Ai-China

著雍摄提格、玄黓困敦，只是你不熟悉的古代的纪年方式：木星纪年里的年份名称。

周威烈王二十三年。 就算对中国历史很熟悉的人，听到这个年份，也会觉得很茫然吧？这一年有什么特别的？《资治通鉴》怎么会从这么不当不正的一个年份开始？ 《资治通鉴》，听名字你就知道，它是一部通史。一部通史该从哪儿开始？搁一般人想，肯定得是个什么元年吧。但这本书编年的开始，是周威烈王二十三年（前 403 年）。 因为《资治通鉴》不是史官的史书，而是政治家的史书。 全书从哪一年开始，是一个很严峻的问题，因为它并不是一个单纯的史学问题，而是一个有着开宗明义之功的古代意识形态问题。 历史从哪里开始 作为一部编年史，《资治通鉴》按照朝代的先后顺序，讲周朝的部分叫《周纪》，讲秦朝的部分叫《秦纪》，然后是《汉纪》、《魏纪》、《晋纪》等等，以《后周纪》结尾，因为后周以后就是宋朝，对于司马光来说就不再是古代史，而是当代史了。 每一个“纪”包含若干卷，比如《周纪》一共 5 卷，第一卷叫《周纪一》，第二卷叫《周纪二》，以此类推。每一卷的开头都会标明本卷内容的起止年份。从朝代选择上看，《资治通鉴》的内容从周朝开始，彻底抛弃了商朝、夏朝和更加久远的三皇五帝，这是为什么呢？ 从史料编纂的角度 ...

In fact, “appearing cheerful and confident” itself is often a symptom of depression. Because outsiders’ severe unprofessional intervention when dealing with depression, once any gloominess or negativity is revealed, it easily attracts a large amount of crude, unhelpful “concern” and “comfort”. Depressed people often acutely sense that the initiators of such “concern” and “comfort” often hold a mentality of “paying to buy peace”. Once the initiator has “shown concern” and “comforted”, but the ...

I have no interest in obtaining anyone's "true philosophy" certification. I find it strange, to put it mildly, that people who profess to love philosophy are enthusiastic about such certifications. A viewpoint is just a viewpoint. If you disagree with it, you can ignore it. If you want to argue against it, you can rebut it. No one cares how you value the viewpoint, let alone the character of the person who said it. Your "true philosophy standards" are not as universally a ...

Philosophers must be wise and experienced, with a deep understanding of life and death, rise and fall. They must have drifted among the sea of people and formed strong rational intuitions about the world. Without this kind of intuition, philosophy is nothing more than a waste of space full of jargon and saintly quotes. Good philosophers are not just good talkers. They are also able to accomplish things, unite people, and take care of themselves in work and life. If the purpose of studying phil ...

Philosophy: Not for the Young or Timid Only after experiencing something firsthand can you truly understand it. History infuses certain things into your soul, guiding your intuition to convey them to the world through your writing. The writer is simply a mouthpiece, and does not actually grasp the full meaning of the words they are writing. Their age is irrelevant. The true soil and nutrients for the seed are those who are meant to hear, remember, and ponder those words. These are the people w ...

Philosophy is a vast and complex subject. It cannot be understood by reading a few introductions, general reviews, or even 100 million characters of text. It is like reading a 500-character Baidu Baike article on Buddhism, Christianity, or Communism and thinking you understand those religions or ideologies. It is also like listening to a high school teacher read from the textbook for 400 characters and thinking you understand the topic. To truly understand philosophy, you must have life exper ...

Philosophy education is inevitably narrow in scope, due to the practical problem of limited time and resources. This narrowness permeates all aspects of the academic community, from your teachers to the editors and translators of the books you read. Even you, the student, are not immune to it. The Western academic community prides itself on freedom, but even here, there is a hierarchy of knowledge. Those who have gone before you have laid the foundations for your education, and you are expecte ...

When it comes to philosophy book lists, there is a tendency to recommend the same ones over and over again. However, it is not the materials that need preparation, but our mentality when approaching them. We should not adopt a mindset of "I'll read this material and then I'll understand philosophy," or "As long as I read enough good materials and get a good score on the test, I've learned philosophy." Rather, we should approach philosophy with a mentality of explo ...

People have a trick where they first emphasize something they think they lack as absolutely critical, then raise the bar for defining that thing infinitely high. Because the bar is set so high, it’s always easy to deduce “I don’t have this thing.” Added with “This thing is absolutely critical, all success depends on it,” what conclusion is reached then? The conclusion is “Don’t expect anything from me, I’m useless,” plus “It’s not my fault that I’m useless.” There are many things this technique ...