The core of ancient dialectics is to discuss the priority of spirit and matter. The spiritual essence includes five lines of gossip and Feng Shui theory, which is the spiritual essence that the ancients have been arguing and carrying forward. In the final analysis, it is an ignorance of the real world, as well as speculation and fear of the unknown.
The practical meaning is "no practical meaning", hehe, why do you say that? The ancient dialectics of the ancients really has no practical significance to people today, because what they have mastered and demanded is beyond the scope of our current science, because science has already overthrown all previous superstitious knowledge. But as a culture rather than a theoretical thought, it is of great significance, because this spiritual essence has long influenced China's ancient history and cultural civilization, Chinese medicine, and so on.
In fact, ancient dialectics, as a school theory, ran through ancient China and created a culture of an era. Without scientific and technological progress, this dialectics will still be the thinking framework of people today.
The following is an excerpt.
The word dialectical method is mainly related to debate and oratory in ancient Greek philosophy. Why is this happening? Argumentation and speech should be based on the word "reason", on the one hand, reasoning, such as induction and deduction, on the other hand, positive and negative debates. Because the understanding angle is different, the opposite understanding will be formed. Because of the opposition of the foothold, the two opposing views are undoubtedly correct, so there is a "struggle." The other side often tries to change the other side's foothold by netting, that is, knowing the background, then the other side's point of view is untenable, so it is related to argument. Formal logic talks about a little theory, and the truth is based on a little knowledge, excluding the opposite view in the opposite background. However, the opposing views under the understanding of the opposing background can also be obtained by induction and guided by deduction. On the surface, the two are in conflict, but the method is the same, which is based on the same point. But they didn't seem to dig deep into the opposing background, so the dialectical method disappeared later.
Kant regards dialectical method as a "transcendental ontological world", which is a reflection of metaphysics. His "ontology" actually talks about basic similarity, because things in reality appear in the form of individuality and are the real world of experience. His antinomy belongs to a summary of laws with universality, and universality must be based on universal similarity. Of course, he only knew from individual phenomena, did not realize the similar value of * * *, and did not construct from universality. As for his so-called "antinomy", he only saw the contradiction centered on people, just as he didn't know whether to work or rest, and he realized nature. He didn't see this contradiction, which constituted two opposite backgrounds. He didn't see that the real contradiction only exists among human beings, and naturally it doesn't exist, because human beings have the randomness of movement, which determines the randomness of consciousness. Kant thinks that dialectical method is "illusory". Why is there such a title? He mainly lacks a dynamic understanding and grasp of the whole. He only analyzed the whole from a partial perspective, as if I saw one side of the computer, but I didn't see the other side, and the other side was an "illusion". In fact, "illusion" should be a summary of positive and negative understanding.
In Hegel's view, "metaphysics" is purely abstract thinking, which is not combined with the real world, while dialectics combines transcendental ontology with reality, so he thinks that metaphysics does not conform to the comprehensive application of the law of opposites, which is the so-called "combination of topics". Because of this, Hegel opposed dialectics and metaphysics. This seemingly correct view is actually a superficial understanding of dialectical methods. He did not expect that transcendental metaphysics is a process of reasoning, including both positive and negative understanding, which is based on the induction of the most basic similarity in real life and does not leave reality. However, it is not a "reality" in the form of personality, but a "reality" summed up by * * * similarity. Dialectical method itself belongs to thinking method, and metaphysics is also an advanced form of thinking. Dialectical method is only broader than metaphysics in content.
Hegel regards analytical method as "intellectual" method, while dialectical method is rational method and the highest level method. He believes that "intellectuality" is meaningful only under the guidance of dialectical methods. His dialectical method is in the form of "positive-negative-combination", which is the combination on the basis of "division" With the guidance of "combination", "division" is meaningful. However, he did not put forward the opposite formula of "combination-positive-negative" and thought that only "combination" was the dialectical method. This is undoubtedly a new one-sided understanding, which violates the principle of opposition of dialectical method. "Positive-negative combination" and "combination-positive-negative combination" belong to two opposite understandings with different cognitive backgrounds: "Positive-negative combination" belongs to a qualitative and metaphysical induction based on reality, just like two teams forming a ball game; "He-Right-Wrong" is a cognitive theory under the guidance of quality and metaphysics. This "combination" is embodied in rules, principles and laws, just as the rules of the game have a binding effect on both teams. Hegel's "positive and negative combination" and Confucius' "benevolence" theory echo each other, emphasizing mutual understanding. For Marx's theory, he went from Hegel's transcendental metaphysics to the other extreme, thinking that Hegel's theory is "upside down", and it is an existential decision consciousness to "upside down", which still belongs to one-sided understanding.
What is "quality"? It is the opposite cognitive form of "metaphysics", based on the internal and external understanding of * * *, and "quality" is based on the internal and external understanding of personality. Metaphysics is the theoretical sublimation of basic "form"; "Quality-oriented" is the sublimation of the law of individual things. Personality includes quality, energy, nature, elements and so on. "Quality-oriented" includes both a summary of the nature of things and an understanding of the laws of things. It solves specific problems in scientific research, such as principles, laws and formulas. Philosophy does not study "quality" because it belongs to individual laws and is not universal, but it is included in the understanding of opposites. The law of thinking (cognitive method) is universal, and so is the most basic mathematical theory, which belongs to the metaphysical research field. The reason why cognitive method is equated with the law of thinking shows that thinking is based on cognition, and human beings do not take cognition for granted, and on the other hand, it shows that understanding everything is inseparable from the law of thinking. It can be seen that the study of philosophy cannot cover all opposites, and it must be based on the basic similarity and exclude the "qualitative" understanding. Understanding philosophy with "materialism" is a manifestation of making philosophy scientific. For the understanding of the basic * * * similarity, the predecessors have the same logic, but they have not studied it in depth. They are only aware of the connection between them, lack of in-depth exploration of universal similarity, and fail to realize that this is an important metaphysical connotation.
From the above simple analysis, we can see that the dialectical method in western concepts is related to opposing views. Hegel emphasized "separation" before, and since Hegel, he has paid attention to "combination". It can be seen that the dialectical method in the west contains two forms of opposition, and this understanding of separation and integration itself contains opposition, so Lenin sometimes regards dialectical method as opposing knowledge. However, what is the key to this opposition? Why does the self-contradiction fail? Why can the two opposing views be "combined into one"? It seems that the study of western philosophy has not yet reached this level, although dialectical thinking has been fully reflected in the study of natural science.
In ancient China, there was neither a word of dialectical method nor a word of philosophy, but the dialectical methods in Zhouyi and Ganzhi Lun have been used rationally, just as western science and technology used dialectical methods rationally. Here, I just want to start with the simplest understanding. First of all, it is manifested in the generalization of common ground, that is, the generalization of dynamic "two" and static "three" "Two" is the so-called theory of yin and yang, and "three" is the theory of three hexagrams and the understanding of three seasons and March. Secondly, it shows two kinds of cognition: identity includes two forms-identity and integration of cognition, and opposition also includes two forms-opposition and exclusion of cognition. The application of these four aspects in Zhouyi has been involved in previous articles. Here I just talk about the application of these theories in the theory of cadres and branches. Whether the current understanding of the theory of cadres and party branches is basically fixed is considered superstition, and the key is superficial understanding. Of course, the so-called hierarchical fortune-telling is superstitious, but we can't kill this theory with a stick because future generations are confused about germination. In the theory of trunk and branch, the identity of cognition is the consistency of running direction under the same cognitive background; In the static understanding, the direction is the same, that is, Chen is the east and noon is not the south, which belongs to the theory of combining earthly branches with geomantic geography. Integration can be divided into two forms of heavenly stems and earthly branches: earthly branches, such as Mao Xu and Hai Yin, based on the opposite direction; Heavenly dryness is like a combination, and B and G are combined. They are based on the same direction. Confrontation cognition is manifested as static grounding cognition, that is, meridians are relatively antagonistic, ugliness is not relatively antagonistic ....., which belongs to the relationship between contradictory cognition and the relationship between affirmation and negation; Exclusion is a dynamic understanding of the combination of cadres and party branches. The opposite operation of twelve Chen and twelve times reflects the mutual exclusion relationship, which is the same as the operation of positive and negative numbers starting from 0. Confrontation is based on the static understanding of some branches of the bureau, and rejection is based on the dynamic understanding of the whole branch. This is a relatively simple theory, and the containment relationship is not so complicated. For example, the containment relationship of trinity, the division relationship of one into three, the containment relationship between gossip and branch, and the containment relationship between geomantic geography and gossip constitute a complex network. In modern science, the male-female mating of organisms actually belongs to the variation form of six in one, because each individual is "three". Only by connecting with each other can a reproductive system be formed.
Ganzhi, Zhouyi and Fengshui theory are trinity theories. Branches and branches have dynamic knowledge, which is closely related to celestial movement. Feng Shui has a static understanding and pays attention to the analysis of topography. There is a kind of knowledge of "God" conveyed by the Eight Diagrams of Zhouyi, which pays attention to the subjective and objective reactions and the spirit of "God" (meaning to understand divination). This constitutes three external factors, but also a relatively overall factor. This factor is based on the most basic similarity, which is completely consistent with the most basic local similarity. Because of this identity, the whole always influences and restricts the part in an abstract form, which is essentially the same as deductive reasoning. This is just a brief introduction. In a word, if we don't understand these theories, we can't understand the embodiment of China's ancient dialectical method in application, and we can only degrade ourselves as "simple dialectical method" for no reason, which is full of self-mockery.
In China's ancient theoretical system, Yin and Yang were attached great importance, and they were composed of light and shade. Yin and Yang are the cognition of the same object in different backgrounds, and this opposition is based on the common similarity, including two "similarities": the same object and the same cognitive method, that is, based on the common similarity. This understanding is the so-called opposition in western philosophy. However, they did not digitize this knowledge, nor did they expand it. They make a fuss about the dynamics and energy of three-dimensional static and opposing knowledge points, and cannot analyze universal digital knowledge (such as decimal system) from a speculative point of view, so that many abstruse theories can only be based on assumptions. This is the real "naive dialectical method". In other words, scientific research and philosophical research in the West are two different things. Although philosophical speculation has been used in scientific research, it has not been philosophized. Their system construction fully illustrates this point. They solved the problem of understanding the opposite nature of multiplication with the same number and multiplication with different numbers, but only thought of pure private ownership, without thinking of the relativity of private ownership, so their civil servants only emphasized service and coordination, without thinking of the other side of opposition, which completely violated the law of opposition.
The light and shade we are talking about is actually a horizontal understanding, that is, both positive and negative issues, but the understanding that stays in the horizontal direction obviously does not conform to the law of opposites, and the horizontal and vertical directions also constitute opposites. What is vertical understanding? The so-called vertical understanding is the understanding of the whole and parts-from the whole to the part, from the part to the whole, forming different vertical levels. Because vertical and horizontal are two opposite understandings, there must be opposite backgrounds.
The horizontal direction should be known from the common similarities, and the vertical direction should be known from the similarities of each other. This is reflected in the branch theory. It is shown that one heavenly stem and one earthly branch are in the same palace, so we should find God based on the heavenly stem in the palace, and then get the matching earthly branch according to the six heavenly stems in the palace. It is also reflected in the echo of divination and topography. If you use divination and are in a lucky position, you have to find a place with a broad vision and magnificent mountains. It is also manifested in the same understanding of mathematics and physics. Why is the performing arts related to the number "five"? In the Tang Dynasty, Zhang Guo used it as a relocation palace. Migration means change, and performing arts means imitating others, which is also changeable. Biology pays attention to geological climate, what kind of soil, what kind of terrain and climate conditions will produce what kind of plants and even animal forms, and emphasizes that external factors, branches, Zhouyi and geomantic geography are all known from external factors. Of course, it is an internal combination, such as the time and space of its birth and the starting point of the whole environment. The difference between them is that the similarity formed by the external influence of plants is different from that formed by the theory of trunk and branch. According to the principle of relativity, there are still parts that determine the whole, that is, changing the shape of parts can change the qi of the whole (belonging to the external form of God). So Mr. Feng Shui always uses some methods to solve his shortcomings, such as planting trees and filling the soil. Although the principle is like this, these people don't know divination, and people believe these people are just pure superstitions.
The horizontal direction is understood from the surface, and the vertical direction is understood from the inside. What does this "inner" mean? It is worth studying. Is it an intrinsic expression that China paid attention to the "Feng Shui" of ancestors in ancient times? Is it the same to pay attention to the weather in luxury houses? But I have to reiterate that the so-called "Feng Shui" has serious superstitious elements, but we can't completely deny it because of it. In all academic research, there is always a process of continuous denial and continuous improvement. Since the basic idea is reasonable, we must discard the false and retain the true, and we must constantly innovate and establish a scientific system. This is a reflection of thinking from the whole to the part. If you think from the local to the whole, there is also abstraction. Generally speaking, trees form forests, and forests belong to collective noun. It is abstract, and it is the abstraction of the parts that make up the whole. The former is understood from the influence relationship, while the latter is analyzed from the structural relationship.
After all, what is dialectical method? According to the previous analysis, can it be defined as: dialectical method is an epistemology based on the universal similarity (including the similarity), with the opposing background as the core content, basic graphics as the framework, and the goal of studying universal thinking methods. In natural science research, westerners unconsciously and objectively use dialectical methods, which is the embodiment of high wisdom. The dialectical method in philosophy lacks the most basic digital framework, and it belongs to the philosophy of "simple dialectical method" by looking for similarities from "form".
Although the in-depth study of dialectical methods has a certain guiding role in natural science research, human beings have solved many theoretical problems by using hypothetical methods. Therefore, it is more to solve theoretical problems in social sciences than in natural sciences. In social science research, it is too risky to take chances by hypothesis. After all, it is not as simple as doing experiments, and the theoretical guidance of philosophy is more meaningful in social sciences. This requires us to find the correct way of thinking, understand the principle from the phenomenon of life, and expand our thinking from the opposition.
China has studied and applied dialectical methods for more than 60 years. Because theory is influenced by books, it is impossible to develop theory here, let alone reveal its essence. In practice, there are still phenomena that violate dialectical methods. Take the theoretical circle as an example. Originally, as a big country, it is absolutely necessary for the central government to attach importance to theoretical innovation, especially the innovation of new principles. Strengthening the construction of high-grade core theoretical journals is an important means of theoretical innovation, which not only gives capable scholars room to publish articles, but also appropriately increases the remuneration for manuscripts, so as to keep up with the pace of social and economic development and naturally be willing to invest; If you don't even want to spend this little money, it's not academic. As for the general academic journals, it is mainly to push the theory, and the readers are large, which can be compensated by incentives. This is the key and non-key understanding. However, this is not the case in reality. The funding of national core periodicals depends on the author's contribution. What innovations are there to talk about? Who wants to innovate? Are you too rich to buy fame? According to the analysis of social phenomena, people who spend money to publish books and articles need professional titles, reputation and a huge reader market. Job hunting is just a patchwork, and there is no "improvement" at all. Those who seek fame are not down-to-earth people, but mostly grandstanding. You can naturally ask them to pay for such articles. But as a core journal, it is another matter. You should repay his labor, and you can't treat other people's hard work as a beggar's rice bowl, which is worthless. Otherwise, who wants to innovate the theory, unless he is an idiot. These understandings are dialectical methods of treating each other separately and in opposition. But this is not the case, which is proved by facts. The Research on China's Education Development sponsored by China Institute of International Education, entitled "China Modern Education Development Network" on the government website of "org", should be a theoretical publication sponsored by the government (of course, we can't blame the government, this is a departmental issue, specifically the membership of the Institute of International Education), and it is called "the core academic journal of international education". The publishing house sent me a letter asking me to write a manuscript. Out of courtesy, I wrote a paper on the idea of educational innovation and told them that I had no intention of publishing it. In my opinion, the current form does not allow me to "innovate" and they can't accept it, so there is not even a place name. However, after more than ten days, I received a letter from them saying that it was of high academic value and decided to publish it. Attached 105 1 yuan publishing fee. In their view, we are all laymen, working for the temple and paying for its meals. But in my opinion, it is more stupid than Ah Q, paying for the work, enriching the editor's pocket and being ashamed of his own pocket. This is stupid! Where can such a "core journal" go? Hanging sheep's head to sell dog meat. Talking about innovation in such an academic environment is nothing more than such a result-a word "hanging". And this is the dialectical method of others-all publications are market-oriented and everything is for making money.
On the other hand, the government does not need to be responsible for the management of core journals. This time, next time. The new theory is nothing more than asking people to know, ponder, apply and really make money by writing manuscripts, so there is no scholarship at all. Nowadays, information is released faster than ever before, because of the media of network. There is theoretical innovation, which can be published through the network. The state can also spend money on network construction, and articles with academic value can be sorted out once every six months and compiled into a book to increase the remuneration. At present, the so-called "core journals" and general academic journals simply let them enter the market, so that those who need to earn professional titles and become famous have room for publication. As for the papers of various research institutions, many of them are confidential and can be published once every six months, and there is no need to run any periodicals. The same is true of colleges and universities. Organizing the editing of special issues is conducive to reducing funds and ensuring quality.
The above is just a ramble.