加密数字货币交易所-《论语》详解：给所有曲解孔子的人-子曰：学而不思则罔，思而不学则殆

Confucius said: Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.

Yang Bojun: Confucius said: “Just reading books without thinking will lead to being deceived; just daydreaming without reading will cause a lack of confidence.”

Qian Mu: The master said: “Learning only from the outside without using thought will ultimately lead to confusion. Only knowing how to think without external learning is also dangerous.”

Li Zehou: Confucius said: “Learning without thinking leads to confusion; thinking without learning is dangerous.”

Detailed Explanation:

This chapter delves deeper than Kant’s statement that “sensibility without understanding is blind; understanding without sensibility is empty.” “Learning” involves hearing about “the Way of the Sage,” observing “the Way of the Sage,” and constantly “comparing” “the Sage” in real society—this is based on differences; while “thinking,” as explained in Shuowen Jiezi, means “to consider, to contain,” and “contain” cannot be separated from certain paradigms. For example, a sieve, for water, is not “contain,” and there are so-called incomprehensible things, which imply that “thinkable” has an underlying standard—exceeding this standard makes something seem incomprehensible. The premise of “thinking” relies on sameness; for instance, what Euclidean geometry can “think,” implies that the rigid body motion of objects has a sameness within the “thinkable” objects. Therefore, all squares with equal side lengths can be considered the same. Without “sameness,” all science becomes unthinkable. For example, in physics, a simple example of sameness is that in special relativity, any inertial frame is regarded as the same; without this requirement of sameness, special relativity cannot be developed. In philosophy, even Heidegger, who aims to reconstruct metaphysics, cannot escape the underlying assumption of some “sameness” in his “thinking” of existence.

Regarding “learning,” which presupposes difference, and “thinking,” which presupposes sameness, Confucius’s insights have some resonance with Derrida. Derrida’s concept involves the intertwining of difference and sameness in différance, both present and absent, and it’s impossible to purely decompose or establish difference and sameness within différance, nor to construct différance from them. This has nothing to do with the sophistic dialectic of “uniting two into one” or “dividing one into two.” Such nonsensical propositions are only cherished by those untrained in philosophy—quack philosophers who deceive with superficial ideas.

The three explanations above, and the usual interpretations, all fail to grasp what “learning” and “thinking” truly are, and the implicit premises behind them. “Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous” is a typical intertextual statement. Pursuing “learning without thought” or “thought without learning” only leads to confusion, fatigue, and no gain. “Learning” and “thinking” are inseparably intertwined in the present. Any “learning” presupposes the “thinking” of sameness; even Kant understood this well—without some foundational structure of “thinking,” “learning” is impossible. Conversely, any “thinking” presupposes “learning” based on difference; this is something Kant could not have known. Derrida said, “What I present to myself is after language,” which sounds more credible now.

Plain translation of Chan’s Zen teaching

Confucius said: Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.

Confucius said: Separating the difference-based “learning” from the sameness-based “thinking” only leads to confusion, fatigue, and no gain.