Ju Xi

Human beings need realistic care and ultimate care. Thinkers have made unremitting efforts to this end. Cultural history shows that realistic care and ultimate care are the source of "thought" and "life". Determined by the time and space limitations of human existence, "life" is the value judgment of realistic care and ultimate care, and the realistic care of "life" is the logical starting point of ultimate care. Therefore, starting from realistic concern and then solving the ultimate concern problem, human civilization will be endless, forming cultural forms such as philosophy, science and religion. However, due to different ways of thinking, Chinese and western philosophy, science and religion present different paradigms, thus giving different realistic concerns and different ultimate concerns to human existence. Determined by the time and space limitation of "life", ultimate care transcends realistic care. However, if there is no feasible way to transcend, people would rather give up ultimate care and pay more attention to realistic care and try their best to seek realistic interests. When the political structure of the society conforms to the concept of realistic care in order to win the support of the people, it can only make the society pay more attention to realistic interests. With the dilemma of philosophy, science and religion, people's hopelessness for ultimate care and the expansion of real interests have pushed the world to the brink of danger. As far as realistic care and ultimate care are concerned, "the end of philosophy", "the end of science" and "the end of the west" are the most dangerous voices of this era. Therefore, in the face of the collapse of western rationality, this paper aims to provide a philosophical "paradigm" for realistic care and ultimate care with the wisdom of China traditional culture, and point out a direction for rationality. However, this is not the author's wishful thinking, because in the thought of Heidegger, the last master of western philosophy, he asked philosophy to return to the "existential structure" of "man", thus answering the question of "what is man" with "basic ontology". Obviously, the "thinking" of philosophy is the "thing" of "man", and "thing itself" is the existence of man. [1] However, Heidegger's "basic ontology" cannot surpass the subjectivity of "thinking about things" and falls into an ontological dilemma. It can be seen that the question of "what is man" is a metaphysical question in the western philosophy of subject-object dichotomy, and it is difficult to find a reasonable "existence structure" for "man". Due to the ontological dilemma of "what is man", western philosophy trying to solve the ultimate concern problem has fallen into the logical cycle of "ontology". However, this "existentialism" problem has gone through thousands of years of philosophical approaches in the West, and finally returned to ancient Greek philosophy, forming a very mature ideological system in China's ancient philosophy. Therefore, this paper will sort out the ontological problems of "man" and "thing itself" in a narrative way, and provide the philosophical wisdom of China culture for the realistic care and ultimate care of "man".

1. Shinto narrative and philosophical narrative

As far as the historical approach of human culture is concerned, dividing the ideological approach of human beings to solve realistic concern and ultimate concern into Chinese and western forms can basically meet our research vision. Although "the history of a kind of knowledge is bound to be closely related to our concept of it", "realistic care" and "ultimate care" were closely related to human life before this concept existed. The subjectivity of human life is manifested in the "thinking" of realistic care and ultimate care, which gradually becomes clear in narrative form with the subject's understanding of "things" As far as the way of human thinking is concerned, the understanding of "things" begins with Shinto narration, followed by philosophical narration, which only appears after Shinto narration cannot effectively understand "things themselves".

The understanding of "thing" is only because the two ways of thinking in China and the West can basically meet our research vision, because the concept of "thing" is consistent with the concept of "narrative". "Yi" said: "Those who benefit are also the sum of righteousness. Faithful people do things, [3] people who mean "harmony" and people who think about "harmony". Only when "things" and "righteousness" are in harmony can things be done well. Therefore, for the "thing" of "thinking", "thing" is a matter of harmony and righteousness, and "narrative" is "the sum of righteousness" However, with the development of human thought, "the sum of righteousness" is expressed in different narrative forms. The historical approach from ancient Greek philosophy to modern western philosophy shows its ideological approach and theoretical paradigm of "philosophical narrative".

In western philosophy, Heidegger's "philosophical narrative" has an unprecedented understanding of "things". He said: "The words" thing "and" one thing "now mean to us that it is a decisive thing in terms of something that cannot be ignored. Existence-a thing, perhaps the fundamental thing of thinking (die Sache des denkens) ",[4]" If thinking still intends to stick to its thing, then it is entrusted to think about it ". [5] "Yi" said: "Sages have temperament." [6] It can be seen that the "things" and "meaning" that "thinking" faces are related to the "things" in the decisive sense, which enables us to "describe" in the sense of "thinking" in order to find related things. In other words, we use "narration" to promise "things" of "thinking". As for the narrative theme, it is obvious that "life" is a decisive thing. Although Heidegger did not use "life" as the subject of realistic concern and ultimate concern, his "existence" and "existence structure" can only be realized when "life" exists and takes "life" as the premise. Therefore, Heidegger "clarified" the "basic ontology" (see the second section of this article for discussion).

Because "narration" promises "things" of "thinking", we can use "narration" to face human ideological activities. Therefore, all ideological activities that have been brought into history can be summarized by "narrative". Corresponding to the topic of this paper, the "things" caused by realistic concern are included in the "narrative". First of all, it is the so-called "primitive religion" cultural form that modern academic circles almost agree on. Based on the above, this paper interprets the "thing" of "primitive religion" as "Shinto narrative" with "thought". Taking "Shinto narrative" as the "thing" of "thinking", we will deeply understand how "philosophical narrative" is generated in the way of thinking and approach of "Shinto narrative" from the "thing itself" of realistic concern and ultimate concern.

Therefore, the concept of "Shinto narration" is an ontological understanding of "things themselves". Shinto narration stems from awe of what nature shows. Therefore, it is the subjective value orientation of narration to understand things themselves with the Shinto narration of "harmony with God" and to intervene things with the law of "understanding". Obviously, "Shinto narration" is to understand "things", and "things" and the subject's "life" have realistic concern, which makes understanding "things" a value need, so "Shinto narration" essentially shows realistic concern for life. Understand that "things themselves" interfere with "things" and there are subjective "things" such as witchcraft sacrifices. It can be seen that "witchcraft sacrifice" is a kind of "narrative"-an understanding of "things themselves" in a harmonious or thinking way. The communication between Shinto narrative and the thing itself is the narrative that the subject has realistic concern for the thing itself, which shows his understanding and grasp of the thing itself. It can be seen that "Shinto narration" is an interpretation of "things" and has the nature of interfering with "things", that is, "loyal people have temperament" It's just that "chastity" in "Shinto narration" means that the "temperament" grasped is "witchcraft sacrifice". Using "witchcraft sacrifice" to realize a certain "thing" makes "witchcraft sacrifice" become the "thing itself" in "Shinto narrative", so it is a "thing" of practical concern. It can be seen that "law" is covered by "Shinto narrative" in concept and replaced by "witchcraft sacrifice". Only in addition to Shinto narration and witchcraft sacrifice, when the subject's own experience and ability are enough to intervene in things and make them develop according to the subject's realistic concern, the law will gradually become clear in the concept, and the cause of things will become more essential in the realistic concern, thus promoting the ultimate thinking of things themselves. Ultimate concern is not about the appearance of "things", but about the ultimate existence of "things", which is the cause and effect of transforming "things" into "existence" and inferring by the concept that the subject can prove. According to Heidegger's view, "when we ask about the task of thinking, it means that we should point out what is involved in thinking in a philosophical perspective and what is controversial for thinking, that is, controversy." This is the meaning of the word "thing" in German. This word tells what is involved in the present, according to Plato, it is the thing itself. [7] Obviously, Heidegger pointed out the correlation between "things" and "disputes", which is the task of "thinking". However, in my opinion, the narration of "things" does not begin with "disputes", but the "existence of life" that the subject "thinks" with "life consciousness" and thus "Shinto narration". When there is a dispute between the events narrated by Shinto and the subject's life experience, it changes the narrative of the events themselves-the cause and effect. At this time, the narrative has gradually replaced Shinto narrative and philosophical narrative with the events experienced by the subject.

It can be seen that "Shinto narration" is also about "the thing itself", but the "narration" of "the thing itself" has nothing to do with the subject's experience and ability. When the subject can interfere with the "thing itself" with his own life experience and experience ability, and can prove the "thing itself" to meet the practical needs, "Shinto narration" becomes redundant. With the enrichment of people's life experience and the improvement of intervention ability, "things themselves" have also changed in "Shinto narration". In this regard, the word "emperor" in Oracle Bone Inscriptions illustrates the understanding of "the matter itself" and the change of "narrative". "The image of the word" emperor "in Oracle Bone Inscriptions is very complicated. There is no uniform font, but there are as many as 16. " [8] Dish on the King shows that [9] with the improvement of people's experience ability and involvement, the narrative of "land" has shown that people's experience ability can rival "land" in the matter itself. "Oracle Bone Inscriptions showed that in the late Shang Dynasty, ideological rationality made greater progress in the humanistic direction, which can be proved by the number of sacrifices to' gods'. The end of Shang dynasty. That is, in Diyi and Di Xin, there is only one' God', [10] is very different from many' gods' in the early period, which reflects the weakening of' God' and the strengthening of subject consciousness in the late Shang Dynasty. " "There are 22 kinds of sacrifices recorded in the first phase of Oracle Bone Inscriptions, and only 6 kinds in the fifth phase, which shows that the scale of sacrifices is decreasing." [1 1] This shows that with the improvement of the subject's realistic care ability, Shinto narrative is constantly changing its own content, in which the realistic care given by experience ability and the care given by Shinto narrative are a process of gradual transposition, and some contents of Shinto narrative are gradually replaced by experience ability, but in narrative, What is controversial is not the thing itself, but his performance, through which the thing itself becomes the present. [12] Therefore, "narrative" is the expression of "original phenomenon" or "original thing" to be narrated, so as to find the original phenomenon or "original thing" of narrative through "Shinto narrative" and understand "Shinto narrative" and the following "philosophical narrative".

Therefore, the narrative form and content of "Shinto Narration" also improve the experience ability of expressing realistic concern and make the narrative develop in a rational direction. When "the daily skills under the guidance of correct knowledge are enough to make people not make mistakes and control these activities impartially", [13] "Shinto narration" becomes redundant, and Malinowski's research on "witchcraft sacrifice" helps us to understand this problem. [ 14]

Narration is a life-oriented narrative. Therefore, when there is a dispute between Shinto narrative and experience ability, it is because experience ability can solve the real concern, thus dissolving the narrative ability of Shinto narrative. The improvement of "experience ability" is not only controversial with "Shinto narration", but also with "experience ability" solving the "matter" of realistic concern, ultimate concern becomes the subject's "narrative" problem. At this time, "narrative" based on "experience ability" and "cause" and "result" of existence gradually appeared. When "narration" completely gets rid of the realistic concern given by "Shinto narration", the ultimate concern for "existence is existence" becomes a brand-new and subjective thinking ability.

There is no doubt that "philosophical narrative" is a rational narrative, which not only reflects the cognitive ability of human beings, but also shows that they narrate in the form of their own wisdom rather than God, and also reflects that people's survival ability and living conditions have basically solved the problem of realistic concern. Therefore, Aristotle said that philosophy "the beginning of academic research is after almost all the necessities of life and all the things that make people happy and comfortable have been obtained." [15] Therefore, the basic satisfaction of realistic concern makes it start a rational "philosophical narrative" different from "Shinto narrative".

Two. Philosophy, Religion and Scientific Narrative

Although "philosophical narrative" was started, it was only a form of narrative, and "Shinto narrative" did not end because of this, but narrowed the scope of "narrative". With the basic satisfaction of realistic care, we began to "narrate" the ultimate care, and some "narratives" even continued to modern times (such as witches, fortune tellers, fortune tellers, etc. Therefore, "philosophical narrative" and "Shinto narrative" coexist and become different ways of "narrative". Because the early "philosophical narrative" can't solve the ultimate concern well, there are even some natural and man-made disasters (so-called suffering in reality) in the real concern. In this case, some contents of "Shinto Narration" are used by some thinking methods of "Philosophical Narration" (for example, some thoughts of Aristotle are applied by Christianity), so "Religious Narration" appears. Although religion has developed and occupied a dominant position for a long time, with the progress of philosophical narrative, not only religious narrative has been questioned, but also scientific narrative has gradually emerged in philosophical narrative. The positivity of "scientific narrative" makes the content and form of its narrative finally separate from "philosophical narrative" and become an independent "narrative" ideological system. Because realistic care and ultimate care are unresolved problems in the contemporary era, philosophical narrative, religious narrative and scientific narrative coexist. As the main body of modern and contemporary human culture, they all expounded the fact itself in theory. It can be seen that if we want to return to the "fact itself", we must first face the problems brought by the "narrative" of philosophy, religion and science.

Obviously, "philosophical narrative" and "religious narrative" and "scientific narrative" are different narratives that human thoughts give realistic care and ultimate care. But this is only one aspect of the problem, because different cultural types also give philosophy, religion and science different "narrative" forms and contents. This shows us the differences between Chinese and western cultures and philosophy, science and religion today. Indian culture and its "narrative" form and content are not within the theme of this paper, but another matter.

Aristotle believes that philosophy comes from the "surprise" of things. He said: "Since ancient times, people have begun to explore philosophy, and philosophy should start with the surprise of everything in nature and gradually accumulate bit by bit explanations. Explain some important issues, such as the movement of the sun, moon and stars and the creation of the universe. Therefore, he thinks "myth" is "weird". " [16] Obviously, Aristotle, who neglected Shinto narration, could not explain whether Shinto narration also originated from surprise. If Shinto narration also originated from surprise, wouldn't Shinto narration become a philosophy? Therefore, philosophy does not originate from "surprise", but focuses on the "surprise" of realistic concern. It is not a rational thought, but more the content of "Shinto narration". Philosophical narration is a rational narrative form of ultimate concern, which makes the mind explore the basic law of "things themselves" and makes the subject replace "Shinto narration" with "wisdom". Wisdom and "thing itself" have the identity of "philosophical narrative", which makes ultimate concern the highest goal of philosophy and "philosophical narrative" wisdom.

In the ontological sense, the narration of "thing" comes from the "thing itself" of the subject "life". If "Shinto Narration" is based on realistic concern, then "Philosophical Narration" is based on rationality and ultimate concern. Obviously, the "narrative" of "things themselves" with "philosophical narrative" enables the formation and development of culture. If culture finally achieves self-sufficient unity, that is, it conforms to the essence of existence, there is no need for philosophical narration, and philosophy as a discipline will dissolve itself.

Western culture shows that since the beginning of "philosophical narration", it has explored the basic form and ultimate reason of existence with its rational wisdom. The narrative of western philosophy will objectify existence, thus making the subject's "life existence" independent of the object and becoming a pure thinker, that is, turning the "thing itself" of life into a purely thinking "thing", which not only obscures the life significance of the subject's "thing itself" but also obscures the "existence" of the object's "thing itself". The life meaning of the subject "thing itself" is obscured, which makes its "philosophical narrative" unable to solve the "ultimate concern" problem of "life". Therefore, when the ultimate concern becomes the "thing" that people pay general attention to, at this time, "religious narrative" arises at the historic moment. In other words, it is artificially using "philosophical narrative" to replace the problems of "life" and "ultimate concern" that religion cannot solve. The "thing itself" of "life" has become a "thing" of pure "thinking", so that "philosophical narrative" can only be a "narrative" of why the subject thinks and why the object exists and tries to make them the same. "Philosophical narration" aims to prove the correctness of "idea", so "all metaphysics (including its rival positivism) speaks Plato's language", and Heidegger, as a master of modern western philosophy, deconstructs "idea". He said: "Throughout the history of philosophy, Plato's thought always plays a decisive role in a changed form. Metaphysics is Platonism. Nietzsche marked his philosophy as inverted Platonism. With the inversion of metaphysics completed by Karl Marx, philosophy has reached the most extreme possibility. Philosophy has entered its final stage. " [17] The reason why philosophy "ends" is because in Heidegger's view, philosophy is in such a "position": "The whole history of philosophy has gathered itself with its most extreme possibility. Because the end of the completion means this party. " [18] So, what caused the "gathering" of philosophy? Obviously on the issue of "existence". Therefore, Heidegger said: "The questioning of existence itself has historical characteristics. As a historical inquiry, this inquiry contains an instruction in its most basic existential sense: to investigate the history of this inquiry itself is to become a historical one. In order to answer the existing questions well, we must follow this instruction, so that we can fully occupy the possibility of the most fundamental question while actively taking the past as our own. " [ 19]

It can be seen that Heidegger discovered the crisis of western philosophy, thus showing the strange circle of metaphysics: the "metaphysical completion" of western philosophy in this position has no solid foundation. Obviously, the crisis of western philosophy is outspoken by postmodern thinkers, who claim that there is no "another position" in western philosophy, or that "another position" is an unreachable "position".

The "end" of western metaphysics can be understood as the "completion" of the objectification of "thinking" The objectification of "thinking" makes us go deep into the ideological approach of "philosophical narrative", from which we find that the western "philosophical narrative" has been trying to find an objective way to solve the ultimate concern since ancient Greece, that is, to isolate people from the outside world, which leads to the dualism of subject and object, and the problem of "identity" between subject and object runs through western philosophy and becomes an insoluble problem. It was not until Kant demonstrated the finiteness of reason and Heidegger highlighted the subjectivity of the problem that he found that "philosophical narrative" should return to the "thing itself" where "human life" exists, and Heidegger declared that the end of philosophy was of revolutionary significance: philosophy would open a new way of thinking. Therefore, we have reason to unify the history and logic of "narrative" with "Shinto narrative" on "material itself", that is, "existence structure".

Regarding the end of philosophy, Heidegger said, "What do you mean by talking about the end of philosophy? It is too easy for us to understand the end of a thing in a negative sense as a simple end, as an inability to continue to develop, or even as a decline and incompetence. On the contrary, talking about the end of philosophy means the completion of metaphysics. [20] Heidegger pointed out the problems of western philosophy, so he thought that philosophy should "move from one position to another". In order to achieve "the position of the other", we must lay the foundation for "metaphysics". The reason why we want to lay the foundation for metaphysics is because "the discussion of people has become a problem, which is a confusion exposed in Kant's foundation for metaphysics." "At this time, it shows that Kant's retreat in front of the foundation revealed by himself and transcendental imagination is the kind of philosophical research activity, which reveals the collapse of this foundation and thus reveals the fall of metaphysics." [2 1] Heidegger's thought in his later period pointed to the problem of "subjectivity": "What is the problem of philosophical research? ..... this thing is the subjectivity of consciousness ",because of the existence of people, the problem of" subjectivity "arises, so" as a metaphysical philosophy, things exist, but only exist in the form of entity and subjectivity ". [22] The reflection on "subjectivity" brings us back to Kant's philosophy.

Kant believes that the foundation of metaphysics "this problem does not belong to the metaphysical system, but belongs to the scope of anthropology". [23] Here, Kant clearly points out that metaphysics is about "metaphysics" of human beings, that is, it points out the subjective basis of metaphysics: the existence of "human beings" makes metaphysics a natural thing. However, only when Heidegger takes "basic ontology" as philosophical logic, this problem deepens the metaphysical problem about human beings and finds the basis of subjectivity in human existence. Heidegger said that "basic ontology refers to an ontological analysis of limited human nature, which prepares the foundation for the metaphysics of' belonging to human natural nature'. Basic ontology is the metaphysics of human existence, and it is a necessary condition to make metaphysics possible. But it is fundamentally different from all anthropology, including philosophical anthropology. To clarify a basic ontological concept is to clarify this specially marked ontological analysis as an inevitable requirement, so as to explain with what intention and manner, within what boundaries and under what conditions it puts forward' what is man?' This specific problem. "[24] Visible" What is a person? This specific problem "makes things like' philosophy' anthropology stand on a full philosophical basis". [25] Western philosophy shows that "philosophical narrative" originated from the subject, but people were forgotten in the history of "narrative". When man is re-established as a metaphysical subject, it is necessary to find a foundation for his existence, and the problem returns to "the thing itself". What is the existence of subjectivity? The proof of identity between thinking and human existence is an impossible problem that Heidegger tried to solve in his later years. "Heidegger believes that phenomenology is an existential method, which has three basic links: phenomenological reduction, phenomenological construction and phenomenological deconstruction." [26] Reflection shows that Heidegger's reconstructed phenomenology is an ontological method, but he reduced the ontological problem to ontology. The reason why he reduced the ontological problem to ontology is essentially to deconstruct "existence" into "existence". However, after deconstructing existence into "this being" in time, "this being" is constructed as the existence of "human", thus making "ontology" the construction of subject again. Therefore, philosophy is powerless here, and "the end of philosophy" is inevitable. It can be seen that "the end of philosophy" is caused by deep-rooted ontological problems.

In the "philosophical narrative", regardless of whether the "thing" is its "self" or "concept", Heidegger believes that "we understand this task as: taking the existing problems as clues, decomposing the contents handed down from ancient ontology into some primitive experiences-the original rules of existence that have been playing a leading role since then are obtained from these sources." [27] However, the "thing itself" is deconstructed into the original experience, but the "concept" is still unprovable by the subject. Socrates' problem of "knowing yourself", that is, the problem of subjectivity, is always an insurmountable gap. Therefore, determined by the theory of "idea", western philosophy ended itself in the direction of dualism.

Here, we must also demonstrate the western "scientific narrative", although this is not the main content of this paper. However, as long as we understand the logical inevitability of the separation of "scientific narrative" and "philosophical narrative", we will know that this is the inevitable result of dualism. On the one hand, the duality of subject and object makes the "thing" of "thinking" describe the subject as an object, that is, reducing the subject to a material object and restoring human life with biology. On the other hand, the subjectivity of "thinking" has become a metaphysical problem with no reliable basis. As mentioned above, until Heidegger put forward "the end of philosophy", "thinking" is still one.

In the "scientific narrative", the directness of its value orientation lies in that it improves the materiality of realistic care with its technology, and obtains from nature with the help of technology, which greatly enriches people's material interests. However, on the one hand, "scientific narrative" promises the ultimate concern for reality and the ultimate "narrative" for the object, on the other hand, it destroys the ultimate concern of human beings in providing the material benefits of realistic care. "Scientific narrative" makes people eager for quick success and instant benefit, but the realistic care it provides actually leads mankind to the abyss of destruction. In other words, "scientific narrative" only pays attention to realistic care and has no hope of ultimate care. Undoubtedly, the "uncertainty principle", the unexplained problems of philosophy and the "end of science" brought by the "end of philosophy" all deny the ultimate concern of science.

Under such circumstances, the attempt to solve the problem of "life" with modern biology and gene theory should be questioned. Under the restriction of uncertainty principle, "life" will hide its ultimate secret. As for the "scientific narrative" of modern biology and genetics, the biggest difficulty lies in that if it can finally solve the ultimate concern of "life", that is to say, the problem of subjectivity is finally solved by "scientific narrative", then the arrangement and combination of genes will make the "philosophical narrative" go on like this, which means that metaphysical problems will also be solved. In other words, geneticism is the foundation of metaphysics, and only in this way can the "scientific narrative" be true. The identity of subject and object requires the restoration of ideas from genes, but changing the "narrative" of genes means the change of "narrative", which makes "narrative" the opposite, so it is impossible to restore ideas from genes. The non-identity of "narrative" shows the irreversibility of genes. It is impossible to restore our ancestors from the present genes, so it is impossible to restore the metaphysical foundation. It can be seen that the value judgment of "scientific narrative" should be denied. "Scientific narrative" can not only solve the ultimate concern problem, but also provide technical support for realistic concern, making "scientific narrative" the chief culprit of human civilization.

It can be seen from the above that the "thing itself" ending in "people" is an inevitable problem arising from the "narrative" form of western culture. After the end of philosophy, "religious narrative" will inevitably fall into crisis, because "philosophical narrative" is a deconstruction of theology, and this work did not begin with Heidegger. Kant's reflection on reason shows that "God" is not an existential problem, but a metaphysical problem. Heidegger's deconstruction of philosophy shows that metaphysics has no "foundation" at all. Therefore, the important issue is that because the existence of "God" has lost its foundation, the crisis brought by the loss of "God" and religion has been twofold: since the ultimate care is hopeless, people can only get quick success and instant benefit in practical care.

Therefore, the problems such as philosophy, religion and science indicated by "narrative" make "narrative" return to human "thing itself", which is the greatest contribution of western culture to human beings for thousands of years, and thus brings people unprecedented reflection on "thing itself".

Three. Reflection on "the thing itself"

The "thing itself" of "man" shows that "man" takes "life" as the way of existence. In other words, the existence of "man" is fundamentally different from any other existence.