What is the mode of thought of selflessness advocated by Chinese philosophy?

I think so.

Philosophy is the search for truth, which is the goal of every philosophy.

But the universe has never dictated what is truth and what is false.

It's like people generally think that sheep are good and wolves are cruel.

It's not right for a wolf to eat a sheep.

But this is the truth that comes from taking into account self-interest.

But for wolves, hunting to survive is the truth.

Similarly, Socrates believed that the goal of his philosophy was to benefit mankind.

But think about it from the perspective that you're a human being.

The more people survive, the more animals die.

This is still just the truth of man himself.

There is no truth in the universe that applies forever.

And the so-called "selflessness".

It is to put aside all the factors that affect one's own judgment.

For example, I'm human, so I'm going to do the good for people.

We must seek the truth from the perspective of nature in the fairest way.

This is the highest state of selflessness, the truth that comes not only for self-interest, but the truth that represents most living beings.

That's the way of nature.

Self-reversal is the expression of the pursuit of one's own highest state.

Just like when you pursue selflessness, the pursuit of this idea is a kind of ego.

No self" see:

The explanation is more detailed.

Self" see:

Here, there is reality, and there is nothing, which is actually reality. Nothing, on the basis of "being", rises to something that is materially intangible and detached from concrete form. "Lao Tzu" said:

There is advantage, there is no use", here, Lao Tzu refers to, nothing is space, there is no space in the house can not live in people, there is no space in the bowl can not serve rice, so, no, is useful, here, Lao Tzu uses space to explain "nothing", in fact, this is only a side, the concept of nothing is broader than space, "all things are born from being, there is born from nothing", everything is from nothing, nothing, is the most primitive element.

In Buddhism, the "Lengyan Sutra": "Sexual color vacuum, sexual emptiness true color", the "color" here is not the color of lust, but the color of color, which refers to the substance, and the word "color" in the Buddhist scriptures generally refers to the substance. This means that the nature of matter is empty, and only matter that is empty in nature is real matter.

That is, your understanding of matter, if it is a solidified tangible object, it is a wrong understanding, an understanding of phase. Because all things, in the view of Buddhism, are formed by the combination of causes and conditions, and the dispersion of causes will be extinguished, not only all substances will be destroyed due to the dispersion of conditions, but also the human body, "this body and this mind, is illusory and not real", your thoughts will be extinguished in an instant, and your body will also be destroyed because of the end of life.

Therefore, Buddhism believes that you don't need to be attached to everything in the world, and once you are attached, you will be restricted by the world, and if you are not attached, you will be free from the limitations, not only that matter is made up of causes and conditions, but that everything in the world is and that you cannot be attached, because that is not a fixed phase.

Nothingness is to understand the world in terms of this indefiniteness. Lao Tzu's "nothingness" is very close to the "emptiness" of Buddhism.

Text: Li Wanyan.

People often ask me what is the use of learning, what can I do, I want to say a word of philosophy - useless, useless, after reading philosophy, at least let yourself live clearly, everything, is in life everyone must follow this law, only the heart is strong, in order to make a career.

Philosophy makes me think alone, read and think, when I read: the Tao of the Tao, the very Tao, the name is famous, the name is not famous, everything in the world is nothing more than a Tao word, follow the law of all things found, no matter where you go, don't forget your own heart. In the face of other people's accusations, I hope that I can discern them, and if I really do it, I will encourage it if I don't.

We can look at the backbone of China, Confucianism has: Confucius, Mencius, Xunzi; Representative figures of Taoism: Laozi, Zhuangzi.

We may know a little bit about the Confucian classics, such as "The Ten Principles of the Analects", "The Journey of the Great Road", "Born in Sorrow and Die in Peace", "Mencius Two Rules", "Buddha Food" and so on; The Taoist school may have only read the Tao Te Ching. Here I would like to appeal.

People of insight in the world should really calm down and cultivate well for their hearts.

This "Tao Te Ching" is recommended to all friends, and I hope you can go and see it when you have time.

One. Idealism: The belief that consciousness determines matter, there are two types:

1.The first is subjective idealism, which holds that the existence of all objective matter is perceived by man's subjective consciousness, and that all objective matter does not exist if man's own subjective intention is not perceived. I'm thinking about it.

2 The second is objective idealism, which holds that the existence of all objective matter is determined by an omnipotent cosmic spirit, and this cosmic spirit is God, and that all objective matter, including man's own consciousness, was first created by God and then slowly developed.

Two. Materialism: The belief that matter determines consciousness is also divided into two types:

1 The first is dialectical materialism, which holds that matter determines consciousness, and consciousness is an active reaction to objective matter, which has an active effect on matter, and is both a reaction.

2.The second is metaphysical materialism, which holds that matter determines consciousness and that consciousness is a static mechanical reaction to objective matter. It is denied that consciousness has an active effect on matter, and that human consciousness cannot recognize the law of the development of objective things, and that the reaction of consciousness to matter is like looking in a mirror, which is a static mechanical reaction.

In short, dialectical materialism is correct.

In layman's terms, materialism is the belief that the world actually exists, even if there is no man or God or anything, the world still exists. Idealism is the belief that the whole world is nothing more than a matrix in the human or God or the matrix or something that does not really exist, and if the human or the god or the matrix or something disappears, the world does not exist.

As for materialism, the mind is born from the environment, and idealism is the situation from the heart, you can also understand it so simply.

Philosophy is the so-called law of law, for example, ordinary people read books to study the content of books, while philosophy studies how to read books. Philosophy in a broad sense includes all the laws, even the content of the book is also philosophy.

1. The essence of existentialism: the transcendence of existence, the freedom of choice. 2. The transcendence of existence means that existence (man is the most real being) is always in constant generation and change, and the existence of each moment always transcends himself and transcends what he was before you know him.

Thus existence is ineffable, and when one tries to explain existence, the present existence is no longer the previous existence that one calls it to be. Freedom of choice. Existential theory of "freedom" is associated with "responsibility".

Since being is always constantly transcending itself, being is always forming its own essence on its own, unbound by determinism, and free. People's choice is free, and the freedom here does not mean the freedom to choose A or choose B, but that people are free between choosing or not choosing, and once they make a choice, they must be responsible for their own choice, because this choice is their own free choice, and no one forces them, so they have to bear the consequences of their choice.

Existentialism is one of the main schools of modern Western philosophy, which was formed from the beginning and started from "man", so existentialism is a kind of realism, which discusses the social form of subsistence and the situation of man rather than the problem of natural philosophy.

yes, how do we know if anything is real? The only tool we use to know is the mind, and how can we know anything without the mind? But the question is, can we know that anything exists with our minds?

We superimpose all sorts of concepts and ideas on our minds and believe that those concepts are true, so we develop beliefs that we then rely on to assume or prove that something exists or doesn't exist.

The question is, are those concepts or notions real? Not really, because concepts are not equal to things themselves. But how do we know that there is something in itself apart from concepts?

We "prove" its existence through other concepts, and in the end, any proof we have is based on concepts that have not been "proven". Let's say you believe that you know what the brain is and what its properties are, but apart from the concepts that physiologists, philosophers, psychologists, or human cultures tell you about the brain, how do you know what the brain is, what its properties are, or whether it exists or not? Do you perceive it?

But that doesn't prove anything, it just means that you perceive your own perception – the perception that superimposes the "concept of the brain".

In the same way, how do we know that anything exists or does not exist when we are removed from any concept or notion that culture or human civilization or ideology gives us? How do I know what I am? Do I exist?

But even then, I have only one tool left that I can use to know—thoughts, so I might be glad to say "Ah, I'm thoughts!" "But the question is, what is the mind? Does the mind exist?

Aside from the concept of thought, can I know what thought is? I would say, "I know, 'the mind is what I am,' 'I am who I am'—it's not a concept or an idea, it's a fact, the only fact, and I just know because I just 'am.'" 'I am' is 'thought'.

The above seemingly arbitrary statement doesn't seem to say anything, because how can I prove that "I am the mind"? I can't prove it, but I just "know" because I just "am". If the essence of knowing is not "yes", then the so-called knowing is only "believing", but since any "proof" is based on "believing that the concept is true" (i.e., hypothesis), the conclusions obtained are only false beliefs.

No belief can be proven, no belief is true. The entire culture and civilization of mankind is based on faith, that is, on lies. Beliefs determine the actions of human beings, and then human beings create the so-called world.

Humanity can "prove," but that is only to uphold and strengthen the faith.

Then again, solipsism, the theory that states that "the only thing I know is that I am", is easily falsified and can never be falsified - because I just need to prove that I know anything other than me exists, a boogers, and yet, no one can prove it, unless you think the so-called proof is "believing".

Because of the mind's conscious thought process, we know and understand everything in the world. Since cognition is a kind of subjective psychological cognition of people, there is naturally a subjective will of human beings that affects the results of cognition, so all our cognitive behaviors are actually a reflection of self-consciousness, not to mention truth and falsehood, and all opinions are not a real reflection of the external world, but only a reflection of our own understanding of the outside world, so idealism is vain. Outside of our own conscious ability and conscious activities, the existence or absence of external objects has no cognitive results with ourselves.

In other words, whether an external object exists or does not exist, it does not matter whether it is real or not, only to be recognized or not to be recognized.

Because it is false, there is no possibility of changing matter from the human heart, only the possibility of observing and understanding matter from the human heart. External objects do not do not exist, but only because they are not perceived by us; External objects are not changed, they do not exist, but they are limited in the angle and scope of our perception and cognition, and there are differences in their respective cognitions.

The objective world is real, and it only refers to the appearance of existence, not the description of its appearance, so what is false is our own vision, mind, and even language, not external objects, because of our own unreal and imperfect means, which lead to the lack of true understanding of external objects.

Hehe, being able to ask this question shows that the landlord has a certain philosophical literacy. The sight, taste, hearing, etc., that the landlord said seems to belong to the category of reflection theory. But the problem is that this reaction is subjective.

For example, some people think the same chili pepper is very spicy, and some people think it is not. So is this chili pepper spicy or not? It's a subjective question.

In the same way, the objects we see around us, such as colors, the so-called normal people, see the colorful world. And the so-called color blindness sees the world in black and white. More extremely, the world of the blind is completely black.

So who sees the world as it really is? Seeing this, the landlord must be thinking, is this world me? I exist in the world, I don't exist, the world doesn't exist?

Hehe, excuse me, landlord, what is the solipsistic "I" you are talking about? Do you think that this "me" is the bearer of all your thoughts, thoughts, feelings, etc.? In a word, there is no "me" at all.

"I" is nothing more than a synthesis of feelings, emotions, thoughts, etc., in the present moment or at a certain moment.

At this point, you've got the answer to your question.