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 !