《雅典学院》
（本文说明许多人用辩证法来说一件事有好的一面，也有坏的一面，以此来否定别人的批评，否定别人要求的改变。其实这种方法就是诡辩）
作者：认知圣经、谌旭彬
有些人碰到别人说的与自己之前的认知不同，就既想不改变自己旧有的认知，又想自己永远站在不败之地，没有改变和失败的痛苦，就强调对立的两者是统一的（有的人是强调不确定性），强调坏事里必然有好事（或强调没有100%确定的事）。道家的书籍《老子》有许多谬论（见《为什么不迷信道家的学说好》），[1]也说：
祸兮福之所倚，福兮祸之所伏。[2]坏事可以引出好的结果，好事也可以引出坏的结果。
谌旭彬谈及其栏目后台的真实留言，说他谈及中国古代主流医典籍里的“上吊绳治癫狂、吃白云（估计是指工笔画使用的笔——笔者）治哑症”很荒唐，会有来人留言教育：
中医典籍还是要辩证地去看，不能生搬硬套，（要）去其糟粕，取其精华。
谈小学、初中文言文数量剧增不妥，会有人留言来教育：
猛增就是牺牲品了？任何事物都有双面性吧！要用辩证的思维去看待这个问题。
谈不存在“真气”这种东西，会有人留言来教育：
真气到底有没有，这个问题是要去探讨的，有时候不是科学的并不是错的，迷信的。现代科学建立在数学基础上，数学不能解释的东西太多了就都是骗人的？？？不能以辩证的思维去想问题是可怕的。
谈阴阳五行理论不能治病，会有人留言来教育：
任何事物都要辩证的看待啊！这么基本的哲学素养都不会啊！”“要辩证看待事物和问题。一棍子打死，那就是胡说八道了。
谈政治家犯下的历史错误，会有人留言来教育：
初中政治课就学过“事物都具有两面性，要辩证的看问题”，伟人的属性首先也是“人”。秦始皇一统华夏车同轨书同文，但是也有焚书坑儒；唐玄宗有“开元盛世”，却也有“安史之乱”……
如此种种。
这没法不让人想起樊弓那篇广为流传的网文——《辩证法与放屁》，文中虚构了这样一个故事：
上课时，我放了一个屁——很普通的屁。既不很臭，当然也绝对不香。
可怕的是，教授正在讲辩证法。
“请你自己对这个屁作一下判断，”教授说，“它好还是不好？”
我只得说：“不好。”
“错了，”教授说，“任何事物都由矛盾组成，有它不好的一面，肯定有它好的一面。”
“那么说它好也不对了？”我问。
“当然。”教授说。
“它既好又不好。”
“错了。你只看到矛盾双方对立斗争的一面，没有看到他们统一的一面。”
我只好认真看待这个严肃的问题，仔细想了想说：“这个屁既好又不好，但不好的一面是主要的，处于主导地位。”
“错了。你是用静止的观点看问题。矛盾的双方会相互转换，今天处于主导地位一面，明天可能处于次要地位。”
“你是说明天全人类会为了我的这个屁欢呼雀跃吗？”
“不尽如此，但不能否认这种发展趋势。”
我愣了好大一会儿，只得硬着头皮说：“我的屁既好又不好，既不好又好。今天可能不好，明天一定会好。今天可能很好，明天也许会不好。”[3][4]
故事很荒诞对不对？
然而，一旦把故事中的“上课放屁”，替换成“商鞅暴政”、“汉武帝户口减半”、“上吊绳治癫狂”、“阴阳五行理论不能治病”、“政治家犯下历史错误”，可就鲜少有人觉得荒诞了——在讨论这些问题的时候，“任何事物都由矛盾组成，有它不好的一面，肯定有它好的一面”、“你只看到矛盾双方对立斗争的一面，没有看到他们统一的一面”、“你是用静止的观点看问题。矛盾的双方会相互转换，今天处于主导地位一面，明天可能处于次要地位”，这些套话，简直可以说是放之四海而皆准、无往而不利的大杀器。
为什么会这样？“中国式辩证法”究竟错在了哪里？
最近读邓晓芒教授的《哲学史方法论十四讲》，见到书中有一段很精辟的解释：
辩证法讲矛盾，就是自己和自己的矛盾，这是最根本的矛盾，然后发展出了两个对立面。真正的辩证法、西方发展出来的高级辩证法应该是这样的。但是中国的辩证法没有进入这一层次，它总是一开始就给定了一个东西，然后发现它是由两个部分所组成的，这个组成也是给定了的，本来就有，也许你开始看不出来。……既然这东西本来就有两个东西，那么你就可以加一个东西进去，所谓‘掺沙子’，把这个对立面掺进去，使它成为一个对立面，这就成为了一种操作的技法、一种技巧。辩证法在□变成了‘变戏法’，就是因为这一点。它是一个既定的东西，你当然可以人为地改变他，不是那个东西自己要把自己否定，变成另外一个东西，而是由于受到某种外在的干扰，所以它就变成了另外一个东西。我们为了使它成为另外一个东西，可以加入一种外在的干扰，就是掺沙子、丢石头，×××发明了一系列这样的技法，这就是我们讲的变戏法，就是一种技巧。如何在两个对立面保持平衡，然后由一个第三者去支配、在后面去操纵，这就成为了一种权术。其实自古以来就是这样理解的，老子的辩证法就是一种阴谋权术。[5][6]
就哲学意义而言，这段话其实很通俗了。我不揣浅陋，再给它稀释一下：
在苏格拉底、柏拉图的时代，“辩证法”是一种讨论问题的方法，如其字面意思，旨在“以辩论的方式来证实或者证伪某种观点”，这种辩论以促成彼此理解、达成共识为目的，一般称之为“古典辩证法”。与之相反的是“雄辩术”，一种直接拿结论砸人、旨在压倒对方获取胜利的辩论技巧。
显然，这种“古典辩证法”与所谓的“中国古典辩证法”——事物有阴就有阳、事情有好就有坏，完全是两码事。
现代辩证法借鉴了柏拉图时代的“辩证”一词，重点关注事物自身的变化。一个典型的例子是“人不能两次踏进同一条河流”——河流在变化，前一刻的河流与后一刻的河流，在水量、河床宽度、深度等方面，均会出现虽细微但必然存在的变化，后一刻的河流，已非前一刻的河流，二者构成了一堆矛盾，后者取代了前者，构成了对前者的否定。因为后一刻的河流是从前一刻的河流发展而来，所以二者虽然存在取代关系，但又是统一的。这就是所谓的“自己和自己的矛盾”，对立、统一同时又处在发展之中。
但“xx式辩证法”的操作模式完全不同。xx的“辩证法专家”，会像将“气”切割成“阴”、“阳”两面一样（即所谓的“阴阳一气”），先把这条河流切成概念相反的两块（比如清、浊），然后说这两块东西，既对立又统一，还处在运动中，可以互相转化。
所以，黑格尔的辩证法（尽管他未曾给辩证法下过明确的定义）是一种认知事物的方法论。“xx式辩证法”却成了一种愚弄人、捣糨糊的权术。
比如，“塞翁失马，焉知非福”这个典故，迄今为止仍广泛出现在xx的各种谈辩证法的学术著作之中，这些著作很乐于将之作为直观感受何谓“辩证法”的极佳案例。
事实上，这个寓言和真正的辩证法，半毛钱关系也没有——塞翁丢马（祸）、马带回野马（福）、野马摔断塞翁儿子的腿（祸）、断了腿不用去服兵役送死（福），这根本是四件不同的事（只不过当中同时有“马”这个元素），而真正的辩证法，它关注的是“自己和自己的矛盾”，是后一刻的河流与前一刻的河流的对立、统一与转化，不是掺入一大堆外部因素（附近有野马、儿子爱骑马、朝廷要打仗）——也就是邓晓芒教授所谓的“我们为了使它成为另外一个东西，可以加入一种外在的干扰”，然后把四件不同的事，搅和在一起，进而把“失马”这件坏事，搅成一锅是非不分的浆糊。
简而言之，“塞翁失马”这个故事里，没有任何的辩证法可言，有的只是各种不可预知的因素对人的命运造成的不可预知的影响。把这些不可预知的因素造成的不可预知的结果，当成“辩证法”，当成一种规律，是一种赤裸裸的流氓逻辑。[7]
“凡事都有好坏两面”属于自洽循环 + 唯一指属的话。[8]
再列些一本正经的胡说八道（网上简称“一本道”）的话：
甲评论：什么叫好？什么叫坏？“横看成岭侧成峰，远近高低各不同。”不同标准，不同答案。好与坏，如同太极之阴阳，孤阴不长，独阳不生，一阴一阳之谓道。好，从某种意义上会是坏，坏从某种意义上是好。说得更深远，没有好，也没有坏。事事皆太极，好与坏，是一体，是一回事，太极也。
乙回复：南京大屠杀呢？
丁回复：跳出三界外，不在五行中了？
来源及释义：
- 认知圣经《为什么不迷信道家的学说好》，2019年。 ↩
- 《老子》/第58章。 ↩
- 樊弓《辩证法与放屁（经典老文） 》，豆瓣网 转。 ↩
- 邓晓芒《哲学史方法论十四讲》，重庆出版社，2015年/第146-147页。 ↩
- 我认为老子不是什么阴谋权术，是他“愚民”（见《为什么不迷信道家的学说好的“愚民”部分）以达到自己的主张，但是老子的主张许多是错的。 ↩
- 认知圣经《未/不被证明；唯一指属；自洽循环的话》，2018年。 ↩
---
(translation)
The Dialectics of Dregs
Some people, when they encounter what others say is different from their previous cognition, they want to not only change their old cognition, but also want to stand forever in an invincible position. Without the pain of change and failure, they emphasize the two opposites. Those who are unified (some people emphasize uncertainty), emphasize that there must be good things in bad things (or emphasize things that are not 100% certain). There are many fallacies in Taoist book "Lao Tzu" (see "Why not be obsessed with Taoist doctrine"), [^ 7] also said:
Blessedness lies on the blessing, the blessedness lies on the blessing. [^ 8]Bad things can lead to good results, and good things can lead to bad results.
Chen Xubin talked about the real message in the backstage of his column, saying that he talked about "treating madness and eating Baiyun (presumably referring to the pen used by meticulous painting-the author) to cure dumbness" in the ancient Chinese mainstream medical classics. , Someone will leave a message to educate:
Traditional Chinese medicine classics still have to be dialectically read, and they cannot be hard-boiled, (to) remove their dross and extract their essence.
Talking about the improper increase in the number of Chinese language in elementary and early years, someone will leave a message to educate:
A surge is a victim? Everything has two sides! Dialectical thinking should be used to view this issue.
When there is no such thing as "True Qi", someone will leave a message to educate:
Is there trueness? This question is to be explored. Sometimes it is not scientific and it is not wrong, superstitious. Modern science is built on the basis of mathematics. Are there too many things that mathematics can't explain to deceive people? ? ? It is terrible not to think about the problem dialectically.
Talking about the Yin and Yang Five Elements theory can not cure the disease, someone will leave a message to educate:
Everything must be treated dialectically! No such basic philosophical accomplishment! "" Dialectically look at things and problems. If you kill with a stick, that's nonsense.
Talking about the historical mistakes made by politicians, someone will leave a message to educate:
Political lesson in junior high school learned that "Everything has two sides, we must dialectically look at the problem." The attributes of great men are first and foremost "people". Qin Shihuang unified the Chinese car with the same book and the same text, but there were also Confucian scholars who burned the book; Tang Xuanzong had "the prosperous age of Kaiyuan", but also "the chaos of Anshi" ...
As such.
This can't help but remind people of Fan Gong's widely circulated web article "Dialectics and Farting", in which the story is fictional:
In class, I put a fart-very ordinary fart. It is neither smelly, nor absolutely fragrant.
The scary thing is that the professor is talking about dialectics. A
"Please judge this fart yourself," said the professor, "is it good or bad?"
I had to say: "Not good."
"Wrong," the professor said, "Everything is composed of contradictions. If it has a bad side, it must have a good side."
"So it's not right to say it?" I asked. A
"Of course." The professor said.
"It's good and bad."
"Wrong. You only saw the side of the struggle between the two sides of the contradiction, not the side of their unity."
I had to take this serious issue seriously and thought about it carefully: "This fart is both good and bad, but the bad side is dominant and dominant."
"Wrong. You are looking at the issue from a static point of view. The two sides of the contradiction will switch to each other, and today will be the dominant side, and tomorrow may be a secondary position."
"Are you saying that all human beings will cheer for my fart?"
"Not all, but this trend cannot be denied."
I was stunned for a while, and had to bite the bullet and say, "My fart is good and bad, neither good nor bad. Today may be bad, tomorrow will be good. Today may be good, and tomorrow may be bad. "[^ 3] [^ 4]
The story is ridiculous, right?
However, once the "fart in class" in the story was replaced with "Shangyang tyranny", "Han Wu Emperor's hukou halved", "Sling on the rope to cure mania", "Yin and Yang theory of five elements cannot cure the disease", "Politicians committed historical errors "But few people think it's absurd. When discussing these issues," Everything is composed of contradictions, there is a bad side, there must be a good side "," You only see the contradiction between the two sides On the side of the struggle, you do n’t see their unity ”,“ You are looking at the issue from a static point of view. The two sides of the contradiction will switch between each other, and they will be in the dominant position today and may be in the secondary position tomorrow. It is a universal killer that is universal and unfavorable.
Why is this happening? What is wrong with "Chinese dialectics"?
Recently read Professor Deng Xiaomang's "Lectures on the Methodology of Philosophy 14", I saw a very incisive explanation in the book:
Dialectics talks about contradiction, which is the contradiction between yourself and yourself. This is the most fundamental contradiction, and then developed two opposites. The true dialectics and advanced dialectics developed in the West should be like this. But China's dialectics did not enter this level. It always gave something at the beginning, and then found that it was composed of two parts. This composition is also given. It already exists, maybe you start to look at Not coming out. ... Since there are two things in this thing, you can add one thing in it. The so-called "mixing sand" is to add this opposite to make it become an opposite. This becomes an operation technique. One Kinds of tricks. Dialectics has become a "juggling trick" because of this. It is an established thing, and you can of course change it artificially. It is not that thing that you have to deny yourself to become another thing, but because of some external interference, it becomes another thing. . In order to make it another thing, we can add an external interference, that is, mixing sand and throwing stones, ××× invented a series of such techniques, this is the trick we talk about, is a skill. How to maintain balance on the two opposites, and then dominated by a third party, manipulated in the back, this has become a kind of power. In fact, this has been understood since ancient times. Laozi's dialectics is a kind of conspiracy power. [^ 2] [^ 5]
In terms of philosophical significance, this passage is actually very popular. I ’m not superficial, and then dilute it:
In the era of Socrates and Plato, "dialectics" is a method of discussing issues, which, as it literally means, aims to "confirm or disprove a certain point of view in a debate", this kind of debate is to promote mutual understanding and reach For the purpose of consensus, it is generally called "classical dialectics". Contrary to this is "eloquence", a debate technique that directly smashes conclusions and aims to overwhelm the opponent to win.
Obviously, this kind of "classical dialectics" and the so-called "classical dialectics of China"-things have yin and yang, things are good and bad, are completely different.
Modern dialectics draws on the term "dialect" in the Plato era, focusing on the changes of things themselves. A typical example is "People can't step into the same river twice"-rivers are changing. The rivers in the previous moment and the rivers in the latter moment will appear subtle but inevitable in terms of water volume, river bed width, depth, etc. The changes at the latter moment, the river at the next moment, is no longer the river at the previous moment, the two constitute a pile of contradictions, the latter replaces the former, and constitutes a denial of the former. Because the river at the next moment is developed from the river at the previous moment, so although there is a substitution relationship between the two, they are unified. This is the so-called "contradiction between oneself and oneself". Opposition and unity are also developing at the same time.
But the operation mode of "xx dialectics" is completely different. The "expert of dialectics" of xx would be like cutting "qi" into two sides of "yin" and "yang" (so-called "yin and yang"), first cut this river into two parts with opposite concepts (such as Qing, Turbidity), and then say that these two things are opposite and unified, and are still in motion and can be transformed into each other.
Therefore, Hegel's dialectics (although he has never clearly defined dialectics) is a method of cognitive things. The "xx dialectics" has become a kind of trickery that fools people and confuses them.
For example, the allusion of "Sai Weng lost his horse, knowing nothing but blessings" has so far widely appeared in various academic works on dialectics in xx. These works are very happy to use it as an excellent case for intuitively feeling what "dialectic" means.
In fact, this fable and true dialectics have nothing to do with half a dime-Sayon lost his horse (disaster), the horse brought back to the wild horse (blessing), the wild horse broke the leg of Sayon ’s son (disaster), and the broken leg did not need to be served Sending death to death (blessing) in military service is basically four different things (except that there is an element of "horse" at the same time), and the real dialectics is concerned with "the contradiction between oneself and oneself". The confrontation, unification, and transformation of the river at the previous moment were not mixed with a lot of external factors (there are wild horses, sons love to ride horses, and the court is going to fight)-that is what Professor Deng Xiaoman called "we want to make it another. Things, you can add an external disturbance ", and then mix four different things together, and then stir up the bad thing of" lost horse "into a pot of indispensable paste.
In short, there is no dialectics in the story of "The Lost Horse", and some are only the unpredictable effects of various unpredictable factors on the fate of people. To treat the unpredictable results caused by these unpredictable factors as "dialectics" and as a law is a naked rogue logic. [^ 1]
"Everything has good and bad sides" is a self-consistent cycle + the only word that belongs. [^ 6]
Here are some more serious nonsense ("abbreviated online"):
A comment: What is good? What is bad? "Looking sideways into a ridge and forming a peak, the distance is far and wide." Different standards, different answers. Good and bad are like the yin and yang of Tai Chi, the solitary yin is not long, the solitary yang is not born, one yin and one yang is said. Well, it will be bad in a sense, and bad is good in a sense. More profoundly, there is neither good nor bad. Everything is Tai Chi, good and bad are one, it is the same thing, Tai Chi too.
B Reply: What about the Nanjing Massacre?
Ding replied: Jump out of the three realms, not in the five elements?
Source and interpretation:
[^ 1]: Chen Xubin "[Stupid Dialectics", where is stupidity? ] (https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/UpjbNp_SRa-w6aqfWVWKUw) ", historical material porter, December 2, 2018;
Chen Xubin, "[The Difference between True Dialectics and Chinese Rural Dialectics] (https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/KgykOyepcTq81juCRolupg)", short history, January 18, 2019.
[^ 2]: Deng Xiaomang, "Lesson 14 of Methodology of Philosophical History", Chongqing Publishing House, 2015 / pp. 146-147.
[^ 3]: The full text of "[Dialectics and □] (http://blog.sina.cn/dpool/blog/s/blog_6697d4ae0100idwo.html)".
[^ 4]: Fan Gong "[Dialectics and Farting (Classic Old Text)] (https://m.douban.com/group/topic/8534716/)", Douban.com.
[^ 5]: I think Lao Tzu is not a trick of conspiracy, it is his "stupid people" (see "Why not obsessed with the channelists' good doctrine" section) to achieve his own ideas, but many of Lao Tzu's ideas are wrong.
[^ 6]: Cognitive Bible "Un / Unproven; The Only Reference; Words of Self-Consistent Cycle", 2018.
[^ 7]: Cognitive Bible, "Why don't you lose your channelist's doctrine is good", 2019.
[^ 8]: "Lao Tzu" / Chapter 58.
[^ 1]: Chen Xubin "[Stupid Dialectics", where is stupidity? ] (https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/UpjbNp_SRa-w6aqfWVWKUw) ", historical material porter, December 2, 2018;
Chen Xubin, "[The Difference between True Dialectics and Chinese Rural Dialectics] (https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/KgykOyepcTq81juCRolupg)", short history, January 18, 2019.
[^ 2]: Deng Xiaomang, "Lesson 14 of Methodology of Philosophical History", Chongqing Publishing House, 2015 / pp. 146-147.
[^ 3]: The full text of "[Dialectics and □] (http://blog.sina.cn/dpool/blog/s/blog_6697d4ae0100idwo.html)".
[^ 4]: Fan Gong "[Dialectics and Farting (Classic Old Text)] (https://m.douban.com/group/topic/8534716/)", Douban.com.
[^ 5]: I think Lao Tzu is not a trick of conspiracy, it is his "stupid people" (see "Why not obsessed with the channelists' good doctrine" section) to achieve his own ideas, but many of Lao Tzu's ideas are wrong.
[^ 6]: Cognitive Bible "Un / Unproven; The Only Reference; Words of Self-Consistent Cycle", 2018.
[^ 7]: Cognitive Bible, "Why don't you lose your channelist's doctrine is good", 2019.
[^ 8]: "Lao Tzu" / Chapter 58.
评论
发表评论