In this way, I want to extend a seemingly philosophical topic, but in the field of philosophy, I don't think anyone wants to take such an absurd topic seriously. Let's discuss such an absurd philosophical topic under the banner of philosophy for the time being. After all, it needs philosophy to define it in the end. We like to praise suffering, and we have many such allusions, tirelessly telling us that the growth experience of suffering can make you have a strong will, so that you can succeed. There has been such a saying since ancient times: it seems to be grateful for suffering, as if you can't succeed without suffering.
This is the same as what I said at the beginning. History only needs a few people, and others can ignore it and not mention it. I always want to ask, what is the ratio of those who have experienced hardships and those who have not? While we praise suffering blindly, does anyone care about the stories that destroy people's dignity and hurt people's hearts behind suffering? We are used to accepting fragmented content and think that fragmented content can be transformed into knowledge, but this is just an illusion. Just like this topic, we are used to those life aphorisms taken out of context.
I still remember what Sima Qian wrote: Gaspar was arrested and acted in Zhouyi; Zhong You wrote Spring and Autumn Annals; Qu Yuan's exile is a tribute to Li Sao. Zuo Qiu is blind and has "Mandarin"; The ruler of the revised version of Sun Tzu's Art of War; It's not Shu, but Lu Lan. Han Fei imprisoned Qin, Difficult and Lonely Anger; There are 300 poems. We only see that suffering makes success, but we often ignore the first few words he said: wives love life and hate death, miss their loved ones and care for their wives; Otherwise, those who are just are forced to do so.
I gave an example before, that is, A=B does not mean B = A, and we always like to regard special environment as a universal law. Confucius wrote spring and autumn when he was poor, but he could not write spring and autumn when he was not sleepy. Qu Yuan wrote Li Sao only when he was in exile. Can't he write Li Sao without exile? Then can I think on the other hand that if Confucius was not poor, he might have written a better book than the Spring and Autumn Period, and Qu Yuan was not exiled, but he could have written a better fu than Li Sao? I don't think anyone can deny my hypothesis.
I don't deny that suffering can be transformed into creativity, but I don't think there is no creativity without suffering, just like history books. After all, some of our literati like to equate suffering and personality with cause and effect. This is very similar to the composition we wrote when we were young. We should add a meaning to the story according to a meaning. A meaningless story is not a good story or a good composition, so that we are influenced by various meanings. Lu Xun once hit the nail on the head and pointed out that this is actually "cheating and cheating".
If this theory is used, it is naturally impossible to explain how Goethe and Tagore became great writers when they lived in a rich environment. Based on this theory, we should even praise Emperor Wu who castrated Sima Qian. It was he who showed us today's historical records. We should even praise Chu Huaiwang, who exiled Qu Yuan and left us this literary wealth. Even we should praise slavery, because it is this system that built the Great Wall of Wan Li.
Some just inadvertently extend the good things because of a few bad things, or because the bad things have experienced the distance of time and produced beauty. We blindly publicize this bad thing as a universal law, without caring about the blood and tears behind it, praising a person's choice without choice, praising this behavior and the pain without choice, and even promoting it as a virtue. This in itself is a merciless praise, a merciless ode. In philosophy, there is an example. When the moral behavior such as finding money is bound by law, if you find something that you don't hand in, you will be punished. This kind of behavior of not picking up money has turned into no choice, which in itself is the destruction of self-esteem, and this kind of picking up money has no value since then.
According to this logical understanding, for people who have no choice, they can't use praise to improve themselves, because they belong to this kind of behavior without choice, and this behavior itself has no value of moral improvement, because there is more or less the problem of destroying people's self-esteem. The disappearance of self-esteem as a specimen of praise is precisely the reason why some people don't like to discuss this kind of suffering. As a reading column, I have a heartfelt rejection of some of these works. The author behind such works must be a cold-blooded author. On the surface, they praise suffering and preach that suffering is a virtue. Behind it is the ruthless evasion of real life, which turns suffering into a kind of moral self-discipline and a kind of metaphysical empty talk.
The rise of characters in suffering deserves our admiration, but suffering itself also needs deep thinking!
Text: Pancakes