Philosophical Question Can defiance be a liability

No, because disobedience is not the first cause of things, its origin is events, and disobedience can only be a subjective, empirical self-behavior, which is difficult to be right or wrong, so disobedience is only a subjective act, and it is impossible to talk about responsibility.

OK. Disobeying something means that you don't approve of it in some way. Disobedience becomes your responsibility for yourself. It is a responsibility, a responsibility you have to yourself.

Yes, if people don't know how to disobey and blindly obey, they will follow the crowd, they will not know the changes, and they will stick to the old ways. How does society develop and progress?

The essence of disobedience is to seek change and progress, the ancients went, the poor thought of change, change is passable, and the general is long.

As a person of society, of course, the development of society is responsible.

Disobedience is an evasion, definitely not a responsibility, and disobedience to an order is a kind of non-acceptance!

The word philosophy is only the pursuit of truth, when something or something violates the truth, because there is no turning back to overthrow, foreigners think a lot? Indeed, there is no reason to say that they are on the philosophical side, and if they are on the side of the Chinese, they will definitely scold and spit, which is a sign of lack of progress.

Responsibility is an intrinsic attribute of power. When there is a certain amount of power, there is responsibility. As long as sociality exists, responsibility will always exist.

Violated :

All things must follow objective laws (no one medicine can cure all diseases), things are universally related (the treatment of diseases must be considered in many aspects), practice is the only criterion for testing the truth (there is no experiment to prove it), specific analysis of specific problems (prescribing medicine according to the condition, prescribing the right medicine), grasping the main contradiction while not ignoring the secondary contradiction (not only the function of the main drug, but also the effect of dispensing).

The absoluteness and relativity of truth (words cannot be said to be so absolute).

Maybe there is no violation of any philosophical views, maybe there is one medicine that can cure all diseases (big or small), and how medicine is defined. Tea, for example, may cure many diseases. If I insist on saying that this sentence violates any point of view, I think it goes against the philosophical view that prescient people can easily draw conclusions and make mistakes.

This sentence is grammatically incomplete and is not a philosophical proposition. Because if it refers to "more than 100 patients who have been cured of the same disease by one medicine", which is correct; And the suggestion that "one medicine can cure more than 100 completely different diseases" is completely wrong!

The two poles of things are dialectically incorrect.

Specific problems, specific analysis.

Look at the problem in two.

In analyzing problems, it is necessary to distinguish between the main contradiction and the secondary contradiction, and we should not grasp the eyebrows and mustaches. A key opens a lock.

Dead formula, is it interesting?

Metaphysics.

Metaphysics is a one-sided and isolated view by definition, and idealism is a philosophy based on subjective thought.

Socrates would ask why the horse was white.

Plato would say that the horse would be a horse because it had the material nature of a horse.

Aristotle's logic tells us that every thing has a potential to develop in a certain direction.

Hegel taught us absolute freedom of the spirit. That is, metaphysical.

The white horse is not a horse, like the blind man touching the elephant in the fable.

White horses are not horses"The error of the proposition lies in the dialectical relationship between the universal and the particular, the common and the individual, the general and the individual, the abstract and the concrete.

Gongsun Long said that "white horses are not horses", which means that white horses are not equal to horses, not that white horses do not belong to horses.

This embodies the philosophical truth that truth is relative. "Yes" is equal to" and "belongs to" two interpretations, relative to the latter interpretation, that is, the white horse does not belong to the horse, "the white horse is not a horse" is not valid; In contrast to the previous interpretation, that is, a white horse is not equal to a horse, "a white horse is not a horse" is true. --A part cannot be equal to a whole, a white horse cannot be equal to a horse, so a white horse cannot be a horse.

It doesn't matter what philosophical principles are violated, it can only be said that "white horses are not horses" is not in line with people's general language habits.

The accusation that the so-called "'white horse is not a horse' separates the universal and the particular, the common and the individual" does not accuse Gongsun Long of "white horse and not horse" based on the premise of "yes" and "equal", but accuses "white horse and not horse" based on the premise of "yes" and "belongs". But no one has ever said that white horses do not belong to horses, and no one says that "white horses are not horses" on the premise of "yes" and "belongs". They are merely blaming an imaginary enemy.

The particularity and universality of contradictions.

The truth never looks at its surface, but is placed in a system with profound influence and deep speculation.

The white horse is not a horse is a variety of colors of general, universal, common horses, but also the connotation of the horse's head, horse's tail, horse's feet, and horse's eye.

The white horse is the part of the horse.

White horses also have horse heads.

Therefore, if you want to talk about what philosophical principles are embodied or violated by white horses and non-horses, you do not understand the truth.

The connotation and extension of the concept (Ma Zhe).

The role of consciousness and some irrational factors is exaggerated one-sidedly.

Without contradicting all philosophical views, this view is supposed to be an idealist view, a manifestation of voluntarism, and the materialist view of the primacy of matter does not share this view.

It violates the philosophical principle of proceeding from reality and seeking truth from facts.

The practical thought of Marx's philosophy is derived from the objectivity, materiality and labor of the world, while the practical thought of pragmatism is derived from human nature and humanism.

As long as the two are aimed at the relationship between theory and practice. The former ignores the role of theory.