I couldn t figure out what it meant to ask a philosopher master for advice, Why does it not exist b

For example, the paradox that "every one of us will die, but that doesn't mean there will be no one in the world." So: everything will pass away, and there will be something new coming about, but the new will also pass away, but there will still be there every moment.

This is a paradox in the abstract, but it is not difficult to understand in concrete examples. Socrates' philosophy is biased towards abstract concepts, so paradoxes arise. Plato jumped out of this circle and turned into thinking about the relationship between philosophers and the people, and Nietzsche was inspired by Plato's philosophical ideas and generated new thinking.

It's a personal understanding!

Everything is fading away", so it should be "nothing" in the end. But it is surprising that "there is still being" – that is, "being" is still there – after it has passed.

ps I'm not a master of philosophy, I'm a lover of philosophy. When you read philosophy, you need to understand the whole chapter and the whole paragraph, not to get stuck in one sentence, but to understand the sentence and the concept in context!

You should understand that the philosophical "being" and "nothing" are not the "being" and "nothing" that we usually understand. Here is an example of Marx's words: the natural world that is separated from man is nothing to man.

How can this be properly understood? "Nothing" here cannot be understood as non-existence, but as "unknowable" or "unknowable".

Oh, this sentence has to be taken apart, which means that the greatest question of the philosophers of the pre-Socratic philosophical period is - why is the phenomenon of everything disappearing not manifesting itself as "nothing", but still existing?

For example, why do people keep dying and why are there still people around? Why do plants still exist when plants die?

This is the confusion of the predecessors, who cannot figure out why the world will continue to develop forever, and what forces make the world continue to develop.

The question is not nothing, nor existence, but what existentialism is.

Life can perish, but it does not represent a vacuum in the universe.

The nothingness of the vacuum, nothing. There is not even pain and joy, how can we further deny joy and pain (passing away or non-existent), let alone affirm.

It's boring to understand, "time" or "force".

If you admit that you have no life, then you are nothing and have no existence. Anyway, it's not because there is "money" that it is the same as existing.

There is no self in the heart, there are also others, and only with others can we live, and at that time I felt that there was no existence. I feel that everything is good.

The first ontological proposition put forward by the famous Greek philosopher Parmenides.

He pointed out that there is only one path to truth, and that is to admit that only those who exist exist, and those who do not exist do not exist, or that it is impossible for those who do not exist to exist.

To say that we can know non-existent things is to say that our knowledge can have no object, no signifier. If this is the case, knowledge will not be knowledge. Since we cannot know non-existence, we cannot say that it exists.

I also remembered a paradox in ancient Greece called the paradox of learning

The "Learning Paradox" is one of the famous paradoxes of ancient Greece, which states that people usually face two situations when learning, one is not knowing what to learn, and the other is already knowing what to learn. In both cases, learning is meaningless because the former has no goal and the latter is not necessary.

Existence in philosophy usually refers to matter, specifically objective existence includes matter and the thoughts of others.

Existence is the opposite of thinking, and everything other than people's thoughts is existence.

Of course, idealism holds that God, God, is also a kind of existence outside of people's minds.

In fact, God and God are also products of people's thoughts.

Strictly speaking, it should be "out of nowhere, everywhere".

All the knowledge and thousands of methods in the world are taken from human cognition of the world.

Philosophy is the pursuit of the ultimate knowledge, so any cognition is related to philosophy, everything.

But at the same time, just like a fish can swim, a cat can catch mice, and our stomach can digest, whether you know it or not, "it" is there silently functioning, so why bother to hang everything on the crown of philosophy?

So in the following opinion, the sentence you asked is correct, but at the same time it is wrong.

For the retreater, philosophy can be everything; For the pragmatist, philosophy can be non-existent.

Natural metaphysical thinking is the essence of philosophical development. In primitive society, people did not understand various natural phenomena, thunder and lightning, flash floods and other natural phenomena aroused people's exploration and understanding of nature and themselves, which is the early prototype of religion, it can be said that in this period, the form of philosophical explanation of religion existed.

Philosophy arose in the ancient slavery period when the social productive forces made great progress, when the social and economic development promoted the great improvement of people's cognitive ability, and people began to think about the nature of the world and other theoretical issues, and the early philosophical ideas of human beings appeared.

In ancient times, the objects of philosophical study were vast and complex, from astronomy to geography. All kinds of problems that can give people wisdom and make people wise are the objects of philosophical research. The objects of philosophical research in this period included the objects of concrete science, and philosophy and science were integrated.

By the middle of the slave society, specific sciences such as mathematics, astronomy, and medicine became separate sciences and diverged from philosophy. The object of study in philosophy was narrowed and concretized, and within philosophy various specific philosophical disciplines were formed: ontology, epistemology, and logic.

With the establishment of capitalist society, modern empirical science was born, and various specific sciences became independent from philosophy and developed by leaps and bounds, and the object of philosophical research was narrowed again. Engels pointed out: "In all the previous philosophies, only the doctrines of thinking and its laws—formal logic and dialectics—remained, and everything else was subsumed into the empirical science of nature and history."

The question of epistemology and the concept of development became the focus of philosophy in this period.

In contemporary times, due to the independent and rapid development of the natural sciences, social sciences and the sciences of consciousness, the object of philosophical research has changed again. Philosophy no longer studies the problems of a certain scope and field of the world, but studies the common nature and universal laws of all things and phenomena in the whole world, such as the origin of the world, the relationship between matter and consciousness, and the basic state of the world, thus forming two major schools of materialism and idealism. Philosophy itself only shows different dimensions of thinking, and there is no right or wrong at all, but if we explore the objective world as it is, there is a distinction between scientific and unscientific.

Philosophy is the study of the origin of human beings, the origin of thought, and it is actually higher than science and technology, so philosophy is not to say that kind of particularly ethereal moment.

Why does philosophy exist? Because in philosophy, because there are human needs, it is said that there will be needs when there are needs.

It's okay, ** meaningful things in the world, valuable things, so he is for the growth of the city.

Why is philosophy a being? It is a philosophical thought, a process of imagination that we human beings are imagining, and an imaginary process of realizing this philosophy.

Philosophy is a discipline, the relationship between people, the world, people and the world, existence is a conceptual problem, that is, the root of all things, about this fundamentally different scholars have different understandings, since then divided into many schools, there are idealism, materialism, etc., but so far, human beings have not fully recognized the true face of the world, science is still opening up new cognition!

Phenomenology is the root, so to speak, and existentialism is the branch. The transcendental world after phenomenological reduction provides a breeding ground for existentialism and opens up a broader field. The living world becomes the world in which the being exists, that is, the world in relation to the state of being, a world that precedes reason.

Merleau-Ponty's perceptual world, Sartre's phenomenological monism, and Heidegger's existentialism are all developments of Husserl's phenomenological reduction.

Marx mentioned the elimination of philosophy in the Introduction to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law, which means that the past philosophical research has stayed in theory and failed to find its own practical basis. It is only through the revolutionary practice of the proletariat, through the abolition of philosophy, that philosophy is realized. This is what Marx meant when he said that philosophers interpret the world in different ways, and the problem is to change the world.

Of course, Marx seems to have another sentence - "I can't move forward without philosophy", I don't know if LZ missed the last few words, if this sentence is, he refers to the guiding and enlightening role of theory (especially philosophy) in transforming reality.

He simply expounded what the proletariat should and could do. Later generations summarized his words and derived Marxist philosophy. He did not write for the sake of philosophy, but for the sake of practice.

Western philosophical research exists or does not exist because there are people in the West.

It can be said that philosophy deals with the ultimate question, such as what is the universe, whether the universe has a beginning--- whether there is a soul--- whether we can truly understand the world according to our feelings, and so on. I'm also a novice in philosophy, and I've been teaching the history of Western philosophy lately, and I think the biggest thing about philosophy is that it allows you to think about some questions. These are some of the questions that I have listed above that still have no answers, you can think about it yourself, or you can go and see how thousands of people answer this question Personally, I feel that philosophy is at least a discipline that enlightens human wisdom, knowledge is not equal to wisdom And when you think about these questions, you will unconsciously put yourself in a very high position, that is, the realm In short, I feel that I have benefited a lot I wish you success in your studies

First of all, if you have studied dialectics, then you should know that there is no ultimate problem, right? If the ultimate problem is acknowledged, there is a self-contradiction of methods and systems, just like Hegel.

Secondly, the question of ontology, which is a speculative method of discussing the question of the origin of the world, was quite popular in the ancient Greek period, and originated in Parmenides, if we really want to understand the ontological reasons in it, we should also go back to his original context, that is, to return to the situation of ancient Greece at that time to look at this problem, that is, the relevant meaning.

Finally, ontology may not inspire you much in the ancient Greek period, but if you look at the modern philosophers Heidegger or Sartre's works "Being and Time" or "Being and Nothingness", you will definitely gain a lot, but they have their own discourse system, which may be slower, but the logic is rigorous and the content is very rich. Recommend!

What is the basis of existence or non-existence? Whether it exists or does not exist is the ultimate question for philosophers to ponder.

i.e. ontology. The question of which is the primary nature and what is the second nature, the material and the spiritual.

In fact, it is only one of the binary separations prescribed by Western Descartes.

None of them can constitute the Chinese proposition of "I think, therefore I am".

This is because duality only constitutes a physical world, not a living world (and more importantly, everyone lives in it).

So, I think, out of one of them. It's not the whole world.

For example, "dragon" does not exist in the physical world, but in the living world.

It is the totem of the Chinese nation. It's the reason for its existence again!

Western philosophy is to study the universe from the surface of things, and if you want to draw wisdom from it, unless you study it thoroughly, while Chinese wisdom starts from the heart, as long as you understand a little, it will have a great enlightenment in your life, but it is difficult for ordinary people to understand.

Isn't it that the ultimate question is who you are, where you come from, where you go?

Ontology is not understood.

From Kozhe's point of view, the most important question is the question of which is the first nature and what is the second nature.

I admire my brother's words very much, and he sprinkled such a long paragraph.

I vaguely remember that during the period of the New Culture Movement, some people proposed: study more problems, talk less about doctrines, advocate solving the urgent social reality problems at that time, and study less empty doctrines, it seems to be Hu Shih, but there are still a group of people, tireless, selfless labor, who introduced the representative of the Bolshevik doctrine from Soviet Russia? You know.

What happens after that? You know that, too.

Therefore, it cannot be said that it is good to choose one of the two, but the other must be excluded, at least the two have an influence on each other, in other words, to jointly build a harmonious society.

You think that philosophy is useless, this is your opinion and opinion represents your own philosophy, what you say is a theory, it is indeed a little out of touch with real life, in the final analysis, philosophy is a theoretical system produced by people's thinking and exploration of the world and themselves. Born from life and higher than life.