"The Ultimate in the Nature of Human Consciousness" comes from the author of a book: Yun Dantian.
This article is the first of some thoughts on reading the above article.
Original citation:[1] Whether the mind is a reflection of external things, as materialism suggests, or whether external things[2] are projections of the mind, as this article argues, it must be acknowledged that all known or knowable experiences must pass through the medium of the mind. Thus,[3] the limitations of the mind itself are also imposed on everything it sees or knows, just as if you look at the world with red glasses, everything will be stained with red, and if you have been wearing red glasses since birth, you will think that the red world is the normal world, that red is an inherent property of the world, and that you will not realize that red is caused by the limitations of the medium by which we observe. In the same way,[4] the knowledge acquired by the mind cannot transcend its own limitations, but must be consistent with the mind's knowledge of itself. ”One of the most important issues in philosophy is definition: for the definite definition of words, a word can only express one meaning, even if the meaning is similar, it can reach convergence under certain conditions, and it is not the same or different.
And in order to avoid such troubles, it is even more necessary to clarify and distinguish such words.
First question: What is mind?
Materialist point of view: The mind is related to the level of education of the individual, the experience gained from the events experienced (i.e., IQ and emotional intelligence), etc., which is the inner spiritual quality of a person. It can be changed by the day after tomorrow, or it can be observed by others or **.
When we are talking about whether a person's mental level is mature or naïve, we are making an objective evaluation from a materialist point of view. We believe that the level of mind can grow and change.
Article ViewsOr what you can call itConsciousness-only view
The article is introduced thoughIdealism, but does not admit that his point of view is idealism and does not call himself consciousnessism, but throughout the text, the article gives such an answer. This is a new monism that comes after idealism, which is opposed to materialism.
Every philosopher, and even every person who thinks about the study Xi philosophy, has a set of definitions and explanations of words. Therefore, for a better study of Xi philosophy. We need to have a clear understanding of the philosophical definition of each word, so that we can more easily receive the other person's interpretation on this basis.
Let's briefly talk about the difference between idealism and consciousnessism:
Because idealism has developed into many branches: subjective idealism, objective idealism, absolute idealism, critical idealism, etc., here is only a brief introduction to general idealism, without specific references.
Cartesian'sDualismThere are two entities: one issubstance, one isSpirit。Spirit can think without being extensive, matter is extensible and cannot think, and the world is made up of these two entities.
The subject of idealismMuch like Descartes' mental entity, but yesMonismRefers to the sum of all immaterial components other than all substances in nature.
This immaterial sum is the entity of idealism, such as spirit, soul, consciousness, thinking, emotion, feeling, perception, and all other beings that we can describe in words but not in the five senses.
The subject of idealism is primary, the most fundamental existence that makes up the world, and it is the source;The material world is only a world derived from the subject of idealism, and it is secondary.
The subject of consciousnessThere is only one, and that isThe ontology of consciousness.
Like idealism, consciousnessism is also monistic, consciousness is the primary nature of the original existence, and everything except consciousness, whether material or immaterial, is secondary and derivative.
It can be seen that the subject of consciousnessism and idealism is not the same, and the world defined is also different. The derived world of idealism is the material world, while the derived world of consciousnessism contains not only the material world but also the immaterial world.
Hence that, there isThe definition of the mind in the original textEverything that is known or known is experience, and it is the mind that knows experience. The mind in this article means not only the thoughts and images in the mind, but the sum total of all experiences, including not only what is commonly called internal experience, such as thoughts, imaginations, memories, emotions, and feelings, but also the so-called experiences of the external world such as seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching.We can simply understand the mind as an immaterial world constructed by consciousness, which is not only a bridge to communicate with the material world, but also a spiritual world in which we experience all immaterial.
At this point, we have laid the first foundation of our own from staunch materialist supporters to the immaterial world constructed by consciousness. I like a sentence in the article very much:The principle of material primacy is only an assumption lacking evidence, and so many people around the world unthinkingly believe in a theory that is not supported by evidence, making materialism almost another religion.The second question: the relationship between mind and consciousnessEvery time it is mentionedrelationshipI will always think of itEngelsIn Ludwig. Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy" on the concept of "fundamental questions of philosophy": ".The major fundamental problem of philosophy in general, and modern philosophy in particular, is the question of the relationship between thinking and being.
When we look at the words thinking and being vaguely, we think about the twoRelationship issuesIt is not only modern philosophy or Western philosophy, but also the relationship between the present and the past, the past, the present, and the future.
The question of the relationship between the mind and the consciousness that we are going to ** next can also be translated into the same problem, right?
In ancient times, human beings considered the relationship between human beings and nature in harmony;
In ancient times, it was: the question of the duality of body and mind;
In modern times, it is: the question of the duality between the spiritual and the material world;
The article is: The question of the relationship between consciousness and all non-conscious beings.
As mentioned earlier,MindYesAwarenessThe constructed immaterial world is a bridge to experience the material world, and it is the spiritual world to experience all immaterial. Well, so to speakMindNeither is itAwarenessis not a derivative either, butAwarenessConsciouslyCreation。Here it is triggeredTwo new things to think about
Thought One:Consciousness is not able to proceedDirect experience？Whether it is the material or immaterial world, the mind acts as a bridge or medium between consciousness and the two.
AwarenessAs we can only make purely subjective judgments, we can only analyze the above thinking in combination with our own actual situation, without any objective observation or data support.
Then, everything about consciousness that comes from external knowledge or analytical judgments can be considered false. And all the fakes,As the article says: the only thing we can be sure of is the existence of consciousness.Another subjective experience that can be combined with ourselves is that our consciousness resides in our bodies as separate individuals. The body is another bridge between consciousness and the material world, except that all experiences will ultimately be experienced by consciousness through the mind. A new question arises: what is the relationship between the body and consciousness?What is the relationship between the mind and the body?(If you continue with this logic, you will probably never finish writing.)
Then, according to the current subjective experience, the consciousness must experience the world through the medium of the mind. And when the mind and body die, whether consciousness exists or not, we have no subjective experience, no objective experience and no data to support. Thus, we only get one answer that is not the answer, and at the same time we have to think about the second thought: since it is unknowable whether consciousness can directly experience the external world, why does consciousness have to experience the external world?How did this so-called external world come about?
Thought two:Consciousness as the subject, why does it have to carry out this so-calledExperience？And what constitutes consciousness experiencing the external worldUltimate cause
There is a solution to this thinking in the article, but I don't think this solution can be called a solution, and there are contradictory questions. I won't ** this answer here.
Put this question in another form, and you will find another familiar old face:The question of the relationship between consciousness and the external world
Another thing that we can affirm and cannot deny is that each of us, as independent individuals, has our own independent consciousness. Then, when we extend the subject of consciousness to the individual subject, the above thinking will become another old face:Why did I come into this world?Or rather,What is the reason why "I" need to experience this world?Or rather,"I" will eventually lead to **?
Thinking about this question, although we cannot get the answer, but in the process of finding the answer, we also get unprecedented joy and tranquility, this question proves at least one thing: each of us, as an independent subject of consciousness, is important and in the same position in the whole universe, and each of us can directly lead to and find the meaning and ultimate value of existence.
Perhaps some people in history have found the true value and meaning, but they have not had time to leave a few words and detach or sublimate to another dimension, but this also shows that there is no point in learning and referencing, and they can only find the answer independently.
The above is some reflection on the content of the article, and the following is mainly the ** of the article, the first article paragraph cited in this article.
1] Materialism: The mind is a reflection of external things.
Having introduced the mind under materialism above, what needs to be studied or thought clearly here is: What do external things mean?And how to understand the reflection?
Now that we have understood that the mind under materialism can be objectively studied and explored, then the external things that can be objectively studied and explored are also and must be all things that can be objectively studied and explored, both material and immaterial.
Then, on this basis, "reflection" is a kind of cognitive standard of the mind's experience of external things, although everyone's cognitive standard is subjective, but we do not deny that this cognitive standard can be objectively judged and evaluated.
Therefore, there is the following evaluation from the outside: "His behavior and words are so childish. He looks so mature. In fact, the implication is to evaluate a person's mental level, but this mental level is derived through the feedback of external things. For example, the childish external thing is a kind of behavior speech, and the mature external thing is his appearance and dress.
2] Viewpoint of the article Consciousnessism: External things are the projection of the mind.
This sentence is not only the tone of the whole article, but also the channel for the answer that the article pursues.
At first glance, it is easy to understand. Everything except consciousness is external, so everything is false and not real. Everything is a conjugation of the conscious mind. This is also what I said earlierContradictionsSince everything originates from consciousness, why does consciousness construct the mind and body to experience the external things that it creates?It can only be said that there is still an unsolvable problem of the ultimate cause of the new monism of consciousness.
From one point of view, the mind reflected by "projection" is both "transcendental" and "transcendental". We cannot describe the mind objectively by experience, nor can we describe it in terms of existing known experience or future knowable experience, because all objects that can be recognized or Xi by objective experience are "projected" by the mind.
3] The limitations of the mind itself are also imposed on everything it sees or knows.
4] The knowledge acquired by the mind cannot break through its own limitations, but must be consistent with the mind's understanding of itself.
3] and [4] actually express the same problem, the mind is limited, it is limited. In fact, this is related to [2] againContradictionsExternal things are projections of the mind, and whether it is the material world or the immaterial world, our subjective cognition is infinite. So, since the external things that are "projected" are infinite, why is the mind limited as the subject of "projection"?
The clearer expression of the article here can be that the mind is the subject of "projection", but consciousness is the ontology of real "projection", and consciousness "projectes" the so-called external things through the mind. But there is still a question: why oneThere is no limitConsciousness created oneLimitedmind, and usLimitedThe body to experience its own creationUnlimitedExternal Things?
It seems to be back to the question of ultimate causes, but this time the main question is: why does one generate a finite without limitations, and then experience the infinity that it generates itself through the finite?It can also be understood that a monism generates a dualism, and this dualism needs to be interpreted in turn.
Continuing the point of the article: Everything that is known or known is experience, and it is the mind that knows the experience.According to this view, the minds created by our consciousness are at the same level, and all of us are at the same level of knowledge of external things, and we are all at the same stage of the truth about the universe. For the unknown world, the unknown universe is also definite and constant. There is still oneContradictions: They are all external things "projected" by consciousness, so why are there unknown parts?The article doesn't mention the "unknown", but it can't avoid the question after all.
On the contrary, if you think together in conjunction with the previous question. Perhaps, we can get another answer: oneThere is no limitConsciousness creates onecan growThe mind comes to experience what it createsUnlimitedexternal things, precisely because of thisUnlimitedThere are also external things that cannot be known or unknown by the ontology of consciousness, and only then do we need a growing mind to experience and know. (Back to materialism, is there??.)Is it a new doctrine?）
This time, the thoughts on the article and ** are here first, the original text is more exciting!If you can see the last line of words, you must have true love for philosophy!