Is there a contradiction in this sentence? What is the contradiction between these? Will we have thi

There is no contradiction, because ginseng is a representative medicine of two-way joints, the so-called two-way regulation, that is, it can inhibit excessive excitability, and can make excessive inhibition of excitability, and play a role in balancing the body, American ginseng is also a kind of ginseng, and it also has a two-way regulatory effect, so "American ginseng has a calming effect on the brain and a moderate excitatory effect on the nerve center" This is not a contradiction.

American ginseng has the dual effects of nourishing yin and replenishing qi, calming the nerves, clearing away heat and rejuvenating the body, and reducing fire and heat. As the old saying goes: "American ginseng is cool and replenishing, and anyone who wants to use ginseng without being warmed by ginseng can use it".

Therefore, replenishing but not drying is the special feature of American ginseng. Its main functions are:

1.Strengthens the heart muscle and enhances the mobility of the heart;

2.It strengthens the central nervous system, stabilizes the body and mind and relieves fatigue, has a sedative and hangover effect, enhances memory ability, and has a significant effect on Alzheimer's disease;

3.It has a regulating effect on blood pressure, making a temporary or persistent decrease in blood pressure. Inhibits arteriosclerosis and promotes the growth of red blood cells, increasing the amount of hemoglobin;

4.It can regulate the secretion of pancreatic islets, so it is effective for diabetes;

5.It has the effect of regulating the secretion of paraadrenaline and promoting metabolism on the liver;

6.It can enhance physical strength and greatly help athletes;

7.Inhibits the growth of cancer cells and increases immune function;

8.Promotes digestion and is effective for chronic stomach problems and gastrointestinal weakness.

To put it simply, the socialization of production means that production activities increasingly require a social division of labor and require people to cooperate with each other to complete it. In order to be able to continue normal and effective production activities and provide more and more reasonable products, it is necessary to rationally optimize the allocation of resources, which can only be ensured by the sharing of production materials and production information. The private ownership of the means of production means that the management and disposal of the means of production are owned by the individual, which hinders the sharing of resources and thus affects the production efficiency.

In a word, it is the contradiction between the profit-seeking pursuit of producers and the diversified needs of demanders.

Later, however, capitalist society also did economic planning at the state level, so this contradiction was generally alleviated. This contradiction can be avoided because the production plan is carried out entirely under the production plan, and the products are also distributed according to demand, that is, the production plan and the consumption plan are carried out simultaneously. To tell the truth, socialism with Chinese characteristics will also produce this kind of contradiction at the present stage, specifically, it is a nest of production activities, resulting in a waste of production.

On the one hand, the means of production of individuals become socialized means of production that are used by many people; On the other hand, the means of production and products are privately owned by the capitalists. The development of the productive forces requires the continuous expansion of the socialization of the means of production and products; However, the inevitability of the capital attributes of the means of production and the means of subsistence lies like a ghost between these means and the workers, hindering the combination of the levers of production and the levers of man, not allowing the means of production to function normally, and not allowing the workers to work and live in accordance with their human nature. Either the big river is blocked or the dam collapses, and this is the inherent contradiction of the capitalist mode of production and the root of all the contradictions of capitalism.

Socialism does not have such contradictions.

Socialization of production: Production has reached a very high level of the entire social scope.

Private ownership of the means of production: The means of production are still in private hands and are in the possession of a small number of people.

Contradiction: Production is already social, but the means of production are still in the hands of a few, and production cannot be carried out normally.

Capitalism is the private appropriation of the means of production, which cannot be adapted to the socialization of production; The socialist means of production are common to the whole society and can adapt to the socialization of production. Therefore, capitalism must perish, and social socialism will inevitably triumph. (Simply think: how can a private person fight society).

No. We are a socialist country.

I personally understand!

The socialization of production should be the most ideal ideal society for people. Everything is public ownership, and it belongs to everyone.

But you definitely need raw materials to produce things, but this means of production is private ownership, so it is contradictory to this socialization.

You don't have this contradiction.

The land belongs to the state, but the contracting units are different.

The use of socialized means of production.

These philosophical words are a bit crooked, but they are indeed very rigorous, and the phrase translates to a colloquialism, which is almost (note the word) and means this: the internal cognitive capacity of human beings is infinite, but the external conditions limit our cognitive ability, which forms a contradiction. This contradiction is infinite, cyclical, and unified, and can only be resolved in the process of overcoming each other (the process of negation of negation).

Is that okay?

Literally, it seems to be a contradiction.

But, from a psychological point of view, no contradiction!

When you ask whether "this sentence" is contradictory or not, you are asking "this sentence":

Since I don't believe (don't

believe: It can also be translated as "do not think") There are "ghosts", that is, you think: there are no "ghosts" in the world, since you think that there are no "ghosts" in your heart, then the "object of fear" in your heart does not exist, then your "fear" does not have a de facto "object".

Therefore, it is "contradictory"!

But from a psychological point of view:

Your words, "I'm afraid of ghosts," are actually "I'm afraid......It's just that you don't know what it's "scared" of.

Therefore, you are just "inexplicable" "afraid", and that "inexplicable thing" is just called a "ghost" by you.

In real life, many times, "inexplicable things" are more likely to trigger psychological fear than legendary "ghosts".

One day, Plato asked his teacher what love was, and his teacher told him to go into the wheat field first and pick the largest and most golden ear of wheat in the whole wheat field. You can only pick it once during this period, and you can only walk forward, not turn back. Plato did as his teacher said.

As a result, he walked out of the wheat field empty-handed.

The teacher asked him why he couldn't pick it, and he said, "Because I can only pick it once, and I can't go back, even if I see a big and golden tree, I don't know if there is a better one in front of me, so I don't pick it;

When I walked to the front, I found that it was not as good as what I had seen before, and it turned out that the largest and most golden ears of wheat in the wheat field had long been missed; So, I couldn't pick anything. The teacher said, "This is love." ”

To seek love is to seek one's own happiness.

"People estimate that the total number of extragalactic galaxies is more than 100 billion" and "scientists estimate that there are at least 2 trillion galaxies in the universe" are not contradictory, but there is a turning relationship between the two clauses.

The "people" here are clearly non-specialists who distinguish them from "scientists", who "estimate" the data at 1000

More than 100 million, while the "scientists" estimate the data to be "at least 2 trillion", it is completely logical that the two data come from two different groups.

The method of modification is to connect the two clauses with the conjunctive conjunction "but" or "while" to highlight the difference between the two points.

The first sentence needs to be calculated to make it wrong.

Let the mass of carbon dioxide produced by the reaction of 3 grams of carbon and x grams of oxygen be y grams.

C + O2 ignites CO2

3g x g y g

12/3g=32/x g=44/y g

x=8 y=11

That is, according to the law of conservation of mass, the mass of carbon dioxide produced by the reaction of 3 grams of carbon and 8 grams of oxygen is 11 grams.

So the original statement is wrong.

The second sentence is that the statement is not strict.

It should be: after the reaction occurs when the substance is heated in air, the total mass of the product must be equal to the total mass of the reactants involved in the reaction.

The reason is: when the substance is heated in the air and reacts, we assume that the substance reacts with the oxygen in the air, then the reactant is the original substance and oxygen, but the total amount of oxygen on the earth is very large, you can't say that all the oxygen in the air participates in the reaction, you can't count the quality of the oxygen that does not participate in the reaction, only the quality of the oxygen that participates in the reaction can be counted, so the strict statement is what I said above.

Your 10 points of satisfaction, the infinite motivation of our team].

The first sentence: The law of conservation of mass, in chemistry, refers to the fact that the mass of the substance before and after the chemical reaction does not change, that is, the sum of the masses of the reactants and the sum of the masses of the products. It's easy to overlook the fact that both reactants and products are meant to fully participate in a chemical reaction.

For the case of overdose, it is not advisable to discuss it in chemistry.

8g of oxygen is required for the complete reaction of 3g of carbon to produce carbon dioxide, so there is an excess of 1g of oxygen.

Therefore, the one that fully participates in the reaction should be 3+8=11g, that is, the carbon dioxide produced is 11g.

Second sentence: As mentioned above, according to the definition of conservation of mass in chemical reactions, this sentence is true, of course, the substances in this sentence refer to all substances including solid, gaseous, etc.

This sentence is problematic if it refers only to the mass of solid matter, because there may be components in the air (such as CO2 and O2) involved in the reaction and enter the solid, and some gaseous substances may also be produced into the air.

First sentence: 3 grams of carbon is required to completely react to produce carbon dioxide 8 grams of oxygen, so oxygen is excessive. So it's not true.

Second sentence: It is correct to say that the total mass of the product must be equal to the total mass of the reactants participating in the reaction.

The second sentence can be understood as you see it, both the first thing and the second thing can happen, there may be one thing that happens and the other doesn't, and there is also the possibility that neither happens.

So your analysis is correct, these two sentences are contradictory.

If a proposition p>q is true, then his inverse + negative proposition, i.e., non-q> non-p must also be true, but it cannot be said that it is not q>p!!

For example, the light is on and the switch is turned on and the line is not broken, which is equivalent to no electricity, the light is not on, and the line may not be turned on.

If 3 is correct, then his inverse proposition must also be true = C must not be the third must be !! A is not the first and B is not the second (note that the negation of or is and).

Therefore, 5C will not get the third, and it is possible that A gets the first and B gets the second, which is not an inverse negative proposition, which contradicts 3.

-If you understand the trouble, you can bring it into the bulb mode.

If according to 3, A gets the first (no electricity) or B gets the second (line segment), then C will definitely get the third (the light must not be on), and the light is not on.

According to 5C, it is possible to get the third (the light is on), and A will get the first (no electricity) and B will get the second (line segment).

Do you read it well???

"It is possible for A to be the first and B to be the second" can be understood as: A gets the first and B gets the second, you must know that the middle is the word and the word, not the word or.