設萬維讀者為首頁 萬維讀者網 -- 全球華人的精神家園 廣告服務 聯繫我們 關於萬維
 
首  頁 新  聞 視  頻 博  客 論  壇 分類廣告 購  物
搜索>> 發表日誌 控制面板 個人相冊 給我留言
幫助 退出
 
中國現代哲學家學會  
發現自己的絕對力量,它會震驚世界  
網絡日誌正文
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.



瀏覽(1867) (0) 評論(0)
發表評論
我的名片
中國現代哲學家學會
註冊日期: 2015-01-10
訪問總量: 1,586,585 次
點擊查看我的個人資料
Calendar
最新發布
· 為什麼在西方的多數華人愛美元更
· On the Dual Nature of the Abso
· 論“悟性”與“理性”在中西哲學中的
· The AA IS and IS NOT
· Why AA Cannot Be Falsified
· Two armies
· 人為什麼思考人生的意義——絕對在
友好鏈接
· Rabbit:Stinger 的博客
· hare:hare的博客
· bunny2:bunny2的博客
· microsoftbug:microsoftbug的博
· InstanceTV:InstanceTV的博客
分類目錄
【Mingcheng】
【心言】
· Free book: The Ontology of Nat
· 同學會會長關於哲學研究的對話(2
· 同學會會長關於哲學研究的對話
· 天下大勢
· 愛者共天地
· 死亡萬歲 -- 清明節留下的一縷思
· 重發: 哲學之愛從何而來?
· [中哲會]新程序啟動說明
· 哲學之愛從何而來?
【電視直播】
· USA-China in Depth (1)
· 《中哲會》TV直播頻道
【政治】
· 毛澤東的“民族解放”神話:專制的
· 為什麼中國人反駁西方理論的觀點
· 台灣立足基礎-造原子彈
· 中國人缺乏理性會有什麼後果?
· 您願意選誰作為第一屆“網絡中華
· 中國未來的社會結構(2)
· 我建議在萬維上進行一次中國未來
· 川普現在唯一的願望是當個“前總
· 範例黨黨員章程
· 談中國民運的戰略與策略(範例黨
【傳統文化】
· 國學與西方思想的區別是狗尾與貂
· 必須立刻彈劾川普!
· 沒文化的鬼子
· 新年伊始中國“十馬奔騰”
· 扯住教皇不放—今天世界哪個國家
· 為什麼中國讀書人很難擺脫中國文
· 中國人的“感性邏輯”
· 也談“中國知識分子墮落”
· "現在打中國,輸贏無懸念&q
· 說!“你脫,還是不脫?!”
【深山蘭】
· 從二例看中國古代的思維方式
【其它】
· 語言與國家:俞興文明進步論的學
· 胡杰紀錄片:無人區畫展
· 美國為什麼偉大?- 只因為一個充
· 六四用一句話說
· 華人應該如何與西方人交往?(1)
· 中國人”也”是同歐洲人一樣的理性
· 萬維有太多哲學誤導!
· 一月二十號白宮會發生哪一幕?
· 中國問題:文字
· 用事實駁斥中共關於朝鮮戰爭的謊
【比較政策】
· 階級分化的復甦
【一般】
· 中國為什麼不適合搞民主?
· 伯克利新名言:贏了-就是不認輸
· 什麼是今日美國社會的根本問題?
· 美國人打輸了還是朋友,中國人..
· 川普—你為什麼如此愚蠢?!
· 壓垮川普的最後一根稻草-喬治亞
· 看來川普...
· 中國對中國人的影響
· 中國文化在哪些方面體現了幼稚?
· 對中國人“批判”的看法 - 兼答金
【遠方】
· 介紹一下荒誕論:遠方的孤獨
【何岸泉】
· 辯證法與放屁(ZT)
【哲學資料】
· 為相對主義辯護
· Instancology for Philosophers-
· Ten American Philosophers
· (1)馬克思和恩格思的“唯物主義”
· Phenomenology of Spirit, Chapt
· 德國政府決定:在全球範圍對使用
· 為什麼人需要哲學?
· ZT:Rights
· Is your pet psychic?
· Twin Telepathy: Is there a ‘Sp
【中軍】
· 關於精神的問題
· 思維創新的哲學理解(下)
· 思維創新的哲學理解(上)
· 人生究竟是什麼
· 悟性創新的本性及閃失
· 悟性的創新及孩子的例證
· 怎樣進行討論
· 文字、語音、語義與創新
· 哲學研究能幹點兒啥
· 中國缺少創新的各種看法
【徒子】
· 為什麼在西方的多數華人愛美元更
· On the Dual Nature of the Abso
· 論“悟性”與“理性”在中西哲學中的
· The AA IS and IS NOT
· Why AA Cannot Be Falsified
· Two armies
· 人為什麼思考人生的意義——絕對在
· Reason is Inside the Box, RW I
· WuXing Beyond Reason: Why Whol
· 為什麼範式哲學類似哥德爾定理和
【嘎子】
· 關於丘成桐的講話的評論
· 已經轉到嘎子博客
· <二> 原本打算單獨寫一篇
· 哲學同真理的關係以及辯證法的本
【几子】
· What Will Happen to President
· 隨想:可口可樂
· 分形與卦像:漫話混沌,科學,與
· 淺議科學實證主義
存檔目錄
2026-02-02 - 2026-02-24
2026-01-01 - 2026-01-30
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
 
關於本站 | 廣告服務 | 聯繫我們 | 招聘信息 | 網站導航 | 隱私保護
Copyright (C) 1998-2026. Creaders.NET. All Rights Reserved.