"On Opinion, Queen of the World"

"I sincerely aspire to read an Italian work of which I only know its title, but that title alone is worth so many works: Dell'opinione regina del mondo ("On Opinion, The World" The Queen of the Goddess”). Although I did not know this book, I admired it, except for its shortcomings, if there were any.

What's so great about a person wanting to read a book? And I only knew the title of the book, but I didn't read it at all, so I started to appreciate it. Is it worth recording it in the "Thoughts" when making such a wish?

Yes.

As long as we go back to seventeenth-century Europe in which Pascal lived, we will find that this is a world in which no "opinions" can fit in. In stark contrast to Pascal's admiration for "opinions" is the unquestionable denial of "opinions" in "mainstream" theological and philosophical circles. Not to mention that time, until more than 140 years after Pascal's death, Hegel criticized without hesitation: "If the history of philosophy is only an exhibition of opinions - even about God or about the nature of natural and spiritual things opinion—; then it would be a superfluous and frivolous learning, however much benefit we may derive from such learning and intellectual activity.”

Moreover, Hegel was not alone in his contempt for "opinion," as Hegel recalled, "the opposition of opinion and truth, . . . ), we can already see,—Plato opposed opinion and knowledge. The same opposition we can see in Augustus and in the later period of the decline of Roman social and political life[ 3]”.

It turns out that the "queen of the world" in Pascal's mind is only the "queen of the world" in Pascal's own mind. Not only is it far from being universally accepted, but in the two thousand-year-old intellectual tradition, there is no place for this queen at all. , to say that it is a complete outsider, perhaps more precisely.

In the intellectual tradition, people's consistent view, as Hegel believed, "an opinion is but a subjective idea, an arbitrary thought, an imagination, I can think this way, others can think that way; - an Opinion is my private property, it is not a universal thought that exists for itself. But philosophy does not contain opinions [4]”.

Pascal was born in 1623, five years into the "Thirty Years' War" over religious conflicts. In other words, from his birth until the age of 25, religious disputes were presented in the most tragic war. This is not a war caused by disagreement, but a war caused by each side's belief that what they are upholding is the truth and the other side is holding on to the falsehood. From the perspective of each side in the war, this is a confrontation of truth and error, not a collision of opinion and opinion.

In this kind of confrontation with life and death, if all parties are evenly matched, there is still room to think about the outcome. If the unfortunate number is very different and becomes a minority, then, if it cannot be changed by the other party, it is often directly eliminated from the body. Jansenism is such a very few sect, and at the same time there are many well-educated people in the upper class of society, including many big thinkers, such as Pascal. In the brutal religious persecution, the Jansenites were cornered and had no choice. They no longer regarded their claims as truth like others did, but took a step back and showed that their opinions are only opinions, but at the same time, your opinions are also opinions. , everyone insists on opinions, but anyone's subjective opinions are legal, and we cannot be eliminated because of different opinions.

This Jansenist claim did not immediately stop religious persecution. In the Enlightenment century a hundred years later, Enlightenment thinkers, when reflecting on the brutal religious persecution, accepted this view of the Jansenists, making it the strongest ideological backing for freedom of speech. After more than 2,000 years of opposition between truth and opinion, "opinion" has gained legitimacy for the first time. But even so, in Hegel's philosophical system, he still does not recognize the legitimate status of "opinion". How did this happen?

In 1816, Hegel went to Heidelberg University to give a lecture on the history of philosophy. The first question he encountered was: how could there be a "history of philosophy"?

In Hegel's view, the purpose of philosophy is to study eternity, and history, what exists today may disappear tomorrow. So how can philosophy have a history? Can something eternal exist at one time and pass away at another?

This question arises from Hegel's obsessive pursuit of the inner coherence of logic. Unless this problem is solved, the lecture on the history of philosophy can only end before it begins. In pursuing this question, Hegel gradually unfolded his history of philosophy. Furthermore, not only the history of philosophy, but also the entire Hegelian philosophical system was established by asking this same question.

Hegel admitted that philosophy is a true science, and that there can only be one true philosophy. So, the question arises again. So many philosophies in history have opposed and attacked each other. Which one is true? Before Hegel, when people wrote the history of philosophy, they could not escape this problem. People tended to agree with one party and criticize the other according to their "high opinion". If this is not the case, there will inevitably be conflicting views, and what is written is not a true history of philosophy, but a history of philosophy that is contradictory and cannot be justified.

However, when it came to Hegel, another master after Aristotle in the history of philosophy, he began to hesitate in the face of the past writing. Hegel believes that these seemingly conflicting philosophies in history are all true philosophies, all philosophies that represent the highest achievements of their era, and embody the "spirit of the times" at that time: "No matter how much an individual flies and stretches as he wishes, - Nor can he transcend his age, the world. For he belongs to the only universal spirit, which is his substance and essence. How can he transcend it? This same universal spirit is what philosophy uses. It must be grasped by thinking. Philosophy is the thinking of this universal spirit about itself, and therefore its definite substance. Every philosophy is the philosophy of its age, a link in the whole chain of spiritual development. , so it can only satisfy the requirements or interests of the era that suits it [5]." Each era has its "zeitgeist", and this spirit will continue to transcend with the changes of the times, that is, to deny Old, new, self-deepening and development. In this way, the whole philosophy is put into a chronological framework by Hegel.

In order to explain this newly invented framework of the history of philosophy, Hegel has to make some provisions and introduce some concepts. Hegel believed that the result of thinking is "thought", and "concept" is formed by "determining" thinking. The so-called regulations are to make distinctions, distinctions or restrictions. Therefore, when Hegel wants to give some new concepts, he actually makes some rules for thought through textual explanations. Based on this, with strict logic, from one rule to another rule, completely operating on the logic of pure thought, running through the entire history of philosophy, which is the characteristic of Hegel's philosophy and its unique charm.

So, for Hegel, the history of philosophy is philosophy itself, and philosophy itself is the history of philosophy. The problem is that in the history of philosophy, no one has put forward "opinions", not only Pascal we have just seen, in fact, as early as in ancient Greece, long before Socrates, Xenophanes of the Elea school The concept of "opinion" has been proposed. Xenophanes believed that truth is opposed to opinion, that truth is one and opinion is many. Essentially disillusioned change and "many" appear on the opposite side of truth, in consciousness, as opinion[6]. This is the earliest reflection on "opinion".

If we read Hegel's History of Philosophy, we will see that throughout the pre-sophisticated period, from Thales, Anaximander, etc., all the way, the stipulation came from nothing, and the latter stipulation must be It is based on the previous regulations (see the table below for a brief overview). Logically coherent, only in Xenophanes there is a very arbitrary incomprehension and contempt. He first quoted Sykes's interpretation of Xenophane as saying: "Let's imagine that in a house, there are many precious things, and many people go to find gold at night; so that everyone will think that they have found it. gold, but even if he does have it, he cannot know with certainty. Likewise, philosophers go into the world as if they go into a big house, seeking truth; and even if they have it, they Still can't (definitely) know that they got the truth[7]."

But Hegel used only one sentence to throw Cenophanes's statement on "opinion" into the dustbin of history: "Cenophanes' indeterminate words can only mean that no one knows about him. What (Xenophanes) is trying to say here[8].”

In this way, due to the opposition between truth and opinion, Hegel cannot give "opinion" a place in the history of philosophy. Because in his view, "the opposite of opinion is truth. In the face of truth, all opinions have faded [9]".

Therefore, Hegel must resolutely reject "opinion". Once "opinion" enters his philosophical history, his philosophical history will inevitably bring about self-denial of internal logic in the conflict between truth and opinion, and then collapse. For Hegelian philosophy, whose history of philosophy is philosophy itself, it is the collapse of its entire philosophical system. As our review of the leading issues of Hegel's philosophy reveals, to bring "opinion" back into human history and give it a proper place, we need to go back at least to Xenophanes and rethink it.

Arendt saw this most hidden obscurity in Hegel's philosophy, and she once elaborated nuancedly: "Theoretically, the most profound consequence of the French Revolution is the modern conception of history in Hegel's philosophy. The birth of . Hegel's truly revolutionary idea is that the old absoluteness of the philosopher manifests itself in the realm of human affairs, precisely in the realm of human experience. Philosophers regard this realm as the source and origin of absolute standards , without exception. To illustrate this new idea with the aid of the historical process, the prototype is the French Revolution [10].”

In other words, Arendt directly reflected Hegel's philosophy of history, which insists on truth and rejects opinions, with the French Revolution. In the European Enlightenment, the concept of popular sovereignty was deeply rooted in the hearts of the people, and the common people demanded to participate in public affairs, but what can common people rely on to participate in public affairs? Is it the truth that philosophers seek? Or is it just a variety of not-so-sophisticated, totally subjective opinions? Hegel was dissatisfied with Kant's philosophy and wanted to propose his own practical plan, but his plan was still the action plan of the contemplative, and excluded the "opinion" of the common people who were not set to have the ability to know the truth.

If "opinions" really flood into the public space with the vigorous people's movement that has been going on for hundreds of years, then how should we deal with it? In the face of various and disturbing opinions in the public space, even if you still insist on covering your eyes and blocking your ears, you only follow the "truth" that you identify, just like every power, but when the power points a gun at them. You, when you are asked to agree, isn't this "agreement" an "opinion"? Doesn't this just show that even the power with the gun needs your opinion? They use all state apparatuses such as education, propaganda, organization, arming, united front, etc. The ultimate goal is actually just to get your opinions, opinions that are beneficial to them. No matter how expensive it is, how expensive it is. Yes, they always do this at all costs and want your opinion. They have the power to take your life when they shoot you, but they want your opinion more than they want your life: even in the most powerful eyes, your opinion is more important than anything else.

It is in this sense that the prophet-like Pascal exclaimed: Opinion, queen of the world!

In Hegel's day, the common man was just beginning to enter public life, and history had not yet had time to respond adequately to this new situation. Today, in an age of global populist movements (or global civilian movements), and an age of opinion flooding social media, the Queen's Law remains unknown, and that's what we're desperate to discover.

Opinion, queen of the world!

[1] Pascal Blaise, Thought Records, traduit par He Zhaowu, Tianjin People's Publishing House, 2014, p. 49.

[2] Hegel, Lectures on the History of Philosophy, Volume 1, traduit par He Lin ettraduit par Wang Taiqing, Commercial Press, 1997, vol.4/1, p. 17.

[3] Ibid. , p. 19.

[4] Ibid. , p. 17.

[5] Ibid. , p. 48.

[6] Ibid. , p. 259.

[7] Ibid. , p. 260.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid. , p. 18.

[10] Hannah Arendt, On Revolution, Traduitpar Chen Zhouwang, Yilin Press, coll. « Humanities and Society Translation Series », 2007, p. 40.