Literary Frontiers (Issue 8)

Author: School of Literature, Capital Normal University | Chief Editor/Origin: Mainland China
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2004-01-01
Features: The academic construction and the origination of originality directly stem from the individual of the academic subject. Below, I will briefly express my views on issues such as the knowledge structure and way of thinking of the academic subject, hoping to play some positive role in the theoretical innovation of contemporary academia.
1. A Harsh Bath for Brain Functions
The true beginning of academic progress and the origination of academic originality, apart from the "spiritual pillar" of the subject, also involve the functions and mechanisms of the brain (including the way of thinking). "Habit becomes nature," and everything (good or bad) becomes "tradition." Parroting others, the back-and-forth transportation of mediocre thoughts, the stagnation of thinking methods, and the false stories of "three people becoming a tiger" make it difficult for the current academic world to stand up straight or engage in dialogue with "problems."
Starting from the aspect of "brain functions and mechanisms," this seems to be a "surgery" mostly performed by Westerners, as they have long emphasized "epistemology." Kant's "transcendental critique" has long been renowned, and the recent work by young scholar Liu Shilin, Transcendental Critique (Shanghai Sanlian Press), serves as a testament to this, though I will omit details here. I would like to reflect on how Western philosophers, after the Renaissance, pioneered the example of Kant, aiming to clear out the "stables of the old world" from the human brain.
Take Bacon's theory of the "Four Idols" ("Four Phantoms"). Bacon believed that all erroneous opinions, prejudices, or phantoms (idols) in the brain fall into four categories:
(1) Idols of the Tribe (Idola Tribus): These are inherent to the human mind, including the concept of final causation (teleology) and the habit of imposing human desires on nature.
(2) Idols of the Cave (Idola Specus): These are unique to individuals, arising from their special personality, education, and social interactions, the books they read, and the authorities they admire, and so on.
(3) Idols of the Marketplace (Idola Fori): These are the most complex, arising from associations between words and names. Words are often used as names for non-existent things or as names for real things, but they are often confused, definitions are vague, and they are hastily derived from things.
(4) Idols of the Theatre (Idola Theatri): These stem from erroneous theories or philosophies, or from distorted patterns of argumentation.
① The Idols of the Tribe and the Idols of the Cave often arise from a person's birth and personality, which is quite natural. Over a long historical period, it has been difficult to overcome these two inherent human illusions. However, the most troublesome ones are the Idols of the Marketplace and the Idols of the Theatre. The former is merely a problem that arises from the human second signal system, or what could be called the "linguistics" and "logics" of daily life; the latter is entirely a matter of theoretical and ideological approaches. The four idols belong to two levels: deep and superficial (the first two belong to the deep level, and the latter two belong to the superficial level). Regardless of which level, they all have practical implications for contemporary academia, especially the latter two. For example, in the early 1980s, there was a discussion about the theory of the three philosophical categories (sensibility—intellect—reason).
The theory of the three philosophical categories was the cornerstone of Kant's transcendental critique and a great contribution and advancement by Kant to philosophy. It broke and clarified the old framework of the two-category theory (sensibility—reason), demonstrating the great victory of subjectivity philosophy. "Intellect" and "reason" are vastly different; the former concerns purely general rules of knowledge, while the latter, based on the former, moves toward metaphysical schemes and the human world (hence Kant also distinguished "reason" into theoretical reason and practical reason, with the latter being superior to the former). By separating "intellect" from traditional "reason," Kant made "transcendental logic" possible (and also made transcendental categories possible). The direct beginning and scheme of human cognition are "sensibility—intellect," not "sensibility—reason." Kant's three-category theory was widely applied by the synthesizer of German classical philosophy, Hegel, which is well-known. Hegel once famously said, "Intellect cannot grasp beauty," a saying that is almost universally cited in Chinese aesthetics. Replacing the two-category theory with the three-category theory is not a profound issue, and it could almost be called common sense. However, the discussion ultimately ended in failure, or one could even say it didn’t even have an "end." It is said that there were two reasons: first, Mao Zedong’s On Practice and On Contradiction did not mention the three categories at all, only the two categories (sensibility—reason); second, the background of the era was precisely the "spiritual pollution." Whether replacing "three" with "two" constitutes "pollution"? "Chasing shadows," "seeing a snake in a cup," and "theological movements" were all mixed together. What kind of fragile academia is this?
This is just one example; there are many other "phantoms." Thus, it is evident that learning from the history of the emergence, development, and turning points of Western epistemology is of great importance to us. Whether it is Kant or Bacon, in times of major transformation in the West, there was a profound spirit and sharp tools that advanced the development of the new era. Yet, in our case, we lack this very aspect.
When the clock of the 21st century struck, people dressed like children in festive attire, set off firecrackers, and cheered the arrival of the "new century"; or they worked through the night to write summary reports of the "great joy" of the previous century. Our ancestors had valuable teachings such as "be vigilant in times of peace," "prepare for rain before it rains," and "be prepared for unforeseen events," but it seems we have long forgotten them! As for the story of Bian Que meeting Cai Huan Gong (a warning), it also has reference value, but it is largely ignored.
Returning to the topic, Bacon’s theory of the "Four Idols" is highly relevant to us. However, when carefully examined, it is far less profound than Kant’s. Kant’s transcendental critique is built upon a common relational structure "sensibility—intellect," where sensibility provides material and intellect (the human brain) provides transcendental categories. Without the former, one is "blind"; without the latter, one is "empty." The immortality of British empiricism and the sanctity of continental rationalism all converge in this relational structure. Kant’s double-edged sword cut off the "antagonism" of both sides (their respective weaknesses and blind spots). Kant targeted the key point of the human brain mechanism. Bacon, two centuries before Kant, could only revolve around the broader scope of the brain mechanism. In reality, the theory of the four idols is essentially a "theory of customs," especially the latter two, and has not yet touched the main components of the brain mechanism.
Nevertheless, Bacon still directed the sword of critique toward the "brain" (brain phantom / brain phantom). This is a profound, introspective self-negation and critique.