Why do things constrain each other? Philosophy

Because things are universally connected (Ma Zhe's view of connection), why do things that are universally connected restrict each other, because their relationship is antithetical and unified, that is, the two sides of the contradiction maintain a harmonious and antagonistic relationship, and once this harmony is destroyed or affected, it gives rise to Ma Zhe's view of development, and dialectical thinking runs through the whole of "connection" and "development", throughout history (materialist view of history), and throughout the natural world (materialist view of nature), This is Marx's philosophy (or at least I think it is), and everyone has a different philosophy, which may be very fragmented and unsystematic, but you should at least summarize it roughly and see what is different from Marx's in your personal philosophy, what is desirable, what can be improved, and what should be deleted, and it is not necessarily necessary to approve of his philosophy (at least not outside of the exam). Most of the thoughts of ordinary people are this, that, but from another perspective, this is this, this is that, this and that are like tug-of-war, without either side can be achieved, although they are opposed to each other.

Fool, this is called metaphysical presupposition. Presuppositions are for later discussions, and there can be no subsequent discussions without presuppositions. On the other hand, if you ask why the preset is like this, I can only say that you have to preset it like that if you don't preset it this way, you have to preset it like that, and you can't help but preset it; Not a preset is also a preset.

If you have to discuss a preset, the preset is not called a preset, and it becomes the object of discussion.

For example, Ma Zhezhong presupposes that matter is the first nature in the universe, and then the three laws and five categories are all there, so you don't have to ask why matter is primary, but talk about the ultimate cause, just because it is a presupposition. Of course, it also has its explanation, you open the textbook and look at it, memorize a large article, and you don't know why when you memorize it upside down, just because it's a preset.

Added: fainting. He is not very proficient in physics, and he does not dare to mess around.

But Apple's landing is definitely not called a preset, and it can be pushed forward, just because there is gravity, and gravity can still be discussed. You have to keep pushing and ask where gravity comes from, and Newton may have told you that it was God. God can't talk about it.

God Why? Because of the natural truth, you don't ask, that's the presupposition. General presuppositions are philosophical questions, and they are the most basic questions that are big enough to derive everything.

For example, ask what is the origin of the world, how our logic presupposes cognition, and so on. The question of whether metaphysics recognizes the law of cause and effect is still debated by cutting-edge physicists when asked about the fact that the mutual constraints between things have actually involved the question of whether metaphysics recognizes the law of cause and effect. You like, Albert Einstein had a saying:

God doesn't play with dice. But the quantum physicists at the forefront of the equation clearly don't agree with him. If you don't believe me, go make up for the chaos theory.

I'll use another analogy, if I don't understand it, I can't help it. For example, if you want to play chess, whether you want to play chess, play chess, or play checkers, those chess pieces that are made into different red, red, black and black, draw different grids on the chessboard, and move different chess pieces, these are called rules, and the rules here are like the preset, you can not preset, then don't play chess, if you want to play, you have to preset. So many colorful games, as simple as the end of the preset.

Of course, I'm not a fan of game games, and maybe these can be abstracted into a presupposition that can't be asked in the end, but I don't know what it is. That's the matter for the experts.

Mutual restraint means balance, balance can develop, bias on either side will eventually lead to destruction, so things in the world will instinctively check and balance each other, in order to find a balance suitable for development.

Why do things constrain each other? This is a fact, this judgment, can only be verified or falsified.

Why can't presets be discussed? OK.

Is the most common phenomenon of apples falling to the ground a preset? Not counted.

Then can't it be discussed? Yes.

Indeed, now we only know the impact of solar storms on the earth and people, and we don't know whether and how people affect the sun. Until science is unable to explain these concrete connections, we can at least understand "philosophical connections" from this perspective

From the perspective of the universe as a whole, the universe is made up of the existence of all things, and the sun, solar storms, and human beings are also part of the universe, and it is a whole (the universe) that connects different parts.

Connections are universal, not that connections are absolute.

Solar storms affect the Earth's magnetic field, and human communication depends on the normal Earth's magnetic field. Solar storms affect people's lives indirectly, not directly.

In the same way, human activities affect the quality and quantity of the Earth in all aspects, and changes in the mass of the Earth have a certain impact on the Sun (although the impact is not very large, but it does), changes in the Sun itself, and affect the timing and cycle of solar storms. This is also indirect, not direct.

The earth and the sun directly interact with each other, and what happens on the earth and the sun indirectly affects each other through this direct connection.

Objective and subjective, solar storms exist objectively, people's subjective feelings about the sun will change, and they will come up with various ways to offset the negative impact, which is the connection.

The so-called connection is relative to irrelevance, because nothing is irrelevant, so the connection is always there.

The action of the force is mutual, gravitational force, and the solution ends.

The question of solar storms and people you said is really a good question, and I'll wait for the answer.

1. The "contradiction" mentioned by Mazhe is directly derived from Hegel's philosophy and German Romantic philosophy. This "contradiction" is not a contradiction of "self-contradiction", but a contradiction that manifests itself as a result of the development of things. In other words, Maggiery's contradiction is a contradiction between dialectical logic and developmental logic, not a contradiction between formal logic and static logic.

Only by looking at everything as developmental and dialectical can we discover the contradictions in all things that Ma Zhe said. To put it simply, we must always look at things from the perspective of movement and development, and we will find the contradiction that Ma Zhe said.

2. For example, a pen, this pen is not static, it is moving. When you don't use it as a pen, it loses the meaning of the pen, it is a pen (for those who can use it), and at the same time it is not a pen (for those who don't use it as a pen), which is a kind of contradiction in the "pen". In addition, if you use it as a pen, then it will move and consume when it is used, it is playing its role as a pen while losing its role as a pen, and this development of the pen in the process of being used contains a contradiction.

This is another contradiction that exists in the "pen".

3. From point 2, we can see that the contradictions in each thing are not just singular, but different contradictions will be seen because of different positions. Given the basic principle of Marzhe: things are universally connected.

Then the contradictions that exist in everything are also of many kinds or multifaceted. Every possible connection leads to a possible contradiction.

4. As for the contradiction between "a book" or "some activity", it can be inferred and understood by analogy and understanding from the example in point 2 and the explanation in point 1.

Please don't say "in philosophy", this is too large, there are many schools of thought in philosophy, and the ideas are not necessarily the same. Moreover, your proposition is actually incorrect, it is precisely Marx materialism that believes that there are contradictions in the movement and change of all things, and it is contradictions that cause things to change.

However, I also appreciate your skepticism. In fact, the concept of contradiction is inevitably subjective. What is Contradiction?

It's two opposites. When things change, those two are "contradictions", why their relationship is relative, this is a very subjective understanding, in fact, the reasons for the change of things may be very complex, so it is difficult to give an objective standard answer.

It should be that anything that exists can be said to be contradictory, and the contradiction here is equivalent to the yin and yang relationship in the I Ching. Anything that exists has three forces contained in it: attraction, influence, and creativity.

For example, it is the attraction and influence of men and women that form a family and create the next generation. If you have a toy in your home, then the existence of this toy is because the toy is attractive, and it affects you to buy it, so the fact that the toy exists in your home is created.

So, you find a contradiction in philosophy