What do you think of the remark that there are no masters in contemporary China ?

I think this sentence is very problematic, you can't deny all people because of some people, the view of this sentence has a certain error, and it reflects some people who have a misunderstanding of China, because if contemporary people are more impetuous, then most people are more impetuous, not just China, so only China, <>

is nationally biased.

I think this sentence is wrong, because many contemporary people have very good achievements, such as Mo Yan, who won the Nobel Prize in China, and Tu Youyou, another very great old man who won the Bell Prize, these are all contemporary masters in our country, and these are all models that we should learn.

I think this statement is very wrong, there are no masters in contemporary China, so what do those contemporary people or scholars call them? Secondly, we call them masters to show their talents, which is to give them the title they have and to give them the respect they deserve.

I think there is a certain truth in this sentence, because with the development of society, people in society are now more impetuous, and in the previous comparison, there are indeed fewer masters of fairy wind or unique construction, so this sentence is correct.

There are no masters in contemporary China? It's just nonsense, there are many talented scientists who work quietly or ordinary people who are silently contributing their own strength to this country, and people are not masters if they don't make it public? Why do you have to let everyone know about it to be considered a master?

Isn't Mo Yan a master of Chinese studies?

There is some truth in my words, but it is not entirely true, because although there are still a small number of people in the society who really study, delve into academics, and even devote their lives to contribute to academics, how can we express our respect for them without the title of a master?

Most of the inner feelings of literati in today's society are: Now it is a red dust, materialistic desires are rampant, darkness breeds, and corruption is unbearable. Tao Yuanming's paradise has become a paradise in the hearts of literati in the past dynasties, and for reality, they only have compassion and sighs

My understanding is: if you are serious, you will lose. First of all, it's worth speculating on what the word guru means, because the word guru is so widely misused in contemporary times that many people haven't even studied what it means, and it's obviously not right to just rely on speculation, so I'm going to explain my understanding in two ways.

First of all, the master's explanation on Wikipedia is:Isn't there a great teacher in modern China? I believe that everyone must have their own opinion on this issue, that great humanity is everywhere, and that greatness that can be recognized by all people must not exist.

Aren't there any eminent monks in modern China? This one is even more intriguing...

Isn't there a Taishi in modern China? This must not be the case, because the official title in China is well known as the master of the word.

Etymology] is derived from the Latin word "magister", which means "the one who gives orders".

And the use of modern rather than contemporary in the original sentence Is there really no one who calls the shots in modern China? If there is, it is everywhere, everyone will have a time in their life to give orders to others, and if there is not, there is also a reason, everything is about the equality of personality, how can there be a master? Therefore, if we have to put aside our own personal understanding and study the meaning of a sentence more seriously, I am afraid that no one else can understand it except for the person who said it.

Therefore, in the face of a sentence that puts aside the universal connection of time, place, people, and events, it is good to have seen it, and if you are serious, you will lose