Analysis of previous philosophical controversies (chapter reflections)
Analysis of previous philosophical controversies (chapter reflection)
Author: East Zhejiang Pifu
Analysis of previous philosophical controversies (chapter reflection)
PS: I looked back at the philosophical theory chapter where I focused my comments on it earlier, and I want to clarify a few words.
The main point of criticism is that I used a mechanical method and blamed the subjugation of the country on "too much tampering". They also said that "the subjugation of the country is a very complicated issue. There are various reasons for annexation of land and the expansion of aristocratic families", while they said that I "ignored
He has so many reasons and only uses one simple reason to try to arrogantly conquer the world."
I want to say that before you start complaining, you should check it out clearly. The protagonist’s words were spoken to Emperor Longwu, and they were just about whether to usurp the throne and the harm of too much. The protagonist did not argue as grandly as “why the dynasty perished.”
question.
Therefore, I think it’s okay to criticize me, but at least refute what I said. Don’t directly drag my argument one step further and fabricate a target to target the enemy.
Of course I know that the demise of dynasties is very complicated, and the rise and fall of history is very complicated.
What I am saying is that too much tampering can easily reduce the "dynasty's tolerance for destruction." As for the direct reason, I have not touched upon it at all.
For example, this is just like me saying "people who have had more divorces are more likely to get divorced" does not mean "more divorces are the cause of the next divorce itself".
The direct causes of divorce are, of course, disharmonious marital life, poverty, violence, personality incompatibility...etc., etc.
A first love may be able to tolerate the other person until they can no longer afford to eat before they consider breaking up.
In the seventh marriage, it may be that the other party cannot afford a house in the city center and they have to divide it.
A first love may require the other person to be violent and hurt before leaving.
The seventh marriage may just be the first time the other person slaps him/her, and he/she is about to divorce.
A first love may require the other person to become completely dysfunctional before they leave.
The reason for the seventh marriage may be that the other party lasts less than twenty minutes and cannot bear it anymore.
If you want to talk about the specific direct reasons for divorce, of course it is very complicated, and all the above reasons are possible. But if there are too many divorces, the psychological threshold resistance is lowered. This high probability is no problem (of course, I do not rule out that some
A person who has been divorced seven times is still a chaste and loyal man/woman, and treats the partner of his seventh marriage as if he were his first love. Because these are individual cases, they cannot be compared with dynasties)
I accept all refutations of what I have said, but I do not accept the Void Seeking Enemy Spray.
In addition, the above remarks are just academic explanations and factual judgments, and try not to be attached with value judgments. In other words, I did not belittle "low tolerance", nor did I say that high tolerance is better.
Modern society has diverse values. If some people are uninhibited by nature and love freedom, and they can’t stand it, even if it’s their first love, they still choose to have zero tolerance. If they are beaten, they will sue for domestic violence and divorce. I also support it.
If some people think that an ancient dynasty should perish immediately as long as it makes its people starve, why should the people endure it longer and give it a chance? If they feel that it is not a good thing to endure, then I understand this idea.
Because the method of "preventing usurpation from entering the vicious circle" I mentioned is indeed not a permanent solution. It just allows everyone from the top to the careerists and the bottom to the leaders of the peasant army to be more wary and "tolerant" before making rebellion decisions.
Already.
As for whether you can change your ways after enduring it and treat the symptoms and root causes, this is not a problem that the legitimacy of rule and orthodoxy have to solve.
The purpose of orthodoxy is to adjust the tolerance of all parties, not to solve the problem of destruction itself.