Where to find the antidote to the swelling of the soul?

　　Human desire has always been an intangible scholarly topic in the history of thought. In the face of gluttonous greed and inflated desires and unfathomable desires, humanists have given various laxatives or antidotes. However, the obscure and gloomy soul is always in a gray, vague and incomprehensible area, so there are questions and interpretations that are pursued from generation to generation.
　　Since ancient Greece, philosophers have regarded the desire of the soul as a serpent-like evil, so there is a saying of healing walking between reason and passion. As far as this pain point of meta-proposition is concerned, the tension and anxiety between academia and politics is the most intuitive and three-dimensional expression. To a large extent, this inquisition of the mind is bound together with oneself. In fact, the bloody scenes of self-mutilation, slaughter and gladiatorial fights in the dark one after another are the terrifying predicament of the torture of our souls.
　　Mark Lira’s When Intellectuals Meet Politics (hereinafter referred to as “Meetings”, citations are only page numbers) is such a small book that dares to face the minds of intellectuals. It is a continuation of Raymond Aron’s questioning: “Will the intellectuals continue to feel alienated in Europe, still free, so much so that they yearn for this bondage? Deprived of their true faith, will the intellectuals cease to act as In the prophecy of the soul of the great action, but in the secular religion as the confirmation of tyranny, rediscovering itself?” ([French] Raymond Aron: “The Opium of Intellectuals”, translated by Lu Yimin et al, Yilin Publishing House 2012 edition, 282 pages) More than just Europe? In the ill-fated human world, as long as the ghost of the pro-government persists, our inquiry will not and cannot be stopped. Leaving aside whether the translator is “responsible” or “irresponsible” for the author’s intentions and themes, what I see is a text full of worry and anxiety.
　　It should be said that from the point of view of Mark Lira’s carefully selected and representative intellectuals, solving problems with cases should be the style of the book; from his straight-forward intention, the author does have a kind of “unstoppable concern”. Humanistic feelings. It is in this sense that I prefer to see Mark Lira as a humanistic intellectual. Adding the word “humanities” before intellectuals is to distinguish them from literati (intellectuals). In my opinion, there is still a certain distance between humanities and culture.
　　However, while I admire the humanistic courage and responsibility of “Encounter” for self-challenge, there are still some unsatisfactory points. Although there are harsh elements, it is not unpleasant. The author quoted Rousseau and Dickinson’s dictum before the preface, meaning that the focus should be on the “centre” after taking the “personal life” of these subjects as a standpoint, and also draws on the words of Karl Jaspers Expressed his thoughts: “How I wish to beseech them to dedicate their high thoughts to a better power. Only when the sovereign power of the spirit itself has a noble temperament, can the greatness of the spirit be the object of love .” It is not difficult to see that this is the starting point of the author’s idea. For such an idea that readers are full of expectations, it is undoubtedly full of temptation and highlights. Perusing the text, Mark Rilla’s poetic reading in “Originally a Part of Our Soul”: “If our historian really wants to understand ‘intellectual betrayal,’ then the place to look is —Inner world.” (p. 203) As a starting point, this sentence hits the pain point of human beings: Chinese and Western, ancient and modern, culture or history are not the encoding of human “freak”, but human nature is its original gene. It is this “dark consciousness” that “faces up to human sin and depravity”, which laid the foundation stone for human democratic civilization (Zhang Hao: “Dark Consciousness and Democratic Tradition”, Nova Publishing House, 2006 Edition, p. 23) .
　　Of course, from the point of view that raising a problem is more important than solving it, “Encounter” may not be regarded as a flaw in the hurried end of this proposition at the beginning. However, a mental phenomenon that cannot be faced is: why is the difference between good and evil thoughts so difficult to control?
　　You know, Heidegger yearned deeply for “the birth of a new and better world”. He not only took up the post of President of the University of Freiburg under Nazi rule in April 1933, but also secretly denounced his student Edmund Baumgarten.
　　All this, in Mark Lira, is explained as a platonic confession: “Duty begins with lust.” “If lust arises in an uncontrolled person, the soul falls into sensual pleasures, lust for money. Love, intoxication, and madness. Eros is so powerful that it transcends our reason and natural instincts, directs them to their own ends and becomes the tyrant of the soul.” (3 p.) The question is, so to speak, who is “ Moderate people”. Between existence and non-existence, except God, who can define and control himself?
　　On the issue of human nature, the West uses the culture of guilt to deduce the logic of the inherent evil of human nature; China interprets the dimension of human beings through the inherent goodness of human nature. Of course, we can say that it is human’s instinct to be good, and we can also say that it is also human’s instinct to be evil. The greatness of goodness and the greatness of sin occur simultaneously in human daily life. It can be said that the tension between good and evil is a lingering spell in the history of human civilization. Read here, “If there is no evil, what would good be like? If there is no evil, or there is no evil at all, then people have no intention to do good. … Human beings obviously need the existence of evil very much. This existence provides a good subject for the moral and legal system of human beings” ([Austrian] Franz M. Uktitz: Why Does Evil Attract Us So?”, translated by Wan Yi et al., Social Sciences Document Publishing House II 011 edition, pp. 28-29). Having said this inevitability and necessity, the crux of the question is why evil always attracts us first.
　　When it comes to human nature, it is bound to be linked to morality and desire. In Plato, this desire is called Eros. In fact, the relationship between desire and morality is very close, which is determined by the genes of human nature. A fact that cannot be ignored is that morality is neutral in a sense. When the self or the individual feels a clear conscience, morality is undoubtedly noble, but this nobleness is very ambiguous with evil, and even only a step away. History is full of examples of evil deeds done in the name of good. Moral neutrality is also reflected in the fragility, helplessness and even uncertainty of the good. A person’s good deeds or his moral loftiness cannot guarantee smooth sailing in his life and career. “Good will be rewarded with good and evil will be rewarded with evil” is just a prayer with religious feelings. In daily life, there are many examples of good people do not live long and bad people live a hundred years. The fragility of good and the hardness of evil (in fact, evil is also fragile, but relatively speaking, the fragility of evil is not sympathized by others) in tension, we have to ask this question: “Are gentlemen also poor? “From Zilu, a student of Confucius, he began to doubt life and heaven (fairness). For this reason, it is necessary to ask: “Facing vulnerability: Can we still make a good start and a good end?” (Zhang Baoming: “Facing Vulnerability: Can We Still Have a Good Start and a Good End?”, “Dushu” 2021 Issue 3) It should be said , the fragility of this good is closely related to eroticism, coexisting and coexisting. However, we have to further search for the question that is not answered in “Encounter”: why did the original intention of kindness slip into the path of evil unknowingly.

　　Without a deep thinker, it is difficult to get into Mark Lira’s eyes. We know that Martin Heidegger was not alone in becoming the advisor of the Third Reich, but Schmidt, Ernst Jung and others were included. This can’t help but remind us of the “Six Gentlemen of the Chao’an Society” headed by Yan Fu and Liu Shipei when they went from republic to monarchy on the eve of “May Fourth”. Coincidentally, it is not only a conspiracy, but also a helper. Is this correspondence between China and the West in the history of thought just an accidental coincidence? The coupling in the dark actually contains the gene or the seed of inheritance of the common destiny of mankind.
　　It is not difficult to see in “Encounter” that the author emphasizes the intention and intention of the historical sense of mind (mind). Mark Lira cites Plato’s interpretation of this erotic desire as supporting consciousness: some people only experience the expansion and expansion of the desire of the flesh, while others experience the desire to expand the soul more deeply, the desire for beauty and goodness Make them philosophers, poets, artists, or rulers of a city-state. “Everyone is pregnant, both in body and soul.” (p. 196) The metaphor of this image comes from the “Symposium”: it is this erotic desire that is internalized and hidden in the soul ( eros), like a flame burning in the body, activating the deep desires of the soul and bursting out into either philosophical (poet) or political Chilisma-type figures. A series of notable figures from Plato to Walter Benjamin and Michel Foucault are no exception.
　　In the two paths left to develop, there is a more irreversible phenomenon in the end: politics always has an irreversible natural gravitational force on academics. Mark Lira summarizes this spiritual phenomenon as a regular logical sequence of “soul” – “extension” – “return”. Although this refuge is not the return of nine and nine, it is a typical attribution with conservation significance. For philosophers, it seems that political volatility is its ultimate harbor.
　　Judging from the old path of Confucius’s ambition to “Tao”, it is not difficult to find this trajectory. He traveled all over the world for 14 years, with endless life and preaching, telling future generations with his rough mental journey: “Learn to become literary and martial arts, goods and emperor’s family” has always been the greatest appeal and aspiration of intellectuals. From “philosophy king” to “emperor teacher” is the real gorgeous turn and return home in their hearts. On the positive side, this is “deed”, on the negative side, it tends to make intellectuals feel ashamed. When Heidegger returned to the chair with the shameful brand of Nazi headmaster, his colleague’s greeting, “Do you come from Syracuse?” has already swept the master’s Sven out of the house.
　　Indeed, the phenomenon exists, both at home and abroad: “The events of the twentieth century are merely an extreme manifestation of intellectual pro-tyranny thinking, and their roots do not disappear in less extreme political contexts, because they were originally It is a part of our soul.” (p. 203) To be more specific, pro-government thinking is the undercover in our soul, while pro-violence (political) thinking is the helpless conformity mentality that is at work by the situation, dictatorship and even the riot. A peaceful situation or an “extreme situation” can happen at any time. Therefore, under the text that only sees the background but not the bright colors, is this the inevitable fate of intellectuals?
　　It has always been one of the original propositions of academia to unravel the mystery lurking in the minds of intellectuals.
　　In 1917 and 1919, Max Weber delivered two insightful speeches, “Academic as a Career” and “Politics as a Career” respectively. This was later known as “Academic and Politics”. In a sense, this is the epitome and self-taught of his life’s “vocation”, and it is also an explanation of the separation of “academic” and “politics”. The way in which the tension between academics and politics is resolved can not help but recall and trace back to another German philosopher Karl Marx’s epigram from “On Feuerbach’s Theses”: “Philosophers only use different The way to explain the world, and the problem is to change the world.” Indeed, as we have seen, the tension between philosophers and statesmen has always been an unavoidable proposition in the history of thought.
　　Exactly why philosophers or thinkers who have learned the rich five-chariots are self-sufficient in terms of “politics”. This has become an uncompromising big question. At the same time, there is also the question of how politicians choose and measure in the face of “theoretical principles.” It should be said that whether it is a thinker or a politician, once the role is positioned, it cannot easily cross the “thunder pool”, and there are many examples of people in the history of China and foreign countries who have stumbled. Sun Yat-sen shaped the pattern of “thought-belief-action” with modern revolutionary consciousness, overcame the criticism of the weapon with the weapon of criticism, and wanted to ideally lead the Chinese history forward. The naive results of such politicians can only end in the nickname “Sun Cannon”. Politicians need to face reality and do real work. So, do politicians or politicians need a theory that suits them? The answer is yes. From 1911 to the “May Fourth”, from the North-South Peace Conference to the North-South Peace Conference, Yuan Shikai’s status and role have been changing, but his role as a politician has remained the same. As the head of the Republic of China, he is only the “President” in name, but is still the “Emperor” in his bones. Isn’t the problem just in the “dead” mind of the theory? As a result, he could only think that the political inhumanity ended. It seems that there are unavoidable dangers and misunderstandings in the relationship between academia and politics or theory and practice. This is what we call endless confusion. Inhumanity for learning and inhumanity for government both occur in the quagmire and swamp.
　　I did not examine in detail the origin of Li Dazhao’s “Political Commentator and Politician” serialized in the “Jia Yin” daily in 1917, but the article is very powerful in the determination of academic and political people: “Yi Yu In other words, political commentators should exalt their ideals, and politicians should be close to facts; political commentators should focus on words, and politicians should focus on actions. ;The authority of a statesman is to use the power of law to integrate the power of reason, and to improve the status quo. The vision of political commentators is more focused on the future; the vision of politicians is more focused on the present. The doctrine of political commentators is more about progress ;Politicianism is more than order. The responsibility of political commentators is to hang a lofty ideal in the modern national thinking, which is to guide the people and make the air of politics circulate in the realm of new ideals. In order to eliminate its stagnant quality; the responsibility of a statesman is to establish an appropriate policy in accordance with the political reality of modern times, so as to implement it in politics, so that the ideals of the people will gradually become apparent in the actual political situation. , in order to comply with its lively opportunity. Therefore, it is not an exaggeration to be a political commentator, although the purpose and meaning go beyond the facts; while for a statesman, it is not worthwhile to observe the actual situation and study the theory. It is also galloping in the distant ideals, advocating empty mysteries that are difficult to implement, and those politicians who condone the long-term plans that are difficult to implement in the political situation of the moment are almost lost.” (Li Dazhao’s Collected Works, Volume 1, People’s Publishing House, 1984 edition, p. 322) It turns out that both Sun Yat-sen’s “Mysterious Theory of Difficulty” and Yuan Shi-kai’s “non-accurate situational observation and practical consideration of academic principles” may have “two failures”. This embarrassment or dilemma is the real problem of intellectual history.
　　Returning to our original question, it is a bit overwhelming in the face of right and wrong. Going back to Yuandian, both Plato and Confucius have advised us that literate human beings should live a life of moderation. Only in this way can human beings be civilized. The allusion “You came from Syracuse?” comes from Plato, and it also proves the unhappy old master Confucius who traveled around the world.
　　In 368 BC, Plato couldn’t help his temptation and curiosity, and decided to go to the place in Sicily described as “happiness is seen as having two full meals a day, and never sleeping alone at night” to find out: “Young people can understand. Temperance and justice?” It was to give his way of “temperance” and “justice” that he went to this challenging and adventurous strange land. This Philosopher King, like Master Confucius, taught the “Emperor” with the mentality of King’s Landing. However, the dream of being an “Emperor Teacher” and living “Ying Emperor” has been shattered again and again, resulting in the embarrassment and embarrassment of being disgraced and shy, and almost lost his life for this. Neither old Dionysos nor young Dionysos would really like a philosophical lesson plan full of justice. In China, the “daoist” teacher Confucius around 497 B.C.E. had difficulty finding his next family in Lu, Wei, Chen or Qi. A handful of bitter tears. “The gentleman is poor” is the culmination of the wisdom of Confucius’ life, and it is also the fundamental portrayal of Taoism in the world. After all, it is not the privilege or patent of a certain country or region for intellectuals to be “philosopher kings”. Year after year, Confucius traveled around Shidao, and Mencius entertained King Hui of Liang all day long, all of which showed the brooding complex of intellectuals all over the world to “carry goods”. Wang Yangming, a Confucian successor, recited the phrase “it is difficult to break the thief in the heart”. This “thief” is also the thief of desire and the desire to think.

　　Needless to say, exhortation of human temperance is the proper meaning of culture. With regard to moderation, in addition to the awareness of “aspiration” to perform their respective duties, there is also a fundamental principle of standing up – “aspiration to the Tao”. Milosz said: “I don’t want to be a god or a hero. I just want to be a tree that grows for the years and doesn’t hurt anyone.” ([Poland] Czeslaw Milosz: The Imprisoned Mind” , translated by Wu Lan and Yi Lijun, Guangxi Normal University Press, 2013 edition) Trees and trees can stand tall and straight in nature with their own excellence without harming others, but it is difficult for people to be so lucky . It is still possible to be “poor” (only good), but once “reaching” is achieved, it will be difficult to maintain even basic good (evil) self-contained. People play multiple roles in society, and this constant switching of multiple roles will eventually make it difficult for people to distinguish who is the real self and which role he should play under many temptations. A rich mind can also undergo fatal personality fission.
　　According to the interpretation of “Encounter”, if intellectuals – and intellectuals with profound thoughts and noble hearts – have such a common problem, then even if we go into and examine (look) their “within” (inner world) ) still exists as always.
　　Dushan and Zhong are the old routines we set for ourselves. Of course, abide by it and return is a necessary idealization. After all, the humanities are synonymous with moderation. Classical discourses can be found in both Chinese and foreign humanist scholars. Especially in a country like China, which is rich in humanistic traditions, in addition to the teachings of Confucius, the successors of Confucianism such as Mencius, Wang Yangming, Ercheng, and Zhu Xi all have their own words. Wang Yangming’s famous saying “It is easy to break the thief in the mountains, but it is difficult to break the thief in the heart”. The bandit is a tangible existence, and can be solved by intelligence and force in the end, but the invisible thief in the heart is not so easy to eradicate. Anxiety, desire, and hesitation are the thieves of the heart. It can be said: “Everyone has his own set needle, and the root of all transformations is always in the heart.” Where is the “fix needle”? This is the key that human beings have been searching for since the beginning of time. Indeed, finding and cultivating responsible minds or souls is undoubtedly much more difficult than reaching the sky. Of course, moral self-discipline is a necessary element for building human civilization, but these are not enough.
　　Intellectuals want to be “useful people”, this is their destiny, and it will be a great honor for them to become useful people. This is seen in “Encounter”, and it is also a historical fact that is not uncommon in China. If there is Zhuangzi as the “brake” of the brakes in China, then the tradition of civil disobedience represented by Thoreau also reflects this framework without exception. The dilemma of whether to “use” or “not use” has been tearing apart the inner world of intellectuals, much like the torture and torture of the phrase “To be or not to be” in Shakespeare’s plays. A lot of times, I wonder if Lu Xun’s two ways out of the problem of “Nala”‘s departure must be accurate? Is there no choice anymore? Isn’t it cruel to be cornered like this? In fact, the Bewilderment of Syracuse gave me more to think about: either “fall down” and join forces under the anesthesia of “Murthy-Bing” pills, or “return” in uncooperative resentment (“Being The Imprisoned Mind, p. 14). Of course, this fruitless return can sometimes cost lives. Perhaps, there is a humanistic dimension in addition to whether to use or not to use: that is, the “moderate way” of moderation, moderation, and convention can be used as support.
　　For such an almost fatal proposition, whether it is China where man and nature are united or the West where man and nature separate rituals, whether it is the same path of “inner saints and outer kings” or the special return of Caesar and God, they are nothing but idealizations. naive design. Neither Confucius, who died as the “King of Su”, nor Plato, who appealed to the old man to return home as the King of Philosophy, did not get rid of the fragility of this good. You know, literati are not necessarily humanistic. The “unreliability” of intellectuals as the representative of humanistic spirit is strongly corroborated by the six typical intellectuals in Mark Lira’s writings. Based on knowledge, it is an instinctive pursuit of a cultural person to try to extend one’s own wisdom and concept of justice. As a carrier, the more knowledge you have, the less reactionary you are. The key is to learn to be an adult (benevolence), not to be inhumane.
　　Humanistic spirit, to a large extent, is the ideal of benevolence and the realm of perfection. However, people cannot always live in ideals and realms. “Fences are good neighbors” defines the soil and boundaries for the benign growth of human self. When we talk about this civilization and that culture today, what we need most is the soil of the rule of law culture and the civilization of the rule of law world. This is not a question of sympathy and understanding, but to jump out and let the humanities become the powerful cornerstone of building a rule of law civilization. In this regard, Mark Lira has found the weak spots and pain points of intellectuals for us. Faced with this “discovery” in the history of thought, we need to get to the bottom of it: Are you and I today repeating the story of yesterday?