Cosmos Philosophy | Back to Tension

When I was in high school, I was told by a friend: Can you speak less eloquently?

After I started to study philosophy, I found more and more that this was a habit. The reason why my words were not intuitively understood was very simple - I never wanted to be "easy to understand".

I always feel that if it is too easy to understand and becomes completely the same as everyday language, the article will only give the impression of "looking at the past" and will not cause any thinking or reflection. If "philosophy" can be used as an adjective, and I've been told this by a friend more than once - you're really a philosophical person.

However, is philosophy just slang? A certain aspect is correct because none of them are as easy to understand as gossip magazines. So, rather than deliberately changing the style, let's face the phenomenon itself.

In the theories of the same period in the history of philosophy, two opposing ideas can always be easily distinguished. The most typical example is the opposition between "rationalism" and "empiricism". Before that, there was a dispute between nominalism and reality in the Middle Ages. In Chinese philosophy, there are also two opposing views of Cheng Zhu and Lu Wang. This is even more the case with the difference between the Wei and Jin metaphysics of "honoring what is precious and precious".

These contradictory ideas often have their own rationality, and at the same time, they also have their own theoretical limits, or the presupposition of the "specific position" itself.

I won't discuss the claim that I have no position here. I don't think it's possible, and it's easy to become a false aloofness and a false neutrality.

These situations can easily lead people to fall into the thinking of binary opposition: if it is not A, it must be the thinking of B, which divides everything into two and judges which category it belongs to. Everyone has their own opinions, stating that their certainty is right. Obviously, this kind of thinking always fails to solve any problems, and even leads to constant conflict.

If we directly introduce the value of "non-binary oppositional spectral gradient" here, but it is too hasty, and we take the second place. On the premise of opposing each other, we should rethink "what" makes the two sides so opposing?

Take yourself out of the state of conflict for the time being, and see the tension itself that pulls each other , and repeat a phrase that phenomenology often says: Come back to the phenomenon! From this perspective, it is possible for both sides to understand each other better. Only by seeing the panthers pulling from left to right can people see things other than left and right.

Perhaps we can marvel at the sparks that come through the stirring, like poets, and be amazed at how unique each person's mind is, but the premise of this is also: to see clearly what the points of conflict are.

Imagine a person who is polite, humble and polite in front of everyone. When you are alone with him one day, you suddenly realize that he is actually more childish, reckless, and speechless than everyone else. Get to know him again and again.

Only the cuteness that is exclusive to certain moments, only at that time. This contrast appears in the same person, which is indeed more charming than anyone else.

This is to see the tension, to see the whole of a person, and to understand a person better.