设万维读者为首页 万维读者网 -- 全球华人的精神家园 广告服务 联系我们 关于万维
 
首  页 新  闻 视  频 博  客 论  坛 分类广告 购  物
搜索>> 发表日志 控制面板 个人相册 给我留言
帮助 退出
 
中国现代哲学家学会  
发现自己的绝对力量,它会震惊世界  
网络日志正文
Two Philosophical Journeys from Descartes: Inward 2025-05-14 11:18:35


Two Philosophical Journeys from Descartes: Inward and Outward, Converging at the Absolute


The history of modern philosophy can be visualized as a grand journey launched by René Descartes—a thinker who, by doubting everything except the thinking subject, established the self as the new anchor of knowledge. From this critical juncture, two major teams—or trajectories—set off in opposite directions: one turned inward, plumbing the depths of consciousness; the other turned outward, exploring the structures of the world. Though they diverged in method and aim, both ultimately seek the same summit: the Absolute.


I. The Inward Path: From Cogito to Consciousness

Descartes' Cogito ergo sum became the seed from which the inward team grew. This team followed the implications of self-certainty into the realms of reason, intuition, and lived experience. They pursued not the content of the world, but the inner condition that makes knowing possible.


- Locke, Berkeley, and Hume—the British empiricists—began by examining the contents of the mind. Locke saw the mind as a blank slate, Berkeley reduced all existence to perception, and Hume deconstructed the very notion of causality and selfhood, showing that the inward journey ends in skepticism or metaphysical dissolution. Yet, in doing so, they exposed the deep fragility and mystery of inner experience.

- Kant responded directly to Hume, taking the inner structures of the mind as the condition for the possibility of experience. The Absolute (Ding an sich) could not be known directly, but its shadow shaped all cognition.

- Fichte radicalized Kant by positing the pure I as the self-positing ground of reality, advancing a dynamic, subjective Absolute.

- Schelling sought to reconcile nature and spirit, proposing that both the subjective and objective arise from a deeper absolute identity, a non-dual source beyond conceptual grasp.

- Hegel, synthesizing all prior movements, developed the dialectic: a logic of self-unfolding Spirit, in which subject and object, thought and being, reconcile at the level of Absolute Knowing.

- In the 20th century, Husserl carried the inward turn into rigorous phenomenology, suspending the world to focus on the pure structures of consciousness.

- Heidegger shifted the focus from consciousness to Being itself, revealing the pre-conceptual field in which entities and thought emerge, an approach gesturing toward the ineffable Absolute.


This inward path culminates in the recognition that even the self, in its highest conceptual articulation, dissolves into a field that cannot be contained in reason or representation—a pre-reflective, absolute ground.


II. The Outward Path: From Extension to System

The second team, equally sparked by Descartes but emphasizing the res extensa (extended substance), turned to the objective, the formal, and the structural. Their aim was not introspective certainty, but the mapping of the world through external systems.


- Spinoza identified God with Nature (Deus sive Natura), making the Absolute a rational, immanent order, knowable through geometric demonstration.

- Leibniz envisioned a world of monads reflecting a divine order—internally complete, but outwardly harmonized.

- The Vienna Circle sought to cleanse philosophy of metaphysics, anchoring knowledge in logical empiricism and the verifiability principle.

- Frege, Russell, and later Wittgenstein (early) turned to logic and language to find the structure of thought and the world. For them, clarity meant objectivity, and objectivity meant outward formalization.

- Popper emphasized falsifiability over verification, grounding knowledge in empirical testability and logical critique—an epistemology of scientific realism.

- Wittgenstein (late) reversed course, but still remained outside the inner path—language games and forms of life replaced the universal with local meaning-practices.

- Derrida, though often miscast, belongs here too—his deconstruction dismantles structures from within, but always attends to the trace, the signifier, the spacing of presence: all elements of externality, even when destabilized.


This outward path sought the Absolute through ever more refined systems: logic, mathematics, language, empirical science, and semiotics. Yet at the edge of each system, paradox, incompleteness, or différance appears—traces of a Whole that no structure can fully represent.


III. The Meeting Point: The Absolute

Despite their divergent routes, both teams inch toward the Absolute:

- The inward path exhausts self-consciousness and discovers the ineffable Whole at the horizon of thought.

- The outward path formalizes reality until its most refined structures break against the unrepresentable—Gödel’s incompleteness, the limits of language, the contingency of signifiers.


At this convergence stands the Absolute—not as an object of knowledge, nor as a coherent self-consciousness, but as the unspeakable Whole from which both interiority and exteriority arise. It is not a product of philosophy, but its ground—unreachable by method, but glimpsed in insight.


IV. Instancology as the Higher Synthesis

Instancology captures this convergence and transcends the historical division by introducing a layered ontology:

- AA (Absolutely Absolute): the Whole that cannot be symbolized or segmented.

- RA (Relatively Absolute): law, logic, life, and mathematics—non-representational but real.

- AR (Absolutely Relative): the natural world and all non-human instances.

- RR (Relatively Relative): the entire domain of human representation, culture, and construction.


Instancology shows that both teams were navigating different aspects of the same layered structure:

- The inward team approached RA and sensed AA through lived, inner transformation.

- The outward team systematized RR and occasionally touched RA, yet always failed to cross into AA.


Only through WuXing (悟性)—direct instance-recognition without representation—can one grasp the whole. Philosophy thus completes itself not in argument or system, but in recognition. The journey, long and divided, finds its end not in reconciliation, but in transcendence.



浏览(1824) (0) 评论(0)
发表评论
我的名片
中国现代哲学家学会
注册日期: 2015-01-10
访问总量: 1,504,602 次
点击查看我的个人资料
Calendar
最新发布
· Why Science Cannot Reach AA —
· Below is a systematic comparis
· 为什么在人类历史上,几乎没有“
· 《范式哲学》对中国思想史与中国
· 国人为什么爱“装”?
· Cognitive Progress as Directio
· 范式体系对哲学的关系,相当于熵
友好链接
· Rabbit:Stinger 的博客
· hare:hare的博客
· bunny2:bunny2的博客
· microsoftbug:microsoftbug的博
· InstanceTV:InstanceTV的博客
分类目录
【Mingcheng】
【心言】
· Free book: The Ontology of Nat
· 同学会会长关于哲学研究的对话(2
· 同学会会长关于哲学研究的对话
· 天下大势
· 爱者共天地
· 死亡万岁 -- 清明节留下的一缕思
· 重发: 哲学之爱从何而来?
· [中哲会]新程序启动说明
· 哲学之爱从何而来?
【电视直播】
· USA-China in Depth (1)
· 《中哲会》TV直播频道
【政治】
· 毛泽东的“民族解放”神话:专制的
· 为什么中国人反驳西方理论的观点
· 台湾立足基础-造原子弹
· 中国人缺乏理性会有什么后果?
· 您愿意选谁作为第一届“网络中华
· 中国未来的社会结构(2)
· 我建议在万维上进行一次中国未来
· 川普现在唯一的愿望是当个“前总
· 范例党党员章程
· 谈中国民运的战略与策略(范例党
【传统文化】
· 国学与西方思想的区别是狗尾与貂
· 必须立刻弹劾川普!
· 没文化的鬼子
· 新年伊始中国“十马奔腾”
· 扯住教皇不放—今天世界哪个国家
· 为什么中国读书人很难摆脱中国文
· 中国人的“感性逻辑”
· 也谈“中国知识分子堕落”
· "现在打中国,输赢无悬念&q
· 说!“你脱,还是不脱?!”
【深山兰】
· 从二例看中国古代的思维方式
【其它】
· 语言与国家:俞兴文明进步论的学
· 胡杰纪录片:无人区画展
· 美国为什么伟大?- 只因为一个充
· 六四用一句话说
· 华人应该如何与西方人交往?(1)
· 中国人”也”是同欧洲人一样的理性
· 万维有太多哲学误导!
· 一月二十号白宫会发生哪一幕?
· 中国问题:文字
· 用事实驳斥中共关于朝鲜战争的谎
【比较政策】
· 阶级分化的复苏
【一般】
· 中国为什么不适合搞民主?
· 伯克利新名言:赢了-就是不认输
· 什么是今日美国社会的根本问题?
· 美国人打输了还是朋友,中国人..
· 川普—你为什么如此愚蠢?!
· 压垮川普的最后一根稻草-乔治亚
· 看来川普...
· 中国对中国人的影响
· 中国文化在哪些方面体现了幼稚?
· 对中国人“批判”的看法 - 兼答金
【远方】
· 介绍一下荒诞论:远方的孤独
【何岸泉】
· 辩证法与放屁(ZT)
【哲学资料】
· 为相对主义辩护
· Instancology for Philosophers-
· Ten American Philosophers
· (1)马克思和恩格思的“唯物主义”
· Phenomenology of Spirit, Chapt
· 德国政府决定:在全球范围对使用
· 为什么人需要哲学?
· ZT:Rights
· Is your pet psychic?
· Twin Telepathy: Is there a ‘Sp
【中军】
· 关于精神的问题
· 思维创新的哲学理解(下)
· 思维创新的哲学理解(上)
· 人生究竟是什么
· 悟性创新的本性及闪失
· 悟性的创新及孩子的例证
· 怎样进行讨论
· 文字、语音、语义与创新
· 哲学研究能干点儿啥
· 中国缺少创新的各种看法
【徒子】
· Why Science Cannot Reach AA —
· Below is a systematic comparis
· 为什么在人类历史上,几乎没有“
· 《范式哲学》对中国思想史与中国
· 国人为什么爱“装”?
· Cognitive Progress as Directio
· 范式体系对哲学的关系,相当于熵
· AA in the History of Philosoph
· Why WuXing Is Not Trainable —
· 《范式哲学》属于谁-万维,中国
【嘎子】
· 关于丘成桐的讲话的评论
· 已经转到嘎子博客
· <二> 原本打算单独写一篇
· 哲学同真理的关系以及辩证法的本
【几子】
· What Will Happen to President
· 随想:可口可乐
· 分形与卦像:漫话混沌,科学,与
· 浅议科学实证主义
存档目录
2026-01-01 - 2026-01-16
2025-12-01 - 2025-12-31
2025-11-01 - 2025-11-30
2025-10-02 - 2025-10-31
2025-09-01 - 2025-09-29
2025-08-03 - 2025-08-28
2025-07-01 - 2025-07-29
2025-06-01 - 2025-06-26
2025-05-01 - 2025-05-30
2025-04-01 - 2025-04-30
2025-03-06 - 2025-03-31
2025-02-04 - 2025-02-17
2025-01-23 - 2025-01-23
2024-11-10 - 2024-11-10
2024-08-21 - 2024-08-21
2024-07-28 - 2024-07-28
2024-05-13 - 2024-05-15
2024-03-13 - 2024-03-18
2024-02-06 - 2024-02-06
2024-01-02 - 2024-01-31
2023-12-22 - 2023-12-31
2023-11-05 - 2023-11-19
2023-10-03 - 2023-10-29
2023-09-08 - 2023-09-25
2023-08-12 - 2023-08-20
2023-07-15 - 2023-07-15
2023-06-12 - 2023-06-12
2023-02-02 - 2023-02-27
2023-01-01 - 2023-01-24
2022-12-06 - 2022-12-31
2022-11-30 - 2022-11-30
2022-09-04 - 2022-09-25
2022-08-01 - 2022-08-22
2022-07-01 - 2022-07-21
2022-06-04 - 2022-06-27
2021-03-01 - 2021-03-26
2021-02-02 - 2021-02-26
2021-01-01 - 2021-01-31
2020-12-16 - 2020-12-26
2020-11-03 - 2020-11-27
2020-10-02 - 2020-10-31
2020-09-03 - 2020-09-21
2020-08-07 - 2020-08-26
2020-07-02 - 2020-07-24
2020-06-06 - 2020-06-08
2020-05-01 - 2020-05-12
2020-04-02 - 2020-04-27
2020-03-01 - 2020-03-31
2020-02-04 - 2020-02-25
2020-01-01 - 2020-01-31
2019-12-01 - 2019-12-29
2019-11-02 - 2019-11-17
2019-10-09 - 2019-10-14
2019-09-01 - 2019-09-08
2019-08-01 - 2019-08-24
2019-07-01 - 2019-07-27
2019-06-01 - 2019-06-30
2019-05-04 - 2019-05-29
2019-04-01 - 2019-04-30
2018-01-01 - 2018-01-02
2016-04-14 - 2016-04-20
2015-07-02 - 2015-07-24
2015-06-02 - 2015-06-28
2015-05-01 - 2015-05-31
2015-04-01 - 2015-04-29
2015-03-01 - 2015-03-26
2015-02-01 - 2015-02-28
2015-01-10 - 2015-01-31
 
关于本站 | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站导航 | 隐私保护
Copyright (C) 1998-2026. Creaders.NET. All Rights Reserved.