Is there any difference in life or lifestyle?
“Good” is subjective in a sense. Turnip and greens have their own loves; but they also contain objective aspects. Note that it is not purely objective scientism, objectively good, and generally good, that is, under certain conditions (not all Under the conditions) it is not affected by individual opinions.
There are good and bad behaviors. Such as diving to rescue people who have fallen into the water and those who have fallen into trouble. No one thinks the former is “not good”. If someone thinks it is “not good”, we cannot understand that this person may also face some moral pressure from everyone. Except during extreme periods such as concentration camps and the Cultural Revolution.
There are high and low virtues. In the Republic of China, Wu Xun and Lao Zhang of Hutong Kou, Mother Teresa and Qiangtou Cao Zhou Fohai. In fact, we call ourselves ordinary people just when we compare ourselves with the shining great virtues and great sages in human history.
There are high and low occupations. Shi Chuanxiang, as a national worker model, may have his duties and achievements limited to that block; of course, national leaders do not necessarily have professional achievements higher than dung workers. For example, African cannibal president Amin, but theoretically speaking, national leaders are more Have the opportunity to make great achievements. Note that there are not only good and bad points, there are good and bad points. Shi Chuanxiang has made outstanding achievements among the dung-digging workers in the country and should be praised; but compared with the merits of President Washington, he naturally waited for it.
Understanding is profound and vulgar. Wittgenstein’s understanding of truth-seeking is probably different from that of a general philosophy graduate student.
If the above differences are recognized, it is difficult for us to say that there is no difference between good and bad lifestyles, or superior and inferior.
Regarding the topic of relativism, you can sum it up in one sentence by Chen Jiaying, “Give up uniqueness and insist on truth.” We should oppose the absolute unique standard, but that does not mean that there is no standard. The standard is in constant dialogue or conflict in the world of our lives. Formed and enriched in the middle.
How do you respond to the modern value of “everyone is equal”? There are ups and downs in life, but it does not generally mean that the low and the bad have no value and should be eliminated, nor does it mean that everyone is unequal. This inference is an overly strong one. Shi Chuanxiang’s professional achievements are inferior to those of Washington, but the former has its own possibility of being small but still significant in one aspect. It is an ordinary person who is less famous than Shi Chuanxiang but still works diligently to solve practical difficulties for the neighbourhood. The dung-digger may also have a good reputation in that area, and his life has its own value, no matter the inner value or the outer value. The equality of all people of course does not mean that all people should be equal in all respects or that they should be equal in fact in all respects. Modern people’s saying that all people are equal seems to be mainly talking about equality in legal status, equality of rights, equality of personality, and opportunity. The equality of
life … There are good and bad points in life, but there is no absolute standard to distinguish it. Aristotle advocated that kindness is the direction of all things. Socrates said that unexamined life is not worth living, and never asked for them to be absolutely universal. Is the philosopher’s life of being poor and truth-seeking the only valuable life? no. Is the poorest life the highest life? no. (I would like to ask why we should strive for the highest?) But at least I generally think that the life of seeking truth from the poor is a kind of profound life, in the true sense, and in the practical sense, higher than the ordinary and vulgar way of life.
The concept of “relativism” is very popular nowadays, which is closely related to the social structure of the civilian age and the prevalence of multiple values after World War II. Propaganda agencies have also promoted a (absolute) relativist discourse in international relations from time to time for so many years. On many issues, society no longer believes in the only truth, but slips into absolute relativism, “China has a Chinese view of human rights, and the United States has an American view of human rights.”
Therefore, advocating plural values does not mean abolishing truth. To be more eye-catching does not mean to abolish criticality. This kind of criticism is preferably a self-criticism.
Those who are obsessed with Douyin for 365 days have the right to understand and should understand the deeper and richer spiritual world. Even if they cannot enter this world in the end, they should remain in awe and educate the next generation to at least remain in awe. Of course there is nothing wrong with liking Douyin, it is not critical, but because I only like entertainment and pastime, such as serious reading, opera, art, or think that there is no difference between entertainment and art, I think I should criticize myself. Others are also right. This closed hobby has the right to criticize and suggest. This is a small manifestation of “adherence to truth.”
Whether there is an objective distinction between good and bad is actually left to the next generation’s education. Your child is holding his mobile phone all the time to use Tik Tok and beat the king. In addition to using Tik Tok every day, your friend’s child is also required to have 2 hours of picture book reading time. In such a comparison, I guess most parents would not think that they are educating their children. The way is no problem.
In this regard, justice is in the hearts of the people, as well as good or bad.
