The book "Book of Changes" was formed as early as the beginning of the five thousand years of Chinese history. It has a particularly high status in our traditional culture. 's origin.
"Book of Changes" is the foundation of divination and fortune-telling in the eyes of ancient people. The fortune-telling and divination from ancient times to the present have been developed in accordance with this book. "Book of Changes" is also divided into " Sanyi ": " Lianshan ", "Gui Zang", "Book of Changes"
"Book of Changes" scriptures. It includes two symbols of hexagram and yao, and two kinds of explanatory texts of hexagram and yao, which are used for divination. A total of sixty-four hexagrams and three hundred and eighty-four lines. The content reveals some situations of the ancient society and the thought of the ancients. The concept of yin and yang is put forward, and the principle of change of things is explained, which contains the simple dialectical thought. Later generations have been widely studied and have far-reaching influence.
Many people think that the Book of Changes is a precious book, or even a divine book. Many of the ideas introduced in it are derived from the laws of nature.. When we personally look at this book, we can only see ourselves. Can't see the big picture, so we think it's a divine book. Of course,
also has many opponents who think that the book is too feudal and superstitious in and , and the content is very superstitious and superstitious in . So we can't believe this book, it's all myths and stories.
Our Nobel Prize winner in Physics Mr. Yang Zhenning has publicly expressed his opposition. In his eyes, the Book of Changes has no logic at all, and there is absolutely no need to study it. There are three aspects to his objection:
First, the influence of this book is very large. Since "Book of Changes" comes from the traditional culture of China , it comes from our ancestors. Therefore, many people with feudal and superstitious thoughts are easy to believe in this book.Therefore, this book has influenced the thinking of our entire Chinese nation. Such thinking is not conducive to the development of and modern science.
Second, Chinese , as our language, was also influenced by this book, which directly led to Chinese becoming a monophonic language.
Third, the aesthetics of our people is based on the millennium culture, and this book happens to be the representative of , the traditional Chinese culture, , so it has influenced many Chinese people's aesthetic concepts.
Under the development of modern science, my country's traditional culture has been controversial. Many people think that Chinese culture cannot save China. An obvious example is the century-old history of humiliation in China since modern times. The decadent Qing Dynasty can only be the target of slaughter by and western powers.
On this basis, many people began to deny Chinese culture, and the status of the "Book of Changes" has been declining day by day. Scientists are also full of doubts about this book, believing that this book has no scientific basis at all, is not convincing, and is just what the ancients thought.
In 2004, Beijing Tsinghua University held a cultural summit forum, Ji Xianlin , Yang Zhenning and other representatives of various disciplines attended the forum, they discussed the theme of "globalization and Chinese culture" .
Mr. Yang Zhenning expressed his views on the Book of Changes at this meeting. He believes that the "Book of Changes" is only a summary product, it has brevity and summary, which is equivalent to just a book full of mathematical formulas. The development of our modern science requires a very rigorous deduction process and a very detailed understanding process. These are all conditions that this book does not have. Therefore, the "Book of Changes" has a negative impact on the current scientific development.
What's more, this book has influenced the thinking of generations of Chinese people to a large extent, and it will kill the germ of modern science in the long run.
Looking at the development of and in ancient Chinese culture, we do tend to generalize and summarize. Many technological inventions have no logic at all in the eyes of future generations. The ancients generally did not pay attention to the sequence of scientific development, so in the eyes of later generations, these logics are very chaotic. And science needs our logical thinking . Such development is not acceptable for the establishment of logical thinking. So if we want to go further, we have to let go of something unfavorable.
Many supporters believe that Mr. Yang's speech is very reasonable. We can't stick to history or ancient culture. We need to follow the current development trend, so that we can surpass Western countries and walk in the forefront of the times.
But there are also many opponents who think that Zhenning Yang's speech is extremely irresponsible. I think he is very one-sided in linking the inability of modern science to develop and traditional Chinese culture, but in fact the relationship between these two things is not very obvious.
Master of Yi Xue Zeng Shiqiang once thought: "Book of Changes" is actually a study of the unity of man and nature, the origin of all things in the world, and a classic that future generations cannot surpass.
"Book of Changes" is actually very scientific, but in that era, people could not prove it, each of us lived in one-sidedness and could not perceive the whole picture of the whole world.
For the time being, we will not discuss what is right and what is wrong. The crux of our question is: Why can't modern science develop vigorously in China?
1976 American economist Kenneth Poulding put forward the famous " Needham problem": the development of experience and technology in ancient China far surpassed that of the West, but why is modern science born in the West, while China is far lag behind the West?
In history, we can see that many of the "truths" that once disappeared in the waves of history have gradually been proven to be paradoxes. Therefore, in all the current research, none of us can accurately prove that they are correct, and our knowledge of the universe may not be worth mentioning at all.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-