Take one of the three laws of materialist dialectics that everyone is familiar with to cause qualitative change.

For example, if you keep adding straw to the camel, the camel will eventually fall down because it can't stand it. This is an example of quantitative change leading to qualitative change. Quantitative change is the continuous increase of straw, qualitative change is a new phenomenon, that is, "camel fell down."

This example has the meaning in Tao Te Ching. The Tao Te Ching is more perfect, arguing that the new phenomenon, that is, qualitative change, is caused by imbalance, not an increase in a certain amount.

For example, it can give the camel continuous strength and make him grow, so straw can never crush the camel.

Camels fall not because of the increase of straw, but because of the imbalance between camel's strength and straw's strength.

In other words, if you keep adding water to the bucket, the water will eventually overflow. But at the same time, the water will never overflow by constantly raising the bucket.

Suppose a cold wind blows, and the camel suddenly feels weak and falls down without adding straw.

So it is not quantitative change that leads to qualitative change, but imbalance that leads to qualitative change. Quantitative change is the direct cause, and imbalance is the fundamental cause. This is a bit like western medicine thinks that colds are caused by viruses, while Chinese medicine thinks that colds are caused by physical imbalance, that is, viruses are out of balance with the body's immunity, and too strong viruses or too low immunity will cause colds. According to the theory of traditional Chinese medicine, there are at least two ways to treat a disease, that is, to strengthen the weak and help the weak. In the case of a cold, it is to kill the virus or enhance immunity.

The other two laws of dialectics, unity of opposites and negation of negation, are actually the meanings in Tao Te Ching. But Tao Te Ching is more thorough and has a concept of necessity. It's complicated again I have been wondering whether many western philosophers have read the Tao Te Ching.

Look at Plato and Aristotle, then look at Kant and Marx. Almost all western philosophers can't escape the categories of Tao Te Ching and I Ching. No matter rationalism, idealism or materialism, there is the shadow of Tao Te Ching. Therefore, I regard Tao Te Ching as the general program of western philosophy. It's really easy to understand the Tao Te Ching and then go back to reading Xizhe.

But Tao Te Ching is too complicated to understand. I can only say that philosophy is difficult to understand. Influenced by Jin Yong in middle school, I read the Tao Te Ching, but I didn't understand anything. Maybe everyone understands it differently, even causing misunderstanding.

China is not short of philosophy, China is short of methodological logic to study philosophy, and he is short of a philosopher who keeps questioning and asking questions like Socrates. If he had been born in China, Confucianism would have collapsed.