The Objects and Basic Characteristics of Modern Western Philosophy Essay

Talk about modern western philosophy research object and basic characteristics of the paper

Whether in school or in society, we are the least unfamiliar is the paper, right, the paper generally consists of title, author, abstract, key words, the body, references and appendices and other parts. How to write a thoughtful and literate essay? The following is my talk about modern western philosophy research object and basic characteristics of the paper, I hope it will help you.

Two major trends, scientism and humanism, coexist in modern Western philosophical schools, and the following is a study and research on the object of study and basic characteristics of modern Western philosophy.

Modern Western philosophy is mainly a collective term for the various philosophical schools that have been popular in Western capitalist countries since the mid-19th century. In the mid-19th century, the capitalist system in Western countries was finally established. In the late 19th century, Western countries began to change from the free competition stage of capitalism to the monopoly stage. In the first half of the 20th century, with the victory of the October Revolution in Russia, this marked the beginning of a new period of socialist revolution in human history. After the Second World War, the economies of the western capitalist countries temporarily prospered, but economic stagnation and social unrest ensued, and the corresponding social contradictions and spiritual crises began to deepen. Generally speaking, the various contradictions and crises of capitalist society in this period are directly or indirectly reflected in the various schools of modern Western philosophy.

During the period from the late 19th century to the first half of the 20th century, an important means of philosophical research was formal deductive logic, which made the systematization and scientificization of mathematical logic more and more important, and at the same time, due to the emergence of relativity theory and quantum mechanics in physics, which led to a revolution in the field of science and technology, the structure of the basic scientific concepts underwent a radical change, indicating that in the macrocosm and microcosm of the human world, there are many contradictions and crises, which are directly or indirectly reflected in the various schools of modern Western philosophy. The structure of this fundamental scientific concept was radically changed, indicating a dramatic change in human understanding in both the macrocosm and the microcosm. The 1960s and 1970s saw the emergence of a holistic trend in the development of modern science and the integration of technology as a result of the new scientific and technological revolution, which largely expanded the scope of human knowledge. For the emergence of new functions of modern natural science, at the same time also appeared in the schools of modern Western philosophy reflected in varying degrees.

1 In this issue, the study of modern Western philosophy, a number of this paper by the views

(a) due to the development of science and technology, Western philosophers began to abandon the Western classical philosophy gradually to the information-based society, the scientific society, there are indeed a small number of people will be the relationship between science and human beings separately, and then go to the observation, that these several There is a difference between them, which cannot be confused, and at the same time, they are also divided into two kinds of thoughts, two kinds of tendencies, which are science and humanities. Later on, Western thinkers seemed to realize that the study of social problems from a purely scientific standpoint or from a purely humanistic standpoint would inevitably be biased. Therefore, especially in the nearly two decades from the 1930s to the 1940s of this century, the popularity of the philosophical concepts of Western science and humanistic philosophy also became more and more fused, and the ideas of "postmodern metaphysics" and "postphilosophy" began to rise, and the ideas of Western philosophy and humanism began to be integrated. The rise of Western philosophy and social sciences may no longer be a turning point. Thus, modern Western philosophy and scientific life and humanistic views are not always distinct, but there is an objective process of interpenetration and integration.

( 2 ) The two major trends of scientism and humanism coexist in modern Western philosophical schools. Various schools of modern Western philosophy are differentiated from the nineteenth-century classical philosophy, different philosophical schools, although many of its internal factions, frequent replacement, but due to the characteristics of the times of various modern Western societies, because of the influence of Ancient Greek thought wantonly influenced by the influence of Western classical philosophy, modern Western philosophy can generally be divided into traditional scientism and humanism, which has formed two major trends. At the same time, this division is not absolute, through the confrontation and debate between these two major trends, the two systems are also interpenetrating and transforming each other, and there will be the phenomenon of fusion. Therefore, this division is only for the purpose of better grasping the general trend of modern Western philosophy. The Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences has analyzed the contents of 46 foreign philosophical journals and more than 140,000 essays in 14 countries in the 1970s, and the results of the census have largely confirmed this view.

2 Two Basic Characteristics of Modern Western Philosophy

2.1 The Decline of Experience and the Rise of Rational Theory

Through the prolonged debates between empiricism and rationalism, empirical theories have begun to fade and decline and rational theories have begun to come to the fore. From the early 1900s to the late 1950s, the empiricist analysis developed by Comte and by Russell? has been dominant in Anglo-American philosophy. Pragmatism also tended to empiricism to a large extent in continental Europe. During this period only the rational neo-Scholastic theory remained influential. The situation changed considerably in all respects in the later period. In the 1960s, as a result of the development of the French structuralist movement, attempts were made to restore the dominance of rationalists in modern philosophy. A heavy blow was dealt to empirical attention, but it was all from the psychological. The flourishing of the psychological school of thought gave the best evidence against rational empiricism. According to cognitive science, the philosopher's mind is definitely not a blank slate, and usually the simplest views have an impact on the cognitive functions of a person, and all walks of life become more sophisticated in storing images and retrieving information, and the kind of pure experience or observation envisioned by empiricists is not usable, and the cognitive model or paradigm of people's awareness of external things is decisive in the formation of theories. The new physical criticism rejected the experimental results of empiricism and at the same time provided a corresponding theoretical basis for the revival of rational theory. The soul of empiricism or rationality was grossly neglected and the existence of those unobservable theories facilitated the observation of reality. The most scientific realists opposed empiricism, but many realists also put forward a different viewpoint, in which, in their opinion, the objects of this theory could have effects, even if they were unobservable. The shift in the status of empiricism and rationalism in modern Western philosophy is an inevitable consequence of the development of science.

2.2 Relativism Replaces Monism

Philosophy has become more and more pluralistic as a result of the continuous development of logic, ethics, science, and other fields, and at the same time relativism replaces the original monism. Philosophers no longer believe in eternal, universally valid, unique paradigms, and recognize the rationality of ethics, as opposed to culture, of course, and scientific paradigms and even rules of logic that vary with the times. There is a tendency for philosophers to diversify and take different approaches to theory validation: some find this tolerable, and all of these theories reveal human and historical facts. FEiyeere bending theories, the scientists who make are the inventors of theories and at the same time determine the standard form. In modern Western philosophy, philosophy of ethics and other cultural history put Mena, the character of relativism is gradually removed, and the advocates of multiculturalism will also appear simultaneously or successively different standards and not comparable between them, became a relativist. In modern Western philosophy the more popular moral relativism, as well as cultural relativism does not dominate. Pluralism opposes fixed standards, but also opposes relativism.

2.3 Language Learning for Problems of General Concern

Analytic philosophers tend to believe in the problems of science, and in fact, scientific research can hardly be justified without the problem of language, which is the interpretation of the philosophical problem itself, so that the problems of science can still be reduced to the problem of language as well. The main concern in these areas is usually the difference between formal or everyday language, but there are very different emphases between the two. One type of focus is on the different languages or talking as analyzing and clarifying, such as religion, ethics and scientific lectures in the various branch systems of philosophy. So, philosophy is all about talking about talking, such philosophical language belongs to the second level, which uses meta-language for talking. Object language and meta-language can be given a clear distinction only in artificial or formalized language. Philosophers hold the view that everyday language has many flaws, and that no matter what kind of conversation is going on, it is important to construct more formal language environments than those that are actually used by anyone, and that only in this way can many of the things that come up in the conversation be clarified, including the logical relations of sentences, and the aspect of semantic relations.

In terms of language, the main analytic philosophies popular in Anglo-Saxon countries, structuralism, have been interpreted and popularized in continental Europe, and comparative analyses of these philosophies should focus on analyzing the differences between these philosophies through language, but not only linguistic analysis, but also all phenomena, including social, psychological, and even natural phenomena, should be analyzed as corresponding codes or symbols. All phenomena, including social phenomena, psychological phenomena, and even natural phenomena, should be treated as codes or symbols, or as texts to be analyzed and interpreted rationally.

Expanding the Evolution of the Modern View of Time in Western Philosophy

Abstract Time is a basic and important concept, so the study of the view of time is valuable. This paper mainly analyzes and compares the philosophical expositions on time and time-related concepts by three representative philosophers Bergson, Heidegger, and Derrida in Western modern philosophy, modern philosophy, and contemporary philosophy, to get a glimpse of the view of time since the modern era of Western philosophy, and to grasp the vein of the development of the view of time in Western philosophy and science in a general way. In this paper, some abstract philosophical ideas are explained through analogies and diagrams, which are simple and easy to understand, making a small contribution to the study of the concept of time.

Key Words Time; Stretch; Existence; Divided Extension

Time is closely related to all existence, but it is difficult to define precisely. Thus, the concept of time is a fundamental and important one. Since ancient times, many philosophers and thinkers have thought about time. With the continuous development of philosophy, the problem of time has gradually become the focus of attention of some philosophers. In modern, modern and contemporary Western philosophy, there are some philosophical concepts closely related to time. In this paper, we are going to sort out, elaborate, analyze and compare several philosophical views related to time, to explore the view of time in Western philosophy since modern times, and to reflect on its changes, and not to comment on the correctness or otherwise of these views of time itself for the time being.

I. Three Famous Philosophers' View of Time

1. Stretching and Time - Bergson's View of Time Bergson is the representative philosopher of the non-rationalist philosophy of life in modern Western philosophy. An important concept in Bergson's philosophy is stretches. Stretch is real time, and real time is continuous, a qualitatively continuous and uninterrupted change, which is neither divisible nor measurable. The essence of reality is continuity, and the matter before us is only a "cross-section" of that continuity. Similarly, the true self of man is not a metaphysical self-substance, but also an extension. Because space is divisible, the study of space can be rational. However, for a better grasp of time, intuition should be used. Because rational activity truncates the stretch, whereas intuition can grasp the stretch itself as a whole. A flame burning in the air, whose form changes in time and is different at every moment, is analogous to stretches. If you go with a camera, you can get a photograph of the form of the flame in a moment, but if you compare this photograph with the flame that is burning, you will find that the flame form is different in many details. The flame form in the photograph is produced by cutting off the flame form's continuity, and it loses the nature of continuous burning and surging. So using reason to analyze 'a certain fragment on the stretches is like taking a picture of a flame with a camera, it is futile. If one wants to understand the stretches themselves, it is useless to rely on interception; one can only use intuition. As the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus said, "One cannot step into a river twice at the same time."

2, existence and time - Heidegger's view of time Husserl put forward the phenomenology advocates "suspension of judgment, facing the event itself". The so-called "phenomenon" is the suspension of rational thought, intuitive things themselves appear universal **** phase. Heidegger, on the other hand, thought that the "object itself" after Husserl's phenomenological reduction is still only the "Being" that reveals itself, some of which is the truth, some of which is an illusion, while the "Being" that makes the "Being" reveal itself is the "Being" that reveals itself, and the "Being" that reveals itself is the "Being" that reveals itself. Some are truths, some are illusions, and the "display" that makes the "Being" come to light is more important. This "manifestation" is the "existence" of the "Being" itself, or how the "Being" "exists. "Being". One can recognize and grasp "Being" by using reason and intuition, but one cannot experience "Being" itself. Only the "annoyance" of deep sensibility can reveal "being". This is Heidegger's realization that after applying the principle of phenomenology and "suspending" the concepts of reason and intuition in traditional philosophy, he directly faces the thing itself. It can be said that "Being" is still an object of cognition, while "Being" is not an object of cognition, it is not even an "object", but only a presentation, a process and a state. It is not even an "object" but a presentation, a process and a state. It is not even an "object", but only a process and a state of being. It is a deep emotion that arises from the fact that the "here" feels the "living presence" of itself and of other beings. According to Freudian theory, human mental activity is divided into three parts: conscious, preconscious, and unconscious. Consciousness is only the "tip of the iceberg" of mental activity, and the unconscious is "the whole iceberg except the tip". Rationality is the autonomous activity of the consciousness, intuition is the intuitive feeling of the consciousness which is more fundamental than rationality, and the more fundamental deep emotion "annoyance" is connected with the unconscious. Therefore, "boredom" is closer to the real state of human existence than "thinking" and "intuition". According to Heidegger, "being" is the "presence" of "here", which gives rise to "now". Taking "present" as the demarcation point, "past and future" are also created. These three states of time correspond to the three states of existence of the Here: the cast-off state (past), the sinking state (present), and the surviving state (future). However, "Here" always exists in the "present," while "past and future" exist only in fantasy and imagination, so the three states of existence of "Here" are juxtaposed and intertwined in the "present. Therefore, the three states of existence are juxtaposed and intertwined in the present, and there is no distinction between the three states of existence. Haigdel's view of time:

3. Differential extension and time--Derrida's view of time Derrida, the representative philosopher of contemporary Western deconstructionism, put forward the concept of "differential extension", which transforms the relationship between words and objects from the vertical relationship from energy to reference (proposed by Saussure) to the vertical relationship from energy to reference, and then transforms it into the vertical relationship from energy to reference, and then into the vertical relationship from energy to reference. Derrida, a representative philosopher of contemporary Western deconstructionism, proposed the concept of "decursion", which transforms the relationship between words and objects from a vertical relationship of reference to reference (proposed by Saussure) to a horizontal relationship of reference to reference. The concept of "subjunctive" is the continuous differentiation and deferral from referent to referent in the text, which distinguishes one referent from other referents and refers to a new referent, and since the text cannot create a "referent", it can only create a new "referent" continuously. Since the text cannot create a "referent", it can only keep creating new "referents" to defer the "referent", so the deferral is infinite and the "referent" is never "present". The continuous diffusion of reference is a temporal process. The path of extension of reference is called "trace", and grasping the "trace" is epiphany, but this epiphany is not the real "presence" of the "reference", but only the grasping of the "presence" of the "reference". But this kind of epiphany is not the real "presence" of the "reference", it is only a kind of hazy illusion of "arriving at the reference" produced by grasping the "trace of the trace". This is like a person going somewhere, the road is complicated, and the end point is infinitely far away from the starting point, so the person needs to know not only the road to go, but also how to choose the right road to go, in order to go to the end point, and if the walking time is also infinite, then the person can reach the end point. In the same way, grasping the "trace of the trace" of the extension of the "energy finger" is equivalent to grasping the whole "trace" (though infinite), and produces a sense of "arrival". "sense of arrival", as if the "referent" is already "present". This is like facing an infinite series, although you can find the formula of its general term and calculate the value of any of its digits, which seems to grasp the series, but no matter which digit you calculate, there are still bigger (smaller) digits, and you can't reach the edge of infinity. Thus, there is no end to the trace, and the subject's grasp of the energetic trace of movement is merely an "epiphany". From Derrida's point of view, we can see that not only can the referent be divided into extensions, but also the difference of the referent can be divided into extensions, because the difference of the referent is also a new referent, and thus can be divided into extensions. One's epiphany of "time" is formed by the traces of differences between the different referents, i.e., the difference between two (or more) referents extends to the difference between two (or more) other referents, and this continuous extension forms the traces of differences, and the grasping of the traces of the different differences produces something like an understanding of the dotted line. The grasping of different traces of difference produces something like an epiphany of the point-like "now" (not the ultimate meaning of "now"). However, since the traces are constantly spreading out, as are the traces of difference, the point-like "now" (in the sense of being truly understood) can never be reached, and its "reference" is not an entity. Thus, the point-like "present" is deconstructed, leading to the deconstruction of the "past" and "future", and ultimately to the deconstruction of linearized time. Derrida transforms the "point" into a "trail" of energy that cannot be fully grasped and can only be epiphanized. Since the "time line" is composed of an infinite number of "points in time", the "line" cannot be truly constructed - only infinitely approached, never truly constructed. -It can only be approached infinitely, but never really become. Through the above analysis, we find that Derrida's time is a kind of non-linearized time that cannot be truly understood, but can only be grasped through "epiphany". Derrida's view of time:

Comparison of the views of the three philosophers

1, the essence of life and the essence of existence - Bergson and Heidegger's "differences" (1) Intuition and emotion Bergson tends to use intuition to grasp the stretches, Heidegger tends to use the deep emotion "annoyance" experience of existence. Bergson believes that the essence of life is a kind of continuity, and continuity cannot be analyzed, only intuition can grasp the continuity; Heidegger believes that the essence of existence is "here present", and "here present" produces "now", "now", "now", "now", "now", "now", "now", "now", "now", "now", "now", "now", "now", "now", "now". Heidegger, on the other hand, believes that the essence of existence is "here present", and "here present" produces "now", and "now" produces "time", and that reason and intuition can only grasp the "Being", and that only through the deep emotion of "annoyance" can one grasp the "Being". "Only through deep emotion can one experience "existence", and the essence of existence is time. (2) Characteristics and Sources Bergson focuses on the characteristics of time, while Heidegger focuses on the sources of time. Bergson proposes that time is a continuum, which is to study time as an object, and to study the characteristics and features of time, i.e., what are the characteristics of time. Heidegger, on the other hand, focuses on the relationship between existence and time, arguing that time is the essence of existence, and that time arises from existence ("here present"), and that time has meaning relative to "here present" and is closely linked to "here present". 2. "2. "The Presence of Here" to "The Trail of Difference" - Heidegger to Derrida (1) by "Heidegger believes that "time" is the emergence of the "here" and then the "here". Derrida, on the other hand, believes that what is more fundamental than "being" is "difference", and that it is "difference" that makes "being" and "being" possible. It is only with difference that there is a difference between "being" and "existent", between "here" and "there". Therefore, "difference" is a more fundamental concept than "here" and "being". (2) From "Presence" to "Trace" Heidegger thinks that Being is a state of "presence". Heidegger believes that Being is a state of "presence", and that it is because of "presence" that there is "now", and that presence is a kind of manifestation. Derrida, on the other hand, believes that "presence" is only an illusion, and that the so-called "presence of reference" is only a "trail" that grasps the spreading and dissemination of "energy reference". The so-called "referential presence" is only a "trace" of the spreading and dissemination of "energy". The "trace" is the road to concealment, and the so-called "presence" is the end of the road, but Derrida believes that this road has no end. Thus, the trail is a kind of concealment.

Three important concepts of time in the history of Western philosophy

A brief description of the concepts of time of philosophers in history: the above table shows that the development of the concept of time in the history of philosophy has roughly followed the alternation of objectivized and subjectivized interpretations. The development of the conception resembles a circle that goes back to the beginning but reaches a higher level: from Aristotle to Bergson it is a circle (subjectivity and objectivity are separated), and from Bergson to Derrida it is another circle (subjectivity and objectivity are intertwined), with the second circle being at a higher level than the first. In addition, the view of time in the history of science undergoes a major, subversive change. Time goes from being linear and absolute to being nonlinear and relative; from flowing uniformly to being able to not only contract and expand, but to flow backwards. A comparison of the two tables reveals that philosophical theories and scientific research have come to the largely consistent conclusion of denying the linear-absolute view of time.

Fourth, Conclusion

Philosophy's understanding of time, from the point of view of the three famous philosophers of modern, modern, contemporary, from the life stretches of elaboration of the characteristics of time, transformed into the interpretation of time from the point of view of the existence of time, and ultimately transformed into the traces of the differences in the point of view of the understanding of time, so that as a life stretches of pure time, be This makes the pure time as the extension of life, which is cut into three parts by the "presence of the here", closely related to the three states of existence, and becomes the essence of existence, but ultimately deconstructed completely because of the inability of the here to be present, and becomes the different traces that are differently extended by the different referents. Whereas Heidegger cuts off linear time horizontally, Derrida deconstructs the point of time vertically as a trail of infinitely different extensions that can only be grasped by epiphany. The "now" as a "point" ceases to exist and becomes a "ray". Thus, the macroscopic linear absolute view of time is deconstructed, leaving behind a non-linear, relative, and "absent" view of time that cannot be truly understood by reason.

References

[1] A Brief History of Western Philosophy. A Brief History of Western Philosophy [M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2000.

[2]Zhao Dunhua. A new edition of modern western philosophy [M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2001.