思考林慧思之類的社會現象需要邏輯與智慧

林慧思這樣一件小事在香港引起軒然大波,也已經不是第一次了。當整個社會都不用腦想清楚什麽是正確的,我們沒有理由相信這個社會,不管是在什麽政制之下,能夠健康的發展:民主不是盲目的跟從大多數。要想清楚問題,我們都需要一點智慧,要多運用一點哲學,用邏輯思考問題。我在這裡推薦A.C. Grayling, The Good Book: The Humanist Bible (我的翻譯:美善之書:人文主義者的聖經),其中有關於智慧的討論,我節錄幾段:

Give your ears to hear what is said, and your heart to understand what is meant.

Let what is wise rest in the casket of your mind, to be a key to your heart.

He whose works exceed his wisdom, his wisdom will endure.

The wise do not interrupt, but open the gates of their eyes and ears to learn.

The wise ask what is relevant, and speak to the point.

The wise say if things they have not heard, ‘I have not heard’,

And of thing they have not seen, ‘I have not seen’.

The wise acknowledge truth.

Let us ever curiously test new ideas and court new impressions, never acquiescing in a facile orthodoxy.

Philosophy may help us gather up what might otherwise pass unregarded, for philosophy is the microscope of thought.

The question to be asked at the end of each day is, ‘How long will you delay to be wise?’

「你要拖延多久,不讓自己變得有智慧?」香港比内地更優勝,是因爲它是一個開放社會。在這個社會之中,什麽聲音、思想都可以自由的傳播,包括我們不喜歡的和極度愚蠢的。只要這些人在法律容許的範圍下宣傳他們的思想,我們沒有理由去阻止他們,但也並不代表我們就不應有反應:我們可以指責他們蠢,思想不合理。

像青關會、愛字頭這些組織,我們根本不需痛恨。他們只是愚蠢的小丑,要跳來跳去吸引公衆的眼球,你去跟著他們跳,就中正下懷(用網絡詞語,他們就是 trolls)。爲了他們跟警察對立更是要不得。難道警隊之中這麽多人,他們都支持這些組織?他們是否也會覺得他們蠢?在林慧思事件中,他們不能,也不應採取行動,因爲青關會的行爲並沒有去到違法的地步。如果他們行動了,他們就會破壞開放社會的法治原則。林慧思不懂法律,衝出去指罵警察,社會大衆也要跟著她不懂法律?你要拖延多久,不讓自己變得有智慧?

哲學要求我們作決定時想清楚問題,要求我們衡量決定的後果。群衆支持林慧思的時候,有沒有想清楚後果?我相信沒有,因爲他們根本不知道後果是什麽;我相信他們的行動更大部分是對愛字頭的情緒宣泄。只要靜下來想一想,考慮事情的邏輯,就可以知道問題到底出在什麽地方,事情一點都不複雜。遇事時不焦躁,克制自己的情緒,不讓情緒代替理性做出決定,就是智慧的一種。你要拖延多久,不讓自己變得有智慧?

理性、邏輯思維、克制、學問,都需要通過訓練才能得到的智慧。坊間好多人鼓勵「獨立思考」,但他們一般都不提及要如何訓練出這種思維。「獨立思考」不是自己坐在一角空想就能有什麽效果,重要的是思考有沒有批判性。而要批判一件事,你就要懂得事物的原理、事實是什麽、應用什麽方法去想問題,這就需要大量學問與知識。「批判式思考」是一套思考方法,你的結論是什麽並不重要,重要的是你怎樣得出這個結論。與其浪費時間人云亦云,鼓噪亂跳一番,不如用這些時間去多看幾本書。你要拖延多久,不讓自己變得有智慧?

This entry was posted in 社會心理, 科學知識 and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 則回應給 思考林慧思之類的社會現象需要邏輯與智慧

  1. Bill 說:

    不用腦也罷,手腳行動卻爭先,典型智商不高的動物行為。有時我們以喪失理智來形容些人的行為,如果本身理性和智慧已經不多,可以怎樣形容呢?實在有不少人以為盲目無知等如獨立思考,思想空洞,情緒激動,越大聲以為越有道理,就算多看幾本書,也要能夠一邊看一邊思考,否則書還書,我還我,看了也徒然。我F.1的時候買了很多本中國五四作家的選集,都不知所謂的看了一遍,以為涉獵了名家著作,沾沾自喜,其實只像胡裡胡塗的看了書名一次。所以你叫人看書,這個「看」字的理解也很重要。昨晚看了讀者的留言,再三爭抝可以遊蕩罪去告青關會的人,我終於按捺不住罵了他/她,這讀者不知在那裏找了Privy Council的Sham Chuen案出來,大談法律,為免自己氣死,所以我罵了他/她。有些人看了皮毛就當錦旗來揮舞,我忍不住問這讀者知不知teach your grandma to suck eggs這句話。

    • 山中 說:

      看書嘛,看了他們有可能得到智慧,不看就一定得不到。當然,也得看他們看什麽書和怎樣看。他去看案例也可算是這麽多人中比較好的,大部分都是人說什麽他就說什麽。不過,他怎麽可以將這是跟遊蕩扯上關係,我真的百思不得其解。

      • Bill 說:

        Unfortunately, he did not read the judgement. He just cited the name of the case. I read from his paraphrasing what the Privy Council said about the meaning of “loiter", he has exposed himself. He said the Privy Council interpreted loiter to mean linger. There were 3 meanings canvassed in the case and the prosecution and defence did not take this lingering interpretation. By that I know he did not know the case at all. He might have searched the internet and got the extract. What irated me was his persistence in the argument.

        • 山中 說:

          Well, one quick look at the loitering law HK shows that it does not apply. He was trying to argue for the application of subsection 2), which deals with one or more person preventing others’ use of public facilities, but in reality Falan very presence showed that they were actually using that facility without actionable obstruction and or hindrance, since the other group was protesting against Falan. It’s quite simple.

    • 鬼谷方十 說:

      Grandma不必動氣。=)

  2. C 說:

    “群衆支持林慧思的時候,有沒有想清楚後果?"
    — 當然有!在Facebook寫幾句罵政府和警察的說話,朋友便會like了。邏輯思維太難了,還是講些大道理和鸚鵡學舌易些!

  3. ALee 說:

    good article.

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / 變更 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / 變更 )

Facebook照片

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / 變更 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / 變更 )

連結到 %s