In the Yin Yang diagram of Chinese ancient Taiji theory, Yin is a black fish and Yang is a white fish. The eye of the white fish is black, the eye of the black fish is white. The black eye of the white fish is actually the black fish, so there is white eye in the black eye and there is black eye in the white eye. The two fish meet head to tail and meet tail to head, which can represent the relationship of mutual transformation and mutual inclusion.

This relation of dialectical unity is not new to us, and many people are aware of its profound philosophical significance. But what it means, no one has been able to describe clearly. This dialectical view of the world did not become the most fundamental overall view of the world that metaphysics of philosophy should present to the public. The Chinese ancient idea of Taiji Yin Yang is similar to this world view, but it did not said that the Yin and Yang represent the subjective world and objective world.

The science of astronomy, physics, general evolution and other disciplines also provide us with a world view, but science only describes the objective world. Philosophy is different from science. The basic problem of philosophy is the interrelation between matter and consciousness. Therefore, only philosophy can put forward the picture of the dialectical relationship between the subjective world and the objective world, and the objective world described by science is only one part of this picture.

The world that scientists study is the world they see and think, that is, the objective world 2. The so-called “study” is you to see, to think. If you do not see, do not think, you can not study. So scientists can only study the objective world 2. It is impossible to study the objective world 1. The objective world 2 is only a part of the subjective world, can not go beyond the subjective world. Just like Sun Wukong, he can never jump out of the palm of Buddha’s hand. Because Buddha wrote the word “Subjective World’ on his hand. So the world described by science is incomplete, and science can never replace philosophy.