我为什么终结了西方思想/Why I Ended Western Thought

 论文之十三

我为什么终结了西方思想

（一）

现在，科学与技术的主从关系需要调整了 ：在人类思想的发展上，我明明看见是技术的发展推动了科学的革命，而不是象一般人们误解的那样，由科学带动了技术。所以“科学技术”的提法，有一种错误的暗示性。现在，应该将两者的关系摆正为“技术——科学”；“科技”一词应该由“技科”取而代之。

（二）

正如我在《爱因斯坦与瞎猫赌徒》里指出过的，技术的发展都不是由任何理论推导出来的，任何人都没有这样的先见之明。技术的发展，都是碰出来的巧合，是多次试错的结果，是瞎猫碰上死耗子 ；可以说是上帝的恩赐，也无法说是天才的创造。

（三）

技术手段的扩张，扩大了科学的视野，从而让人可以推翻以往的科学模式，进行新的理论解释。例如，是望远镜破除了古代天文学的理论模型。

从爱因斯坦到现在，一百年过去了，天文视野和物理技术不知提高了多少，如果说他的理论还没有崩溃，那就说明现代思想界太愚蠢了。

（四）

新的科学理论的构造，诞生于新的技术条件之下，而绝不是相反。社会学理论也是如此。从马克思到现在，两百年过去了，新的社会调查和数据分析不知积累了多少，如果说他的理论还没有崩溃，那就说明现代理论界太愚蠢了。

（五）

根据上述情况，可以说，任何“科学公理”实际上都是一个“死穴”，因为它既然自设为“公理”，就注定是荒谬的了。“科学公理”变成了宗教教条，科学变成了科学主义，就成为注定要被后人搬走的梯子，因为它的长度永远不够。修修补补、人为接长的梯子，绝不可能牢靠，因此只有重起炉灶，重新打造一把崭新的梯子（科学模式），才能攀登新的理论高度、才能深入新的认识层面。

（六）

“科学公理必错”——这是因为，任何公理都是人的总结，而不是别的。

基于人类有限的感官机能，而总结出来的科学公理，先天不足、后天有误，永远无法企及宇宙的真相。

（七）

科学可以有革命，而无法有革新，因为在新的技术所提供的新的视野之下，以往的科学模式就像一把长度不够的梯子，只能换掉，不能接续。

但是技术却可以有革新，因为任何技术进展都是依赖人类的经验一点一点通过“试错方法”摸索积累起来的。然后科学掳掠了技术的成果，把它们据为己有，最后提出一套“理想的模型”，其实那不过是科学家自己的假设罢了。

（八）

人是高级哺乳动物，却是低级感应器材。人的感官误差极大，甚至不如刚刚诞生不久的电脑来得精准，如此低劣的素质，怎么可能发现宇宙的真理？除非，是把这些发现仅仅当作一种探索性质的游戏，仅仅当作自己的思想。

在认识能力上，人的错误是绝对的，人的正确只能是相对的。这种谦逊态度，才是相对主义高于绝对主义的地方。

（九）

进入二十一世纪以来，全新的互联网技术已经在各个方面彻底改变了世界。但是，西方思想界对此却一片死寂、毫无反应。

西方的思想界在互联网世界面前的麻痹状态说明 ：西方思想已经终结了。因此可以说，不是我终结了笛卡儿以来的西方思想，而是“思想主权”总结了笛卡儿以来的西方思想，也终结了这个已经丧失了思想能力的西方思想传统。

（十）

“这一切都是人想出来的，我推断它后面有一个主权。”——谢选骏

Thesis Thirteen

Why I Ended Western Thought

(I) The master-slave relationship between science and technology now needs adjustment. In the development of human thought, I clearly see that the advancement of technology has driven scientific revolutions, rather than the common misconception that science leads technology. Therefore, the phrase "science and technology" carries a misleading implication. The relationship between the two should now be rectified as "technology-science"; the term "kējì" (科技) should be replaced by "jìkē" (技科).

(II) As I pointed out in Einstein and the Blind Gambler, technological developments are never deduced from any theory; no one possesses such foresight. Technological advancements are all coincidental discoveries, the result of repeated trial and error, like a blind cat stumbling upon a dead mouse. One could say they are a gift from God, but they certainly cannot be called the creation of genius.

(III) The expansion of technological means has broadened the horizons of science, allowing people to overthrow previous scientific models and propose new theoretical explanations. For example, it was the telescope that shattered the theoretical model of ancient astronomy.

One hundred years have passed since Einstein, and astronomical observation and physical technology have advanced immeasurably. If his theories have not yet collapsed, it only shows how foolish modern intellectual circles are.

(IV) The construction of new scientific theories is born under new technological conditions, and never the other way around. The same applies to sociological theories. Two hundred years have passed since Marx, and countless new social surveys and data analyses have accumulated. If his theories have not yet collapsed, it only shows how foolish modern theoretical circles are.

(V) Based on the above, one can say that any "scientific axiom" is actually a "fatal flaw," because by self-proclaiming as an "axiom," it is destined to be absurd. When "scientific axioms" become religious dogma, and science transforms into scientism, it becomes a ladder destined to be removed by future generations, because its length is always insufficient. A patched-up, artificially extended ladder can never be reliable; therefore, only by starting anew and forging a brand-new ladder (scientific model) can one ascend to new theoretical heights and delve into new levels of understanding.

(VI) "Scientific axioms are bound to be wrong"—this is because any axiom is merely a human summation, nothing more. Scientific axioms, summarized based on limited human sensory functions, are inherently flawed and subsequently erroneous, forever incapable of reaching the truth of the universe.

(VII) Science can have revolutions, but not mere innovations, because under the new perspectives provided by new technology, previous scientific models are like a ladder of insufficient length, which can only be replaced, not extended. However, technology can have innovations, because any technological progress is accumulated bit by bit through human experience by means of "trial and error." Then science plunders the achievements of technology, appropriates them as its own, and finally proposes a set of "ideal models," which are actually just the scientists' own hypotheses.

(VIII) Humans are advanced mammals, but low-grade sensing equipment. Human sensory errors are enormous, even less precise than newly born computers. With such inferior qualities, how can humans discover the truth of the universe? Unless these discoveries are merely treated as a game of exploration, merely as one's own thoughts. In terms of cognitive ability, human error is absolute, and human correctness can only be relative. This humble attitude is where relativism surpasses absolutism.

(IX) Since entering the twenty-first century, entirely new internet technology has fundamentally transformed the world in every aspect. However, Western thought has been utterly silent and unresponsive to this. The paralysis of Western thought in the face of the internet world indicates: Western thought has ended. Therefore, one can say that it was not I who ended Western thought since Descartes, but "sovereignty of thought" that summarized Western thought since Descartes, and also ended this Western intellectual tradition that has lost its capacity for thought.

(X) "All of this was conceived by humans; I deduce that there is a sovereignty behind it." — Xie Xuanjun