1. Regular investment.
2. Essays. We often hear declarations such as "Be yourself", "Live your true self", "Be true to yourself", "Be true to your heart", ......
These slogans sound very inspirational, but they can also give us the illusion that the uniqueness of the self must be obtained from within the self.
The vast majority of people in contemporary society will feel that I understand myself best, and I know myself best.
This view of oneself as having absolute power to interpret oneself is called "solipsism."
In the history of Chinese philosophy, Mencius's statement that "all things are prepared for me" (Mencius: Devoted to the Heart) and Wang Shouren's "Nothing outside the Heart" ("With Wang Chunfu Book II") both represent a solipsistic view.
In the history of Western philosophy, the British philosopher Berkeley is a typical representative of solipsism, who dissolves everything in the world and its properties into the sensory experience of "me", believing that there is nothing other than sensory experience.
Many people today believe that the so-called personal autonomy is "leave me alone, leave me alone, and make my own decisions." What autonomy is exactly, is that you have the freedom to choose, and you have to choose.
But what do you choose?
Both Nietzsche and Sartre have told you that there is no standard: you choose, you are responsible, that's everything, there's nothing else to say.
But in this way, freedom becomes too much of a burden. We see so many people falling into boredom, loss, confusion, loneliness, and helplessness.
In modern times, such spiritual dilemmas are quite common, and we all feel them more or less really.
So some people will call for the liberal ideal of autonomy to be harmful, that modern society is too laissez-faire, full of relativism, hedonism and narcissism, and that all people are highly self-centered.
This is an abuse of freedom, a degradation of culture, and a detriment to democracy.
Therefore, it is argued that freedom, equality, and pluralism should be curtailed, and that political authorities, religious leaders, or cultural elites should be allowed to re-establish the standards of truth, goodness, and beauty, to educate the masses, to save morality, and to prevent the degradation of culture and the decay of democracy.
Is it really necessary to give up individual autonomy?
The lessons of the twentieth century have left us with too many painful memories of the authoritarian approach and the inability to abandon individual autonomy.
We put the power to define stupidity and the power to eliminate stupidity in the hands of elites, and the result was the largest totalitarian movement in human history, such as the Nazis.
We have also put in the hands of the masses the power to define stupidity and eliminate stupidity, which has led to the regression and collapse of civilizations, such as the French Revolution.
The individual autonomy of liberalism certainly cannot be abandoned!
Being true to one's own heart, which in itself is a positive moral ideal, is an important achievement of modern culture.
The question is: we can't give up our freedom, so how do we face and deal with the problems that come with freedom?
Charles Taylor, a contemporary Western thinker and representative of communitarianism, believes that there is a blind spot in the liberal view: that is, to equate "being true to myself" with the absolute correctness of my perception and interpretation of myself.
In this way, you will mistakenly think that by focusing on your own heart, you can create value and meaning in life, and see the external world as superfluous, or even as an obstacle and enemy of "self-realization", and you will fall into the blind spot of solipsism.
Taylor's view is that the pursuit of autonomy, the pursuit of a unique self, does not require the acceptance of solipsism, and it is precisely the rejection of solipsism.
Faced with the self-generation proposition of independent individual value, Taylor's answer is that "such a thing as inner generation, if understood as a monologue, is nothing."
My discovery of my identity does not mean that I created it alone, but that I have established this identity through a dialogue with others, partly public, partly internalized.
This is why the development of the ideal of inherently generated identity gives identity a new and crucial importance. My own identity is fundamentally dependent on my conversational relationships with others. ”
Taylor gave an example. Say that someone claims to be very unique because he has exactly 3732 hairs! Would you admire this uniqueness? No, it's funny.
However, if a person has a superb piano playing talent and is proud of it, or if a person is particularly sincere and friendly to others, he has won everyone's appreciation ......Such uniqueness will be considered valuable.
Why is there such a big difference between these two kinds of "uniqueness" in our feelings?
Taylor explains that whether something is important and meaningful needs to be measured against a contextual framework.
Our morals and values do not arise in a vacuum, in an isolated mind, but from our conversations with others and reflections in our conversations. You feel that being kind to others is a very good quality, and this does not come out of thin air in your heart, but you realize it in your interactions with others.
There is a very popular perception in modern society that the value of things is subjectively given, given by the "self". I value or value something, not because of its intrinsic value or meaning, but precisely because I value it and value it, that it becomes valuable.
For example, I recently bought a car, and when I was choosing a car, I found that different people would find a car that suited them as their own car, some people liked the sense of control, some people paid attention to intelligent driving, and some people just liked the appearance of the car.
It seems that the value of this car is the meaning I have given it, but if you think about it, you will find that the reasons why I can explain this liking are related to my experience and cultural background
You will find that the value and meaning of the so-called "self-given" are actually still related and originated, created by many experiences and stories, and formed in the relationship of life.
Many logo patterns, advertising designs, etc. in life are very creative, which makes people shoot and feel like a unique innovation, but if you taste carefully, there are cultural mothers behind these ingenuity, and it is these cultural mothers that really point to our hearts.
In the book "Scope", the author Eppers says, "Who am I?" is not something you ask yourself in the dead of night. You have to try all sorts of things to "discover" what you like to do, what you want to do, what you can do, and who you are. And the answer can change at any time.
Japanese designer Yohji Yamamoto said: "self" is invisible, bumping into something else, ** back, will understand "self".
So, colliding with something very strong, something terrible, something of a very high level, and then you know what "yourself" is, this is the self. ”
In the same way, "value" is not enough to be self-given, but must "collide with something very strong, something terrible, and something of a very high standard" to know whether the value you give is worth it or not, which is probably the reason why Taylor said that "the self cannot create and invent its own value and meaning standards out of thin air".
Therefore, whether we believe in liberalism or otherwise, we should take the recognition of the rationality of the existence of the existing social, political, and economic systems as the premise, and change the reality and assign value on the basis of recognizing the existing ones.
Taylor says that the self cannot create and invent its own standards of value and meaning out of thin air, and this standard is inseparable from the background framework of our common life, and you can only "choose" and "transform" your own values according to this framework.
Therefore, our autonomy cannot be achieved by relying on an isolated heart.
In the post-disenchanted modern world, we seem to have lost any standards, but Taylor tells us that standards of meaning and value still exist, in the common context of our lives.
But modern and ancient, this common context is not a clear set of rules and dogmas, but a resource, rich in diversity, providing a common framework for the selection of meaning and value.
So, we need to connect ourselves to a wider world, to maintain a dialogue with others, and to reflect in the dialogue, which will make us more awake, richer, and more self-reliant.
In the classical society in which Aristotle and Confucius and Mencius lived, the individual and even the human race as a whole were embedded in a larger community structure (man is a city-state animal, a blood patriarchal society, the universe, heaven and earth).
It was not until the intertwined influence of the Reformation-Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment-Political Movement in modern times that the natural world was objectified and the individual subject subjected, and we passionately and firmly constructed the illusion that we deeply believed: "A person can become a fully competent human subject from society".
It is as if any existing human phenomenon is subject to the self-understanding and subjective judgment of the self-subject, as if any whole and common phenomenon can only gain meaning through this understanding and judgment, and in this conceited, monologue self-identity, on the contrary, we fall into a series of "hidden worries of modernity".
Our individual autonomy is not based on a "separate and independent individual".
The scale of value behind any value judgment we make is formed by a series of dialogues and interactions with the community, and even this dialogue and interaction cannot be separated from the given non-selectable background of a larger community.
Why do people live? How do you live out your calling? I've written about these questions in previous articles.
Western philosophical thought pays more attention to logical self-consistency and reflection in combination with historical lessons, while Chinese culture tends to analogy and attribution to the overall view.
Yang-self-instinct-brain-handsome-talent-heaven-meritorious service-change-—— the relationship between man and nature.
Middle-self-emotional-brain-general-person-morality-simplicity-interpersonal relationship.
Yin—Superego—Rational Brain—Wisdom—Earth—Speech—Not Easy—The relationship between man and himself.
3. Self-discipline. 
Peng Zhuang 20240304