What is the traditional way of life of mankind?

The equation of tradition=decay is not as strong a force in society as it was at the time, but there are still people who think that tradition=closed-door=rejection of new things=weakness of modern China. Perhaps it is necessary to make a preliminary definition of the tradition, although in the absence of a deep understanding of the tradition on the basis of this definition can only be an attempt rather than a bold final definition, the purpose is still Hattori reflective interest.

If we look at the history of thought, the tradition is represented by the Ru Shi Tao; if we look at the way of life, the representation of the tradition is more complicated, thought influences the way of life, but is not directly imported into the way of life. People who respect the Ru Shi Tao each have a corresponding way of life, as a spectator of history, we can be irrelevant to comment on it, as the term "three religions and nine streams" itself refers to - a cultural specimen with its own historical limitations, then We are taking ourselves too seriously. What is it that makes people today feel entitled to be the arbiters of tradition? The notion of progress propagated by science. History is now considered a science, evolving into historical archaeology, a scientific taxonomy of ancient cultural specimens to be sorted out and judged. Of course the idea of learning from history is still alive and well in an anecdotal discourse outside of scientific authority, but it is becoming more and more a part of pop culture in its own right, and history is being absorbed as a footnote to pop culture, which is still grounded in the modern era.

To break away from this fossilized layer of modern ideas and return to the original territory of a living tradition-way of life, we must put any preconceptions into brackets (such as the notion of progress, science as the only test, and so on) and enter into reason itself. But the rationality we often speak of is already scientific rationality, modern rationality, but the latter is no longer the original state of rationality. The original state of rationality is very simple: the human being as a human being is to keep his mind clear to the greatest extent possible, not to be dominated by any delusion in his life, and to live out the quality and dignity that human beings should have as human beings. The superiority of human beings over animals is taken for granted here, because only human beings have reason, language, and the ability to reflect, not just to adapt to the given environment and maximize self-preservation. There is a danger in the modern concept of dragging man back to the level of the animal, dominating and using natural things efficiently only from the point of view of self-comfort and preservation, without the pursuit and responsibility that man as a human being deserves, the latter being regarded by the modern concept as a hobby - you pursue your own, do whatever you like, as long as you don't interfere with me, you and I are fine with each other; and I am fine with myself, and I am fine with myself. I have nothing to do with each other; and I love to do what I do, it has nothing to do with you. The only link that connects you and me is the lowest identification with self-preservation, and the influence of this idea has made our culture superficial and fragmented, and the existence of every culture has the right to be recognized by other cultures, or else it is a despotic tyranny. Self-preservation is supreme, and any notion that poses a threat to self-preservation is rejected, for no matter how noble the latter may seem, it may be used by tyranny as a legitimate excuse for the Great Purge.

So should we put this modern notion of self-preservation as supreme into brackets? This goes to the root of the modern idea. Modern culture, under a blanket of you-are-good-and-everyone-is-good mediocrity, has denied any possibility of sacrifice for the sake of nobility as ferocious, obscurantist, pre-modern barbarism. But the ubiquitous traditional notion of "killing for mercy" has led us to recognize the irreconcilable differences between the two. So can we take a neutral approach, put both in brackets, and examine them impartially? Is it a suspension of judgment on whether man is above animals or not? It does not seem possible that man can reasonably reach this judgment if he is not thinking on a level above the animal. So too, it is clear that mere animal self-preservation cannot be the basis of human bonding unless man wills to return to the animal plane. The basis of human bonding is always something more than mere animal self-preservation, something that evokes the rationality and responsibility of the human being as a human being, and the spirit of reflection, rather than mere adaptation to the given environment. Otherwise, progress in the true sense of the word is impossible, and how can we speak of the obscurantism of tradition? According to the logic of modern conception, tradition has at least the same rights as modernity and demands to be recognized, so how can it be taken for granted that modernity is superior to tradition?

It may not be difficult to clarify this ideologically, but it is infinitely more complicated to clarify it in terms of the existence of human society as a whole. First of all, it is undeniable that the majority of people have not been aroused to the rationality and responsibility of human beings as human beings, and have been aroused to the spirit of human reflection; or after being aroused, due to the limitations of the ability and conditions, they can only be tragically compromised, and are forced to adapt to the environment given to them. Think about the difficulties of earning a living, if I can't earn a living independently, won't it be pedantic to talk about it here? If I am forced to lower the goal of my pursuit of life in order to make a living, and even lose the spirit of reflection in the end, and can only passively adapt to the environment, what then? What is the significance of this evocation? Su Dongpo thought that he had "spent his whole life in the pursuit of food and drink", but how much helplessness and bitterness is there in this? Fortunately, what he left us is not only an image of "a life of hustle for the mouth and stomach", but it also illustrates the dilemma between self-preservation and nobility. Suffering comes from this, tragedy arises from this, and tradition achieves its nobility in the conflict between compromise and non-compromise. If we compromise, there is no way to talk about the progress of mankind; if we don't compromise, we may even jeopardize the self-preservation of the human society; how can we tell the difference between this and the other?

But it is precisely because of this conflict that traditional culture has demonstrated its nobility, that people do not live only for the sake of self-preservation, and that whether or not their quest is ultimately realized, the spirit it evokes will be passed on from generation to generation. The modern concept of progress, which aims at the elimination of suffering, is ultimately directed towards the establishment of a utopia in which everyone is comfortably preserved from the vagaries of natural catastrophe; technology, as a powerful weapon in the establishment of this utopia, has been supported and embraced as never before (the unconditional goodness of technology has been a notion of the modern age, and previous reflections on and restrictions on the use of technology are still quite influential). -- and today, when the consequences of the misuse of technology are becoming increasingly apparent, this reflection is beginning to regain its power). Has today's technological advancement eliminated suffering? No, it should be said that it has intensified the polarization of suffering. People on one side no longer have the traditional hardship of earning a living, but at the same time lack the traditional responsibility and constraints, and are often in pursuit of stimulating and ostentatious consumption and extravagance, which can be roughly attributed to the extinction of the aristocracy as a group, and replaced by a group of profligate people who lack the responsibility to assume responsibility (of course, the existence of charitable causes still represents the good intentions of this part of the population, and excludes the presence of the factors of showmanship and advertisement). (of course, the existence of philanthropy still represents the good will of this group of people, excluding the existence of show and advertising, and this kind of philanthropy more or less reflects their reflection on social responsibility, but its point is still only the concern for self-preservation, which is still modern, and it is only an itch for the task of taking up the responsibility of cultural nobility); on the other hand, it is still very difficult for people to earn a living, if not harder than the traditional one, then at least not as hard as the traditional one, and modern laborers have become a small cog in the whole huge economic operation machine. The modern laborer becomes a small cog in the machine of the whole vast economy, and the fragmented work may be less physically arduous than the traditional labor, but it is more mentally damaging than ever, because the arduousness is not natural (what does it say about the phenomenon that in ancient times people died more often of famine and less often of suicide, and that in modern times it is just the opposite? Don't think that this situation can be corrected by the so-called spiritual treatment, the stupidity of this spiritual treatment shows the barrenness of our modern culture on the other hand). The myth of the elimination of suffering through technology is shattered, and today this huge economic machine is operating with ever-increasing efficiency, but it does not know for what purpose. Nihilism, drunkenness, this is worse than ever.

Returning to the nobility of traditional culture, the ancients were much more relaxed about suffering than we are. They did not seek to eliminate it, but rather to establish a more dignified goal above it -- the Tao. Human suffering is a part of the Tao, and it is not desirable to attempt to eliminate suffering and, at the same time, to eliminate the possibility of human beings reaching a more dignified goal. The notion of taking on suffering and sublimating it abounds in traditional culture, culminating in the idea that " there is no seeking life in order to jeopardize benevolence, but there is killing one's own body in order to fulfill benevolence." (The relationship between Tao and Ren can be tentatively summarized as follows: Tao has the meaning of cosmological order, while Ren is the projection of Tao onto the human order, man's own state of being, i.e., the human order that is most in accordance with nature, man's own state of being, is Ren - given that the notion of nature has been distorted in modern thought, such an understanding is not easily accepted, I am afraid). (it is not easy to accept). The elimination of suffering is unnatural; natural suffering cannot be eliminated, and the modern quest for the elimination of suffering leads to the creation of unnatural suffering. The mental distortion caused by this unnatural suffering is far from being solved by the so-called spiritual treatment; on the contrary, this spiritual treatment itself is part of the disease of modern culture.

The modern quest for humanism can be seen as conferring on the right to self-preservation a comparable dignity not found in antiquity - there are those who are despised for their fear of death, and there are those who are justified in deserting on the battlefield. It is folly to obliterate all nobility, all basis for killing one's own life, because one is wary of the prospect of tyranny, and it is impossible to avoid tyranny on that account alone. Modern political practice has proved this: we have seen it all too often: a State interfering in the internal affairs of another State under the banner of humanitarianism, or even provoking a war in order to realize its own political interests, and so on. Focusing on self-preservation alone will likewise not avert the prospect of tyranny.

In contrast, the traditional focus on humanity was based on the Way of Heaven (note that Confucius' "ren" was by no means modern humanitarianism, and that Confucius did not use the word "ren" in conjunction with "dao" as a term). (note: Confucius' "ren" is by no means modern humanitarianism, nor does he use the words "ren" and "dao" together as a single word, "ren dao"), because the latter is more enlightened and dignified, and is the source of the former. As a result, the tradition saw man as a part of nature, not its master, but the modern age does not, and denies the existence of the Tao of Heaven, where man is the master of nature and has the right to dominate it and use it for his own purposes. Today we have paid the price for this arrogance, and it may be necessary to revisit the ancient idea of the gift of nature.

Quoted from Zhuangzi - The Outer Works - In the Yu:

Those who are not aware of heaven are not pure in virtue; those who are not in the Way are not self-evident; those who are not in the Way are sad! What is the Way? There is the Way of Heaven and the Way of Man. The person who does nothing but honors the way of heaven; the person who does something but is tired of it, the way of mankind. The Lord, the Way of Heaven; the minister, the Way of Man. The way of heaven and the way of man are far away from each other, and we must not fail to recognize them.

At the same time, follow the way of heaven, does not mean that the heavenly orders, the human way can not be done; on the contrary, follow the way of heaven, the human way can have a real as, not for. Follow the way of heaven and for the government, is not tyranny, "politics, is also", the only way to follow the way of heaven and positive, is a benevolent government. This was, in ancient Greek thought, a search for the best form of government (centered in Plato's Ideal State) and a reflection on the possibility of the best form of government. The conclusion reached in the Ideal State is that the best form of government is possible, but depends on a very rare chance (perhaps translated as "providence"), i.e., a condition that cannot be created by human power, and that only under such circumstances is the best form of government possible. That is to say, under ordinary conditions, the best system of government is almost impossible.

Then why do we still propose this benevolent rule - the best form of government? In this regard, the Confucian answer is "know it is not possible and for", although the realization of the known benevolent government is almost impossible, does not mean that the gentleman can do nothing, on the contrary, this is more demanding of the gentleman to always keep a clear head, neither into the political fanaticism nor cold-eyed recluse - but "the gentleman's work, the gentleman's work, the gentleman's work, the gentleman's work", "the gentleman's work", "the gentleman's work", "the gentleman's work". - Rather, "the gentleman's service is also to perform his righteousness. If you can't do it, you know it!" Under the constraints of various conditions, he weighs the right and the left, and guides the government to follow the right path, so as to fulfill his righteousness. At the same time, it is also said that the improvement of politics is limited, which is exactly in line with the ancient Greek thought: "The ancient classics believed that because of the weakness or dependence of human nature, universal happiness is impossible, so they did not dream of a completion of history. They saw with their mind's eye such a happy society, a society in which human nature had the highest possibilities. But since they also saw how limited human power was, they thought that the realization of this best polity depended on chance." (Strauss, On Tyranny) From this, ancient Greek thought also gave their answer: the best polity provides a stable standard by which we can judge any actual order, making political improvement justifiable. Both traditions emphasize the finite nature of political improvement and chance (Mandate of Heaven, "If you do not know the Mandate, you cannot be a gentleman"), as well as the highest possibilities of human nature-which in ancient Greece was the perfection of virtue, and in Confucianism was the body of the Tao and following one's own heart without overstepping its bounds. There is a tension between politics and benevolence, the Way, and virtue, which justifies the improvement of the former and prevents political fanaticism; it also preserves the latter's independence from the former's limitations and prevents it from opening up the highest possibilities of human nature.

Of course, up to this point we have only clarified the pursuit of traditional political philosophy from the ideological point of view, but as for the traditional way of life pointing to the "Tao", what kind of examination can we do? The Analects of Confucius begins with a "learning" word, ancient Greece to the love of knowledge, wisdom for philosophy (philosophos), it can be said that "learning" is the same as their **** the underlying. Modern people also have a strong desire for knowledge, but the things they learn are different. While traditional learning was directed toward the cultivation of virtue, modern learning is directed toward utility - and this utility is aimed at the realization of self-comfort and preservation, which is traditionally regarded as low in character. Granted, one cannot make a living without making a living, but can one make a living for the sake of making a living? After working hard, modern people seem to seek compensation by engaging in exciting entertainment, but can they make up for it? Can we compensate for the fragmented existence that has been exploited? In the absence of a purpose beyond earning a living, the prevailing spiritual emptiness cannot be filled through entertainment and so-called spiritual healing, but at best, it can be numbed - the spiritual need can be extinguished. Traditional religions, having been dealt a severe blow by modern science, do not seem to be able to provide a refuge for the masses either. There is still a need for religiosity, which modern science cannot satisfy, and yet the ignorance and deception of traditional religions are widely publicized. As a result, cults have arisen, romantic love has been elevated to a religious level, and martyrdom has taken on the dignity of traditional martyrdom. In addition, the fulfillment of spiritual needs has become a commodity to be sold, a commercial activity (psychiatrists, for example, have become a profession), coupled with the ubiquitous propaganda, all together clamoring and buzzing. This is the situation of our modern culture, and is it really as progressive as it is advertised to be, compared to the traditional?

Back to tradition,

"It is a shame for a state to be poor and cheap when it has the way; it is a shame for a state to be rich and expensive when it has no way."

"A gentleman is poor, but a small man is poor."

"A gentleman seeks the way, not food. Plowing is also, discouragement in which to carry on; learning is also, the wealth in which to carry on. A gentleman worries about the way and not about poverty."

"Riches and nobility are the desires of men; if they are not obtained by their way, they do not live. Poverty and lowliness are the evils of men; if they do not obtain them by their way, they do not go to them. If a gentleman goes to benevolence, how can he become famous? If a gentleman does not violate benevolence between the end of the day and the end of the day's food, he will do so, and he will do so when he is in a state of upheaval."

; you say.