Ask philosophers for a few views on the creed of life

First of all, doubt everything, and only when you doubt can you keep the truth from the false. Creeds must be thought high, and what can be achieved with certainty is not the highest creed. Therefore, it is not regrettable to abandon your utilitarian nature and decide that even if you fight for the creed all your life without success.

Don't be complacent when you get your creed, it's subject to change. As your life progresses, so do your creeds.

There are guidelines for being a person and encountering things, but philosophically speaking, philosophy helps us understand ourselves and the world, and allows us to think deeply. People who can think philosophically are generally very cultivated, and a person with noble cultivation should have no problem doing things.

Personally, based on my own understanding, I believe that a person should do things according to the criterion of not preventing harm to others; In case of trouble, you can't force it.

That's basically it, and in addition, I personally like Zhuangzi, thought.

It should be established, otherwise it will be like a walking dead without a mind and without consciousness. Only when we have an understanding of the objective world and then we have to set goals and ideals can we move forward without being mediocre.

History is an endless river, and what is today may be tomorrow's wrong. Therefore, don't do what is right with your creed.

There are two things in life, one is to deal with oneself and the other is to deal with others. If you are poor, you will be good to yourself, and if you are good, you will be good at the world!

Establish a perspective on life? Live well. Live happily and happily. Or live seriously. That's it.

Hegel's dialectics, Feuerbach's materialism, both of which are important parts of Marxism, are very classic.

1.The basis is existence, and existence can be recognized. There are some problems with the second half of the question.

In a general sense, there are several basic laws, like in geometry. But this is just a summary of the basic laws of existence, and it can be found that in fact, many theories will become unbasic enough--- such as the replacement of Newtonian physics by the theory of relativity, in fact, it is still the same thing, but the level is different, the scope is different. The simple pursuit of the basic will fall into metaphysics (metaphysics is correct, one-sided emphasis is meaningless, and it must be observed, analyzed, and cognitive).

2.It's not the same. This is a matter of psychology, where human cognition is determined based on one's own experience, knowledge, and physiology.

Words are inherently polysemy, and philosophies generally can't find suitable words, so individuals tend to use their own coined meanings to elaborate. But that's not to say it's undiscustable. You don't need your own concept to understand a word (this is what Russell said), just treat it as a word that is expressive, mainly paraphrased, if you can understand the meaning of the other party, the debate can be reached.

The confusion and inappropriateness of the vocabulary is one of the main problems of philosophy.

3. Indeed. So Descartes thought that the body was untestable, because this I was changing. But we must take into account stability, the cells of the brain itself are rarely renewed, which is the reason why our thinking is stable and continuous; The immutability of genes ensures the stability of the structure of the body--- so the brain as consciousness does not change, and the structural form of the body does not change.

The change of man-made only further illustrates that Descartes's thinking of me is more real.

4.Additional examples do not work. A and B are both wrong.

Reality is not relative. A is not dialectical at all, but sophistry. B's thinking is reasonable, but it is incomplete.

It is absolute, and therefore what is real cannot be false. Neither objective idealism nor objective materialism denies the natural existence of things. B's judgment is justified.

If it's a brain-in-a-vat experiment, that's a good idea, because we can't tell. But as part of the facts, we can generalize, because what is false is false, and it is certainly impossible to be true everywhere. If this is true for everyone, even if there is a so-called deception of God, which is an assumption, then what is the difference between it and the truth?

As long as it is not true by chance, it can be considered to have a certain degree of truth. The second is that it is wrong to judge based on feelings alone, and it is necessary to understand it from different aspects, which can test whether it is false. All that exists is the same and all are reasonable, so there can be no inconsistency and unverifiability of what is false.

1 The most basic is the law of development, such as scientific deduction and philosophical debate.

2 The difference is certain, but the law of development of things is unchanging, and this is the essence of the concept.3 is that the essence is unchanging, your essence is unchanging, and the daily change is contradictory, and the contradictory is dialectically reasonable.

If artificial organs gradually replace all organs, I don't know if the relationship between people and people is still there|? And family, friends? If there is that you are still you.

It is recommended that the questioner read and write books on philosophy, and already have the foundation for learning philosophy and debate.

1.The foundation of philosophy and science must be the objective world, both come from the objective world, philosophy is the understanding and method of the objective world, science is produced through the practice of things in the objective world, and the purpose of science is also to transform the objective world. To put it bluntly, theory is still understanding, and the most basic thing is that it comes from practice.

2.Philosophy is to gain its strong vitality through continuous thinking and thinking, and we personally open up ideas and increase knowledge in the study and discussion of philosophy. Taking the good and evil you said as an example, philosophy is not more about the good and evil of each individual's feelings, but a universal value, studying the commonality and difference of good and evil of multiple individuals, the commonality may rise to morality or law, and the difference may form the commonality through discussion and gradually clarify the edge of good and evil (of course, not the absolute edge).

But in any case, this kind of ** will not make you turn in circles, just like beauty and ugliness, good and bad, in the discussion of the masses, beautiful clothes are fashionable, beautiful ** is popular, a song you think is not good, you may end up falling in love with it, this is the necessity of discussion.

3.I can tell you that I am not me every day, and I am not who I am today. The reason is very simple, I belong to the objective world, everything in the objective world is developing, I am also developing, the organs will be younger and then aging, the heartbeat will be rapid and then it will stop, there is nothing to worry about, the red is not a ruthless thing, turning into spring mud is more protective of flowers, but the form of my existence has changed.

I don't care about the form of my existence, even if I am disabled, now the form of my existence is still a living person with thinking, feelings and ideals, in this form, think about what you can do is the most important, do something practical, don't wait for "I" to become a white bone and can't do anything you want, then it's too late.

1 The foundation of philosophy and science is: the mind.

2 Things, Concepts, Definitions. It's all the wisdom of the benevolent and the wise.

There is only one criterion for good and evil: to benefit others for good. Self-interest is evil.

3 is not changing every day, it is changing every second. Your cells are metabolized and reborn every second.

Your thoughts, which seem to be continuous, are actually like the flow of water, and molecules are far apart from each other.

But, on the surface. It is continuous.

Question addendum: The organs I am talking about include the brain.

A: The cup is in your hand. The hand is directed by the brain. Who commands the brain?

Is your cup yours? Is it you the hand that is directed by the brain? Who is directing the mind to think and work?

There is no self in all dharmas!

When you know if God exists, can you change anything? Long live nihilism. Know my support ...

Personally, I understand that philosophy is like a human brain, and science is like a human limb. They serve each other, and no one can do without each other. Question 2:

Things or concepts describe an object, they are one, but people will have different views on the degree of understanding of nature, some look at the positive and some look at the negative, so the look is different, but there are two major directions of understanding of good and evil that you say, that is, in the ancient philosophy, good and evil are absolute, but in people's lives, good and evil are only moral standards. In philosophy, good is pure good, evil is pure evil, good refers to what is eternal and unchanging, and evil refers to something that is the opposite of eternal and unchanging, that is, it is not on the right or left, nor in the middle, it is good and evil that transcends the golden mean. Question three:

I don't know what exactly I'm referring to. The material me, as you said, is changing every second, where did I come from? But there is a self that is eternal and unchanging, that is, the self that exists in the universe and follows the law of conservation of mass and energy.

Artificial organs will never replace existing human organs, not that technology can't do it, the main thing is that if it is done, mankind will face a catastrophe and come to an end!

Hehe, your question is very interesting, we can discuss it when we have time.

All problems are first and foremost conceptual problems, and when the concepts are clarified, many problems are no longer problems. The differentiation of modern philosophy has made part of the study more subjective, with its focus on the individual and the psychology of the person; The other part is oriented to science and technology, which is concerned with the laws of science and technology and the social problems of science and technology.

And several of your questions here are based on the subjectivist philosophical point of view.

1.First, the view that "the distinction between subject and object is no longer possible" is itself subjective and is linked to the subjective experience of the person who proposes it. Perhaps the distinction between subject and object in this context can no longer be based on the fact that the subject is becoming more and more integrated into the object, so that it is impossible to say that they are distinct unambiguously.

But the state of the subject itself still exists, or is at ease, so the distinction between subject and object still exists, and is still possible in practice.

Subject-object distinction, which is relative, is usually the case that the general point of view is more objective than the individual point of view; Real facts are more objective than prevailing opinions.

2.The causality of things, also known as the causation of things, is one of the main topics of metaphysics. The argument that causality is meaningless begins with Hume, the English empiricist.

Causation denotes a strong and permanent relationship between two events, i.e., a necessary connection. Hume argues that as long as experience can tell us about the order of things, and experience never experiences any instances of necessary connections, "necessary connections" are meaningless, that is, causality is meaningless. Knowledge can only be based on experience, not on what is called causality.

3.As for the assertion that "human beings cannot acquire accurate knowledge" is similar to the above argument that "the causality of things is meaningless". Since there is no necessary connection, what is exact? No. Human knowledge can only be an accumulation of experience.

The latter two questions are related to British empiricism and to so-called skepticism. As for the suggestion of "things in themselves", this is only emphasized in the settlement of skepticism and the critique of British empiricist philosophy, and is therefore posterior. As long as you understand British empiricism, you can understand the reason for the above problems.

cExclusion method.

AD is certainly not. B said the opposite, if it is metaphysical, it is still reliable.

First of all, what is significant and what are the criteria for significant? This is the first question to be clarified.

There are many questions in the history of philosophy. There are many points of view, but the philosophical point of view is a philosophical point of view, precisely because of the non-universality and non-public nature of the philosophical view. Most philosophical views are not shared by the majority of insiders in the same way as the views of mathematics and natural sciences.

So as far as philosophy is concerned, the point of view itself is not the most important, it should be more meaningful to ask questions, to think about problems than to ask questions, to form opinions

The first floor is well explained, and it will not be repeated here. Let me add one more note: the above explanations all belong to materialist dialectics, and can also be said to belong to the basic principles of Marx.

Because the logical concept of Marx's basic principles is larger, it contains materialist dialectics as well as historical materialism.

Greater than the logical concept of Marx's basic principles is philosophy. Philosophy includes both Marx's views and those of other philosophers. The five categories are the materialist dialectic view, in addition to the ten categories (Aristotle), the twelve categories (Kant), and so on.

In particular, Kant's discussion of the twelve categories is broader than the five categories. Kant explained not only the universal necessity of scientific existence in terms of twelve categories, but also the universal necessity of moral and aesthetic existence in twelve categories. Immanuel Kant laid down classical German philosophy, which is the direct theory of Marxism.