kwo Re: 刘宣扬的就是机械唯心主义 - 未名空间MITBBS历史存档

国际科技财经博客移民网络热点娱乐民生时事公众号

Redian新闻

>未名空间

>SciFiction - 星际浪子

kwo Re: 刘宣扬的就是机械唯心主义

kwo Re: 刘宣扬的就是机械唯心主义# SciFiction - 星际浪子

p*y2004-08-06 07:08

1 楼

Do you know what you are talking about?
BTW:
What's wrong with 机械唯心主义?
Not everyone believes the stupic Marxist philosophy.

st2004-08-06 07:08

2 楼

马克思主义中的唯物主义哲学部分没什么错，西方的哲学家都很尊重的。。。
社会学部分很傻。。。机械唯心主义么，不提也罢。。。。

【在 p***y 的大作中提到】

: Do you know what you are talking about?
: BTW:
: What's wrong with 机械唯心主义?
: Not everyone believes the stupic Marxist philosophy.

p*y2004-08-06 07:08

3 楼

1. You cannot apply a simple true or false to a philosophy.
2. 西方的哲学家都很尊重的 can not deduce 马克思主义中的唯物主义哲学部分没什么
错.
3. Marxism is fundamentally conflict with both quantum physics and theory of
relativity and most of the modern physics.
4. Marxism calls itself a science, and it is patching itself constantly. It is
Karl Popper's best criticism target.
5. People today still relying on a certain philosophy clan to criticize the
development of science is stupid.

查
本
.

【在 st 的大作中提到】

: 马克思主义中的唯物主义哲学部分没什么错，西方的哲学家都很尊重的。。。
: 社会学部分很傻。。。机械唯心主义么，不提也罢。。。。

st2004-08-06 07:08

4 楼

给我们解释解释吧，我对量子力学知道得很少，但是我还是看过唯物主义的书，
个人以为唯物主义不应该和任何现代科学冲突。
this I agree with you,
I think after the real "science" part is separated from philosophy,
nothing left in philosophy could be called science, but keep this in mind,
at max's time, science is not modern sciecne.
I agree with you more, personally, I think philosophy, which was all knowledge
for human, has served its purpose and has died, being useless... :D
science rules. :D

【在 p***y 的大作中提到】

: 1. You cannot apply a simple true or false to a philosophy.
: 2. 西方的哲学家都很尊重的 can not deduce 马克思主义中的唯物主义哲学部分没什么
: 错.
: 3. Marxism is fundamentally conflict with both quantum physics and theory of
: relativity and most of the modern physics.
: 4. Marxism calls itself a science, and it is patching itself constantly. It is
: Karl Popper's best criticism target.
: 5. People today still relying on a certain philosophy clan to criticize the
: development of science is stupid.
:

a*r2004-08-06 07:08

5 楼

说到马克思主义，真是令人不好意思呀。以前我去听过几次经济学的讲座，
结果没想到马克思主义经济学是江core说的naive的同义词。很多观点都
让听众很happy。
大学的时候学马克思主义哲学，觉得马克思主义哲学的特色就是马后炮。

【在 st 的大作中提到】

: 马克思主义中的唯物主义哲学部分没什么错，西方的哲学家都很尊重的。。。
: 社会学部分很傻。。。机械唯心主义么，不提也罢。。。。

st2004-08-06 07:08

6 楼

这些本身就是马后炮吧，所谓预测未来社会发展纯属于胡诌。。。马克思主义经济学么，
我不感兴趣，所以剩余价值是为了工人运动而弄出来的概念吧，没什么实际意义。。。

【在 a*****r 的大作中提到】

: 说到马克思主义，真是令人不好意思呀。以前我去听过几次经济学的讲座，
: 结果没想到马克思主义经济学是江core说的naive的同义词。很多观点都
: 让听众很happy。
: 大学的时候学马克思主义哲学，觉得马克思主义哲学的特色就是马后炮。

p*y2004-08-06 07:08

7 楼

Sorry that I do not have chinese input.
I am not a physicist either and know very little about quantum physics, but
the problem is quantum physics is so odd that different quantum physicists
have very different explanations.
Many years ago, I read a book "Wuzhi ke3fen1lun4 xin1lun4" by Prof. Xu
Liangying. (It should be published in the early 80s" This book directly
attacks Marxism by showing the conflict between modern physics and
"Dialectical Materialism". Prof. Xu got persecuted later and he w

【在 st 的大作中提到】

: 这些本身就是马后炮吧，所谓预测未来社会发展纯属于胡诌。。。马克思主义经济学么，
: 我不感兴趣，所以剩余价值是为了工人运动而弄出来的概念吧，没什么实际意义。。。

st2004-08-06 07:08

8 楼

你说的这些是马克思妄作的科学断言，个人以为唯物主义思想本身还是正确的。。。。
至于物质可分这种断言，什么叫做dividable? 这个名词本身的不确定性，造成了哲学的
大部分论断都没有什么意义。。。

【在 p***y 的大作中提到】

: Sorry that I do not have chinese input.
: I am not a physicist either and know very little about quantum physics, but
: the problem is quantum physics is so odd that different quantum physicists
: have very different explanations.
: Many years ago, I read a book "Wuzhi ke3fen1lun4 xin1lun4" by Prof. Xu
: Liangying. (It should be published in the early 80s" This book directly
: attacks Marxism by showing the conflict between modern physics and
: "Dialectical Materialism". Prof. Xu got persecuted later and he w

p*y2004-08-06 07:08

9 楼

Modern western philosophy does not concern 唯心 or 唯物 anymore. This is the
progress of the philosophy itself.
(Ironically, from Marxism's view, if you avoid talking about 唯心 or 唯物, you
are 唯心.)
To me, the most important thing is to have an open mind. (from this aspect,
even FLG is acceptable).
Secondary, rationalism is the baseline. (FLG's claims are absurd from this
ascpect.)
Third, keep a sceptical view and keep curiosity to the world.
唯心 or 唯物 does not really matter.
"My heart is the universe;

【在 st 的大作中提到】

: 你说的这些是马克思妄作的科学断言，个人以为唯物主义思想本身还是正确的。。。。
: 至于物质可分这种断言，什么叫做dividable? 这个名词本身的不确定性，造成了哲学的
: 大部分论断都没有什么意义。。。

st2004-08-06 07:08

10 楼

totally disagree with you now, modern philosophy is nothing but junk, IMHO...
there's no such thing as spirit, I believe everything is material.... well,
maybe in the end, they will materialize "thought" so that the two system
will be merged into one....
I dont think FLG is acceptable, have you read their book?
well, I am skeptical and curious about all those claims, science results. :D
that mind is okay, but you cant change anything with that mind. :D btw,
that "mind" is just material working i

【在 p***y 的大作中提到】

: Modern western philosophy does not concern 唯心 or 唯物 anymore. This is the
: progress of the philosophy itself.
: (Ironically, from Marxism's view, if you avoid talking about 唯心 or 唯物, you
: are 唯心.)
: To me, the most important thing is to have an open mind. (from this aspect,
: even FLG is acceptable).
: Secondary, rationalism is the baseline. (FLG's claims are absurd from this
: ascpect.)
: Third, keep a sceptical view and keep curiosity to the world.
: 唯心 or 唯物 does not really matter.

p*y2004-08-06 07:08

11 楼

What is your rationale behind "I believe everything is material...."?
Something different from FLGer believing in their master LHZ?
I would agree if you said "most modern philosophy is nothing but junk", but
there are so many gems shining under the sands.
We are understanding physics, but we still know so little about metaphysics,
and meta-meta-physics, and meta-meta-meta...
Imagine we are just 3d creatures and we can never understand what the 4th
dimension is like, but there are people that tri

【在 st 的大作中提到】

: totally disagree with you now, modern philosophy is nothing but junk, IMHO...
: there's no such thing as spirit, I believe everything is material.... well,
: maybe in the end, they will materialize "thought" so that the two system
: will be merged into one....
: I dont think FLG is acceptable, have you read their book?
: well, I am skeptical and curious about all those claims, science results. :D
: that mind is okay, but you cant change anything with that mind. :D btw,
: that "mind" is just material working i

st2004-08-06 07:08

12 楼

yes, or I can only say you are FLGer... hehe. provide me something that's
not "material"? well, definition of material is a bit tricky though
such as? you sure it's not the stinky smell?
from LHZ's book, he is from higher level.. I know human limitation, but I
dont "believe" anything without proof... dont even believe anything totally
evne wiht proof. :D
open mind is good, but without discipline, that only creates crazy man and
no scientists. :D

【在 p***y 的大作中提到】

: What is your rationale behind "I believe everything is material...."?
: Something different from FLGer believing in their master LHZ?
: I would agree if you said "most modern philosophy is nothing but junk", but
: there are so many gems shining under the sands.
: We are understanding physics, but we still know so little about metaphysics,
: and meta-meta-physics, and meta-meta-meta...
: Imagine we are just 3d creatures and we can never understand what the 4th
: dimension is like, but there are people that tri

p*y2004-08-06 07:08

13 楼

mind
There comes my bottomline: Rationalism.
To me, any belief is irrational, including believing materialism.
I am very much influenced by Karl Popper's solid rationalism standpoint.
well,
results. :D

st2004-08-06 07:08

14 楼

if you are rational, then you should not "believe" anything out of thin air

【在 p***y 的大作中提到】

: mind
: There comes my bottomline: Rationalism.
: To me, any belief is irrational, including believing materialism.
: I am very much influenced by Karl Popper's solid rationalism standpoint.
: well,
: results. :D

p*y2004-08-06 07:08

15 楼

I think whether the world is materalism or not does not matter. It is you who
hold the belief that everything is material.
Now an ancient thought from Plato, what is "circle"? Here plato is talking
about the "absolute idea" of circle.
Question:
1.At very very early time, say, 0.000....1 seconds after the big bang,
does the idea of circle exist before there is a real circular object?
2. Now time shifts to 1000000 years ago before there;s human or other
intelligent living things on earth, does th

【在 st 的大作中提到】

: if you are rational, then you should not "believe" anything out of thin air

st2004-08-06 07:08

16 楼

that's the only rational way... btw, "material" is just a word, your
understanding is very different from mine.
the idea you talk about is from human... no such thing/thought can exist
without human.
no idea at all, at that time.
it exists in your mind, which is material. I mean the mind itself...
nothing can exist without material.. no concept exists without human
thought, which is material.

【在 p***y 的大作中提到】

:
: I think whether the world is materalism or not does not matter. It is you who
: hold the belief that everything is material.
: Now an ancient thought from Plato, what is "circle"? Here plato is talking
: about the "absolute idea" of circle.
: Question:
: 1.At very very early time, say, 0.000....1 seconds after the big bang,
: does the idea of circle exist before there is a real circular object?
: 2. Now time shifts to 1000000 years ago before there;s human or other
: intelligent living things on earth, does th

a*y2004-08-06 07:08

17 楼

I was talking about the fact. You seemed jumping to the conclusion that it
must be pro-marxism.
Liu mentioned "a super observer" which could only lead to GOD.
Also, they had some difficulty to face the fact that his parents's death
is also the result of his watching.
If he hadn't watched his parents' death, his partents would have lived,
well, to him.

【在 p***y 的大作中提到】

: Do you know what you are talking about?
: BTW:
: What's wrong with 机械唯心主义?
: Not everyone believes the stupic Marxist philosophy.

p*y2004-08-06 07:08

18 楼

Thanks for the quick answers, more Qs:
1. If human being got wiped out, does the idea of circle exist?
2. If human being got wiped out, but we left books talking about circle, does
the idea of circle exist?
Now can I extrapolate from circle to some math laws like Pythagoras' thereom,
or phyical laws such as f = ma ?
1. Are these laws material?
2. Do they exist before human being?
3. Do they ceased to exist after human got wiped out?

that's
who
Then
after

【在 st 的大作中提到】

:
: that's the only rational way... btw, "material" is just a word, your
: understanding is very different from mine.
: the idea you talk about is from human... no such thing/thought can exist
: without human.
: no idea at all, at that time.
: it exists in your mind, which is material. I mean the mind itself...
: nothing can exist without material.. no concept exists without human
: thought, which is material.

st2004-08-06 07:08

19 楼

of course not, that's human idea... you think NOW that it exists.... but
it wont, after human is wiped out.
unless they can read the get the human idea, then it will exists in other
life form's mind, as their idea... the exact human idea will be gone for ever..
idea doesnot exist before human, the natural phenomena does..

【在 p***y 的大作中提到】

: Thanks for the quick answers, more Qs:
: 1. If human being got wiped out, does the idea of circle exist?
: 2. If human being got wiped out, but we left books talking about circle, does
: the idea of circle exist?
: Now can I extrapolate from circle to some math laws like Pythagoras' thereom,
: or phyical laws such as f = ma ?
: 1. Are these laws material?
: 2. Do they exist before human being?
: 3. Do they ceased to exist after human got wiped out?
:

st2004-08-06 07:08

20 楼

文章里面说是外星人吧。
what about super observer?

【在 a******y 的大作中提到】

: I was talking about the fact. You seemed jumping to the conclusion that it
: must be pro-marxism.
: Liu mentioned "a super observer" which could only lead to GOD.
: Also, they had some difficulty to face the fact that his parents's death
: is also the result of his watching.
: If he hadn't watched his parents' death, his partents would have lived,
: well, to him.

a*y2004-08-06 07:08

21 楼

No, it's they "thought" that's alien.
coz the super observer watched, he also contributed his share to decease two
people.

【在 st 的大作中提到】

:
: 文章里面说是外星人吧。
: what about super observer?

p*y2004-08-06 07:08

22 楼

thereom,
How do you know this then?

【在 st 的大作中提到】

:
: 文章里面说是外星人吧。
: what about super observer?

st2004-08-06 07:08

23 楼

是啊，文章没说是god...
well, they didnot really die...

【在 a******y 的大作中提到】

:
: No, it's they "thought" that's alien.
: coz the super observer watched, he also contributed his share to decease two
: people.

st2004-08-06 07:08

24 楼

开始玩文字游戏了。。。我不是绝对知道，但是你也不会知道。:D 问题是这种belief
对人类没有意义的，朴素唯物主义就说了这点。。。只有唯物主义才有意义。。。
不管你多么宣扬唯心，生活中用的都是唯物主义的科学结果。

【在 p***y 的大作中提到】

:
: thereom,
: How do you know this then?

p*y2004-08-06 07:08

25 楼

Well, thanks again for your answers.
I am actually more marveled at these questions, rather the answers, your or
mine or even Plato's.
To me, these question really reveal how deep a human can think, even 3000
years ago. Different people come with so many different consistent theories.
To a lot of people, the power lies in the anwser. To me, the power of the
question is limitless.
One more question if you are interested to answer:
The sun came up yesterday,
The sun came up today,
why it will come

【在 st 的大作中提到】

: 开始玩文字游戏了。。。我不是绝对知道，但是你也不会知道。:D 问题是这种belief
: 对人类没有意义的，朴素唯物主义就说了这点。。。只有唯物主义才有意义。。。
: 不管你多么宣扬唯心，生活中用的都是唯物主义的科学结果。

a*y2004-08-06 07:08

26 楼

It's all about the probabilly and the adoption. coz the Sun had rised many times in the past.
You assume it has a better chance to show up the next day then it won't. And
it does. People thinking the other way will graduately adopt to the way you
are thinking, untill some day the Sun doesn't rise any more.

【在 p***y 的大作中提到】

: Well, thanks again for your answers.
: I am actually more marveled at these questions, rather the answers, your or
: mine or even Plato's.
: To me, these question really reveal how deep a human can think, even 3000
: years ago. Different people come with so many different consistent theories.
: To a lot of people, the power lies in the anwser. To me, the power of the
: question is limitless.
: One more question if you are interested to answer:
: The sun came up yesterday,
: The sun came up today,

st2004-08-06 07:08

27 楼

to the contrary, the "pure thinking" didnot improve much during those 3k years
there's no way, it's called 科学归纳法，we cant prove it, but it happens,
maybe next day something will destroy it, but that's useless to human. :D
way before him, actually.

【在 p***y 的大作中提到】

p*y2004-08-06 07:08

28 楼

生活中用的都是唯物主义的科学结果, this most likely is true.
But there are people in the world that are willing to ponder the deeper
meaning, even though it could be fruitless.
To me, those thinkers are like explorers of the unknown in the spiritual
world. I like to see intellecture sparks, some of which may be nonsense
though.
BTW: about FLG, however absurd it is, there are so many people buying its
theory. Isn't it a marvel itself as a human intellectual phenomenon today? If
you just think people are stupid, y

【在 st 的大作中提到】

st2004-08-06 07:08

29 楼

it's not actually "deeper"... IMHO... and so far there has been any fruit,
just some thought like maxism fought against the bad religous thoughts,
gave science a chance. :D
even pure math thought is based on material world, IMHO.... I only admire
those intellecture sparks, not the type like LHZ's.
it's common knowledge that majority of people is simply stupid...
that is science, not anything in the air... it's social science based on
people. everything is about material. :D

【在 p***y 的大作中提到】

: 生活中用的都是唯物主义的科学结果, this most likely is true.
: But there are people in the world that are willing to ponder the deeper
: meaning, even though it could be fruitless.
: To me, those thinkers are like explorers of the unknown in the spiritual
: world. I like to see intellecture sparks, some of which may be nonsense
: though.
: BTW: about FLG, however absurd it is, there are so many people buying its
: theory. Isn't it a marvel itself as a human intellectual phenomenon today? If
: you just think people are stupid, y

p*y2004-08-06 07:08

30 楼

times in the past.
This question is the base of modern Philosophy of Science. Karl Popper is the
first who gave a rational answer to this questions which did influenced a
generation of scientists. His answer is in his famous book "Conjecturesand
Refutations".
The answer using probabilty is well studied by the Vienna School of philopophy
in the 1930's, which contains the most brilliant thinkers and mathematicians
at the time, but they failed to provide a convincing rational solution.
About 机械唯心主义

k*g2004-08-06 07:08

31 楼

事情不能太绝对了！

If
to
be
问题是这种belief

【在 st 的大作中提到】

:
: it's not actually "deeper"... IMHO... and so far there has been any fruit,
: just some thought like maxism fought against the bad religous thoughts,
: gave science a chance. :D
: even pure math thought is based on material world, IMHO.... I only admire
: those intellecture sparks, not the type like LHZ's.
: it's common knowledge that majority of people is simply stupid...
: that is science, not anything in the air... it's social science based on
: people. everything is about material. :D

st2004-08-06 07:08

32 楼

比如在纯数学角度上面，1+1也不见得等于2?

【在 k******g 的大作中提到】

: 事情不能太绝对了！
:
: If
: to
: be
: 问题是这种belief

a*y2004-08-06 07:08

33 楼

需要定义"1","2"和操作符号"+", 没准谁把"+"重载成"-",那意思就完全不一样了.

【在 st 的大作中提到】

: 比如在纯数学角度上面，1+1也不见得等于2?

st2004-08-06 07:08

34 楼

都说了是纯数学了，这么说就没有任何事情有意义了。

【在 a******y 的大作中提到】

: 需要定义"1","2"和操作符号"+", 没准谁把"+"重载成"-",那意思就完全不一样了.