Over Spring Festival I finished Skirbekk’s history of philosophy. After this survey, I’ve found many problems have threads running back through the history of thought. Even when these thinkers can’t give direct answers, they provide categories and tools for thinking.

Philosophy is the discipline of creating concepts. Claiming you think independently is obviously overreaching. We all face similar problems, and the concepts, categories, and propositions you think with are mostly transmitted through language by people smarter than you—whether from Weibo, books, or TV shows.

The point of studying the history of thought is to understand where your own thinking stands. From my shallow impressions having just finished this philosophy survey, combined with real difficulties I’ve encountered, four propositions strike me as especially illuminating: 1.

The pursuit of certain knowledge (truth) 1.

The boundary between reason and faith (belief) 1.

The search for universal good and justice (politics) 1.

The question of existence and nothingness (meaning)

1. The Pursuit of Certain Knowledge

The pursuit of certain knowledge, and skepticism opposing it, runs through all of philosophy. Descartes’s “I think, therefore I am” is probably philosophy’s most famous line. His original intent wasn’t to tell everyone how precious thinking is. His real goal was to find an absolutely undeniable foundation for thought. Because no matter how much you doubt everything, you can’t doubt the very fact that you’re doubting (thinking). Building on things that are truly true, undeniably so, perhaps you could reason step by step and construct a knowledge system of absolute truth.

Good approach, but not so easy. Theories questioning certain knowledge never stopped evolving. Gorgias-style skepticism—claiming certain knowledge is absolutely impossible—is easily refuted, self-defeating. That view itself is certain knowledge. But the higher-order skepticism that came later isn’t so easily dismissed, and it reflects many people’s actual stance. No longer claiming we can’t know anything, but claiming we should keep searching without taking a fixed position. Like when you see news—don’t rush to judge. Let the bullets fly a while, wait for possible reversals, avoid getting your face slapped.

On this first question, I currently endorse several views:

  • **Knowledge is a subjective act (Kant)**Human knowledge doesn’t arise purely like a camera, as passive reflection of external things in the brain. Rather, people reorganize chaotic, disordered experiential reality according to internal ordering structures like space, time, and causality, building up a structured knowledge system.
  • **Truth is life-will and will-to-power (Nietzsche)**Take my beloved nihilism. Do I accept it only because it’s correct? Not simply. I accept it more out of contempt for authority and tradition, out of the life-will that’s driven my resistance all along.
  • **An argumentative attitude (Habermas)**Knowledge has different interests: technical (about nature), practical (about society), emancipatory (about self). Scientific-technical knowledge is about control, while practical and emancipatory knowledge requires more mutual understanding. We should strive for the right balance among the three. Facing uncertainty and disagreement, we should appeal to procedural, reflective rationality as the ultimate court of appeal.

2. The Boundary Between Reason and Faith

I was born in secular East Asian society, lacking the childhood religious experience common in Europe and America. But the question of faith doesn’t disappear just because you lack a particular religious form. That’s only a narrow understanding of faith.

Audi doesn’t get why some experienced people in their fifties gradually turn into nationalist zealots. Because it’s faith. Many people past middle age start seeking spiritual pillars—turning to Buddhism or Taoism, embracing Christianity, believing in the nation, pinning hopes on children, drowning in physical pleasure… People have to find meaning in their insignificant lives, some spiritual sustenance, or existence becomes unbearably heavy.

Here I must correct my earlier dismissal of Hannah Arendt: Though Arendt isn’t a grand master like Hegel founding schools of thought, as a diagnostician taking society’s pulse, her insights into totalitarianism are excellent. Modern society mass-produces superfluous people. Those who can’t find their place, value, and meaning in life will follow people and concepts that provide meaning for them. This truly is the origin of totalitarianism. On a practical level, this explains why so many knowledgeable, experienced people become obsessed with nationalism.

Instrumental reason can’t prove or derive life’s meaning. Life’s meaning requires individual reflection and searching. The real world is chaotic and disordered, full of uncertainty. Reason won’t give you certainty. All theories are fallible. Everything that gives you meaning and certainty, in my view, comes from faith.

Personally, I spiritually aspire to the Protestant state. Even watching Pulp Fiction recently I was moved by Jules—a stone-cold gangster who in one moment receives a calling, experiences amazing grace, and turns his life around completely. But what stops me from becoming religious is the question I asked that white guy trying to convert me at Düsseldorf station: What if I can only believe part of it, but can’t believe all of it?

So on the question of faith, I have no answers. But one thing is certain—you must enter through the narrow gate.

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matthew 7:14

3. The Search for Universal Good and Justice

This question concerns morality, law, and politics. I originally approached philosophy hoping for political philosophy. Because I felt my understanding only reached the enlightenment and general education level, and I hoped philosophy would provide higher theoretical armament.

But honestly, I was disappointed. Social science offers little innovation. What blocks good politics is just reality’s gravity. Politics is a practical discipline, an art of the possible, an art of compromise. Myanmar’s ten-year democratic experiment ended tragically, sliding toward civil war. A country’s future depends on a small group’s wisdom at the top. You can imagine China’s prospects won’t be smooth either. History’s course isn’t something individuals can steer, and the timeline exceeds one generation’s lifespan. You’ll die without seeing peace and clarity.

For liberal Chinese, “homeless dog” fits perfectly. Can’t accept being subjects under oppression, yet can’t fully escape racial and cultural divides.

How should individuals choose their fate? In an age of rampant collectivism, think more about individual meaning and value, ask what the collective can do for us. Build your own values transcending era and nationality, on foundations that withstand deeper scrutiny and the test of time. Choose your identity based on later choice rather than birth, choose and join groups whose values align with yours.

4. The Question of Existence and Nothingness

In high school, art teacher Ji Xiaoyue introducing modern art told us: Some people feel nothing looking at Dalí’s paintings at first, but at a certain age they love them. Back then I couldn’t understand that feeling, but now I seem to be reaching the age of appreciation.

Actually, I doubt young, inexperienced people can really understand philosophy. If I were ten years younger could I truly grasp these meanings? It takes life experience. You need to genuinely feel the pain. You need a heart strong enough to withstand the questioning. Is philosophy empty mysticism to some, pretentious bullshit to others? Between the lines flows countless people’s pursuit of answers, countless sleepless nights of anguished thought. It’s the shock and confusion when you rip into people, fight, part ways. It’s the suffocating helplessness when you’re clearly wronged but have no outlet. It’s the explosive “fuck you” when facing brutal pressure.

Nihilism is skepticism’s ultimate form. Take my repeatedly mentioned Rick and Morty—pure nihilism. And why do I love nihilism so much? Because it’s so damn convenient. For someone tormented by morality, hearing that morality is man-made—it’s like a drowning person grabbing straw, an unarmed person finding a weapon. This isn’t just a cognitive realm, it’s a willful choice. In a sense, deconstruction is liberation. Tear down the things that can’t withstand scrutiny, and freedom’s light can finally break through.

Now I’ve painfully grasped nothingness, but still can’t clearly define existence. Whether it’s Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith” or Sartre’s “choice” and “commitment”—I’ll stay open and keep seeking “the damned answer.”

The study of “mysticism” stops here for now. Next up: “caring about food and vegetables”—researching some practical problems.