加载中…
个人资料
  • 博客等级:
  • 博客积分:
  • 博客访问:
  • 关注人气:
  • 获赠金笔:0支
  • 赠出金笔:0支
  • 荣誉徽章:
正文 字体大小:

Unnecessary.Sophistry(16.The.Absoluteness.And.Relativity.Of.knowledge.2)

(2024-01-17 15:26:07)
分类: 医学通论.医学绝不是诡辩

Unnecessary Sophistry

( 16. The Absoluteness And Relativity 
Of Knowledge .2)



Now, if we look at how this philosophy professor 
flaunts his own understanding of "knowledge", it 
is not difficult to find how despicable the 
indiscriminate use of professional knowledge is !


This philosophy professor first introduced 
Confucius' understanding of "knowledge".

Confucius said:

"What is Knowledge ?
for anything, only when you understand it 
can you say you know it, but if you don't 
understand at all, you shouldn't say you 
know this thing, this is knowledge and this
is the true attitude towards learning.”


This philosophy professor actually used 
Confucius's such words to assert that the 
knowledge of TCM (Traditional Chinese 
Medicine) is not what Confucius called 
"knowledge" !

This guy also listed many intellectuals in 
our history who opposed TCM, such as Yu 
Yue, Lu Xun, and Fu Sinian. 

And then, the guy took it for granted that 
with those intellectuals opposing TCM, it 
is enough to prove his own fallacy, "TCM 
is not knowledge", which is really 
ridiculous !

Now, let's talk about such a kind of his 
nonsenses :


1. Is the knowledge of TCM really not 
knowledge ?

TCM's knowledge is mostly about discussing 
pathologies or symptoms, and such discussions 
have always been based on a large number of 
facts, that is, effective treatment cases.

Now, we can sternly question this philosophy 
professor the following questions:

How can such knowledge of TCM not be what 
Confucius said ?

Even if there is a slight difference between 
such knowledge of TCM and what Confucius 
said, can't our cognition and understandings 
of knowledge develop a bit ? 

Should we only do dead cycles around the 
historical origin? 

Is this really your foundation in philosophy ?

If it's true, almost everyone can become a 
philosophy professor now, right ?


2. Is it so certain that all the words of 
knowledge celebrities are correct ?

At that time, Lu Xun also wanted to abolish 
Chinese characters.

Do we still have to follow him and be fools ?


3. Did the intellectual elites really 
want to completely negate TCM at 
that time ?

And have such guys who ruin TCM 
always been really so straightforward 
and righteous ?


Or let's review history again:



2.1 Lu Xun often used TCM to treat children's 
illnesses privately, and he also advised his 
female relatives and friends to often take some 
"Black chicken and white phoenix pills."

If Lu Xun did not recognize TCM as a form of 
knowledge, would he privately use it to treat 
his relatives and friends ? 

Or, would he recommend them to use TCM for 
health preservation ?


2.2 Yu Yue was not completely denying TCM, 
he was just the first to propose the viewpoint 
that "TCM can be abolished, but trational 
Chinse herbs cannot be completely 
abolished".

Actually, besides studying Chinese Classics, 
he also conducted research on TCM and he 
was able to prescribe to treat diseases.

And even more, he used the method of 
textual research to explore and correct 
the classic Chinese medicine work 
"Huangdi Neijing".

If Yu Yue did not recognize TCM as 
knowledge, would he study it so 
seriously ?


2.3 Fu Sinian did indeed have an extreme 
aversion to TCM, but his effects of anti-TCM 
were far less effective than those of Wang 
Jingwei and Chu Minyi at that time.

Why do you guys never dare to mention the 
bigger contributions made by Wang Jingwei 
and Chu Minyi to such a gang of you guys ?


Perhaps it was because Wang Jingwei had 
previously treated his mother-in-law's serious 
illness effectively with a TCM practitioner, 
which forced him to show mercy to TCM later 
on, which made you such a gang feel very 
angry ?


Or intentionally keeping a distance from 
the men such as Wang Jingwei and Chu 
Minyi in order to make ruining to TCM 
appear some reasonable ?

Actually, since the motives of you such 
guys are so consistent, why pretend to 
keep some  distance ?


So, it can be seen that as long as professional 
knowledge is maliciously utilized, any chaotic 
and bizarre twaddle phrases can be proved 
out seriously !


For example, “TCM is not knowledge.”

In fact, to put it bluntly, as long as someone 
is willing, he has enough reasons to prove 
that his father is not his father !

0

阅读 收藏 喜欢 打印举报/Report
  

新浪BLOG意见反馈留言板 欢迎批评指正

新浪简介 | About Sina | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站律师 | SINA English | 产品答疑

新浪公司 版权所有