《雅典學院》
（本文說明許多人用辯證法來說一件事有好的一面，也有壞的一面，以此來否定別人的批評，否定別人要求的改變。其實這種方法就是詭辯）
作者：認知聖經、諶旭彬
有些人碰到別人說的與自己之前的認知不同，就既想不改變自己舊有的認知，又想自己永遠站在不敗之地，沒有改變和失敗的痛苦，就強調對立的兩者是統一的（有的人是強調不確定性），強調壞事裡必然有好事（或強調沒有100%確定的事）。道家的書籍《老子》有許多謬論（見《為什麼不迷信道家的學說好》），[1]也說：
禍兮福之所倚，福兮禍之所伏。 [2]壞事可以引出好的結果，好事也可以引出壞的結果。
諶旭彬談及其欄目後台的真實留言，說他談及中國古代主流醫典籍裡的“上吊繩治癲狂、吃白雲（估計是指工筆劃使用的筆——筆者）治啞症”很荒唐，會有來人留言教育：
中醫典籍還是要辯證地去看，不能生搬硬套，（要）去其糟粕，取其精華。
談小學、初中文言文數量劇增不妥，會有人留言來教育：
猛增就是犧牲品了？任何事物都有雙面性吧！要用辯證的思維去看待這個問題。
談不存在“真氣”這種東西，會有人留言來教育：
真氣到底有沒有，這個問題是要去探討的，有時候不是科學的並不是錯的，迷信的。現代科學建立在數學基礎上，數學不能解釋的東西太多了就都是騙人的？ ？ ？不能以辯證的思維去想問題是可怕的。
談陰陽五行理論不能治病，會有人留言來教育：
任何事物都要辯證的看待啊！這麼基本的哲學素養都不會啊！ ”“要辯證看待事物和問題。一棍子打死，那就是胡說八道了。
談政治家犯下的歷史錯誤，會有人留言來教育：
初中政治課就學過“事物都具有兩面性，要辯證的看問題”，偉人的屬性首先也是“人”。秦始皇一統華夏車同軌書同文，但是也有焚書坑儒；唐玄宗有“開元盛世”，卻也有“安史之亂”……
如此種種。
這沒法不讓人想起樊弓那篇廣為流傳的網文——《辯證法與放屁》，文中虛構了這樣一個故事：
上課時，我放了一個屁——很普通的屁。既不很臭，當然也絕對不香。
可怕的是，教授正在講辯證法。
“請你自己對這個屁作一下判斷，”教授說，“它好還是不好？”
我只得說：“不好。”
“錯了，”教授說，“任何事物都由矛盾組成，有它不好的一面，肯定有它好的一面。”
“那麼說它好也不對了？”我問。
“當然。”教授說。
“它既好又不好。”
“錯了。你只看到矛盾雙方對立鬥爭的一面，沒有看到他們統一的一面。”
我只好認真看待這個嚴肅的問題，仔細想了想說：“這個屁既好又不好，但不好的一面是主要的，處於主導地位。”
“錯了。你是用靜止的觀點看問題。矛盾的雙方會相互轉換，今天處於主導地位一面，明天可能處於次要地位。”
“你是說明天全人類會為了我的這個屁歡呼雀躍嗎？”
“不盡如此，但不能否認這種發展趨勢。”
我愣了好大一會兒，只得硬著頭皮說：“我的屁既好又不好，既不好又好。今天可能不好，明天一定會好。今天可能很好，明天也許會不好。 ”[3][4]
故事很荒誕對不對？
然而，一旦把故事中的“上課放屁”，替換成“商鞅暴政”、“漢武帝戶口減半”、“上吊繩治癲狂”、“陰陽五行理論不能治病”、“政治家犯下歷史錯誤”，可就鮮少有人覺得荒誕了——在討論這些問題的時候，“任何事物都由矛盾組成，有它不好的一面，肯定有它好的一面”、“你只看到矛盾雙方對立鬥爭的一面，沒有看到他們統一的一面”、“你是用靜止的觀點看問題。矛盾的雙方會相互轉換，今天處於主導地位一面，明天可能處於次要地位”，這些套話，簡直可以說是放之四海而皆準、無往而不利的大殺器。
為什麼會這樣？ “中國式辯證法”究竟錯在了哪裡？
最近讀鄧曉芒教授的《哲學史方法論十四講》，見到書中有一段很精闢的解釋：
辯證法講矛盾，就是自己和自己的矛盾，這是最根本的矛盾，然後發展出了兩個對立面。真正的辯證法、西方發展出來的高級辯證法應該是這樣的。但是中國的辯證法沒有進入這一層次，它總是一開始就給定了一個東西，然後發現它是由兩個部分所組成的，這個組成也是給定了的，本來就有，也許你開始看不出來。 ……既然這東西本來就有兩個東西，那麼你就可以加一個東西進去，所謂'摻沙子'，把這個對立面摻進去，使它成為一個對立面，這就成為了一種操作的技法、一種技巧。辯證法在□變成了‘變戲法’，就是因為這一點。它是一個既定的東西，你當然可以人為地改變他，不是那個東西自己要把自己否定，變成另外一個東西，而是由於受到某種外在的干擾，所以它就變成了另外一個東西。我們為了使它成為另外一個東西，可以加入一種外在的干擾，就是摻沙子、丟石頭，×××發明了一系列這樣的技法，這就是我們講的變戲法，就是一種技巧。如何在兩個對立面保持平衡，然後由一個第三者去支配、在後面去操縱，這就成為了一種權術。其實自古以來就是這樣理解的，老子的辯證法就是一種陰謀權術。 [5][6]
就哲學意義而言，這段話其實很通俗了。我不揣淺陋，再給它稀釋一下：
在蘇格拉底、柏拉圖的時代，“辯證法”是一種討論問題的方法，如其字面意思，旨在“以辯論的方式來證實或者證偽某種觀點”，這種辯論以促成彼此理解、達成共識為目的，一般稱之為“古典辯證法”。與之相反的是“雄辯術”，一種直接拿結論砸人、旨在壓倒對方獲取勝利的辯論技巧。
顯然，這種“古典辯證法”與所謂的“中國古典辯證法”——事物有陰就有陽、事情有好就有壞，完全是兩碼事。
現代辯證法借鑒了柏拉圖時代的“辯證”一詞，重點關注事物自身的變化。一個典型的例子是“人不能兩次踏進同一條河流”——河流在變化，前一刻的河流與後一刻的河流，在水量、河床寬度、深度等方面，均會出現雖細微但必然存在的變化，後一刻的河流，已非前一刻的河流，二者構成了一堆矛盾，後者取代了前者，構成了對前者的否定。因為後一刻的河流是從前一刻的河流發展而來，所以二者雖然存在取代關係，但又是統一的。這就是所謂的“自己和自己的矛盾”，對立、統一同時又處在發展之中。
但“xx式辯證法”的操作模式完全不同。 xx的“辯證法專家”，會像將“氣”切割成“陰”、“陽”兩面一樣（即所謂的“陰陽一氣”），先把這條河流切成概念相反的兩塊（比如清、濁），然後說這兩塊東西，既對立又統一，還處在運動中，可以互相轉化。
所以，黑格爾的辯證法（儘管他未曾給辯證法下過明確的定義）是一種認知事物的方法論。 “xx式辯證法”卻成了一種愚弄人、搗糨糊的權術。
比如，“塞翁失馬，焉知非福”這個典故，迄今為止仍廣泛出現在xx的各種談辯證法的學術著作之中，這些著作很樂於將之作為直觀感受何謂“辯證法”的極佳案例。
事實上，這個寓言和真正的辯證法，半毛錢關係也沒有——塞翁丟馬（禍）、馬帶回野馬（福）、野馬摔斷塞翁兒子的腿（禍）、斷了腿不用去服兵役送死（福），這根本是四件不同的事（只不過當中同時有“馬”這個元素），而真正的辯證法，它關注的是“自己和自己的矛盾”，是後一刻的河流與前一刻的河流的對立、統一與轉化，不是摻入一大堆外部因素（附近有野馬、兒子愛騎馬、朝廷要打仗）——也就是鄧曉芒教授所謂的“我們為了使它成為另外一個東西，可以加入一種外在的干擾”，然後把四件不同的事，攪和在一起，進而把“失馬”這件壞事，攪成一鍋是非不分的漿糊。
簡而言之，“塞翁失馬”這個故事裡，沒有任何的辯證法可言，有的只是各種不可預知的因素對人的命運造成的不可預知的影響。把這些不可預知的因素造成的不可預知的結果，當成“辯證法”，當成一種規律，是一種赤裸裸的流氓邏輯。 [7]
“凡事都有好壞兩面”屬於自洽循環 + 唯一指屬的話。 [8]
再列些一本正經的胡說八道（網上簡稱“一本道”）的話：
甲評論：什麼叫好？什麼叫壞？ “橫看成嶺側成峰，遠近高低各不同。”不同標準，不同答案。好與壞，如同太極之陰陽，孤陰不長，獨陽不生，一陰一陽之謂道。好，從某種意義上會是壞，壞從某種意義上是好。說得更深遠，沒有好，也沒有壞。事事皆太極，好與壞，是一體，是一回事，太極也。
乙回复：南京大屠殺呢？
丁回复：跳出三界外，不在五行中了？
來源及釋義：
- 認知聖經《為什麼不迷信道家的學說好》，2019年。 ↩
- 《老子》/第58章。 ↩
- 樊弓《辯證法與放屁（經典老文） 》，豆瓣網 轉。 ↩
- 鄧曉芒《哲學史方法論十四講》，重慶出版社，2015年/第146-147頁。 ↩
- 我認為老子不是什麼陰謀權術，是他“愚民”（見《為什麼不迷信道家的學說好的“愚民”部分）以達到自己的主張，但是老子的主張許多是錯的。 ↩
- 認知聖經《未/不被證明；唯一指屬；自洽循環的話》，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