Sall4sall Liu Xiaofeng Modern People and Their Enemies 9 pages
Sall5sall with page 141
Sall6sall Schmitt’s political concept quoted Liu Xiaofeng’s modern people and their enemies on page 13
sall7sallMarkLillaheReklessMindInelleualsinPliisheNewYrkReviewfBks1p76
Sall8sall See Cha Derotti’s accidental irony and unity Xu Wenrui’s translation, page 69, Beijing Commercial Press 3
sall9sallHaberasRihardRrysPragaiurninRryandHisCriisediedbyRberBBrandBlakwellPuilshersLdp333
Sall3sall See Alan Bloom, Giant Dwarf, Page 3, Beijing Huaxia 3, and this passage of Pascal quoted by Bloom is particularly meaningful.
Sall31sall See Jan Werner Miller’s dangerous mind dedication Zhang Yi Nova 6.
Scale discretion exceeds 1
Xia Dongqi’s speech reminds me of Wilde’s famous saying that in fact, everything in our modern life benefits from the Greeks, and everything that is out of date should be blamed on the Middle Ages.
A word in ancient Greece is called arhe, the main meaning of which is to dominate. This concept implies a deep-rooted concept of the ancient Greeks that dominates all facts. I have always believed that the western language is in ancient Greece, and we can also see that the west will be the clue of human beings, and it may be impossible at best and worst. Therefore, when discussing the topic of secular life surpassing the spirit, we might as well go back and see how the ancient Greeks understand that secular life transcends the spirit.
The topic of my speech is the transcendence of scale and propriety. I mainly want to show the first ancient Greek city-state scale and its political thinking around several issues. The second ancient Greek concept of happiness changed. The third ancient Greek concept of righteousness transcended the spirit. Finally, I want to ask two questions: whether the ancient Greeks have set a model that can be imitated to transcend the spiritual secular life and maintain a balanced life. What kind of political thinking should we have in the context of modernity?
One of the characteristics of this afternoon’s speech discussion is that we are talking about Wan Li in a very large time scale in a spherical vision for 5,000 years. This may be what modern people have to do, but it is obviously not the case in ancient Greece. We know that even at the peak of Athens, the total population was only 53,000, of which slaves accounted for more than 89,000 foreigners, and then women and children were removed, leaving about 30,000 adult male citizens, who can be called citizens according to Asia. Aristotle’s view is that these people are the people who participate in the deliberation and trial functions. The general meaning of the corresponding polis is that there are enough citizens to make a living. We might as well imagine Plato and Aristotle learning that the size of Athens today is 90,000 hectares and the number of citizens has reached more than 370,000. They will be surprised and speechless.
Plato said that it is best for a city-state with 5,000 citizens to be enough. Aristotle said that it is best for every citizen to see others with his eyes. It is absurd for a city-state with more than 100,000 citizens to be properly governed. Plato thinks that a country is not a village, but Aristotle is more ambitious, and at most it is a township or town.
The scale of the ancient Greek city-state directly influenced the political thinking of the ancient Greeks. Aristotle said in Nicomachelun that the purpose of politics is goodness. It is committed to making citizens virtuous and people can be noble pedestrians. Comparing Rawls’ views in the theory of righteousness, we citizens should refuse to regard the standard of goodness as a kind of politics and at the same time avoid evaluating the relative value of each other’s lifestyles. We will find that this is based on different scales to make different interpretations of different political thinking.
If we want to say that the political goal is the highest good, we must put our achievements on the basis of friendship and unity, the small acquaintance community uniy. Aristotle believes that friendship is the bond that connects the city-States. True friendship is a good person. In other words, a group of people with similar values and lifestyles have formed close ties in a long common life. It is almost impossible for us to imagine that people can form friendship in the ancient Greek sense in modern large strangers’ clubs. In Aristotle’s words, modern people are people who are polite to each other but don’t live together. At best, they are kind rather than friendly.
It is said that the importance of friendship in the legislation of ancient Greek city-states is more important than that of public, so it is more important than friendship in the legislation of modern society. It is the first problem to unify a large number of indifferent modern people in a political body, and it is in this sense that Habermas will say that contemporary moral philosophers have greatly reduced the issue of justice, but Aristotle’s view still has realistic warning significance. If people are friends, they will not need public, but if they are public, they will need friendship.
In political activism, Rawls’ rejection of goodness is more accurate. It is stated that the problem of political activism is a citizen who is equal by reason. They are deeply divided because of various religions, philosophies and morality, and the guild is stable and long-lasting. Perhaps this is a question of political righteousness rather than a question of kindness, hehighesgd, and the reason for giving up answering the question of goodness and happiness at the political level lies in Rawls’ full awareness of the change of the scale of political body and the change of consciousness of the problem.
At last year’s pen talk in Hangzhou, I distinguished two interrelated but different issues, one is that we should live together, and the other is that we can live a happy life. I think the former belongs to the political philosopher and the latter belongs to the ethics. In the modern background, these two issues should be discussed separately, but in the ancient Greek city-state, these two issues are one, two, two, and one. Rawls represents contemporary individualism and tries to answer the question that we should live together. This kind of common life is not Aristotle. It is said that we have eaten enough salt and salt together and lived together with the same moral customs, but we live together in a polite and peaceful way. However, in this world, we can live a happy life. The ultimate problem is that the concept of happiness is unique because it cannot be an intermediary goal other than the ultimate goal, but as Aristotle pointed out, the highest good is happiness, but it is just a cliche. The key question still lies in what kind of life a happy life refers to.
My personal recent reading experience is that from the heyday of Athens polis to Plato Aristotle to the rise of Christianity, it experienced a change from the end of life to the good life to the transcendence of life. In this process, with the decline of polis politics, the general trend is that the value of external good status is repeatedly devalued and the separation of soul and flesh becomes more and more obvious, which finally leads to the absolute domination of transcendence over secular life.
According to Hamilton’s view of the United States, the ancient Greek definition of happiness eudainia endowed life force with vastness and distinctiveness in life. Here, the key words are two, one is vastness and the other is distinctiveness, which is an important concept in ancient Greece. are is inseparable. Today, we often translate are into virtue or virtue, but it loses the Greek flavor because virtue or virtue is a moral evaluation vocabulary, but in ancient Greek, are is universally transported to the field and is the most suitable translation. It should be Excellence. When the word are is transported to the human body, it means the advantages of human energy, including all aspects of moral, mental and physical practice. This fully shows the characteristics of everyone in all aspects. Life is a kind of complete life, that is, the ancient definition of happiness by the Greeks. Life forces are outstanding in the vastness of life, showing a person who has finished life, that is, a face-to-face person.
Speaking of excellence, it is worth saying a few more words. In the first heyday, the Athenians were eager for honor, and they never hesitated about it. It was not a proper reward for Excellence. Praise from peers and future generations was a good observation of Chen Jiaying. He said that we must not confuse the honor of the Athenians with the false name in the mass media era. In a city-state with no more than 30,000 citizens, praise for Excellence is closely related to the direct life experience of almost all citizens. People witnessed you bravely killing the enemy on the battlefield, heard you make a speech at the civic assembly, and knew your daily ethics. It is almost impossible to see the scale here again.
Second, this life force was a non-specialized professional identity before life was given a broad and outstanding display. As far as possible, the Athens city-state affairs were managed by amateurs, and the specialization of public office was controlled to a relatively small extent. Citizens participated in the city-state public affairs through discussion. I managed that these things were as indispensable as breathing for life and constituted an indispensable part of the end of life. In addition to participating in political affairs, every citizen also had many identities. Soldiers, craftsmen, dramatists or athletes were regarded as slaves by the Greeks. However, such special skills are not equal to outstanding people, and they are not equal to capable people. The ancient Greeks thought that it was not necessary to be an incompetent person, but to embody a complete life in the field of life. This kind of person was recognized as an ARE person, that is, an outstanding person. Today, we have a far cry from the excellent solution. Lang Lang suspected that he was an outstanding pianist, but in Aristotle’s eyes, he must not be an outstanding person, because Aristotle believed that a person could not spend a lot of time on temperament and be an outstanding person in other ways. Compared with modern people, an amateur must be able to achieve one-sided and profound achievements
Face-to-face is a person who will never return. With the expansion of the city-state, things in the city-state are becoming more and more complicated, but amateurs are increasingly out of date. Socrates and Plato criticized Athens’ democracy. First, the main function of political art is that people become better, which requires professional training. It is self-evident for them to say that skilled craftsmen are experts in art, so philosophers are experts in soul. Second, the difference is that philosophers try to say that people believe that living according to the soul is the most important thing in life, and in the end Plato tries to say that people give up the city-state life after living a philosophical life.
After the Peloponnesian War, the city-state of Athens declined. When a vigorous golden age gradually faded away, it was reflected in the philosophical thinking that Aristotle was indecisive about a happy life. There were two alternative answers to this question. One was the politician’s political life, the other was the philosopher’s meditation life. The philosopher Anaxagoras had wisdom, sphia’s wisdom thinking was an unchangeable and eternal non-human thing, while the politician Perikles had wisdom, and phrnesis’s wisdom was a personal and concrete thing.
Aristotle, like his teachers, tends to elevate philosophers and belittle politics. He is born by two main first people to seek knowledge, especially in the state of knowing the highest things. The second philosopher’s meditation on life is too superficial and unreliable compared with political life. Honor depends on granting rather than accepting, but Aristotle’s position is much more complicated than Plato’s. In the tenth volume of Nicomachean, he admits that meditation life is a better life than human life because a person is not. The implication of living this kind of life seems to show that we meditate that life is not a life that most people can live. It may belong to a few people who can play their divinity, and it may be obtained outside the polis. Aristotle must be very nervous about political contradictions. He still calls political life a kind of life that is worth choosing because of his body. It really means that people are such an animal. In other words, people can achieve the most happiness in the polis scale. The prosperous state is relatively divorced from the city-state. In this regard, although Aristotle believes that political purpose is the highest good, he should agree with Rawls’ conclusion that we should live a good life in political life.
Russell pointed out that the Christian spiritual mind was prepared in the Hellenistic period and was associated with the decline of the polis. After the Hellenistic period, the empire was too large, and the polis politics was no longer possible. In a world of suffering, it was really difficult for people to create a good country, and instead they tried hard to find out how to be virtuous in an evil world or how to be happy in a suffering world, and the realization of this happiness was usually not on this shore, but on the other shore. Plato’s political dichotomy can be found here, but this is not a typical Greek concept. In a sense, Plato’s philosophy deviated from the Greek spirit.
The influence of Platonism on Christian gods is obvious. In the Middle Ages, it was recognized that it was impossible to remove Platonism from Christianity without breaking it up. However, in ancient Greece, Plato’s concept of absolute eternal god was not the main point of view. In ancient Greek, there was no direct corresponding vocabulary for universal religion. The gods of Mount Olympia were not the moral models of the Greeks, and the Greek beliefs were not rooted in revelation. In ancient Greece, however, the secular gods were detached and did not break apart. Milton said that the winged goddess of victory was built by the winged goddess of victory on the Acropolis in late Greece, because the ancient Greek artists didn’t realize that the struggle between soul and body never denied the importance of the body, and they could always see the importance of the spirit in the body. Hamilton recognized that the ancient Greek artists tried to surpass the individual but never thought about it. However, this is a very enlightening observation. To surpass the individual points to universality, but not to surpass it means that the sense of propriety is this, but never to overstep the individual. Sexual impulse embodies the deep-rooted spirit of the ancient Greeks. In this sense, philosophers may be the most unscrupulous group of Greeks.
One of the outstanding advantages of ancient Greek polytheism is that they are tolerant of paganism, considerate of the world and love of secular life, which once made them surpass the spirit in secular life and achieve a delicate balance. This balance is not a stagnant pool of rigid balance, not a loss of human face development, but a kind of tension and vitality. Although each city-state has its own patron saint and different customs and morals, they are very aware of the boundaries between each other. Aristotle said that we do not give any consideration to personnel. Spartans consider the Sisyphean people to design the best political system, and they consider their own scale. proper limit is a virtue that modern people have long lost their practical wisdom. The dilemma we are facing today is like moving the battle field of gods from Olympia to different ethnic groups and cultures in the world, and meeting the ancient Greeks frequently. The wisdom of secular life of gods may be a reference resource.
Next, I want to briefly talk about the transcendence of Greek concept of righteousness. When Habermas said that contemporary moral philosophers have reduced the problem of righteousness, the meaning in his mouth refers to political meaning. Compared with the concept of righteousness, it also occupies an important core position in ancient Greece, but it is not limited to politics, but a concept that connects cosmology with politics. These concepts are balanced, prudent and moderate.
Anaximander believes that there should be a certain proportion of fire, soil and water in the natural world, but every element is interpreted as a kind of god who is always trying to expand his territory. At the same time, there is another law of inevitability or possibility behind everything, which is forever calibrated with this balance. Dike, the goddess of other righteousness, called this balance of force like Russell, who pointed out that this concept of righteousness is the deepest Greek belief. Heraclitus later said that lgs is an eternal living fire, which burns at a certain degree and extinguishes cypress at a certain degree. Latour said in the national article that righteousness means doing one’s own thing and not doing other people’s things at the same time. Everyone must perform a job that is most suitable for his nature in the country. Although they think about cosmology and political issues separately, they are in the same vein at the root.
Although philosophers and modern scientists can grasp the inevitability or probability law of the balance of forces through Nunus, can philosophers’ wisdom reveal this inevitability in the specific field of personal politics? Is it political inevitability or truth? According to Aristotle, wisdom is an unchangeable and eternal non-human thing, which does not consider people’s happiness. However, a corollary is that philosophers’ insights are 110 gdfrnhing in political affairs, and sages like Perikles may really understand the complexity and variability of political affairs.
When Perikles gave a speech at the funeral of the soldiers killed in Athens, he said that our political system is worthy of the name. Democracy belongs to the majority, not to the minority. In private disputes, our laws guarantee equal treatment of people, but personal Excellence is not erased. Athenian citizens do not ignore public utilities because even we businessmen do know about politics. We Athenians don’t care about public affairs. Although they are not determined by a few people, our people are. In the end, it was ruled that we believe that discussion will not hinder the efficiency of action, but that we lack knowledge, but that we can get it through pre-action discussion. When others are brave because of knowledge and hesitate because of reflection, we dare to act because of deliberation before making decisions. He shows us a blueprint for democracy that has never been realized in the political history of mankind. It is no exaggeration to say that this is a wonderful and fragile balance, which is far more flexible than the national concept of justice. It requires every citizen to be wise, prudent and full of festivals. Hamilton does not regret that this balance has lasted for a short time, and even at its best, it is not perfect. Compared with the national text, the concept of righteousness is more rigid. When Plato said that righteousness is to do one’s own thing and not to do other people’s things at the same time, he also drew an eternal fixed boundary in protecting samurai businessmen. In Plato’s political picture, everyone has no face and professionals to do things that are in line with his nature in the city-state, and it is not a fact for Plato to realize who is more suitable for ruling and who is more suitable for being ruled by telling the absurd story of gold, silver, copper and iron.In the sixth volume of the national chapter, Plato accidentally revealed his secret to explain whether he knew God or not.
What is the meaning of life? According to our souls, who is more suitable to rule these lives? Only God knows the final answer to major issues, then everything in political life can be entrusted to God, who is closest to God, to decide, and only God can avoid differences of opinion by establishing absolute eternity. Plato raises philosophy and belittles politics because he does not believe that ordinary people’s intelligence can obtain absolute truth.
Socrates Plato’s understanding of the philosopher’s role is different. He used to be called the gadfly of Athens city-state, but later he wanted to be the king of philosophers. Socrates’ midwifery did not destroy the purpose of opinions, but revealed the hidden truth through the investigation of opinions. Plato realized the limitations of Socrates’ method, and the real political logic would not run according to the true lgs trajectory. Ordinary Athenian citizens would not be argued by philosophers. After he wrote a national article at the age of 6, Socrates Salad Syria, Máthōs’s definition of righteousness was refuted, and Zhang Yi was a strong interest. Although Gladys tried his best to refute it, he suddenly led the topic to Salaxus. Máthōs, another advocate that an unjust life lives better than a righteous one, is a more serious thing in Socrates’ view, which is actually Plato’s. Because young people believe this argument, they will aspire to be unjust. Since it is said that people face higher students in real city-state life, they should educate young people in school to turn their souls. From Socrates’ midwifery to Plato’s dialectics, from education to opinions to truth, Plato has completed a major turning point in the history of western philosophy. It is where philosophers, politicians, philosophers, good life in city
Politics can’t live a good life. What else can it promise people? Rawls’ political thought is to establish a degree guarantor, respect righteousness and other righteousness. Secondly, it is mainly used to distribute the basic goodness at the level of the social structure, including the benefit from opportunity to wealth, in which respect is recognized as the most important. According to the definition, the basic goodness is that every sex person is presumed to want something. What is a person’s sexual life plan? These goodness are usually basic goodness, which is the external condition for every citizen to obtain the highest goodness. Rawls clearly recognizes it. Recognizing that at the level of political life, we may ensure that every citizen can obtain the necessary external expertise to realize his sexual life plan. This is not an area that political society should touch.
Margaret, the philosopher of Israel, is weaker than Rawls. In his view, the most urgent problem in this era is not to let every citizen get honor, but to establish a faction that does not humiliate others. The characteristics of the faction are negatively expressed without humiliation, rather than actively expressing respect for its members. Margaret has three main principles: one is morality, the other is logic and the other is cognition. The moral reason lies in Margaret’s conviction that eradicating evil and promoting good is far more urgent than creating pleasant good. Shame is a painful evil, while respect is a good.
From Aristotle’s good life to Rawls Righteousness Society and then to Magritte Society, we can clearly see a process from great politics to small politics, but we have a clear sense of scale, and proper limit will admit that this is an evolution that is more in line with modern context and more appropriate to reality
In an era when great politics is no longer possible, we must suppress the philosophical impulse in our hearts, fully understand the complexity, concreteness and human characteristics of political life, and do not attempt to achieve good goals in political life. Democracy is a political design. One of its advantages is to be honest with the fact that human nature is imperfect. PaulWdruff and Paul woodruff said in FirsDeray’s initial democracy that you can kill democracy by defending it, but you can oppose it by being firm. Everything is flawed in human nature to kill democracy, which is almost anti-democracy. Sharing a logical country, the concept of justice is to see the fragility of democracy, and its incompatibility is to believe too much in the divinity in human nature. Finally, I want niebuhr to end this speech with a sentence: it is possible for the spokesman to be righteous and capable of democracy, and it is necessary for people to be unjust and inclined to democracy.
8 years
Sall1sall participated in a small symposium on transcending spirit in secular times hosted by East China Normal University at the end of April, 2008.
Political philosopher real politics 1
In the past few days, I have benefited a lot from your wonderful speeches. The most impressive thing is that in the last half of the day, each of them temporarily put on a mask to reveal their own hearts. Two key words, the sense of anxiety, especially resonated. According to Mr. Ci Jiwei, because of anxiety, they became more and more anxious.
There are many causes of anxiety. For some people, the theory of self can’t really explain China’s experience, but others will practice anxiety because of the constructive approach to the real political process. Of course, the lack of meaning in the theory of life leads to value anxiety. I guess this is also the closest kind of anxiety. In a sense, individuals are always walking in the desolate area of confidence. Thinking about reading and writing will calm it down to a great extent, but it will eventually be completely solved.
The topic I want to discuss today is political philosophers, real politics, and I hope to discuss it as objectively and flatly as possible.
Rousseau’s discussion on the meaning of the contract may ask me if I am a monarch or a legislator to discuss politics. I replied that I am not, and that’s why I want to discuss political leave. If I am a monarch or a legislator, I won’t talk about what I should do when I am alone. I will do those things or keep silent.
Rousseau’s meaning can’t be more white. Political philosophers discuss politics because they have no strength in their hands. Later, Bernard Shaw said a very incisive saying that they can do things but can’t educate.
Education or speech can’t be a political philosopher’s inevitable situation, so the next question is to whom the political philosopher should speak and what kind of speech can really trigger action. In the face-to-face discussion, I can present some questions, but the law is certain and I am confident to answer them.