Add Bookmark | Recommend this book | Back to the book page | My bookshelf | Mobile Reading

Free Web Novel,Novel online - All in oicq.net -> Sundries -> Naruto Mall System

Chapter 20 The Most Important Combat Force

Previous page        Return to Catalog        Next page

    ?

    It is humanistic, right?  But then came the problem, because people are so strange, it¡¯s fine if you tell them what to think, and it¡¯s fine at 2:00. Although the sword of God can also be used, it¡¯s rare after all, isn¡¯t it?  It is relatively easy to unify. Athena said that this is the chair. Didn¡¯t she say that Athena is the measure of everything?  But if everyone here is the measure of the existence of everything that exists and the measure of the non-existence of everything that does not exist, will the world be in chaos?  First of all, one problem we cannot solve is the conceptual problem of things.  What do you want a table to call a chair?  What is what is what is called a camera?  What is an elite school?  What is the college entrance examination to go to his college entrance examination?  My scale, I think the college entrance examination does not exist.  You will find out whether we have the feeling that we talked about Wang Yangming before, right?  I think you exist only when you exist, and I am the measure of all things, right?  That flower blooms in the wild.  Never heard of this country in India.  You can, but for such a subjective thing, although he emphasizes the human-centeredness is a great progress, but then you will find out what his problem is, it is the individual, and it is always not you.  But what rationality do I emphasize, what do I emphasize?  What is the feeling called?  Whose feeling is it? Everyone talks about my own feeling.  Is anything different from what you reasoned out?  I feel that what is more personal and subjective, but I reasoned what must be, and found that the Sophist School emphasizes that man is the measure of all things, which easily leads to the loss of objective standards, right?  After we lose our objective standards, we basically talk to ourselves, and there is no debate in that case.  I don¡¯t understand. There are 65 languages ??spoken by 6.5 billion people in the world. There is no objective standard, so it¡¯s lost, right?  That's fine.  But he emphasized that since everyone is the measure of all things, all theories have their opposites, which I think is what you think.  Look at problems from different angles, but it admits that you can look at problems from different angles. Certain time and space conditions are the basis for the existence of truth. You don¡¯t have certain correct standards. Everything has two opposite sides, and even  There are many ways to extend it down. What does this look like, or who do you compare with Huaxia, has anyone mentioned it?  At home, has anyone ever said that the sound and the sound harmonize, follow each other, and the simple dialectics has this kind of feeling, of course it is not the same thing, but if he emphasizes that things have two or more sides, and they  There will be constant transitions, which is a bit.  There is already a taste in philosophy.  The characteristics of the Sophists, I have written about the obvious skepticism.  The School of the Sophists later developed a school, that is, the School of Skepticism was in the late stage of the development of philosophy, thought and culture in ancient Greece. It was formed a little later in the Warring States period of China.  Inheritance is very much because everyone can explain themselves.  Emphasize that I am a standard, so there is no standard, right?  Then I can doubt everything about you, but I can doubt you.  Then you are not completely logical thinking, he uses logic to see it.  They are like Achilles and Achilles, or what they are running very fast one by one. If they run, they will not be able to run. This kind of logical trap is inside, so don't worry.  I also suspect that doubting everything, criticizing everything, and overthrowing everything will produce too many positive or negative things for this world, right?  He does not have an objective standard.  When my people chatted with me, they mentioned that this history is a science that is not at all.  I haven't been back anyway, and you can't know what happened in the past, right? History, everything you write down is someone's interpretation.  History must be someone's interpretation, right?  We also need someone to explain the results of the archaeological discoveries dug out here. He won't open his mouth to tell me what it means?  Did you guess right?  So history is a science of interpretation, which is good, but does the science of interpretation have no objective standards?  People doubt history to overthrow history and restore history. You can doubt everything, whether it is present or everything in the past, and you should doubt it. But if you don¡¯t go to the angle of skepticism, skepticism has already been denied.  is negative.  That's a dangerous way to look at it.  Famous Chinese scholars mentioned in the history of world philosophy that, first of all, the wise men had a great understanding of philosophy.  Leaving from nature and paying more attention to people, first explain this sentence, what does it reflect?  What material do I ask you to make now, do you understand?  If I give you this passage as a material,  (Remember the website URL: www.hlnovel.com
Didn't finish reading? Add this book to your favoritesI'm a member and bookmarked this chapterCopy the address of this book and recommend it to your friends for pointsChapter error? Click here to report