New Shun 1730

The road has reached this point, and there is no way to copy the homework. I can only cross the river by feeling for the stones and find a road that belongs to Dashun.

Kang Buluo's idea was good. At this point, since it was no longer possible to learn from history, he would use rocks from other mountains to attack jade.

But there is no way to "attack" in the first step.

The difficulty of the whole thing lies in the enlightenment before the incident, not in the system after the incident.

In other words, what Europe needs now is to describe an ideal country; and how did Dashun reach the "Three Generations Rule".

For a long time, there has been "the spread of Western learning to the east" in Dashun, and there has also been the "spread of eastern learning to the west" in Europe.

To some extent, at least to a certain extent, the French side is able to carry out such spectacular events, thanks to Dashun and the Ming Dynasty, and to China.

But Dashun is not good here. There is no way to learn from those enlightenment scholars and create a tool for "an utopia like China". They can only dig in the direction of "the rule of the three generations".

The difficulty lies in how to dig? How to solve the problem?

As Kang Busao said, China's thousands of years of pride and mentality do not allow for a more perfect country in the world than China, unless it is so bad that no one can compare with it.

There can be an utopia, but this utopia can only dig out the rule of three generations from history.

On the other hand, in Europe, China can be used as a perfect tool for enlightenment.

In fact, in the eyes of Europeans at this time, there were two completely different images of China.

And these two images can be seamlessly switched at any time according to demand - a bit like the United States in later generations, when it needs Congress to approve money, it will shout threats; when it does not want money, it will shout that it is vulnerable and collapse is just around the corner.

It is exactly the same at this time, it can be "history at rest", "writing is a barbaric relic of the age of gods", "child-like understanding", "arrogantly complacent".

It can also become "the pursuit of advanced technology," "the most complete law," "the most open mind," "the most humble morality," and "the freest religion."

As for the truth, no one cares. China is just a "tool man" who can transform appropriately when needed.

Even Walter, who was considered "barbaric ignorance, human childhood" on the Centurion battleship at this time, the original intention of Vico that influenced him to think this way was that the drunkard's intention was not to drink.

He doesn't care about China at all. The purpose is still the enlightenment of his own country. China is only described as a tool.

The logic is also very simple.

Times are changing. Everything in the past was bad. People must be enlightened to overturn everything in the old era.

Therefore, static history is not good, but rolling forward is good.

We need to break away from everything in the old era, and we cannot stand still just because of "tradition."

Otherwise, “all have the same arrogant belief that they are older than all other peoples, that they have long ago created the things necessary for human comfort, and that their own recalled history goes all the way back to the world itself. The origins of the savages who thought that everything they knew was as old as the world.

If you don’t want to stay in the “barbaric age of gods and continuation of human childhood,” then move forward, don’t think that you have created everything necessary for a comfortable human life, and be brave enough to try new things.

This is somewhat logical and makes sense.

As for Voltaire, logic is not even needed.

There are even many inconsistent and inaccurate depictions of China.

As long as the purpose is achieved, it doesn't matter whether what is described is the truth.

Voltaire had been to England, and of course he had seen the situation there. He knew that "there is no freedom at all on the earth, and powerful speculators and swindlers dominate in England."

But, not important.

Most French people have never been to the UK and only know that France is an absolute monarchy while the UK is a constitutional monarchy.

Therefore, Britain, where "there is absolutely no freedom on earth and powerful speculators and swindlers dominate", became a desirable country in the book.

As long as a constitution is established, everything will be fine.

The same goes for the introduction to China.

Historically, astrology was popular in Paris, France, and feudal superstition was prevalent.

In order to sweep away the astrologers on the streets, Voltaire raised the banner of "technological determinism" and introduced China like this:

China was conquered twice by barbarians because they had no cannons. Not focusing on technology. Although the Chinese invented gunpowder, they did not know how to use cannons.

Later, France advocated that "God's will can explain the world." In order to counter this, Voltaire argued that "environment and culture determine many things, and it is obvious that God's will cannot explain the world."

China’s image has become like this again:

China had cannons and could use them, but the Manchus did not have cannons. However, [it is remarkable that the Manchus without cannons defeated the Han people with cannons]. Why? Because the environment determines the character of a nation, the people in the north are more united and good at fighting. Rather than, as some people say, God's will can explain everything.

According to it, the mechanical materialistic environment can determine the character of a nation.

Will China use cannons? Was the Manchu Qing entering the country because of "technological determinism" or because "environment determines national character"?

The truth is not important, what is important is to shoot first and draw the target later.

Whether or not the cannon is present is a superposition state that can be switched at any time.

In order to prove that "hereditary inheritance is not a matter of course," Voltaire fabricated the Manchus as "a model of those who resisted democracy, democratic institutions, and freedom," calling him "the man who was oppressed by the Ming governor and first took up arms to defend his freedom The nation does not know hereditary rights. So we see that in the early days, all nations elected leaders to fight wars, and they were hereditary...].

If you haven’t read Chinese history books, you would think that General Longhu, a subordinate of the Ming Dynasty, held up the tricolor flag and shouted "free doom" before the rebellion.

But in fact, the focus of the entire discussion is the words after the words "and hereditary...".

In order to oppose the French church rule, Voltaire praised the Manchu Qing Dynasty under Yongzheng, [only the ancient Romans could compare with it].

Why? Because Yongzheng angrily rebuked the missionaries and curbed the ambitions and tricks of the monks.

Voltaire, on the other hand, was anti-church. For this, you can boast.

In short, such inconsistencies abound.

One second it's "China doesn't know how to use cannons", the next second it's "Hans with cannons can't beat the Manchus whose national character is shaped by the environment"; one second it's "barbaric Tatars", the next second it's " Only the ancient Romans could match it."

China, this tool man, is extremely perfect.

further than the UK.

It is difficult for ordinary people to reach and expose the truth.

Richer than Britain.

Everyone has the mentality of admiring the strong and the rich. If someone is so rich, everything must be right.

Less likely to be disliked by the French than by the British.

France and Britain are feuding people. Even though the French long for enlightenment, they are just like the people who played the sun in later generations. The Chinese will always have a natural aversion to the people who play the sun.

More mysterious than Britain.

Ordinary people don't know what it's like there, so they can mix it up with private goods and add the most beautiful system they imagine to this utopia.

The most important point is that China also believes in "God", not Zoroastrianism and other messy religions known to Europeans.

As for whether he really doesn’t know “this God” is not “that God”, or he pretends not to know, or he really doesn’t know, that’s not clear.

In short: [While other nations were still worshiping idols, the Chinese people truly understood God... In the edicts of all dynasties, they would say: God is the God, the father of all peoples, and rewards and punishments are just...]

Rather than using those heretical and pagan countries as an ideal country, this China that "knows God" is more suitable for the common people to recognize.

Therefore, under various conditions, China became the favorite utopia of the backbones of the Western Enlightenment Movement.

It’s not just Voltaire who likes to treat China as a tool.

At the same time, Diderot, Holbach, Quesnay and others also liked to use this almost perfect "tool man".

The true, the false, the idealized, the fragmentary, the misinterpreted, the incomplete... all strung together.

In order to ask for a supervisory system, the Swedes said that the Tang Empire had a people's supervisory system.

In order to establish a constitutional monarchy, Voltaire explained that the Qing Dynasty was a constitutional monarchy and that the emperor had no ability to do anything outside the law.

Dupont, a member of the Physiocratic School, published "Physiocracy, or the Management of Nature Most Conducive to Mankind", and directly stated the place of publication as "Published in the Forbidden City, Beijing."

Quesnay urged Louis XV to imitate the Emperor of China and perform the great ceremony of "practicing plowing" by holding the plow in the spring.

This is understandable, but then they turn around and say that "the autocratic system of the Chinese Empire is a perfect interpretation of natural law and an example of liberal economics", thereby hoping that the French government will let go of any economic controls and be laissez-faire - doing nothing. Only by governing can we become as prosperous as China.

When future generations see the words "Physical Agricultural School", they may think that this is a farmer just like "the farmer's family of the philosophers".

But in fact, the core idea of ​​this school is to "only tax farmers, abolish all industrial and commercial taxes, and implement complete laissez-faire freedom." The purpose is to oppose some economic controls in France.

This is not because foreign monks are fond of reciting sutras, but because the old way is no longer viable, and the new way has not yet been established.

Just like Dashun, they are all in a state of being broken but not established.

Dashun can be traced back to the "Three Generations of Rules", and in fact Europe can also be traced back to the "Kingdom of Heaven on Earth". There is no difference between the two in an idealized sense.

It’s just that French enlightenment scholars have realized that the “heaven on earth” itself is an accomplice of feudal oppression. If we want to destroy everything in the past, we cannot move forward with the slogan of retrospect.

So, at this moment, the East and the West, especially China and France, came together in a strange way.

The French, who were keen on describing the "Utopia", imagined that all Chinese dynasties were "ruled by three generations", and under the banner of "Utopia ruled by three generations", they moved towards a vigorous revolution.

Get rid of the old ideas, old customs, old habits and old morals, and smash to pieces the deception that has oppressed the "kingdom of heaven on earth" for thousands of years.

Destroy Notre Dame and rescue the true God. God is nature and nature is reason.

East Asia, which is keen on "taking history as a mirror" and "tracing the memory of its sages," cannot and cannot say that there is an "utopia" other than the Celestial Empire.

So we chanted the slogans of "returning to ancient times", "confucianism", "breaking Cheng Zhu and approaching Confucius and Mencius", held high the banner of "returning to the ideal of the country under the rule of three generations", and struggled to find a way forward.

Only by smashing the fantasy of the corrupt priests and the heaven on earth can we really build the heaven on earth and the city on the top of the mountain; only by smashing the fantasy of the corrupt literati and the rule of the Three Dynasties can we really return to the rule of the Three Dynasties and the rule of the people first and the monarch second.

The French envisioned "smashing Notre Dame to save the true God"; and the ancient Confucian school of Dashun envisioned "breaking a little Cheng Zhu, getting closer to Confucius and Mencius", their essence is not quite the same, but it is almost the same: whether it is Notre Dame or Cheng Zhu, they were once advanced, but now they have become the totem and fig leaf of the old era.

And Dashun was stuck at the step of "smashing".

When the heaven on earth has become an accomplice of the oppression and corruption of the priests, the French can bring in China as a tool.

But when the Three Dynasties' rule had become the accomplice of the decadent legalized Confucianism rather than Confucianism, Dashun, as the Celestial Empire, could not find an ideal country from outside when it was not hopelessly rotten and went from full self-confidence to full inferiority, so how could it be smashed first?

There is no establishment without destruction, no flow without blocking, and no progress without stopping.

Only after destruction and establishment can we remove the dross, take the essence, and prolong its spirit.

In fact, this road, whether it is the "Utopia" or the "Three Dynasties' Rule", the ancient Greek sages and the pre-Qin philosophers have tried it once. But the productivity was not up to standard, and two thousand years ago, both sides failed almost at the same time.

The image of China that is now circulated in the eyes of European Enlightenment thinkers is just the remnant of the pre-Qin philosophers. But it is not the real peak of feudal autocracy after the legalization of Neo-Confucianism since the Song Dynasty.