I'm Alexander, a self - media person. I've launched a video channel on the Internet called Dialectic: Big Questions, which focuses on philosophical content.

Doing philosophical content online sounds rather abstract because, in people's eyes, philosophy has always been a recondite, niche, and obscure field that seems to speak in an esoteric way.

 Will the philosophy - related content on the Internet attract views? Can a philosophy self - media person make a living? Well, to my surprise, fortunately, our philosophy channel currently has about two million subscribers or followers across the Internet.

 Then, the question arises. This is also the question that the event organizers invited me to discuss with you today: Can philosophy still answer the perplexities of modern people? Based on my work experience as a philosophy self - media person, I'd like to share my observations and insights about this question.

Given that philosophy is such a niche and obscure discipline yet attracts so many people's attention, what do modern young people expect to gain from it? My philosophy channel is mainly targeted at non - philosophy - major audiences or users.

They learn about philosophy not for exams, getting a degree, or obtaining a professional title.

So, what can philosophy offer them? Of course, when making philosophical content for the general public, I often receive criticism or doubts, the most common being: What's the use of philosophy? What's the use of philosophy?

 This is probably the ultimate question that all teachers or content creators who teach, share, or write about philosophy have to face. Why do people always doubt the usefulness of philosophy?

We need to know that a distinctive feature of philosophy, unlike almost all other disciplines, is that there are no standard answers in philosophy.

For example, after finishing a physics class,

 you can walk out of the classroom and say, "Wow! Today I learned that all objects with mass are mutually attractive!"

After a biology class, you can say, "Wow! Today I learned that I'm made up of numerous cells!"

After an economics class, you can say, "Wow! Today I learned that the lower the price, the higher the demand!"

 However, after a philosophy class, all you can say is, "Wow! Today I learned about several mutually contradictory philosophical viewpoints!"

 Regarding almost all philosophical questions, philosophers have been arguing with each other since 2000 years ago.

 It seems that philosophy has never produced any definite knowledge. T

ake the philosophical question "Do people have free will?" 

for example. Laplace, the representative of mechanical determinism, claims that people don't have free will;

Robert Kane, the proponent of libertarianism, argues that people do have free will; and Harry Frankfurt, the advocate of compatibilism, states that people both have and don't have free will.

As you can see, there are three different answers from different philosophers. Each of their arguments seems reasonable, but they just can't reach a consensus.

Another example is the philosophical question of "the mind - body problem", that is, "What's the relationship between the mind and the body?"

Descartes, the representative of mind - body dualism, says that the mental substance is another kind of substance independent of the material substance;

Frank Jackson, the advocate of epiphenomenalism, believes that the mind is an epiphenomenon of matter; Gilbert Ryle, the proponent of behaviorism, argues that the so - called mental substances should be translated into behavioral manifestations;

U. T. Place, the representative of mind - brain identity theory, claims that people's mental states are actually the electrical discharges of the brain;

The Churchlands, the representatives of eliminative materialism, say that there are no mental states at all and that the mind is just an illusion;

 Hilary Putnam, the advocate of functionalism, argues that mental states are a kind of multiply - realizable functional states; and David Chalmers, the proponent of property dualism, claims that mental states are the properties of another kind of material substance independent of physical states, and so on.

 In short, philosophers have been in an uproar over this mind - body problem.

 Many philosophers, including Rousseau and Engels, have said that questions like the mind - body relationship are the most important and fundamental philosophical questions.

 However, there is no consensus on the correct answer among philosophers for such an important philosophical question.

 What can this discipline of philosophy offer us? The two classic philosophical questions we just mentioned are just examples.

We can say that for the vast majority of philosophical questions, or even without exaggeration, all philosophical questions, philosophers have different opinions and there are no definite answers.

As a philosophy self - media person, the philosophical video programs I make on the Internet actually adopt such a format: A big philosophical question is presented, and then philosophers from different schools express their incompatible, even diametrically opposed views and arguments on this question.

The topics of these big questions include: How can we confirm that we're not brains in a vat? Then there are four conflicting answers.

And how to solve the trolley problem? Also four conflicting answers. 

Other topics include: What's the essence of love? How should we view death? Is philosophy useful? This is also a philosophical question without a standard answer.

Some philosophers think it's useful, while others don't.

Furthermore, what's the essence of morality? Should we pursue success or peace of mind? What's the essence of science? What's the essence of marriage? And so on.

These are the topics of our programs where philosophers argue with each other.

At the end of each program, there's always a fixed line for the audience: "Please cast your vote and share your opinion."

 Many audience friends who watched our philosophical programs in this format have reported that after listening to three incompatible answers to the same question, when the first philosopher, say Kant, speaks, they feel his words make a lot of sense and are convinced.

 

Then when Hegel, who opposes Kant, speaks, they are convinced by Hegel. Next, when Wittgenstein, who opposes both of them, speaks, they are also convinced by Wittgenstein. The audience reported that after watching the program, they felt like a weather - vane.

Then the question is, Mr. Xia, what kind of philosophical knowledge are you trying to teach us through this program? What's the correct answer to this big philosophical question exactly?

Before watching your program, I was quite certain about these questions, but after watching it, I'm completely confused.

Since philosophy doesn't teach us any definite answers, what's its use for us? Well, there seems to be a standard response in the domestic philosophy circle.

They look obliquely upward at a 45 - degree angle into the sky with a profound look and say, "The so - called uselessness is actually the greatest usefulness," then turn around gracefully and head for the school canteen, leaving the questioner standing alone at the school building entrance to figure it out on their own.

Of course, my response to the audience friends isn't that terse. But usually, I just give up and admit directly that learning philosophy doesn't bring any practical benefits.

Philosophy is really not useful. For us non - professionals who don't take exams or pursue professional titles for it, philosophy is just a pure intellectual game.

 We do philosophy because we're bored and it's fun. It's just that after school or work, we always want some spiritual life, and philosophical exploration is a form of spiritual life.

Don't ask what its use is. Just follow my program and give me likes. But my answer can only go so far.

It may be rather weak. Indeed, as long as you're in this field, you'll always have to face this ultimate question about the usefulness of philosophy. Actually, in my opinion, the impression that philosophy doesn't provide definite knowledge may be related to the division of disciplines in modern times.

We all know that in ancient Greece, all knowledge was called philosophy. The Greek word for philosophy means "love of wisdom," that is, an activity of exploring knowledge. However, in the process of exploring some questions, a consensus on a definite answer seems to have been reached.

That is, through mathematical calculations and empirical methods such as conducting experiments, people could reach an agreement within a certain scope and have no more disputes.

Then the exploration of these questions that could temporarily reach a consensus was separated from philosophy and became an independent discipline.

For example, astronomy, physics, psychology, economics, etc., all came about in this way.

Those big questions that still don't have clear answers but we still care deeply about remain within the scope of philosophical discussions.

Just like the topics of our philosophy program that I just listed. So, with the differentiation and division of disciplines, philosophy seems to be left with the task of dealing with questions that don't have definite standard answers.

 This is why people always have the impression that philosophy can't provide definite knowledge. However, despite these doubts about the usefulness of philosophy, many people still pay attention to philosophical content. Let's go back to the question we raised at the beginning.

Since philosophy is so niche and seems unable to provide any definite knowledge, what do people on the Internet today expect to gain from it when they focus on philosophy? The video channel I run receives private messages from audience friends every day, mostly in the form of questions. They hope that I'll make a special program to answer their questions.

The most frequently asked questions are about their life confusions.

Among them, the most common type of life confusion is how to find the meaning of life. The audiences hope that I'll make a program to discuss how to overcome nihilism. What is nihilism?

Of course, this term was originally a philosophical one, but now it has also become a word we use in our daily lives. In the most common context, nihilism means the inability to sense the meaning and purpose of one's own life, feeling that one's soul has no place to rest, lacking a vision for the future, and not knowing where one's life is headed. In short, it is a sense of confusion.

Actually, in the "Big Questions" program I hosted, I've already made an episode exploring the topic of "How to overcome nihilism." As usual, there was no standard answer. Instead, five different philosophers presented their different diagnoses of and prescriptions for nihilism.

Therefore, regarding the question that concerns our audience about how to overcome nihilism, I don't dare to be certain that any one of the solutions provided by the philosophers is the correct answer.

The audience would ask me, "Teacher Xia, just tell me which answer you think is correct.

Let us just believe in it, and then I can steadfastly put this solution into practice." "Let us just believe in it?"

It seems that the audience really hopes to have a definite, universal standard answer for finding the meaning of life, and then directly and whole - heartedly entrust themselves to this answer and simply believe. 

So, I began to think about why so many people these days fall into nihilism and cannot perceive the meaning of life. Perhaps it has something to do with the lack of such a standard answer. The German philosopher Nietzsche's diagnosis of nihilism is well - known through his famous slogan "God is dead." Nietzsche believed that the death of God is the cause of people falling into nihilism.

 The "God" that Nietzsche mentioned here doesn't necessarily specifically refer to the God in Christian faith. We can understand it as anything that provides a certain kind of definite guidance and arrangement for people's lives. At that time in Europe, religion provided such a definite life arrangement for people.

 Once the religious order collapsed, people fell into nihilism, and the meaning of life had nowhere to attach. We can replace the "God" that Nietzsche referred to with something similar on our side that can provide people with definite guidance and arrangement, and try to explain why so many young people here fall into nihilism.

Of course, this is just some thoughts and insights I've gained as a philosophical self - media person by observing my own audience. It may be just a one - sided perspective, open for everyone to discuss and critique. We can replace Nietzsche's "God" with something similar on our side, that is, exam - oriented education.

We grew up under exam - oriented education. Exam - oriented education taught us that all problems have standard answers. If you write the correct standard answer, you'll get points; if not, you won't. There are exam syllabi for everything.

Teachers even mark the key points and classify the questions. If you answer all the basic questions correctly, you reach junior - high - school level; if you can also answer the intermediate questions correctly, you can reach high - school level; if you can answer the advanced questions correctly, you reach university level.

Under the cultivation of this exam - oriented education, a "test - taker" worldview has formed. That is, like what exam - oriented education taught us, our life also has a certain, universal exam syllabus. It's like leveling up in a game.

From the entrance exam to junior high school, to the high - school entrance exam, and then to the college entrance exam, any problem in life is about solving a question, which means finding the only correct standard answer. When we were kids, I believe many of us had a life ideal, which was to have the Chinese - teaching ability of a Chinese teacher, the math ability of a math teacher, the English ability of an English teacher, the physics ability of a physics teacher, the biology ability of a biology teacher, the history ability of a history teacher, and so on.

In this way, my problem - solving ability would be off the charts, and I'd have the power to rule the universe. There would be no problem in the world that I couldn't solve.

This way of thinking made us accustomed to this set of equations: the appearance of a problem means it's a question, and a question necessarily has a standard answer. Gradually, we developed the thinking pattern that as long as we work hard on the question, we can find the correct solution, and as long as there is a solution, we can pass all the levels. However, when people hold this worldview of having an exam syllabus and encounter the real world, this worldview will collapse.

After leaving the school's exam - oriented education system, we find that things in society don't follow the rules at all; they are simply not in the exam syllabus. Job choices are extremely diverse.

 Do you go to a state - owned enterprise, a foreign - invested enterprise, a private enterprise, start your own business, or become a freelancer? There is no standard answer. In the realm of romance, what kind of person should you date and marry?

 Should you prioritize material conditions, spiritual resonance, or your own free development? There is no standard answer. What kind of values do you want to pursue? Altruism, individualism, or hedonism? No one is there to grade you, and there is no standard answer.

When we enter society and face problems without standard answers, when we encounter problems that require us to independently find solutions, we are at a loss.

We lack the ability to independently solve problems without standard answers. We find that as test - takers, without the exam syllabus, we don't know how to live.

Thus, we fall into nihilism. Of course, the "exam - oriented education" I mentioned here, just like the "God" Nietzsche talked about, doesn't necessarily specifically refer to the school - based exam - oriented education like the high - school entrance exam or the college entrance exam. It can refer to anything that provides our lives with what seems to be a definite guidance and arrangement like an exam syllabus. It can be the narrow - sense school exam - oriented education, a systematized life arrangement, or an alienated state of life.

In short, this kind of arrangement and state tells us and instills in us that life has an exam syllabus and standard answers. As long as you take the trouble to find that standard answer, you can lead a good life.

Nietzsche said that the cause of nihilism is the death of God. Similarly, we seem to be able to say that a cause of the current widespread confusion among young people is the lack of a generalized exam syllabus.

We lack the ability to independently cope with complex life without the guidance of an exam syllabus. The cause of nihilism is that the "test - takers" have lost their "exam syllabus." The complexity of complex life here doesn't mean it's difficult; rather, it means there is no definite standard answer.

 

For example, getting admitted to Tsinghua University or Peking University in the college entrance exam is extremely difficult, but it's not a complex game; it's a simple game. Because the exam syllabus is definite, with a high degree of certainty.

 For such a highly - certain game, there is a standard way to play.

That is, if you have enough intelligence and are willing to desperately prepare for the exam, whether you can be admitted to Tsinghua or Peking is a very certain thing.

In contrast, the complexity of a complex game doesn't necessarily mean that it takes a great deal of effort to play it well, like getting up early and staying up late. The reason it's complex is simply that it's less predictable.

 

 There is no standard way to play it. It's a game without a definite game strategy.

Take an example related to my own work. Becoming a self - media influencer is a complex game.

Some influencers become popular very easily, while others keep creating content for many years but still get little attention. There is a great deal of uncertainty in it.

There seem to be quite a few courses and books on the market teaching people how to become influencers. Some of them are basically fraudulent, claiming that as long as you do these things, you can become an internet sensation.

The ones that are not fake only teach you some basic skills, such as posting videos in the afternoon or evening when the traffic is higher, and avoiding holidays and weekends because people are out playing and not using their mobile phones, so the traffic is low.

These basic skills won't help you much. In short, there are no standard answers to complex problems, and in our real lives, the problems that have a significant impact on our lives are often complex problems, such as the previously mentioned relationship, career choices, and value - system selection. Life has no standard answers.

 When the "test - takers" lose their "exam syllabus," we lose our direction in life.

 The "test - taker" mentality is the cause of many young people falling into nihilism today. Now, let's come back to the question: What's the use of philosophy? Philosophy can help us break away from the "test - taker" way of thinking.

 

Philosophical thinking, or what we often call critical thinking, is a means to overcome the "test - taker" mentality. Therefore, if the cause of falling into nihilism is that the "test - taker" has lost the exam syllabus, then philosophy is a way to overcome nihilism. Philosophy makes us realize that life has no standard answers, and it teaches us to live in peace with the complex life that has no standard answers.

 

As we introduced at the very beginning, when faced with some big questions, philosophy often fails to provide a definite, absolutely correct standard answer.

This may seem to be a shortcoming of the discipline of philosophy, but perhaps this is the reality of the world. Philosophy brings this reality to light for us and lets us encounter these questions without standard answers.

 Learning and reading philosophy is to train us to face some big questions without standard answers, and learn to get along with these questions without standard answers in a peaceful way, rather than becoming nihilistic as soon as we see that there are no standard answers.

 

Then perhaps some people may ask, since philosophy lets us face the truth that life has no standard answers directly, won't this intensify our nihilism? Will philosophy make me choose to lie flat, completely give up thinking, and stop pursuing answers after I recognize that life has no standard answers? No. Remember what I said before.

 

 All knowledge was called philosophy in the past. It's just that some philosophical inquiries have found some correct answers, so these branches of knowledge with correct answers have been separated from the matrix of philosophy and become independent disciplines.

 

Although philosophy does not provide clear - cut standard answers, it is the driving force for seeking answers.

 

 Philosophy trains us to think independently and to creatively find solutions to problems that appear to have no standard answers.

Just as the philosophers in history dared to answer those complex and big questions without standard answers.

 This is a form of intellectual courage. Philosophy does not teach us to lie flat and stop thinking when facing some complex problems without standard answers.

 

On the contrary, the appeal of philosophy lies in its encouragement to face these complex, open - ended problems bravely, to think independently, and to derive our own solutions without relying on any exam syllabi.

Here I quote a much - quoted famous saying.

Romain Rolland once said, "True heroism is to still love life after seeing the truth of life."

Applying this sentence pattern, we can also say, "Truly intellectual thinking is to still seek solutions after realizing that life has no standard answers."

For the vast majority of non - professional readers and audiences, philosophy is more like a kind of philosophical self - cultivation. 

 

What is philosophical self - cultivation? As friends grow older and gain more experiences, you will find that the world you live in is not as simple and definite as the fairy tales you understood in your childhood. 

 

At this time, the role of philosophical self - cultivation lies in that when you are not so nihilistic yet, you think about nihilism and how you will overcome it if you encounter nihilism.

It’s akin to getting vaccinated. Children who grow up in a sterile environment have relatively poor immunity instead. "A little dirt never harmed anyone." Philosophical self - cultivation can cultivate one's anti - fragility ability in spirit.

As Nietzsche said, "What does not kill me makes me stronger." That concludes my sharing for today. Thank you.