The Modern Scientific Community Needs a System Upgrade: Breaking the Medieval Boundaries
将视频脚本翻译成英语，并用英文写一篇文章：现代科学界并没有突破中世纪的观念的边界
与现代政治文明不同，现代科学界并没有突破中世纪的观念的边界，需要一个系统升级。
实际上，学术自由和尊重少数人的观点才真正有利于科学的进步：
D. W. Braben, Scientific Freedom: The Elixir of Civilization, Publisher: WILEY-INTERSCIENCE 2008,
1. Liu, Yue, Wu Wei Governance: A Philosophical Framework for Addressing the Academic Research Crisis and Institutional Gatekeeping (August 30, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5421094 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5421094, Liu, Yue, Wu Wei Governance: A Philosophical Framework for Addressing the Academic Research Crisis and Institutional Gatekeeping, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Gemini：
Upgrading the Scientific Community: Scientific Freedom, Wu Wei Governance, and the Power of Minority Views
When we observe the trajectory of human progress, we often proudly point to the transition from pre-modern societies to modern political civilizations. Modern politics successfully shattered its medieval boundaries by dismantling absolute authority and establishing systems based on human rights and co-governance. However, a closer examination of another pillar of human society reveals a surprising paradox: unlike modern political civilization, the modern scientific community has not truly broken through the boundaries of medieval concepts. It remains trapped in an outdated paradigm of institutional gatekeeping and is in desperate need of a system upgrade.
To claim that modern science harbors “medieval” concepts may sound counterintuitive. Yet, if we look at the ideological and institutional structures of the modern scientific community, striking parallels to medieval scholasticism emerge. Today, the scientific establishment often functions as a new priesthood. It operates within a rigid hierarchy of academic elites, funding agencies, and peer-review systems that frequently suppress highly unorthodox or paradigm-shifting ideas. The boundary of what is “acceptable” to study has merely shifted from theology to strict mainstream consensus, but the boundary itself remains as rigid as a medieval monastery wall.
The fundamental flaw in this modern “medievalism” is the illusion that scientific truth is determined by majority consensus. In reality, freedom and a profound respect for the views of a minority are what truly benefit scientific progress.
Historically, paradigm-shifting discoveries almost never emerge from the established consensus; they are born from the minds of outliers whose ideas initially seem heretical to the majority. This necessity for unconstrained exploration is brilliantly articulated by D. W. Braben in his book, Scientific Freedom: The Elixir of Civilization (2008). Braben argues that the golden age of transformative scientific discovery in the 20th century was driven by radical scientific freedom—the ability of researchers to pursue unconventional, unscripted ideas without stifling bureaucratic oversight. Today, however, the academic system’s obsession with short-term metrics, consensus-driven peer review, and risk-averse funding models acts as a massive institutional gatekeeper. By marginalizing minority views and enforcing conformity, the scientific community is inadvertently choking off the very “elixir” that fuels true civilizational advancement.
Liu, Yue, The Fallacy of Collective Supremacy: How Teamwork Ideology and Student-Centered Education Undermine Scientific Progress (October 27, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5664450 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5664450
If the disease is medieval gatekeeping and the suppression of minority views, what is the cure? The “system upgrade” required for the modern scientific community can be found in the wisdom of ancient philosophy applied to modern institutional design.
As explored in recent scholarship by Yue Liu, titled Wu Wei Governance: A Philosophical Framework for Addressing the Academic Research Crisis and Institutional Gatekeeping (2025), the Daoist concept of “Wu Wei” (non-action or effortless action) provides a powerful antidote to the current crisis. In the context of academic research, Wu Wei governance does not mean doing nothing; rather, it means dismantling the artificial, power-driven interventions that restrict intellectual freedom.
Yue Liu, Why Are Research Findings Supported by Experimental Data with High Probability Often False? --Critical Analysis of the Replication Crisis and Statistical Bias in Scientific Literature, Preprints.org, preprint, 2025, 10.20944/preprints202507.1953.v1
Liu, Yue, The Misapplication of Statistical Methods in Liberal Arts: A Critical Analysis of Academic Publishing Bias Against Theoretical Research (August 01, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5376778 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5376778
Liu, Yue, The Necessity of Error: Why Mistakes Are the Essential Nutrients for Scientific Progress (November 13, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5744422 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5744422
Liu, Yue, The Inevitability and Necessity of Error in Scientific Publishing: Why Publishing Incorrect Articles Is Not Catastrophic (September 15, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5491906 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5491906
Liu, Yue, The Primacy of Problem Formulation in Scientific Inquiry: Why Asking the Right Question Matters more than Experimental Validation (November 06, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5709303 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5709303
Liu, Yue, Problem Formulation as the Primary Engine of Scientific Progress: A Popperian Expansion Inspired by Rafe Champion’s Commentary (November 18, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5784682 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5784682
Currently, the scientific community is obsessed with human-made power structures—micromanaging researchers, forcing them to “publish or perish,” and using institutional gatekeeping to dictate what is worthy of inquiry. This is a low-level, pre-modern approach to order. Wu Wei governance proposes a higher order: stepping back to allow the natural, organic evolution of ideas. It advocates for creating an environment where minority views are not prematurely crushed by the majority’s power structure. By removing over-regulation and ideological gatekeeping, a Wu Wei approach allows the true “Heavenly Dao”—the natural, universal order of scientific discovery—to unfold on its own terms.
Liu, Yue, From Academic Research to Academic Games: How Modern Science Lost its Way (October 31, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5684424 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5684424
Liu, Yue and Liu, Ying, The Illusion of Quality Control: How Peer Review Enables Mediocrity While Suppressing Innovation in Academic Publishing (September 03, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5436920 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5436920, Liu, Yue and Liu, Ying, The Illusion of Quality Control: How Peer Review Enables Mediocrity While Suppressing Innovation in Academic Publishing, Sep 03, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, The Academic Publishing Mythology: When Quality Control Becomes Quality Obstruction (September 12, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5478626 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5478626
Liu, Yue, Major Scientific Breakthroughs Are Not Born From Journals: A Direct Examination of AI, Microchips, and the Myth of “Gradual Academic Progress” (November 08, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5720702 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5720702
Liu, Yue, The Hypothetical Elimination of Science and Nature Journals: Assessing Scientific Progress and Innovation 销毁Science和Nature期刊上的全部论文，对世界科技会带来什么样的影响？, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, Why Has Physics Come to a Standstill? The Case of Microwave Absorption Theory and the State of Scientific Progress, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Respecting minority views is not merely a gesture of academic tolerance; it is an epistemological necessity. The universe does not yield its secrets to human hierarchies or democratic votes; it yields to those who have the freedom to ask the right questions, regardless of how unpopular those questions may be at the time.
In conclusion, the modern scientific community urgently needs a philosophical awakening. It must realize that its current obsession with consensus, rigid peer-review gatekeeping, and bureaucratic control is a remnant of pre-modern, medieval power worship. To truly cross the threshold into a modern scientific enlightenment, the community must embrace D. W. Braben’s call for scientific freedom and implement Yue Liu’s framework of Wu Wei Governance. Only by dismantling these artificial boundaries and fiercely protecting the freedom of minority views can science fulfill its ultimate promise: the unbounded exploration of the natural and universal order.
Part 1: English Translation of the Video Script
(视频脚本英文翻译)
I used to work in the media industry. There weren’t many perks, except that I got to meet a lot of people—from high-ranking officials and elites down to miners and migrant workers.
After meeting so many people, I made a strong personal observation: no matter the social circle or industry, the people who succeed—well, “succeed” might not be the best word; let’s say people who manage to achieve something—are mostly of one type. They are the ones who actively break boundaries.
Looking at the rest of us, the majority are trapped in an artificially designed game of “striving to be superior to others.” We dutifully obey, struggle to climb upward, exhausting our intelligence and the lives of generation after generation, yet rarely questioning whether there is another world beyond the boundaries of this pursuit.
S. Vazire, A toast to the error detectors, Nature 2020 Vol. 577 Issue 7788 Pages 9. Accession Number: 31889172 DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-03909-2
“Last month, I got a private Twitter message from a postdoc bruised by the clash between science as it is and how it should be. He had published a commentary in which he pointed out errors in a famous researcher’s paper. The critique was accurate, important and measured — a service to his field. But it caused him problems: his adviser told him that publishing the criticism had crossed a line, and he should never do it again.“
“some scientists wondered how a questionable line of research persisted for so long … experts were just too timid to take a stand.”
Harvard calls for retraction of dozens of studies by noted cardiologist, New York Times, 16 Oct 2018
“How did the research community not spot these issues before? And, what does it say that when these issues are pointed out, most of the community offers no counterarguments, but just ignores the problem (the head-in-the-sand response).“
Does that world beyond the boundaries actually exist? What exactly is it?
We Chinese love to say things like “defy heaven and change one’s fate” (逆天改命), “the mandate of heaven cannot be defied” (天命不可违), and “heaven’s secrets must not be revealed” (天机不可泄露). But what exactly is this “Heaven”?
Today we are going to talk about this issue. It might be a bit dry and wordy, so if you don’t like it, you can leave now. Actually, even today, I believe the “Heaven” that Chinese people believe in is still just a power structure.
In a previous video, I talked about the limitations of the movie Nezha and was scolded by many netizens. They felt I was questioning their faith, and I even took down several videos because of it. Now that the hype has died down, let’s think about it calmly: What represents “Heaven” in the movie Nezha? It is still the power structure built by celestial beings and humans. What the protagonist challenges isn’t even the structure itself, but merely the power structure’s categorization of himself, right?
Its values are still on the same level as most of our ancient literature. It does not question the power structure or seek to overturn the entire system; rather, it seeks validation from that structure. He wants to transform from an evil demon king into an awe-inspiring great deity. This actually contradicts the rebellious spirit against the patriarchal and authoritative order seen in the true folk tale of Nezha, where he cuts off his flesh and bones to return them to his parents.
So I previously mentioned that Nezha is essentially a movie made by the new middle class. The newly wealthy middle class, unable to get validation from the old order, wants to fight their way into the Heavenly Court to gain recognition from the core order, even hoping to join the core of power. But what is the problem? The problem is that in their eyes, the lower-class commoners still don’t exist. The people of Chentang Pass remain a faceless crowd, destined to be sacrificed as the story progresses.
Therefore, Nezha is a very deceptive example. He says, “My fate is up to me, not Heaven,” but this “Heaven” is still just a power structure. He isn’t rebelling against the hierarchical structure itself; he is saying, “I was supposed to be at the top. If you don’t recognize me, I’ll grab it back myself.”
This concept of “Heaven” as a power structure is still a construct born from dividing people into different social classes. And dividing people into classes is a relatively primitive, early, and low-level worldview.
Many of us think we are modern people, standing on the moral high ground, using smartphones, swiping through short videos, and enjoying the convenience of globalization. But deep down in our minds, many of us likely still live under a very ancient sky. It is fundamentally no different from the “Heaven” before the 1911 Xinhai Revolution, or even the “Heaven” when the Qin Dynasty unified the world.
That’s why you often hear people say we are still a pre-modern society that hasn’t crossed the threshold of modernity. “Pre-modern” is a bit abstract and hard to grasp, right? Understand it this way: it is the worship of power. Conceptually, we believe in the exact same “Heaven” as people did during the era of imperial rule, the era of masters and slaves!
Many people’s mindsets are truly stuck in this pre-modern era. But outside of this “Heaven” constructed by power, is there a true Heaven? Of course there is. It is the world order, the natural order, the universal order. The “Heaven” shaped like a power pyramid constructed by humans is actually a lower-level, even false order operating beneath all these true orders.
But the problem is, in our pre-modern consciousness, we aren’t actually interested in the natural or universal order. Our only interest in nature is whether it can be used by us—whether I can exploit it to become a superior person within the isomorphic power order of the human world.
Let’s trace this back to the source. The origin of this power order dates back to the Axial Age. There was a miraculous era in human history called the Axial Age. Several major civilization regions around the world simultaneously entered a period of ideological explosion. China saw Confucius, Laozi, and the Hundred Schools of Thought; India saw Shakyamuni; Greece saw Socrates and Plato; and the Jewish tradition saw the emergence of prophetic thought. They all emerged within a concentrated period of about three to four hundred years.
That era feels almost as if the “screenwriter” of history used a cheat code. It’s as if they thought, “You humans are developing too slowly and have been in ignorance for too long,” so they intervened, dropping a seed in different places at the same time to observe their different ways of growing. That’s a joke, of course, but the Axial Age is indeed crucial.
When you read history, have you noticed that before the Axial Age, the ruling structure, state order, ruling ethics, and even worldviews and values on this land belonged to a completely different system? It was only after the Axial Age that the great unification of the Qin Dynasty occurred, leading to the imperial era that lasted for 2,000 years.
During the Axial Age here, a hundred schools of thought contended and bloomed. Various schools emerged and debated publicly. It felt like civilization was searching for a direction, testing different paths. Confucianism offered an ethical order; Legalism offered a ruling technology; Mohism offered public ethics based on equality; Daoism offered a worldview and cosmology, believing that above the human order lies the Heavenly Dao (the Way of Heaven).
And what happened next? By the time of the Han and Wei dynasties, we made our choice: Confucianism. We exclusively revered Confucianism, making it the orthodox ideology of the empire. We can’t simply say this choice was right or wrong. It allowed China to form a powerful, unified state and a stable ruling structure that lasted over two millennia—that is its achievement.
But at the same time, we paid a massive price: we lost the possibility of self-renewal. Modern science, technology, and the Enlightenment could never have happened here. Simply put, our achievements and our poverty are both derived from this choice.
Comparatively speaking, Daoism’s elaboration on worldview and cosmology is much more universal. But it was hard for it to become a strong ruling ideology because Daoism emphasizes respecting the Heavenly Dao that exists above humans, pursuing “wu-wei” (non-action) and true freedom as its ultimate goals. This led the ruling system at the time to abandon it; they were never going to choose it.
Yet, even today, Daoism still has strong vitality, right? It continues uninterrupted. Why? Perhaps because Daoism preserved an untraveled path in Chinese civilization. Perhaps it holds the keys and codes that a higher order wanted us to know. But we didn’t understand it back then. We plunged headfirst into the power game of people managing people, people fighting people, and people oppressing people, busy building our short-sighted utopias.
Going back to the Confucianism we chose: its core is the construction of a moral order, taking morality as the ultimate value. But today, this generates a lot of controversy. It’s not simply a matter of right or wrong, but rather a major problem with its adaptability to modern society.
For example, in the past, we Chinese believed that filial piety was an unquestionable, absolute morality, a foundational constraint in moral logic, almost akin to the Heavenly Dao. But today, we realize that’s not the case, right? Beyond this, there are more fundamental things: human nature, constraints from modes of production and relations of production, and issues regarding the boundaries of individual rights. If we can’t see these and merely discuss an absolute morality, it becomes rigid dogmatism. If it still forbids questioning, forbids inquiry, and refuses to undergo a system upgrade, it becomes a mental shackle, right?
If filial piety isn’t the unquestionable “Heaven” within the logic of family ethics, what is? Look at Western culture—it developed a concept called “love.” We have an isomorphic structure of family and state; they have the influence of religion on the secular world. They believe God’s love for all people is equal, so family structures must also be based on love, rather than forced structural binding. This is a difference between China and the West.
Of course, love might not be the ultimate answer, because love can also turn into control, possession, and extortion. But for now, as the core of an ethical order, love is clearly closer to the origins of human nature than filial piety. Filial piety is a posture required by a status position; love is a natural feeling from one natural person to another.
As a civilization system updates and upgrades, it must constantly scrutinize seemingly sacred words—words like the Mandate of Heaven, filial piety, loyalty, and sacrificing for the bigger picture. These words all served their historical purposes, but they cannot masquerade as the highest order or the original order, right?
Besides the cultural difference regarding filial piety, another difference between Chinese and Western cultures is that Chinese culture focuses on the present world, applying what is learned to practical use, while Western culture emphasizes speculation, values transcendence, and seeks knowledge for the sake of knowing. This difference actually began to show signs during the Axial Age and has continued to this day, deeply etched into our respective cultural genes.
Let’s reel it back to our earlier theme: what exactly is the Chinese people’s “Heaven”? Is it still the power structure? Worshiping power, kneeling before power? We are a society that deeply worships power. Most of our social relationships are still rooted in power worship and its derivatives.
But the era where the emperor was supreme has passed. The era of humans enslaving and ruling over other humans has also passed—or rather, it should have passed. What is the more ideal state of modern civilization? It is co-governance. People form a kind of co-governance through contracts, rules, and public life. Its purpose is no longer to support a royal family, nor to keep a few people sitting at the top forever, but to allow everyone to live as well as possible, to live with dignity, to use their intelligence, and to truly explore the world order, the natural order, and the universal order.
If we look at this goal, the concepts in many of our minds are certainly incompatible. Our ancient civilization absolutely needs a massive system upgrade, a major update.
But this topic is too broad. To be more specific, it actually relates to each of us. We can start by asking ourselves: are those rules I consider unquestionable, undebatable, and inviolable really truths? Have they been verified multiple times, or are they just passed down by word of mouth with no evidence? Are they truly the order of the Heavenly Dao, or artificially set boundaries? Or perhaps even a cage custom-made for me?
For instance, “people should not harm each other.” This is actually a type of Heavenly Dao order that many people can’t comprehend. Some people even rank this rule behind trivial etiquette like “the fish head must point toward the water” (a dining rule)—which is quite baffling, right? Life isn’t easy. If you confine yourself to low-level settings, this game won’t be fun to play, right?
What we truly need to follow is fundamental logic, or the order of the Heavenly Dao. As for those man-made shackles, man-made hierarchies, man-made fears, and those explicit or implicit hints that “you can only live this way,” I think the sooner we eradicate them from our minds, the better.
In this era of confused values, an era with a severe split between the pre-modern and the modern, identifying the false “Heaven” and moving toward the true “Heaven” might just be our shared generational destiny.
00:00:00:03 - 00:00:04:02
我以前是做媒体行业的啊 没别的好处 就是见的人
00:00:04:02 - 00:00:07:22
多 上到达官贵人 下到矿工、农民工
00:00:08:02 - 00:00:11:07
见的人多了之后呢 我有一个强烈的个人观察
00:00:11:16 - 00:00:17:08
就是不管在哪个圈层 哪个行业 能成功的人 成功这个词不太好
00:00:17:12 - 00:00:21:21
我们换个词就是能有所成就的人大多是一类人
00:00:22:01 - 00:00:25:15
就是能主动打破边界的人 反观自己
00:00:25:15 - 00:00:29:07
而反观我们 大多数都在一个人为设计出来的
00:00:29:07 - 00:00:34:16
争当人上人的游戏中 尽职尽责的听话 努力向上攀爬
00:00:34:24 - 00:00:39:07
耗费了自己的聪明才智 耗费了一代又一代人的生命
00:00:39:11 - 00:00:42:28
而很少会去叩问一件事的边界之外
00:00:43:07 - 00:00:47:17
是否还有其他天地 那边界之外的天地到底有没有呢？
00:00:47:18 - 00:00:48:18
它又是什么呢？
00:00:48:18 - 00:00:54:07
我们中国人喜欢说逆天改命 天命不可违 天机不可泄露之类的啊！
00:00:54:17 - 00:00:57:01
那这个天到底是什么呢？
00:00:57:01 - 00:01:00:00
今天我们就聊聊这个问题啊 就想在哪儿聊的呢？
00:01:00:00 - 00:01:03:08
可能比较枯燥 比较啰嗦 不喜欢的朋友现在就可以走了
00:01:03:14 - 00:01:08:26
其实一直到今天 我觉得中国人相信的天还是权力结构
00:01:09:04 - 00:01:13:15
我之前视频中说电影哪咤的局限性 被很多网友骂
00:01:13:15 - 00:01:17:13
觉得我质疑了他们的信仰 我还为这个下调了好几条视频
00:01:17:25 - 00:01:21:00
那今天热度过去了 我们再冷静的想一想
00:01:21:10 - 00:01:24:10
电影哪咤里代表天的是什么？
00:01:24:22 - 00:01:28:06
其实还是天人们构建的这个权力
00:01:28:06 - 00:01:31:16
结构 它挑战的甚至都不是这种结构本身
00:01:31:26 - 00:01:34:27
仅仅是权力结构对自己的认定 对吧？
00:01:35:12 - 00:01:38:07
它的价值观和我们大部分的这个古代文学
00:01:38:07 - 00:01:42:27
仍然处在一个水平线上 就是它并不是质疑权力结构
00:01:43:02 - 00:01:47:15
或者想掀翻整个结构 而是追求得到结构的肯定
00:01:47:23 - 00:01:51:25
想要从邪恶魔王摇身变成威风凛凛的大神
00:01:52:07 - 00:01:56:25
这跟真正的民间的这个哪咤故事中血肉海姆剔骨回复
00:01:56:25 - 00:02:01:15
这种对父权秩序命令秩序的反叛精神其实是相悖的
00:02:01:28 - 00:02:04:22
所以之前我说哪咤其实是一个
00:02:04:22 - 00:02:09:20
有点像是一个新中产拍的电影啊 就中产新贵啊 得不到旧秩序的肯定
00:02:10:00 - 00:02:15:27
想要打上天庭 得到核心秩序的承认 甚至想跻身权力核心之内
00:02:16:12 - 00:02:17:12
但是问题是什么呢？
00:02:17:12 - 00:02:22:11
问题是他们的眼里仍然是没有底层百姓的 陈昂的百姓
00:02:22:11 - 00:02:25:11
仍然是面目模糊的一群人
00:02:25:14 - 00:02:28:14
注定会在故事的推进中被牺牲掉
00:02:28:24 - 00:02:33:02
所以 哪咤是一个很有迷惑性的例子 他说我命
00:02:33:02 - 00:02:36:19
有我不由天 这个天还是权力结构
00:02:36:29 - 00:02:40:22
他反抗的不是等级结构本身 他反抗的是
00:02:40:22 - 00:02:44:20
我 本应该在上面 你不认我就要自己抢回来
00:02:44:28 - 00:02:48:13
这种作为权力结构的天 还是一种人分
00:02:48:13 - 00:02:52:24
三六九等构造出来的东西 而人分三六九等
00:02:52:24 - 00:02:57:03
是一种比较初期、比较原始、比较低等级的世界观
00:02:57:04 - 00:03:00:18
我们很多人以为自己是现代人 所以制高点用着手机
00:03:00:18 - 00:03:03:18
刷着短视频 享受着全球化带来的便利
00:03:03:23 - 00:03:06:10
但其实在观念深处 在很多人的脑子里
00:03:06:10 - 00:03:10:04
我们很可能仍然生活在一片很古老的天空下
00:03:10:11 - 00:03:17:23
和1911年辛亥革命之前的那个天 甚至和秦王朝一统天下时的那个天没有本质区别
00:03:18:03 - 00:03:21:09
所以经常看到有人说我们仍然是一个前现代社会
00:03:21:18 - 00:03:24:10
没有迈过现代性的门槛
00:03:24:10 - 00:03:27:10
这个前现代啊 有点抽象 不太好理解 对吗？
00:03:27:19 - 00:03:30:10
那就是这样理解的啊 就是崇拜权力
00:03:30:10 - 00:03:33:10
在观念上 我们和帝王统治时代
00:03:33:15 - 00:03:37:23
和还在奉奴才主子的时代 信的是一个天啊！
00:03:37:24 - 00:03:40:24
很多人的观念真的是停在了这个前现代
00:03:40:28 - 00:03:44:23
这种权力构造出来的天之外 那有真正的天吗？
00:03:45:05 - 00:03:48:09
当然有啊 就是世界秩序、自然秩序、宇宙
00:03:48:09 - 00:03:52:02
秩序 把人构造出来的这种权力金字塔的天
00:03:52:10 - 00:03:57:27
其实是这一切秩序之下的一种低等级秩序 甚至是虚假秩序
00:03:58:06 - 00:04:00:28
可问题是 在前现代意识中
00:04:00:28 - 00:04:03:28
我们其实对自然秩序和宇宙秩序不感兴趣
00:04:04:00 - 00:04:07:22
我们对自然的唯一兴趣就是能否为我所用
00:04:07:23 - 00:04:13:07
让我利用 让我在人间同构的这种权力秩序中成为人上人
00:04:13:19 - 00:04:17:29
那我们再溯源一下啊 就这种权力秩序的源头
00:04:18:00 - 00:04:23:26
我们上溯到轴心时代 而人类历史上有一个很神奇的时代叫轴心时代
00:04:24:05 - 00:04:29:08
全世界几个主要文明区域竟然同时进入了一个思想爆发期
00:04:29:17 - 00:04:32:29
中国出现了孔子、老子百家争鸣 印度出现了
00:04:32:29 - 00:04:36:01
释迦牟尼 希腊出现了苏格拉底、柏拉图
00:04:36:09 - 00:04:40:14
犹太传统里出现了先知思想 那他们大概是在前后
00:04:40:14 - 00:04:43:14
不过三、400年的时间里集中涌现出来的
00:04:43:22 - 00:04:47:25
那个时代啊 就感觉很像是这个编剧开了一下金手指啊
00:04:47:25 - 00:04:53:00
就觉得你们人类发展太慢了 蒙昧状态太久了 就出手点化了一下
00:04:53:06 - 00:04:58:00
同时在各个地方丢了一颗种子 观察他们不同的生长方式
00:04:58:14 - 00:05:01:22
当然这是开玩笑啊 但是轴心时代确实很重要
00:05:02:00 - 00:05:06:02
大家读历史的时候有没有发现 其实在轴心时代之前
00:05:06:10 - 00:05:10:19
我们这片土地上的统治结构、家国秩序、统治
00:05:10:19 - 00:05:14:16
伦理 甚至世界观、价值观都是完全不同的一套系统
00:05:14:24 - 00:05:18:26
是轴心时代之后 才有了秦王朝的大一统
00:05:19:03 - 00:05:22:09
才有了后世绵延2000年的帝国时代
00:05:22:20 - 00:05:25:15
那轴心时代在我们这儿啊 是百家争鸣
00:05:25:15 - 00:05:29:02
百花齐放 各种学派出现 可以公开辩论
00:05:29:20 - 00:05:33:27
感觉是文明在寻找方向 就是在搞测试啊 测试道路
00:05:34:10 - 00:05:38:27
那儒家给出一套伦理秩序 法家给出一套统治技术
00:05:39:09 - 00:05:45:02
墨家给出了一套平等观的公共伦理 道家给出一个世界观和宇宙观
00:05:45:21 - 00:05:48:12
他认为人间秩序之上还有天道
00:05:48:12 - 00:05:49:09
那再后来呢？
00:05:49:09 - 00:05:52:24
到了汉魏之际 我们定下来了 就是儒家
00:05:53:03 - 00:05:57:00
独尊儒术 儒家成为帝国的正统意识形态
00:05:57:09 - 00:06:02:27
这个选择不能简单的说对或者是说错 因为中国形成一个强大的大一统
00:06:02:27 - 00:06:07:22
国家 形成稳定的统治结构 绵延两千多年 这是它的成绩
00:06:08:01 - 00:06:12:02
但是同时我们也为它付出了很大的代价
00:06:12:02 - 00:06:15:04
就是失去了自我更新的可能性
00:06:15:16 - 00:06:19:05
近现代科技和启蒙都不可能发生在这里
00:06:19:15 - 00:06:25:13
简而言之 我们的成就和贫穷都是拜其所肆意提炼
00:06:25:28 - 00:06:29:25
其实相比较而言 道家在世界观和宇宙观的
00:06:29:25 - 00:06:32:25
这个阐述上是更加具有世界性的
00:06:32:25 - 00:06:36:16
但它很难成为强有力的统治意识形态
00:06:36:23 - 00:06:39:28
因为道家强调尊重人之上那个天道的存在
00:06:40:06 - 00:06:43:06
它以无为和逍遥为最终追求
00:06:43:14 - 00:06:46:28
这导致当时的统治系统就放弃了它 压根就不会选择它
00:06:47:12 - 00:06:50:20
但是直到今天 道家仍然有着很强的生命力 对吧？
00:06:50:28 - 00:06:52:19
仍然绵延不绝
00:06:52:19 - 00:06:53:14
为什么呢？
00:06:53:14 - 00:06:57:18
也许正因为道家保存了中国文明里另一条
00:06:57:18 - 00:07:02:13
没有走完的路 也许它是更高秩序想让我们知道的钥匙和密码
00:07:02:19 - 00:07:04:22
但是我们当时呢 没听懂
00:07:04:22 - 00:07:08:21
我们一头扎进了人管人、人斗人、人压人的这种权力
00:07:08:21 - 00:07:12:13
游戏中去了 忙着去搭建自己的短视乌托邦 去了
00:07:13:04 - 00:07:15:07
回到说我们选择的儒家呢？
00:07:15:07 - 00:07:20:05
儒家的核心是一种道德秩序的构建 以道德为终极价值
00:07:20:14 - 00:07:23:12
但是到今天产生了很多争议 其实不是简单的
00:07:23:12 - 00:07:27:12
对错 而是与现代社会的适配度出了大问题
00:07:27:17 - 00:07:33:14
比如说 过去我们中国人认为孝顺简直是一种不可置疑的绝对道德
00:07:33:18 - 00:07:38:25
认为它是一种道德逻辑上的底层约束 是近乎于天道的一种存在
00:07:39:05 - 00:07:42:05
但是到了今天 我们发现不是的 对吧？
00:07:42:08 - 00:07:46:08
在这个东西之外 还有更底层的东西 还有人性
00:07:46:08 - 00:07:51:18
还有生产力模式和生产关系结构的限制 还有个体权利的边界问题
00:07:51:27 - 00:07:56:20
看不到这些 单纯讨论一种绝对道德就成了僵化的教条主义
00:07:56:29 - 00:08:00:21
如果还不许质疑、不许追问 拒绝去给它做系统升级
00:08:01:00 - 00:08:04:00
那它就会变成一种思维枷锁 对吧？
00:08:04:00 - 00:08:06:27
那如果说孝顺并不是亲情伦理这套
00:08:06:27 - 00:08:09:27
逻辑中的不可质疑的那个天 那是什么呢？
00:08:09:29 - 00:08:11:05
西方人的文化呢？
00:08:11:05 - 00:08:13:14
就生长出一种描述 叫爱
00:08:13:14 - 00:08:16:15
我们是家国同构 他们是宗教对世俗的影响
00:08:17:00 - 00:08:21:16
他们认为天赋对众人的爱是平等的 那么家庭结构中也要讲爱
00:08:21:16 - 00:08:25:18
而不是强行的秩序捆绑 这就是中西的一种差异啊
00:08:25:18 - 00:08:29:00
当然 爱也不一定是终极答案 因为爱
00:08:29:00 - 00:08:32:00
也可能变成控制 变成占有 变成勒索
00:08:32:10 - 00:08:36:04
但目前看 爱作为一种伦理秩序的核心
00:08:36:04 - 00:08:39:09
显然比孝道更接近人性本源一些
00:08:39:25 - 00:08:42:25
孝顺是一个身份位置必须有的姿态
00:08:42:27 - 00:08:45:27
爱 是一个自然人对另外一个自然人
00:08:46:13 - 00:08:49:26
文明系统在更新升级的过程中 就是要对一些
00:08:49:26 - 00:08:54:18
看似神圣的词不断的去审视 比如天命 比如孝顺
00:08:54:28 - 00:09:00:03
比如忠诚 比如顾全大局 这些词都有它们的历史阶段性作用
00:09:00:04 - 00:09:04:07
但它不能冒充最高秩序 冒充本源秩序 对吧？
00:09:04:18 - 00:09:09:16
除去孝顺这种文化 中西文化的差异表现 还有中国文化中
00:09:09:16 - 00:09:13:15
现世上市公司学以致用 而西方文化
00:09:13:15 - 00:09:16:15
重思辨 上超越 学以致知
00:09:16:17 - 00:09:20:02
这种差异其实从轴心时代初现端倪
00:09:20:07 - 00:09:24:08
一直延续到今天 都深深刻在了各自的文化基因中
00:09:24:18 - 00:09:29:02
我们收一收 我们说回到前面的主题中国人的天到底是什么？
00:09:29:12 - 00:09:32:21
还是权力结构？崇拜权力 膜拜权力？
00:09:32:22 - 00:09:37:17
我们是一个深度崇拜权力的社会 我们大多数人的社会关系
00:09:37:17 - 00:09:41:04
仍然处在权力崇拜以及它的衍生品里
00:09:41:14 - 00:09:46:02
但是皇帝老儿最大的时代已经过去了 人奴役人人统治人的时代
00:09:46:10 - 00:09:49:25
也已经过去了 或者说它应该过去了
00:09:50:01 - 00:09:54:01
那现代文明更理想的状态是什么呢？是共治
00:09:54:12 - 00:09:59:03
人和人通过契约、通过规则 通过公共生活 形成一种共治
00:09:59:10 - 00:10:02:06
它的目的不再是供养一个皇权
00:10:02:06 - 00:10:05:11
家族 也不是让少数人永远坐在上面
00:10:05:17 - 00:10:10:12
而是让每个人都尽可能的活得好一点 活得像人 发挥
00:10:10:12 - 00:10:15:26
聪明才智 真正的去探索世界秩序、自然秩序和宇宙秩序
00:10:15:27 - 00:10:20:28
如果以这个目标来看 我们很多人脑子里的观念当然是不适配的
00:10:21:05 - 00:10:26:03
我们这个古老文明当然需要一次大的系统升级 一次大的更新
00:10:26:12 - 00:10:31:12
但是这个话题太大了啊 能说具体一点 其实跟我们每个人都有关
00:10:31:20 - 00:10:35:19
我们可以先问自己一句啊 那些我认为不可置疑、
00:10:35:19 - 00:10:39:00
不可讨论、不可违背的规律真的是真理吗？
00:10:39:09 - 00:10:43:24
它是多次验证出来的 还是口口相传 查无实据的？
00:10:44:03 - 00:10:47:20
它是真正的天道秩序 还是人为设定的边界？
00:10:47:25 - 00:10:50:29
甚至专门为我定制的一种笼子？
00:10:51:10 - 00:10:54:27
比如说 人不能互害 这其实是很多人无法理解的
00:10:55:04 - 00:10:59:27
天道秩序的一种 而很多人甚至把它就把这个人不能互害啊
00:10:59:27 - 00:11:03:04
把它排序在鱼头朝着水这种规则的后边
00:11:03:19 - 00:11:06:26
就有点匪夷所思 对吧？人这辈子不容易啊
00:11:06:26 - 00:11:11:19
如果把自己限定在一些低等级的设定里 那这个游戏就不好玩了 对吧？
00:11:11:19 - 00:11:13:06
就玩儿得不太爽了对吧？
00:11:13:06 - 00:11:16:28
那真正需要遵守的是一些底层逻辑 或者说天道秩序
00:11:17:03 - 00:11:21:22
至于那些人造的枷锁 人造的等级 人造的恐惧
00:11:22:02 - 00:11:25:02
那些你只能这样活的明示暗示
00:11:25:10 - 00:11:28:05
我觉得能越早从我们的脑子里剔除越好
00:11:28:05 - 00:11:32:03
那在这个价值观混乱的年代啊 前现代和现代割裂
00:11:32:03 - 00:11:35:23
严重的年代 识别假的天 走向真的天
00:11:36:03 - 00:11:39:17
可能是我们共有的一种时代命运吧
