Everything in the universe is changing, and it can be said that it is "evolving", but is there a law to this change? What is this law? If we look at everything in the universe as "things", then physics answers this question; Darwin's "natural selection" answers the laws of the biological world.

As far as human society is concerned, because it can be barely regarded as a part of the biological world, Darwin's theory partially explains the law of the development of human society, but what is the law of the complete development of human society? What is the difference with the law of development in the biological world? Huxley's Theory of Evolution and Ethics answers this question.

Human beings evolved from the animal kingdom, and human society was undoubtedly born out of the natural world, and what we call "human nature" includes both "animal nature" inherited from animals and "pure human nature" that has evolved, and it is figurative to compare human beings to "half beasts and half angels".

Since there has been a human society on this planet, there are two states of existence in the organisms of this world: one is the theory of survival struggle summarized by Darwin, that is, "the survival of the fittest (natural selection)", which is also a completely natural state; The other is that human beings strive to get rid of the control of "natural forces" and establish their own "orderly" state of existence, not only the strong survive, but also the weak can survive, and the phenomenon of "the jungle of the jungle" has not completely changed, but it has been curbed.

What is the force that curbs this "law of the jungle" and establishes human society? Huxley summed up this "power" as "ethics", which generally refers to "morality", "goodness", "beauty", etc. We seriously appreciate that the "ethics" he refers to should be the attributes of "culture". That is to say, there are two kinds of "forces" that control human society, one is the "nature" of "survival struggle" that human beings inherit from the biological world. is natural; Another "cultural" force that is unique to human beings is the creation of human beings themselves.

Two "forces" exert control over human society. The various phenomena that actually appear and exist in human society confirm this theory, and the phenomena of coercion and violence are caused by the power of "struggle for survival"; Phenomena such as observance of "morality", "law", and "contract" are based on "culture". In particular, it is worth pointing out the emergence of "money", which makes the "contractual" relationship between people "ticketed" and has the possibility to avoid "violence". These two phenomena are also known as "barbarism" and "civilization". The so-called "evolution" of human society means that the state of nature is becoming more and more declining, and the artificial state of "order" is becoming more and more the main state of existence, which is also the history of the development of human society from "barbarism" to "civilization".

Huxley said in the preface to Evolution and Ethics: "Without the nature inherited from our ancestors, who were manipulated by the processes of the universe, we would be helpless; A society that denies this nature is bound to be destroyed from the outside. If this nature is too much, we will be even more helpless; A society ruled by this nature. It is bound to be destroyed from within. This is clear from his words. A person's "collection" (meaning all people and "people", including family, "unit", nation, nation...... Without the ability to survive the struggle, it is bound to be "wiped out" in this world; The situation would be even worse if the "struggle for survival" was too strong and suppressed the "human" nature that distinguishes it from animals. will self-destruct.

Let's look at the rise and fall of dynasties in the history of China, don't they follow this law? Qin's annihilation of the Six Kingdoms was the result of the "struggle for survival"; And the demise of Qin is exactly what Huxley said: "If this nature is too much." We will be even more helpless; A society ruled by this nature. It is bound to be destroyed from within. "The Mongol nation arose from Genghis Khan, rampaged across Eurasia, and eventually fell apart. To become a very ordinary nation is also an example of this law. Aren't many of the world's "existences", "rises", "flourishes", "are on the verge of extinction", and "perish" all according to this law?

Putting aside the political issues of nation, state, and dynasty, it is an "individual", a family, and a "unit" that survives in this human society, and it also follows this law, and cannot do without the ability to "struggle for survival" (including "competition"); Nor can this "ability" be overused and destroyed from within. What this point of view emphasizes is that human society is different from the natural world, and the "struggle for survival" is not necessarily the most "adaptable" in human society.

We understand the laws of human social development, the purpose is: first, to satisfy the desire for knowledge; The second is to adapt our behavior to the requirements of society and achieve "survival of the fittest". However, it is not easy for one to successfully obtain "true knowledge". The ability to "struggle for survival" is undoubtedly given to every living organism by nature, as long as it "exists", and there is no need to worry about the lack of awareness of "struggle for survival". If we look at it from the logic of cognition, "natural selection" is nothing more than an "axiom" in mathematics.

In traditional Chinese culture, "the winner is king" and "the winner is defeated" also mean this. Yan Fu condensed Huxley's theory into "natural selection, survival of the fittest", and this view was widely circulated, not because of the spread of any advanced ideas from the West, but because of the traditional thinking of advocating "strength" and putting on the beautiful cloak of "modernization" and "globalization." It is not necessary to examine whether Yan Fu "misread" or deliberately introduced Huxley's work in this way, but to examine why the "worship of power" thinking is so stubborn? Does this kind of thinking bring us "security" and "order" or "fear" and "chaos"? What are the practical consequences of superstitious thinking for hundreds of years? Should we abandon this mindset today?

There are three aspects of Chinese traditional culture that are much weaker than European traditions, that is, the degree of recognition of the market economy; Sect. The degree of maturity of the religion and the degree of resistance to the sect. religious devotion to worship; Recognition and mastery of the scientific method. Money (here synonymous with the market) can be said to be the earliest tool "invented" by mankind to curb brutal power, and to provide the possibility of non-violent distribution of "resources". Although it is far from being able to completely suppress the "strong", it is not the same as Zong. Religion is the original basis for the formation of human society by breaking away from the animal kingdom, with them. Only then did it have the "power" to restrain the barbaric "nature" of human beings.

A considerable number of early European thinkers and scientists were Christians, and the early schools were also sectarians. Teach the school. The development of science has greatly strengthened the ability to suppress "nature", but at the same time, it has also made the expansion of "nature" more dangerous, making it possible to destroy human society. These aspects of China's history are relatively weak, resulting in people not being able to see the cultural power to restrain the "barbaric nature", resulting in a superstition about "dominance".

"Violence" is to "subdue" the opponent, and in ancient times, the resources required by the same kind of resources would locally cause a natural state of life and death, and "violence" may be the ability of everyone who survives to have the ability to "struggle for survival", and it is also the "nature" inherited from the ancestors as Huxley said. The formation of human society is also the emergence of "people" (villages, cities, countries, nations, tribes, "groups", etc.), and the individual cannot be strong in front of the "collective". The "nature" of the "struggle for survival" refers to the ability shown by the "group". It is likely that the cause of the destruction of one "group" is not the strength of another "group" (destroyed from the outside), but the unsuppressed internal "nature". Huxley emphasized that a "crowd" adapted to human society must have the ability to "struggle for survival" and at the same time know to suppress this "nature", and the latter is more important. Huaguo on this land. There are far more wars than in other parts of the world. The tragedy is also the worst. And most of them were civil wars, which is exactly what Huxley pointed out that "if this nature is too much, we will be helpless; A society ruled by this nature. It is bound to be destroyed from within. ”

In the conflict between China and the West in the 19th century, China was the loser of the war, which provoked a boom in the search for a way to become a strong country. Yan Fu's "natural selection, survival of the fittest" swept the intellectual circles of the whole country at the beginning of the last century, precisely because it catered to the traditional culture of China, but did not play a role in introducing the advanced culture of the West, causing confusion in the thinking of the Chinese intellectuals. Confusion of thought produces erroneous cognitions, which eventually leads to revolution. Lives are everywhere, and the war is difficult to settle. There are many factors for the emergence of complex historical phenomena, but it should be said that it is very important to say that there is a consensus among the "scholars" who control public opinion, which can influence the strategies adopted by those in power, and the "political attitudes" of ordinary people, especially the direction in which the "elites" among young people are fighting. Yan Fu's view is precisely the deviation on this important issue, and it deserves our serious consideration. As a "powerful country" that hopes to rise, it should be the primary condition for "readers" to have a more correct consensus.

Over the past 100 years, we have reviewed the defeat in foreign wars and preferred to understand it according to the law of "natural selection", attributing it to our own poor ability to "struggle for survival" and weak "force", and China is on the verge of being carved up and destroyed, and regard this as a kind of shame.

Now that we regard this "natural selection" as an incomplete cognition, a misreading, we will feel that we have found the real cause of the problem. In the wars between China and foreign countries in modern history, China was not at a disadvantage, and the Westerners had the so-called foreign robberies and foreign artillery, but they had to travel far across the ocean, and the number of troops was far less than that of the Qing Dynasty, which fought locally, which was a "big taboo" for soldiers.

How can the victory of the "foreigners" be said to be a case of "the law of the jungle"? It is an example of winning more with less, and defeating the strong with the weak. If we fully accept Huxley's viewpoint, we will see that what China lacks is the suppression of "barbaric nature" and the understanding of all kinds of shortcomings of traditional culture, and the problem that needs to be solved urgently is to seriously study Western culture, learn science and technology, and promote trade. Understand the so-called "foreign diplomacy...... Wait a minute. As far as strengthening our own armed forces is concerned, we must first do a good job in these basic tasks. If we define "weakness" as long as it fails, then the main problem of a country's "weakness" is that its internal "struggles" are too serious, and it is not possible to find a "tool" to restrain its "nature" well.

If a society does not have a group of "scholars" who conscientiously study knowledge and allow misread or incomplete theories to circulate, the "cultural forces" of society will not be able to restrain the barbaric "nature" and the society will be permeated in a violent environment, and not only will the people devour the evil consequences, but the "power of the country" will only be a dream. For more than 100 years from the middle of the 19th century, China has been in constant turmoil (including "movements"), and various "tragedies" have been staged frequently, illustrating this problem.

Isn't it a "fool" to talk about "self-reflection" and cultural power in front of the "enemy" holding a murderous butcher's knife and in the face of the imminent demise of the country? Isn't it a confession of "weakness"? This also highlights the lack of understanding of the state of human civilization in the world for more than 100 years.

By the middle of the 19th century, the barbaric "nature" inherited from the "ancestors" of human beings had been suppressed to a certain extent, and in the relatively civilized areas of the world at that time, the brutal life-and-death struggle between countries or nations basically did not exist, and it was mostly a struggle for social control, and the phenomenon of colonization and colonization between countries and nations was basically non-existent.

"Colonization" is not a matter of life and death for ordinary people. When the Qing dynasty of China first engaged in armed conflict with the West, the colonial system had already begun to decline, and the cause of the wars that occurred was far from the so-called "struggle for survival", but a war around trade. The treaties signed after the war were mainly about trade (the relations between China and Japan and Russia were too complicated to be cited). The situation at that time was likened to a tiger and a wolf devouring the weak, it was the world powers that carved up China, the treaties were all unequal, and the "treaties" were meaningless. These perceptions are obviously not in line with the actual situation, lack serious rational and logical analysis, and are tinged with ultra-nationalism.

The relationship between countries and between nations is regarded as an absolute competitive relationship, which is not a life-and-death relationship, but also a difference between "primary and secondary" (I am "middle"), emphasizing that "those who are not of our race will have different hearts", mutual struggle is absolute, and compromise is temporary...... Wait a minute. These views have been deeply engraved in the traditional culture of China since the Qin Dynasty, and Yan Fu's "natural selection, survival of the fittest" is naturally in line with it. The only reason for the existence of "violence" in human society is the containment of "violence", and there is no reason for any "violence" to be praised. From today's world pattern, we can clearly see that the peaceful coexistence of countries is the trend of the real world.

That is, weak and basically unarmed countries and peoples can exist safely in all parts of the world; It is impossible for any large country or a nation with a large population to "perish" and "disappear"; At the same time, it is impossible to use force to show off your might in the world and do whatever you want. However, we are unwilling to look at reality objectively from the perspective of "suppressing nature", blindly advocating force, and abusing the creed of "struggle for survival".

To reflect on this period of intellectual history is to look at Huxley's views in their entirety, and to gain a correct understanding through their own experiences and the reality they have seen. A valuable theory should be able to explain history and the real world logically, so as to grasp the pulse of social development, so that we can know how to distinguish the "truth" and falsehood of various theories and opinions. (To be continued......)