I’ve heard one sentence: to enter a field, we need only read three books. And when you look for all the information about those three people by collecting and sorting, you’ve actually understood an area of over 80 percent.
So which three are we supposed to choose to achieve?
My proposal is that if we are completely alien to a field, but to get into it quickly, we should read three people: “Creatives”, “dissidents” and “comprehensives”.
To understand a field, you have to find the founder.
In every industry, there are nostalgic ancestors, such as Luban, who was the founder of the construction industry, and the restaurant industry, which is the toothless. In the knowledge community, there is also a founder in every field, and they are the “starters” in one field. Keynes, for example, was the founder of macroeconomics, and China’s tomb-throwing novel was the founder of the world’s chorus.
If we want to get into a field, we have to read the book of the “founder” because the “starter” has a lot of key information that others cannot.
Why do you say that?
First, in order to understand the framework of thinking and thinking in an area, reading the book of the “founder” would have the effect of getting to the point. A pioneer must have come from a certain field, because many of the ideas in that area could not be accommodated in his thinking framework, so he came out of his sect. Thus, there must have been a systematic reflection and criticism of his former field by the “founder” — a reflection and criticism that after he had done, the latter would no longer need to do.
Second, a “founder” must have created a sect to solve a certain problem. Economics, for example, is about efficiency, sociology is about the nature and demands of different segments of society, and psychology is about analysing the mental state of human beings.
This purpose, because the founders themselves have systematically stated that they will write many introductory, declarative and systematic articles on the aims of the discipline, will generally not be addressed. If we have not read the book of the founders, this key part of the message may be missing, and many of the younger ones are actually not.
Today ‘ s philosophy students are still going to Socrates and Plato, more than 2,000 years ago. It was not because they were old, but because of the many ideas that Socrates had put forward, and the philosophers who had left them behind would not mention them.
Thirdly, if we do not read the book of the founders, it is very likely impossible to understand why others are studying those areas. “Creater” is often a very comprehensive man, because he was the first to start a sect. Although he was unable to provide in-depth information in many areas, he often did things to the point where he wanted to. His students and disciples studied in depth on the basis of his thoughts and good intentions.
For example, I mentioned Hu Chi, who had mentioned very constructive ideas in many areas of Man Sage, but had not studied them in depth himself. His history was inherited by his disciples Guo Guangcheng and Fuss, and his Red Science was inherited by Zhou Yu Chang and others.
And the “creature” I’m talking about is not necessarily a big field pioneer, but a lot of the subdivisions below it, if he has a lot of heirs, he’s a “creature.”
There are many “activists” like Kafka, the “founders” of expressionism, Derida, the “founders” of deconstructionism, Mary Vostoklavt, the “founders” of feministism. They’re not really “starters” in the big world, but they’re all the same.
It would be very helpful to read their books quickly into an area.
The Discrepast brings knowledge to innovation and cross-border thinking.
In addition to the Founder, we need to read a book of the Disagreementers.
Usually, for many years after the beginning, an area has been divided among disciples on the basis of many of the ideas put forward by the “founders ” , all of whom have done their jobs and done their own small tasks. These people, who do their job, whose books, while also have a high level of knowledge, do not necessarily give us much new meaning. And the more backward the division of labour, the more nuanced it becomes, the more ridiculous it becomes. Hu Xi can write an outline of the history of Chinese philosophy, but today the students of philosophy can only study one or the other of the unknown thinkers.
At this stage, there are some “dissidents” in every field.
The term “dissident” comes from a novel that later became a film. It’s about a particular society, where people are divided into five categories according to their character and their talent, and they are divided up. But there is always a small group of people who are special in character and talent and who are reluctant to be subject to this division of labour, who are so powerful that they look very different and are therefore called “dissidents”.
At a time when the division of labour was particularly nuanced in each area, many people were reluctant to continue it, so they crossed the border and ended up being “dissidents”. Others, who were not originally part of the subject, have crossed the border and brought new thinking, all of them divisive.
To illustrate this point, I will briefly give you a few examples.
We all know there are five major problems in mathematics, one of which is called the Femma Theorem. It was an algebra theorem, and from its inception, many generations struggled to untie it. The final theory was solved by a geometric mathematician, Wells. Wells is not an algebra study at all, but when he reads algebra history, Wells is a “dissident.”
Professor Yee-tai is, for example, an aesthetic professor at Xiamen University, but he has been writing history. If you would like to read some general history books, you might wish to start with Professor Eclipsian. He is also a “dissident” in history. His history books, though not as rigorous and prescriptive as they were, were not available to historians from many angles.
And, for example, in the years of world history, there have been two super-sellers of the Roman Story and the short history of humanity. While both books are history books, the authors are divisive. The author of the short history of humanity, Yuvar Hellali, understands many genetics and ethnographic theories, and the author of the story of the Romans, Salano, who writes about ancient Roman history, is Japanese and uses an Eastern perspective. If you are interested in the history of Rome, you should choose a book of the seven-life “dissidents” in addition to Eduard Gibbons, the founder of the Roman Empire.
Tocqueville, the author of the old system and revolution recently recommended by major websites, is also a “dissident” in sociology circles. Today he has many disciples, and almost half of his sociology circles are his followers, but he entered the sociology field as a “dissident”: Other sociologists were studying marginalized groups and vulnerable groups, but Tocqueville focused on the middle of society.
Also, when we have a general understanding of a field and are ready to study in depth, this “dissident” can be considered a “starter” and we can follow the knowledge tree he has created and find the “dissidents” against him.
Find the “comprehensive” and finish the core arguments.
Once we find the first two, we can find the next one.
There are two kinds of “comprehensives”: the one that I have said before, where one area has reached a certain stage, where many new evidence and phenomena cannot be incorporated into the original analytical framework, which, with its accumulation, is prone to collapse. At this point, some great gods, like Darwin and Einstein, come out and propose a new analytical framework, doctrine, and they are such “comprehensives”.
Such “comprehensives” are generally well known, and even we can see their names in primary school textbooks.
In choosing such persons, we need only bear in mind one thing: the search for those who have not so far been surpassed and subverted.
In addition to this kind of combination, there’s a kind of “combinant,” which is not necessarily strong, but reading their books does help us get into a business quickly. Their characteristics are learned, and the industry knows everything, and then they write the same thing and write a lot of articles. Although it may not necessarily be concluded that it was original, what they wrote was really very comprehensive, almost the same as an encyclopedia.
Such people are in all areas. For example, if you want to learn about sociology today, you don’t have to start with some of the great gods Weber and Tulgane, you can start with the work of Professor Zhengyuan North. Professor Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zhen Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zhu Zhu Zhu Zhu wrote a large volume of works on sociology. A good reading of Professor Zheng’s work will enable you to enter the field. And, for example, if you want to get into management science quickly, you can read Peter Drucker, who is today’s “comprehensive” in the field of management, or Professor Chen Chunhua’s series of management studies, which, after learning, is almost complete.
For example, in order to learn about economics quickly, it is not necessary to buy a column, to read books of contemporary economics’ “comprehensives”, such as those of Zhou Zhou, Zhang Wai Cai, Zhang Chang Chang Chang, and also to enter the field of economics.
We, as Chinese, have a benefit in our choice, which is foreign. China ‘ s knowledge system was formally integrated with foreign countries only after the first maritime repatriation of the country. We are familiar with that generation of students, many of whom are well known: Lin Moo-jin, Fahtung, Liang Si-sheng, Kim Yue-hyun, Hu Xian, Luxhu, Ting Wenjiang, Zhang Zhang Jun-yi’s brother, Chen Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng
Because they were the first people to look at the world, their generation wrote a large number of founding books, China Building History, the Outline of Chinese Philosophy History, and Chinese Novel History. We want to get into a field quickly, and if it is difficult to read the book of the founder, we can read them directly. Although they write all about China, the thinking is actually one of modern Western disciplines.
More importantly, their books are not comprehensible, and many languages are particularly popular, such as Mr. Fayssau ‘ s ” Jiangmura Economy ” and ” Country China ” , which are very well understood. If you’re interested in anthropology, it’s the best way to read Fahrenheit books.
Moreover, today there are a considerable number of humanities and social science professionals who are not at the same level as the country as a whole. It’s better to read those books than read the books of the Master of the People’s Republic.
After the 1980’s, China’s reform and opening up began to have a wave of masters who, as new “comprehensives”, re-enacted the knowledge system that had been isolated from the West for decades. In particular, many of the first generation after the restoration of the examination became the “comprehensive” of the era. Professor Zheng Zheng Zheng Zhang, whom I mentioned earlier, is one of them.
Finally, let me conclude by summarizing what we have today: according to the principles of the knowledge tree, to enter a new field quickly, three of them will have to read.
The three are: the “founders” of the founding sect, the “dissidents” who break the boundaries, and the “comprehensives” who summarize and have a comprehensive content. It is important to note that there is no clear order of sequence between the three and that, after the opening of the sect, the differencers and the compositers appear at random.
In order to deepen your understanding of these three concepts, I would like to give an example. Recently, the founder of this project was the Southern Song philosopher Lu Katsuchi, who created the mind to advocate “righteousness.” After hundreds of years of development, the dynasty grew stronger, more and more ingenuity, and more and more ingenuity came to light, and he developed “sun” on the basis of his predecessors and became an all-embracing, “comprehensive.”
And Wang Yang-ming’s disciple Wang Qian, who absorbed the essence of his master’s thoughts, was distinct. His message was mainly directed at the lower classes of the population and was no longer confined to intellectuals, and it was very pragmatic to take into account the actual situation of the population.
His academic legacy system, though still luminous, has complex characteristics of cynicism, cynicism, cynicism, and cynicism. In this sense, Wang Qian is the “dissident” who, while he has inherited the core view, has taken on new developments, which have led to refinements and cleavages from other perspectives.
In fact, from another angle, Lu Kowloon himself was also a divisive person, because mind studies were a branch of Confucianism, while Song Dynasty was dominated by Chu. Lu Kowloon opened his mind and fought the Science Chamber.
So let us not limit ourselves to those three concepts, but, having understood their main characteristics and spiritual core, choose the three people you need most. Record number: YX11Kj01aAd
I don’t know.
Keep your eyes on the road.
