The Joy of Thinking

Twenty-five years ago, when I went to the countryside to join the army, I brought a few books with me, one of which was Ovid's Metamorphoses, and the men on our team turned it over and over and over, so that it looked like a roll of seaweed. Then someone from another team borrowed it, and I saw it again in several different places later, and it got worse and worse. I believe the book was eventually lost to view. I still can't forget the miserable state of the book. The life in the camp was hard, not enough to eat, not enough to get used to the soil, many people got sick, but the biggest pain was the lack of books to read, if there were many books to read, "The Metamorphosis" would not have disappeared so tragically. On top of that, there is no pleasure in thought. I'm sure I'm not alone in this experience: sitting under the eaves in the evening, watching the sky slowly darken, feeling lonely and desolate, feeling deprived of your life. I was a young man at the time, but I was afraid to live on and age like this. In my opinion, this was something more terrible than death.

There were military representatives in charge of us where I was inserted, and now I think that they were a group of simply good people, but I also think that no one has ever made me more miserable in my life than they did. They thought that the so-called pleasure of thought was to occupy themselves with Mao Zedong Thought twenty-four hours a day, asking for instructions in the morning and reporting at night, and if they had any spare time, they would go to see the songs and dances of their own "Yagudu". I have no problem with the songs and dances themselves, but after seeing them 20 times, I got tired of them. If we read the book they saw, it was a disaster, even the "book of Xunlu" is not - except for the little red book, of course. By the way, some people really got themselves into trouble because they brought old copies of Lu Xun's books. One piece of knowledge that may be useful in the future is to replace interesting books with uninteresting skins. I don't think I can get the pleasure of thinking in some religious rituals, so I have been depressed. Some authors have written about such stories, for example, Zweig wrote a novel on the subject, "Chess," which can be called a modern classic, but I don't think he portrayed the pain in a perfect way. The pinnacle of this pain is not being detained in a hotel without books or qualified conversation partners, but being put outside, feeling equally lonely between heaven and earth, facing fellow human beings who suffer as much as you do. Countless great intellects have lived before us, let's say, Russell. Newton, Shakespeare, whose thoughts and writings could have saved us from this pain, but we have been cut off from their thoughts and writings. If a man needs to get pleasure from his thoughts, his first desire is to learn. I admit that I am not strong enough to resist this pain, but I am by no means the worst. For example, when Mr. Russell was five years old, he felt lonely and miserable, and thought, "If I live to be seventy, I have spent only one-fourteenth of my unhappy life! But when he was a little older, he changed his mind when he came in contact with the sparks of wise minds. If he had been sent to the army, he would probably have committed suicide.

Talking about the joys of thought reminds me of what happened to my father. My father was a philosophy professor who worked on the history of thought in the 1950s and 1960s. In his old age, he told me that his life's academic experience was like a horror movie. Whenever he attempted to make a thesis, he always had to find his place in the grand unified official system of thought, like an old hen trying to find a place to hatch eggs in a large moving mansion. As a result, although he loved science and tried very hard, he did not get the pleasure of thinking in his life, but only gained countless panic. All that remains of his lifelong exploration is a few broken walls, received in a book called Logical Inquiry, published after him. It is well known that scholars of his generation are lucky to leave behind a book in their lifetime. This is precisely because in those days there were people who wanted to make the Chinese mind utterly tasteless. In our country, only a few people find thought interesting, but many people have felt the panic of thought, so many people still think that the taste of thought should be like this.

"After the Cultural Revolution, I read Mr. Xu Chi's report on Goldbach's Conjecture, which was written in a very romantic way. It is easy to be so romantic when one writes about something one does not know. Personally, I think it is a minimum pleasure for a scholar to be able to communicate with his peers. When Mr. Chen Jingrun was alone in his small house proving mathematical problems, he needed some foreign mathematical journals to read and a chance to talk with colleagues in the mathematical community. But he did not, so he may not be happy, but of course he is happier than those who have no theorems to prove. Putting a theorem to the test for more than ten years cannot be balanced, even if you have an overwhelming pleasure when proving it. But sitting in loneliness is even harder. If I had known number theory when I was in the army, I would have done what Mr. Chen did, and I wouldn't have regretted not being able to prove anything in the end; but that story is definitely more tragic than the one depicted in Mr. Xu's work. However, someone who is deprived of the three joys of learning, communicating, and building, still does not get my greatest sympathy. I reserve this sympathy for those who were deprived of "fun".

"After the Cultural Revolution, I also read a novel by Mr. Ah Cheng about the intellectuals playing chess. Four-fifths of the chess games I played in my life were played while I was in the army, and at the same time I went from being a pretty good chess player to a hopelessly mediocre one. Now pull the words chess and queue-jumping together and it causes a physical revulsion in me. Playing chess because you have nothing better to do is not too far from masturbation. I would never put such a boring thing into a novel.

If a person eats the same food and does the same work every day, plus watching the eight model plays backwards and forwards, to the extent that he knows the second half after hearing the last sentence, he deserves my greatest sympathy. I most agree with Mr. Russell's quote, "Knowing that variance and polymorphism are the origin of happiness." Most of the paradoxical polymorphism is created by people who are sensitive to thinking. Of course, I know that some people do not share our opinion. They necessarily believe that a single mechanism, is the origin of happiness. I don't like what Lao Tzu said, that we should "empty our hearts and make our bellies real"; I think it was a despicable act for Han Confucianism to depose the hundred schools and revere only Confucianism. Sir Moore envisioned a utopia complete with details, but I, like Mr. Russell, would never go to live in it. At the end of this list were some good military representatives who wanted to drive everything out of my mind but a little red book of 270 pages. In other aspects of life, a certain degree of monotony, of mechanics, must be endured, but thoughts must not be included. Rumination is not fun, fun is justified and new. The greatest misfortune in the world we live in is that some people completely reject novelty.

I think the period when I experienced the greatest joy was when I first entered college, because science was new to me, and it was always logical and flawless, something rare in this mundane world. At the same time, it was possible to understand the brilliant intellect of the previous scientists. It was like playing chess with a masterful player, who, although he was always defeated, had the opportunity to appreciate the brilliant moves. My classmates who were my age and had the same experience also had the same experience. Certain monotonous and mechanical acts, such as eating, excretion, and sexual intercourse, can also bring pleasure, but because they are too simple, they cannot be compared with such pleasure. Art can also bring such pleasure, but only if it is produced by a true master, like Newton, Leibniz, Einstein, none of the current Chinese artists have reached such a level yet. With all due respect, the only thing that can bring the joy of thought is the product of the highest level of human intelligence. Anything lower than that can only bring pain; and this lower grade is all kinds of ideas for utilitarian reasons.

The idea that it is necessary to "indoctrinate" the organ of human thinking (the mind) is now on the rise. I think it is suspicious to put utilitarian ideas on the brain, which is the organ for perceiving supreme happiness. Some people say it is a tool for competition, so people should learn to speak before they are born and recite Chinese poetry before they are three years old. If it is used in this way, it is doubtful what happiness it can bring. Although knowledge can bring happiness, if it is compressed into pills and poured down, it loses its pleasure. Of course, if someone is happy to treat his child in this way, it is not my business, but I am only sympathetic to the child. Others think that the mind is a tool to show that they are a good person, and to do so must learn to recite a number of maxims and dogmas - in fact, in the hope of making themselves look better than they really are, in total hypocrisy. This causes me a certain amount of pain, but it is not unbearable. There is nothing more painful than the fact that there are always people who want to eliminate, for various reasons, the diversity needed for happiness. The most important reason these people want to do this is moral; to be more precise, it is for utilitarian reasons. So they divide ideas into categories, good and bad, but using dubious criteria. They think that if people's minds are filled with good things, the world will be peaceful. So they are ready to treat young people in the same way that the military representatives treated us back then. If the mind is the main aspect of human life, it is no more reasonable to change it for utilitarian motives than to kill someone for his happiness.

Some people believe that man should be filled with noble thoughts and get rid of lowly ones. This argument sounds wonderful, but it makes me feel great fear. Because the sum of noble thoughts and low thoughts is myself; if I remove some of them, it becomes a question of who I am. Suppose there is someone who has a noble mind, I admire him very much; but if you therefore want to cut out my brain and throw it away and replace it with his, I will not, unless you can prove that I am guilty of a great crime and deserve to die. Since man lives, he has the right to ensure the continuity of his thoughts until he dies. What's more, those noble and low are measured by their own position, and if I accept them all, it's like asking those good thinking hens to lay eggs in my head, and I always refuse to believe that I have a chicken nest above my neck. I think back then, in the eyes of the military representatives, I was also a very lowly person, they want to impose their own way of thinking, way of life to me, is also a kind of brain transplant. Fielding once said that there are few, if any, people who are both good and great, so this brain transplant brought me not only goodness, but also stupidity. I will reluctantly use a utilitarian phrase here: in the real world, stupid people don't get anything done. I myself would certainly like to become kinder, but this kindness should be the result of my becoming smarter, not the other way around. What's more, Heraclitus said long ago that good and evil are one, just as uphill and downhill are the same road. How can I know what is good if I don't know what is evil? So what they are asking for is just the same thing.

Suppose I believe in God (which I do not) and am struggling with the lack of distinction between good and evil, I would ask God to make me wise enough to know right from wrong, and would never ask him to make me so stupid as to let people instill in me a standard of good and evil. If God were to ask me to take on the task of indoctrination, I would ask Him to give me a choice between that task and hell, and my unwavering determination would be to choose the latter.

If I were to cite the kindest moment in my life, I would have to cite the time when I first became a youth, when I was so intent on liberating all mankind that I did not think of myself at all. At the same time, I have to admit that I was so stupid that not only did I not accomplish anything, but I contracted a disease and fled back to the city in disgrace. Now I think that stupidity is a great pain; it is the greatest sin to lower the intelligence of mankind. Therefore, to teach people by folly is the worst sin that good people can commit. In this sense, we must not let down our guard against good people. Suppose I could balance my mind if I were deceived by a great evil person, but I could not forgive myself if I were deceived by a good, low-wisdom person.

If I were to cite the moment when I was least kind, it would be now. Maybe it's because I've had some education, or maybe it's because I'm an adult, but if you want me to liberate someone, I'd have to ask who they are and why they need help; secondly, I'd have to ask if it's within my power to help them; and finally I'd have to think about whether it's helpful to go straight to Yunnan and dig a hole. After thinking about it, I definitely did not want to go to the team. The leaders insist me to go, I still have to go, but this later digging bad green mountains, caused by soil erosion, etc., it is not my crime. People generally believe that good and low intelligence is innocent. If this low intelligence is caused by congenital, I agree. But people can develop their own intellect, so the acquired low intelligence is not innocent - besides, there is nothing easier than playing dumb. Of course, this conclusion in no way means that those military representatives were evil people who played dumb - I still believe they were good people. My conclusion is that, assuming that good and evil can be judged, the prerequisite for knowing right from wrong is to develop the intellect and expand knowledge. However, if you advise someone who thinks he already knows right from wrong to develop his intellect and broaden his knowledge, he will always feel that you are asking him to go far away and not only refuse to do so, he will also resent it. I don't want to offend people over such a trivial matter.

I certainly have my own standards of good and evil now, and I'm not acting any worse than anyone else right now. I consider low intelligence, bigotry, and poor thinking to be the greatest evil of all. According to this standard, when others say I am the kindest, I am the most evil; when others say I am the most evil, I am the most good. Of course I don't want to recommend this standard to others, but I believe that intelligent, optimistic, and knowledgeable people are more trustworthy than others. Based on this belief, I believe that our country has lost many opportunities since we "deposed the hundred schools and revered only Confucianism".

We as a nation have always had many reasons to block knowledge, clamp down on ideas, and inculcate goodness, so many talented and wise people have lost the opportunity to learn, exchange, and build throughout their lives, and have died without the pleasure of thinking. When I think that my father was one of them, I am gloomy; when I think that the sum of such people is as many as the sands of the Ganges, I tend to be pessimistic. The cause of such tragedies is, of course, the problems that exist in the real world. The great man always thinks that the world can be saved if all the people in the world are as good as he expects them to be - rather, if they think as he expects them to think, "think without evil", or "fight the word "selfishness" with a single thought. Those who make these claims are themselves innocent or selfless, and they certainly do not know what evil and selfishness are, so these demands are: what I do not have, you should not have either. The talents of countless people are thus stifled. Considering that the sum of the wisdom of the Ganges is an unimaginably large resource, the idea is to put the whole ocean into a bottle. The fact that I have seen is that this idea has been in the buy line, that is, looking for solutions to real world problems from the side of stupidity. Accordingly, I think that our country has been engaged in a massacre of ideas since the Han Dynasty; and the fact that I can think this way only means that I am one of the survivors. I can think of nothing else but to express my sorrow about it.

Although I have lived to a ripe old age, I am still often puzzled by one thing: why there are many people who always hate novelty and fun in this way. The ancients used to say: Heaven does not give birth to Zhongni, and all the ages are as long as night; but I have the opposite thought. Suppose there was a great wise man in history who discovered all the novelty and all the fun at once, who discovered the ultimate truth and eradicated all the possibilities of discovery, I would rather live in the time before that wise man. This is because if this ultimate truth has been discovered, all that is left for mankind to do is to make value judgments based on this truth. This is how the Chinese have lived since the Han Dynasty until the modern era. I don't like this kind of life at all.

I think that in all intelligent human activities, there is nothing simpler than making value judgments. If you are a male rabbit, you have the ability to make value judgments - the big bad wolf is bad and the female rabbit is good; however, rabbits do not know the 9-9-9 table. This fact explains why some people who lack other abilities are particularly fond of the field of values. If there is a price to pay for making value judgments about oneself, it would be too easy and comfortable to make value judgments about others. I am indeed ashamed to say such rude things, but I am not sorry. Because such people bring us so much pain.

Among all value judgments, the worst one is that it is a sin to think too much, too deeply, beyond some people's level of understanding. We do not hurt anyone when we experience the joy of thinking; unfortunately, there are always people who feel they are hurt. It is true that this joy is not experienced by everyone, but we should not be responsible for it. I see no reason to take away this pleasure, unless one takes into account the vile jealousy - there are people in this world who like abundance and others who like simplicity; I have not seen people who like abundance jealous and hurt people who like simplicity, but I have always seen the opposite. If I know anything at all about science and art, they are a vast river of pleasure in thought, which, though it benefits all men, is never for them, as some people imagine, just as those who take pleasure in thought are not made for them.

It is more important for an intellectual to be the thinking elite than to be the moral elite. One certainly has the freedom not to think and to make oneself foolish; I have no opinion at all about that. The question is whether the freedom to think and to make oneself smart should be there or not. Those who prefer the former kind of freedom think that overly complex thoughts can make people dizzy. This seems to make sense. If you invite a simple farmer in the mountains to a chemical factory in the city, he will also feel dizzy because of the complicated pipes, but this is not a reason to abolish the chemical industry. So, it would be good if simple people could see things they cannot understand as irrelevant to them.

If the world around me is now filled with military representatives and moral teachers from the Cultural Revolution, it can only frighten me, not scare me. For I have lived to be forty-two years old. I met a mathematics teacher in college who spread knowledge as happiness and made learning mathematics a pleasure. I have met people who have enlightened me with wisdom. I was fortunate enough to read the books I wanted to read - a hefty list, from Russell's History of Western Philosophy, all the way to the underground novels of Victorian England. This last group of books was really unpleasant, but I finally got to see the unpleasant stuff as well. Of course, I am most grateful to those who wrote good books, such as George Bernard Shaw, Mark Twain, Calvino, Duras, and so on, but I do not resent those who wrote bad books either. I have written a few books myself, and although I have not yet had the chance to meet mainland readers, I have at least gained a little creative happiness. These modest happinesses make me feel that I have achieved something in my life, happier than my father, happier than those young people who will languish in a vacuum of thought for the rest of their lives. As a person who has experienced both happiness and pain, I hope that the next generation will have some space to feel happy in their thoughts, and that this space will be much larger than the one given to me. And these appeals are of course addressed to those who aspire to be military representatives and moral teachers.