of the treated nature should be governed by the "law of things".For this kind of life, we should always find out a "reasonable" life based on the facts of "then and here" and use extremely rigorous scientific methods.It is possible and necessary.On this point, Zai Jun said that "the outlook on life cannot be separated from science", I think there is a part of the truth.

Junmai respects intuition and free will. I was in favor of it, but it is a pity that the scope of his application is too wide and there are mistakes.He said: "...I often observe, advocate, hope, and demand, which is called the outlook on life. The reason why one is good at one time is that he thinks it is not good at one time and seeks to change it; at the other time The reason why he is good is that he thinks it is not good and seeks to get rid of it...." I am not very clear about the content of the word "intuition" used by Junmai.Literally, it should always be a function of the superorgan.If my guess is correct, then what he said "when A, B, and C have observed something, they either think it is good or bad" is completely out of the scope of intuition.Why does "A thinks it is good at one time, but at another time it thinks it is not good"?Because of "always observing"; because of observation, one thinks it is not good, and then gives birth to opinions, hopes, and demands.Just don't observe, can observation be separated from scientific procedures? "Thinking good or not good" is the result of rationality.As far as reason is concerned, of course we cannot escape the control of science.What about free will?His application, of course, should be limited.I admit that the reason why human beings are more valuable than all things is that they have free will; I also admit that the progress of human society depends on their free will.But the reason why free will is valuable is that it can choose between good and bad and make decisions by itself to decide whether to obey.So free will should be supplemented by reason.If Junmai completely obliterates the objectivity in order to talk about free will, this kind of blind freedom may not be of much value. (Junmai Tsinghua University’s speech listed five characteristics of the outlook on life. The first one said that the outlook on life is subjective and opposed to objective science. This statement is very wrong. I think that the outlook on life must at least be a combination of subjective and objective to be established. )

But do I completely agree with Jae-jun's idea?Not so.Junmai's belief in the omnipotence of science is exactly the same mistake as Junmai's contempt for science.In your article, it sounded like an autocratic religionist, not a scientist. This is what I regret most for you, but there is no need to criticize them one by one.Zai Jun said: "We have the obligation to seek a unified view of life." He also said: "Use scientific methods to find out whether it is true or false, and in the future we may be able to unify our outlook on life." (He used the advancement of medicine as a metaphor.) I said , the unity of outlook on life is not only impossible, but also unnecessary; not only unnecessary, but also harmful.If we want to unify our outlook on life, wouldn't the result be "don't be black and white and decide on one", and those who disagree with us are not allowed to turn the other side?Only medieval Christians have this kind of fallacy, and it seems that it should not come from the mouth of scientists.As for the use of science to unify the outlook on life, I don't even believe in such a thing.Apart from other things, when you said that "the metaphysicians in the world are not dead in one day, naturally the outlook on life cannot be unified in one day", I would like to ask: is there a way for the omnipotent science to make the metaphysicians in the world die?If it can't, it can be seen that the function of science should be limited.No gossip, please return to the text.

Human life is of course inseparable from reason; but it cannot be said that reason includes all the content of human life.In addition, there is a very important part-or it can be said that the driving force of life is "emotion".Emotions can be expressed in many directions, and at least two of them are indeed mysterious, namely "love" and "beauty". No matter how far the territory and authority of the "Scientific Empire" expands, this "Mr. Love" and that "Mr. Beauty" will always maintain their status of "not being a minister to the emperor, not being a friend to princes".Scientists, please analyze and study "beauty", what lines, what light, what rhyme, what tone... No matter how you speak, do you scratch the itch?As for "love", it is even more mysterious.If two young men and women meet for "scientific love", wouldn't it be disgusting?How much more than the love of the sexes?Father and son, friends... indirectness, what is the limit of the inconceivable?Those with a little common sense should know that it is useless for a filial son to cut his shares to treat his relatives.But he became anxious and couldn't care about these at all.Cheng Ying and Chujiu took care of the orphan on behalf of the others, and they would die if they became mature.Of the 500 people on Tianheng Island, not even half of them died.Such behavior, if dissected by reason, is very unreasonable, but it cannot but be said to be one of the most beautiful outlooks on life.Pushing it forward, Confucius is not warm, Mo Tu is not strong, Sakyamuni cut his arm to feed an eagle, and Christ was crucified to make atonement for others. Their love for all living beings is of the same nature as lovers' love for each other.What kind of experience and standards do we want to use to measure his reason, it's really nonsense.Another example is the fanaticism of any person regarding the religion he believes in, the person or doctrine he admires, in the eyes of an outsider, most of them are incomprehensible and unreasonable.However, a living history of human beings is almost always created from this kind of mystery.From this point of view, Junmai's so-called subjectivity, so-called intuition, so-called synthesis and non-analysis...etc.Trying to use scientific methods to control him, no matter it is impossible, even if it is possible, it will kill life, and it is worthless.

I have summed up my superficial and mediocre opinions: "Life's matters of reason must be solved by scientific methods; matters of emotion must be absolutely super-scientific." I thought that what Junmai and Zaijun said could both make sense.It's a pity that the exclusion of other aspects is too much, and all of them have language problems.I still believe that they are just "speaking ill", and their original views may not be very different from mine. So much for criticizing the "view of life and science" above.I want to discuss other issues another day.

On May 23rd of the twelfth year, it was done at the Mimo Rock in Cuiwei Mountain.