论文部分内容阅读
《中学语文教学》2005年8期刊载李雪麟、康艳梅文章《质疑<人生的境界>》一文,笔者看后,觉得不妥。该文把“境界”和“价值”等同起来,用“冯文的境界说就是它的价值观”一句偷换概念,由此展开立论,是极其错误的。该文强调马克思主义的“唯一”标准,用于证明人生的价值即可,而用来证明人生的境界则不可。且不说“价值”和“境界”在哲学上的含义有别,单看词典里的词条注释,一是体现在商品社会里的必要劳动,一是事物所达到的程度,一是功利的,一是精神的,价值是一种存在,境界是一种认识,二者岂可混为一谈。此外,境界还有更为复杂、高度的认识,也有情感的问题,它不仅是一种概念,而且是一种情操、情趣,它不是解决因果必然性一类的问题,而是要解决自由的问题;不是解决真理认识的问题,而是要解决意义问题。
The article “Chinese Teaching in Middle School” (2005) published an article by Li Xuelin and Kang Yanmei in the article “Questioning the Realm of Life.” After reading this article, the author did not feel right. This article equates “realm” with “value” and uses the phrase “realm of Feng Wen’s realm is its value” to replace the concept. Therefore, it is extremely wrong to develop the argument. The article emphasizes the “sole” criterion of Marxism, which is used to prove the value of life, and the realm used to prove life is not. Not to mention that “value” and “realm” have different philosophical meanings. Look at the lexicon notes in the dictionary. First, the necessary labor embodied in commodity society. First, the extent to which things are achieved, and the first is utilitarian. The first is spiritual, the value is a kind of existence, the realm is a kind of understanding, and the two can be confused. In addition, the realm has more complex, high-level understanding and emotional issues. It is not only a concept, but also a sentiment, a sentiment. It is not a problem that solves the necessity of cause and effect, but it is a problem that solves freedom. It is not to solve the problem of understanding truth, but to solve the problem of meaning.