CSU portfolio holdings have now heard a lot of philosophy students in particular, to talk about. Last summer, Mr. Li Zhou philosopher living in America to Shanghai, we had to accompany him to visit Mr. Wang Yahoo, but also listened to his speech of East China Normal University. Tan Xing two older people are not high, the face of students made a very cursory, it was a bit disappointed. But later, at the dinner table, Mr. Lee put a question to us full of interesting, he goes on a motto before his departure abroad, such as beads, tones and mobile design. "Xining Weekly," later made part of these reports questions onlinesuprashoessale Answers. Seems, still prefer to talk about his philosophers usually think about, but he will need to connect. Now is certainly not having been such a context. Date of East China Normal University, the philosophy of the student to listen to attract a question, I was a corner where he goes, as when it is a pity feeling well, because such questions were naive, and sometimes not a good researcher normal feeling, but I do not know who is equipped to understand the kind of style or Lillie. Normal, a teacher told me that many students of philosophy "use", and there was much interest in philosophy. I can not help but be sad.
In fact, the philosophy is still important. Although philosophy does not need to do a professional worker, but the mental training, when you understand the history of human thinking, but also to promote thinking some interest in the philosophy of ultimate questions about life, or have a very old impact. Now a lot of supra footwear for customers Discussion on the wound is often unclear situation; think about it, but mostly because thinking and lack of education is more stringent.
For example, right, last year I had had a number of criticisms of young critics, because I have criticized the small children's literature writer, I put her work and has written a great value compared to the time of His work of literature is not strong conclusions. So, some people say that I can not make this comparison because his work is popular works, is a public children's literature, is the business of writing, because we need to recognize diversity, we should also recognize that the justification for writing it, how to take the classic standards of children's literature such as Writing? Another critic said that more vividly: "You can not shoe everywhere, you can use part of the shoes is good work, can not cheap brand supra Used indoors, if taken literally, forever, or sub-dimensions." These words may indeed sound like a reasonable, although I have a feeling the hit. Think again, but not so simple, so that there is an in-depth reflection found in the risk.
I believe the debate treatment of this paradox, the best way, actually two, one of which is to use common sense discrimination, and the second is the use of philosophical thinking to do further analysis.
I want to talk common sense approach. We may think that if the "shoe" theory can be demonstrated, therefore, not that any standard can not be started? Since we can not say to anyone: "You this shoe take the world ... ..." To someone not be late, he may say that you have the "shoe", you who are not jaywalking, he can not say you're a "shoe". You told me to read this book for three days, speed is not slow, because people looked at six days, he says you're a "shoe", he supra tk Said, however, took sixteen days but better than the three of you Days After reading more quickly, because she is to him that you're should be different standards. Since the idea of irrationality theory was in place is.
So, literary criticism, it was not always such an analogy is? - You can draw people, lying in bed, longer than the bed, was cut short, shorter than the bed, stretching. This is a machine constant, dogmatic literary criticism of irony. Why is this irony can be set up by a metaphor of shoes can not be justified?
In fact, the metaphor of the bed and analog shoes, and not much of a difference, the problem is to use them more than anything. We must realize that this analogy is limited, and not infinite, that is not in itself accordingly to eliminate all standards. I have argued that article: "the question is, what we face is a’ shoe''? It's not odd shoes, but the ancient and modern literature, the most extensive public-sized shoes - literature. It is as if we were poetry, poetry, drama dc shoes are on hot sae now Dramatic, people should have human nature; the party has the same spirit, if it still does not have shoes that do not go to the relativism and nihilism? Says what it means.
Accueil