Natural sciences and philosophical topics are highly advanced

After the apple is picked, it can be said that it gradually ripens and then gradually rots.

There is a process in the development of any thing, apple ripening is a transformation of fruit acid to fructose (the transformation of fruit acid to fructose is also an aerobic transformation, and the instability of fruit acid is oxidized to fructose), and when it becomes fructose, because natural fructose is an unsaturated organism, it is easy to be oxidized (rotted).

That is, maturity is a prerequisite for decay, and this process is insurmountable.

As for animals, the development and maturation of the body is not completed by directly reacting with oxygen. After his death, the oxygen reaction of his body in the air (the influence of bacteria and other factors) is the direct result of oxidation (decay). Animals are not to be confused with fruits!

If you look closely, when apples grow, they first release cellulose and fruit acid (the growth of the head), and then the apple acid oxidizes to fructose (ripe, and the human taste is sweet).

The ripening and rotting of apples are all aerobic participation, ripening and rotting is like when you eat, you feel the taste and feel full of food, you don't eat until your mouth tastes, can you say that you are full?

Apples do not rot if they are not ripe (sometimes green apples also rot because they are partially ripe).

The growth of an animal's body is not a reaction with oxygen, it is the digestion of food by the digestive system, and the growth of the body from blood, etc., while decay is completely an oxidation reaction (bacterial erosion). The mechanism of the two is different!

I can't help it if I don't understand it.

This is all relative to our human frame of reference.

It doesn't make a difference to apples to ripen or rot, it's just a process that happens for the next generation. The most important of the apple is the edible peel for humans, and the seed buried in the center of the apple.

The position is different!

There aren't many books like this, but I see it this way: Protecting nature is a practical activity, a self-centered human activity. We know that the world is material and cannot be changed by human will, but human beings have the ability to transform the world through the understanding of this matter, which has been known since ancient times. Therefore, in the process of transformation, there will be behaviors that follow the laws of nature and those that violate the laws of nature, and there will be different practical results, so there will be situations that are not conducive to the interests of human beings, so intelligent human beings call it destruction, and later there is also the word protection, in fact, these are beneficial practices carried out under the premise of following the interests of human beings.

In the final analysis, it is to correct the situation and return to chaos. It is also to follow the path of nature. Lao Tzu's inaction is also about going with the flow, of course, doing something, or going with the flow, haha, boy, humble opinion, thank you for reading.

Individuals have the same habitual understanding of the concept of nature as you do. But there is no objection to understanding nature as another, more universal meaning.

In fact, Lao Tzu, like most people, believes that nature is destroyed by man, not similar to the view that nature cannot be destroyed. That's why Lao Tzu advocates doing nothing to be wise.

This is directly related to the understanding of the concept of nature. Nature is understood in a more general context as non-artificial as opposed to the concept of man. Another meaning of nature as a broader extension is:

Everything exists. From this point of view, nature cannot be destroyed. Nothing is not natural.

So arguments often arise from different understandings of concepts. The principle is the same as "white horses are not horses". From the point of view of the communicative role of language, the use of nature is also understandable.

Truth is relative.

1. It should be said that philosophy and science promote each other.

The main function of philosophy lies in its ability to find the universal laws or principles that exist in many different things and phenomena in a general and abstract way. Although these laws and principles are vague and imprecise, they can qualitatively and macroscopically guide science in the general direction to quickly solve the problems of the real and objective world at the precise and quantitative level, so as to benefit mankind.

Not only that, since ancient times, the total knowledge of human beings has been roughly divided into two major aspects: natural science and social science, and the basis of social science is mainly the philosophy of mind (or science of mind). However, in the field of psychic or psychology, the current level of natural science and technology is far from being able to solve the mysteries of the field of the mind, and even some very basic psychological phenomena (such as desire, dreaming, fear, neurosis, psychosis). There is not even a reasonable hypothesis or conjecture, let alone any science and technology to effectively solve psychological problems and mental diseases.

For this reason, the field of mind or psychology is still only at the level of qualitative description of philosophy, and it is far from being called psychological science, but can only be said to be philosophy of mind or psychology.

It can be seen from this that the development process of human knowledge is that there is philosophy first, and then science, and science always has to be based on a certain philosophy, so philosophy is the father of science, the mother of science, or the ancestor of science. Science is a natural extension of philosophy, and it is the descendant of philosophy. However, future generations often have greater abilities than their ancestors, produce greater scientific research results, and benefit mankind greater.

If all human knowledge is compared to a big fruit tree, then philosophy is the trunk of this big tree, and natural science is like the thick branches and leaves on this trunk, and scientific and technological achievements are like the flowers and fruits of this big tree. Without the trunk as a foundation, where can the branches and leaves come from, and how can the fruits be eaten by humans?

Generally speaking, philosophy is characterized by the ability to qualitatively grasp and describe the essence of things in the general direction and in general at the stage when it is impossible to accurately solve the problem of understanding the essence of things. Science, on the other hand, grasps and describes the essence of things concretely, precisely, and quantitatively (quantitatively) when the time is ripe. For this reason, if possible, humanity will always advance to the level of the natural sciences, and not just to the level of philosophy.

To put it simply, philosophy is the theory that qualitatively describes and explains the nature of things, while science is the theory that describes and explains the nature of things quantitatively (quantitatively). This is the most obvious difference between the two.

In all developments in the world, ideas are always the forerunners.

When scientists get rid of the church and other rules that bind their thinking and scientific research, scientific discoveries and inventions will be born in the eyes and hands of scientists.

Some important discoveries and inventions came from skilled workers, whose experience must have given them the idea of transcending old knowledge and breaking old boxes, which belonged to the realm of philosophy in its embryonic period, before it became science.

In addition, a successful career is inseparable from spiritual things such as willpower and perseverance, as well as the support of faith, etc., which are all philosophies.

For example, the philosophy before Socrates is called natural philosophy, and they explain nature not in terms of myths, but in terms of "water", "infinity" or "air", and although their interpretation of nature is very different from modern science, the spirit of science has been nurtured in it, that is, to explore the nature of nature in terms of man rather than God, and in terms of laws rather than dogmas or myths.

The affirmation of the value of reason, as in the words of the Enlightenment, was inherently immeasurable in terms of the potential impetus for the natural sciences. It's hard to say if it's too direct to have an impact.

Natural philosophy is a modern science.

a.Starting point. b.Dialectical vision of filial piety.

c.Negative anti-limb draft icon.

d.The goal of restoration.

Correct Answer: a