For philosophy researchers, a concept may not make them feel more familiar than the concept of "world", so they often use the concept, as if its meaning is self-evident, no need to go through a rational examination and reflection. But on reflection, we in the study of philosophy corollary of some wrong conclusions, and even our mistakes in the whole philosophy of, all stem from a misunderstanding of the concept. This is to be the following passage Hegel's famous statement:. "Generally speaking, it is not really known what to know something, because it is known there is a self-deception that most people take for granted the things that when knowledge presupposes something that is already a well-known, and therefore so never mind it. "[1] If we want to get out from the traditional framework of philosophical texts we have accepted in the past, gain new insight , it is first necessary to reflect on the evolution of our long-vision thinking concept.
(One)
Let's take a look at how traditional philosophy textbook is to understand the concept of "world". In these textbooks, the most common way of saying: "Philosophy is the knowledge about the world view" or "philosophy is a systematic view of the world." What is the world view it? View of the world is the perception of the whole world; what is the world? The world is made of natural, social, thinking as a whole. It all seems very clear, but the whole question is out here.
First, we have to ask, we have no reason to know us as actors and those in which exposure to the whole world is divided into natural, social, thinking three blocks of it? Is the reality of the natural world (that is, not the person separate from the abstract nature), there is no thinking involved in social and human factors of it? Is the social realities can leave the natural and human activities exist alone in thinking it? Does human thinking but also from the natural and social and independent working? But one might argue that raising activities in a sense is an understanding of object segmentation, if not the world be any division, we know how to do it? We can not deny that this excuse is a grain of truth, but the problem is that after the split, that is, after the abstract, there must be specific or integrated on a thought (that is reproduced in the whole world thinking), and this is precisely the problem we were ignored. In fact, we just be satisfied with abstract studies to separate the way of nature, society and thinking. That is, while we talk about a thousand times the world as a whole, in fact, we always catch only fragments of the world live.
Second, in our "world" picture, the natural and social turn, is usually understood as "presence" and thinking and correspondence. In this way, It looks like we are reproducing the overall picture of the world, but is actually reproduced the doctrine of Cartesian dualism as a fundamental characteristic picture of the world, the world is still broken.
Third, even if "the world" philosophical concepts can be divided into three parts above, we have no reason to nature in the first place. At first glance, nature, society, thinking that Priorities completely by accident, the relationship between the three seems completely parallel relationship. In fact, to determine the relationship of arrangement not only provides preconceptions we understand the concept of "world" direction, but also provides us understand the philosophical direction. Why do you say? The reason is simple. Since before the natural in society, but we usually just before it comes to people when discussing society, that, naturally here is to be discussed in the context of the separation of people. As mentioned earlier, this is only natural abstract, unrealistic, the philosophy of "the world" with the concept of separation of abstract human nature as a starting point, this philosophy will never go beyond the traditional, abstract materialist view area. If it says that in ancient society, nature as a great power confrontation with the people, and thus the early philosophers easy to separate from man and nature, and produces worship of nature, then; then, in the modern era, naturally has passed industrial and commercial media, is fully personified. That is, when we stand on today's stand to look natural, only human nature really is the reality of nature. So Marx says: "Nature that is formed during the production of human society in human history is the reality of human nature; therefore, by industry - although in the form of alienation - the natural form, is true, anthropology nature. "[2] in other words, in contemporary philosophy (including philosophy, including Marxist) of Perspective, society is the first one, but he could only get to know the people and through social media, because it by the confrontation with the people of tremendous power into meet the needs of human values. It is also in this sense, in his discussion of Marx to wage labor in capitalist society as a fundamental characteristic, said:. "All relationships are determined by society, not by natural decision" [3] in our picture of the world , a natural reason for living in the first, because the Oriental philosophers, especially the Chinese philosopher although in contemporary life, but the essence remains the ancient people, their economic vision is still the natural style, still with the abstract , the separation of people and nature worship. It is this understanding of the structure before we determine the necessity of practical materialism of Marx misunderstood as an abstract matter is characterized by a general materialist, but also determines the Chinese philosopher why the general notion of "Heaven" has a strong interest.
As can be seen from above analysis, we understand the concept of "world" and did not advance to clear our historic. In fact, we worship abstract material characterized by materialism and the Cartesian position of the general doctrine of necessity inherent in the natural set out formation of the concept of "world". Prior to this concept did not clarify, we assume that philosophy in many reform will inevitably become a mere formality.
http://philosophychina.cssn.cn/zxzl/zxzl_20317/201507/t20150713_2743307.shtml