查看详情
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

人生在思考

天上一天 人间万年

 
 
 
 
 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[置顶] 贵妃醉酒

2008-11-6 21:06:52 阅读854 评论1 62008/11 Nov6

贵妃醉酒 - 梁冬 - 人生在思考

刘令华《贵妃醉酒》

作者  | 2008-11-6 21:06:52 | 阅读(854) |评论(1) | 阅读全文>>

[置顶] 无题

2008-3-3 15:45:16 阅读585 评论5 32008/03 Mar3

曾醉花前月下台,

       花飞月泻触心怀。

       情悠无迹逐清光,

       月舞花姿弄飘香。

       花容熠熠淡淡清,

       月流隐隐浅浅声。

       留恋风动花月魂,

       梦醒花月台上横。

      月衬花影如有情,

      飞花雪月伴终身?

作者  | 2008-3-3 15:45:16 | 阅读(585) |评论(5) | 阅读全文>>

[置顶] 奥黛丽·赫本 Audrey Hepburn

2008-3-29 17:35:01 阅读775 评论6 292008/03 Mar29

 

奥黛丽卓然不群,别指望拿那些现成的陈词滥调来套她。

作者  | 2008-3-29 17:35:01 | 阅读(775) |评论(6) | 阅读全文>>

阿尔比莱特族

2011-5-31 9:57:51 阅读663 评论0 312011/05 May31

阿尔比莱特族 - 梁冬 - 人生在思考

作者  | 2011-5-31 9:57:51 | 阅读(663) |评论(0) | 阅读全文>>

BBC记录片目录

2011-2-17 9:44:58 阅读1073 评论0 172011/02 Feb17

数字部:

BBC.50.Years.Of.Bbc.News.BBC风云五十年(2集,AVI,字幕)

A字部:

BBC.Alien.Empire.昆虫帝国(6集,AVI,双语)
BBC.Ancient.Apocalypse.古代启示录(4集,AVI,字幕)
BBC Ancient Rome The Rise and Fall of an Empire. 古罗马-一个帝国的兴起和衰亡(6集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Animal Camera.动物摄影机,又名窥探生物(3集,AVI,双语)
BBC.Animal.Battlefield.动物杀戮战场(4集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Animal.Games.动物奥运会(1集,AVI)
BBC.Ape-Man.人类起源,又名从猿到人(3集,AVI,双语)
BBC.A.History.of.Britain.大不列颠史/英国史(15集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Amazon.Abyss.亚马逊深渊(5集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Around The World In 80 Treasures.世界八十宝藏(10集,RMVB)
BBC.Attenborough.in.Paradise.爱登堡在天堂(7集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.A Walking with Dinosaurs Special - Sea Monsters.与恐龙同行特辑 - 海底霸王(3集,AVI,字幕)
BBC Art Collection 艺术精选系列(仅有莫奈,罗丹)


B字部:

BBC.Battlefields.杀戮战场(4集,AVI,双语)
BBC.Battle of The Sexes In The Animal World.雌雄爭霸戰又名性别的战争 (6集,AVI,双语)
BBC.Bible.Mysteries.圣经解码(9集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Brain.story.脑海漫游(6集,AVI,字幕)
BBC Blackbeard The Real Pirate of the Caribbean/BBC Blackbeard Terror at Sea加勒比海魔盗黑胡子/鬼盗船真面目(1集+2集,AVI,字幕)
BBC Burma The Forgotten War 缅甸:被遗忘的战争(1集,AVI,字幕)


C字部:

BBC.Colosseum.羅馬競技場(1集,AVI,字幕)


D字部:

BBC.D-Day 6.6.1944.诺曼底登陆日(2集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.D-Day to Berlin.从诺曼底到柏林(3集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Deep Blue.深蓝(2集,AVI,字幕) BBC.Dolphins Deep.Thinkers.2003 聪明的海豚(1集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Dragons.Alive.2004.现代恐龙(3集,AVI,双语)
BBC.Dunkirk.敦克尔克大撤退(3集,AVI,字幕)


E字部:

BBC.Earth Story.地球形成的故事(8集,RMVB,字幕)
BBC.Earth.Ride.地球水之旅(1集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Egypt.古埃及秘史(埃及特写)(6集,AVI,字幕)
BBC Elephant Diaries. 孤儿象日记簿(3集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Europe.A.Natural.History.欧洲自然史(4集,AVI,双语)


G字部:

BBC.Great.Wildlife.Moments.野生生物绝妙瞬间(1集,AVI,字幕)


H字部:

BBC.Himalaya.喜马拉雅之旅(6集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Hiroshima.广岛(1集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Horror in the East..战栗东方(2集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.How.to.Build.A.Human.复制新人类(4集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Human Instinct.人类本能(4集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Human.Senses.人类感官(3集,AVI,字幕)
BBC Horizon:Einstein's Equation of Life and Death爱因斯坦的生死方程式(1集,TVRIP,字幕)
BBC Horizon:Einstein's Unfinished Symphony. 爱因斯坦的未竟交响曲(1集,TVRIP,字幕)
BBC Horizon:Equinox Einsteins Biggest Blunder. 爱因斯坦的最大失误(1集,TVRIP,字幕)
BBC Horizon The Lost Pyramids Of Caral.被遗忘的秘鲁卡拉尔金字塔(1集,TVRIP,字幕)
BBC Horizon:The Missing Link. 进化缺环(1集,TVRIP,字幕)
BBC Horizon:The Mystery Of The Jurassic. 侏罗纪之谜(1集,TVRIP,字幕)
BBC Horizon:Extreme Dinosaurs. 地平线:巨龙的奥秘(1集,TVRIP,字幕)
BBC Horizon:T.Rex, Warrior Or Wimp. 地平线:霸王龙,勇士或懦夫(1集,TVRIP,字幕)
BBC Horizon.-.Supermassive.Black.Holes. 视野系列之超大质量黑洞(1集,TVRIP,字幕)
BBC Horizon:The Day The Earth Nearly Died地平线:地球劫难日(1集,TVRIP,字幕)
BBC Horizon:The Lost Pyramids Of Caral地平线:被遗忘的秘鲁卡拉尔金字塔(1集,TVRIP,字幕)
BBC Horizon:Atlantis Reborn. 地平线:亚特兰蒂斯重生(1集,TVRIP,字幕)
BBC Horizon:Cloning The First Human. 地平线:克隆人的诞生(1集,TVRIP,字幕)
BBC Horizon:Killer Algae. 地平线:杀手海藻(1集,TVRIP,字幕)
BBC Horizon:The Secret Life Of Caves. 地平线:洞穴隐秘生物(1集,TVRIP,字幕)
BBC Blood and Flowers-In Search of the Aztecs. 血与花:寻找阿兹特克(1集,TVRIP,字幕)
BBC-Horizon:Saturn-Lord Of The Rings.视野:土星 (1集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.How Art Made The World 艺术创造世界(5集,AVI,字幕)


I字部:

BBC.In.Search.Of.The.Trojan.War.寻找特洛伊战争(7集,AVI,字幕)
BBC In Search Of Myths And Heroes 寻找神化和英雄(4集,AVI,RMVB,字幕)
BBC In The Footsteps Of Alexander The Great 2005 跟随亚历山大大帝(4集,AVI,双语)


J字部:

BBC.Journeys.to.the.Bottom.of.the.Sea.海底之旅(6集,AVI,双语)
BBC.Jungle.丛林探险(3集,AVI,双语)
BBC.Journey.of.Life.生命之旅(5集,RMVB,字幕)


K字部:

BBC.Kenneth.Clark's.Civilisation文明(13集,RMVB,字幕)
BBC.Killing For A Living为生存而杀戮(13集,RMVB,字幕)


L字部:

BBC.Land.of.the.Tiger.虎的王国(6集,AVI,双语)
BBC.LAuschwitz.The.Nazis.and.the.Final.Solution.2005.奥斯威辛.纳粹党与最终方案(奥斯威兹集中营)(6集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.The Legend Of The Holy Grail. 圣杯传说(4集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Light.Fantastic.光之舞(4集,AVI,双语)
BBC.Life in the Freezer.冰雪的童话(6集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Lost.Worlds.Vanished.Lives.消逝的生物(6集,AVI,双语)
BBC Leonardo da vinci.达芬奇(3集,AVI,字幕)
BBC Life on earth.生命的进化(15集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Life in the Undergrowth 2005.灌丛下的生命(5集,AVI,双语)
BBC.Living.Britain.活力英伦(6集,AVI,无字)


M字部:

BBC.Massive.Nature.群体大自然(6集,AVI,双语)
BBC.Michael Palin.Full Circle With Michael Palin.环球旅行(10集+2集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Michael Palin.Hemingway Adventure.海明威历险记
BBC.Michael.Palin.Around.The.World.In.80.Days.八十天环游地球(7集+1集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Monsters.We.Met.遭遇怪物(3集,RMVB,字幕)


N字部:

BBC.Nile.2004.尼罗河(3集,AVI,双语)
BBC.Noah and the Great Flood.诺亚方舟(1集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Natural.World.Secrets.of.the.Maya.Underworld.玛雅之谜(1集,AVI,字幕)


P字部:

BBC.Phobias.恐惧大家谈(3集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Planet Earth.地球(5集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Pole.to.Pole极地之旅(8集,RMVB,字幕)
BBC.Pompeii-The.Last.Day.庞贝古城-最后的一天(1集,AVI,双语)
BBC.Power.of.Art.艺术的力量(8集+1集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Pyramid.金字塔(1集,RMVB,字幕)
BBC.Power of Nightmares.The Rise Of The Politics Of Fear.恶梦的力量.惊恐政治的冒起(3集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Predators.掠夺者(6集,AVI,无字幕)
BBC.Prehistoric.America.史前美洲(6集,AVI,字幕)


S字部:

BBC.Sahara.撒哈拉大漠之旅(4集,AVI,双语)
BBC.Saint.Paul.门徒保罗(1集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Seven.Wonders.of.the.Industrial.World.七大工业奇迹(7集,RMVB,双语)
BBC.Secrets Of The Ancients古代的秘密(5集,AVI,无字幕)
BBC.Son of God.上帝之子耶稣基督(3集,AVI,双语)
BBC.Space.Odyssey.星际漫游(2集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Space.宇宙无限(6集,AVI,双语)
BBC.Space.Race 太空竞赛(4集,RMVB,字幕)
BBC.State.of.the.Planet.大地的声音(3集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Stephen Hawking's Universe.霍金的宇宙(6集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Super.Human.超级人类(6集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Supernatural.超自然力量(6集,RMVB,字幕)
BBC.Supersense.动物超感官(6集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Supervolcano.超级火山:真正末日(2集,AVI,字幕)


T字部:

BBC.The Battle of The Atlantic.大西洋之战(3集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.The Human Mind.人类心智(3集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.The Life Of Birds.飞禽传(10集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.The Road to War.战争之路(4集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.The.Abyss.海底深渊(1集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.The.Blue.Planet.蓝色星球(10集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.The.Divine.Michelangelo米开朗基罗(2集,AVI,双语)
BBC The Miracles of Jesus. 神迹透视(3集,AVI,字幕)
BBC The Human Animal.人与动物(6集,仅一集)
BBC.The.Human.Body.人体漫游(8集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.The.Human.Face.五官奧妙(4集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.The.Life.Of.Buddha.成佛之路(1集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.The.Life.Of.Mammals.哺乳类全传(11集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.The.Living.Planet.活力星球(13集,RMVB,字幕)
BBC.The.Nazis.A.Warning.From.History.纳粹警示录(6集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.The.Planets日月星宿(8集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.The.Private.Life.of.Plants.植物私生活(6集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Time.Machine.时间机器(3集,AVI,双语)
BBC.Trials.of.Live.生命之源(12集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.The.Day.the.Universe.Changed.变化的每一天
BBC Timewatch Forgotten Heroes.时代了望-无名英雄(1集,AVI,字幕)

W字部:

BBC.Walking with Dinosaurs.与恐龙同行(7集,AVI,双语)
BBC A Walking with Dinosaurs Special- Land of Giants- The Giant Claw.巨龙国度(1集,MPG,字幕)
BBC.Walking.with.Beasts.与猛兽同行(6集,AVI,双语)
BBC.Walking with Cavemen.与远古人同行(4集,AVI,双语)
BBC.War of the Century.世纪大战-二战欧洲东线纪实(4集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Weird.Nature.灵趣自然(6集,AVI,双语)
BBC.Wild New World.野性新世界(6集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Wild.Afica.野性非洲(6集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Wild.Australasia.野性澳洲(6集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Wild.Indonesia.野性印尼(3集,AVI,双语)
BBC.Wild.South.America.野性南美洲(6集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Wild.Weather天有风云(4集,AVI,字幕)
BBC.Wildlife Specials野生动物特辑(13集,AVI,字幕)

作者  | 2011-2-17 9:44:58 | 阅读(1073) |评论(0) | 阅读全文>>

天地合——萨顶顶(梁冬祝大家新年快乐)

2011-1-26 10:57:25 阅读803 评论2 262011/01 Jan26

天地合——萨顶顶(梁冬祝大家新年快乐) - 梁冬 - 人生在思考

作者  | 2011-1-26 10:57:25 | 阅读(803) |评论(2) | 阅读全文>>

WHY CHINA HAS NO SCIENCE(为什么中国没有科学) ——冯友兰

2011-1-13 15:24:34 阅读1746 评论0 132011/01 Jan13

      In one of his articles published last year in the New Re-public, Professor Dewey, said:

"It may be questioned whether the most enlightening thing he [the visitor] can do for others who are interested in China is not to share with them his discovery that China can be known only in terms of itself, and older European history. Yet one must repeat that China is changing rapidly; and that it is as foolish to go on thinking of it in terms of old dynas-tic Chinaa s it is to interpreti t by pigeon-holingit s facts in Western con-ceptions. Chinai s anotherw orldp oliticallya nd economicallys peaking,a largea nd persistentw orld,a nd a worldb oundn o one knowsj ust where."2

 It is truly a discovery. If we compare Chinese history with the history of Europe of a few centuries ago, say before the Renaissance, we find that, although they are of different kinds, they are nevertheless on the same level. But now China is still old while thewestern countries are already new. What keeps China back? It is a natural question.

What keeps China back is that she has no science. The effect of this fact is not only plain in the material side, but also in the spiritual side, of the present condition of Chinese life. China produced her philosophy at the same time with, or a little before, the height of Athenian culture. Why did she not produce science at the same time with, or even before, the beginning of modern Europe? This paper is an attempt to answer this question in terms of China herself.

It is beyond question that geography, climate, and economic conditions are very important factors in making history, but we must bear in mind that they are conditions that make history possible, not that make history actual. They are the indispensable settings of a drama, but not its cause. The cause that makes history actual is the will to live and the desire for happiness. But what is happiness? People are far from agreeing in their answers to this ques-tion. It is due to this fact that we have many different systems of philosophy, many different standards of value, and consequently many different types of history. At the end of this paper I shall venture to draw the conclusion that China has no science, because according to her own standard of value she does not need any. But before we come to this conclusion, we have first to see what the older Chinese standard of value is. In doing so a general survey of the history of Chinese philosophy is indispensable.

I

 At the end of the Chow dynasty, the emperors lost their power to control the feudal princes who began to regard themselves as independent, and the land was subjected to warfare. It was an age of political confusion indeed, but of great intellectual initiative. It was equivalent to the Athenian period of mental vigor in Europe. Before attacking the different types of Chinese ideals, for the sake of convenience I shall introduce two words which seem to me to indicate respectively two general tendencies of Chinese philosophy: They are "nature" and "art," or, to translate more exactly, "nature" and "human." To illustrate this I cite from Chuang Tse a passage:

"What is nature? What is human? That ox and horse have four feet is nature; to halter the head of a horse or to pierce the nose of an ox is human." 3

Thus "nature" means something natural; "human" means something artificial. The one is made by nature, the other by man. At the end of the Chow dynasty there were two tendencies representing these two extremes and a third representing a mean between the two. The one said that nature is perfect in itself and that men are self-sufficient and need no help from outside; the other said that nature is not perfect in itself and that men are not self-sufficient and need something outside in order to be better; the third made a compromise. These three main types of ideal did not appear one after the other, but rather arose simultaneously, and expressed at one time the different aspects of human nature and experience. Now according to the "Book of Han," at the end of the Chow dynasty there were nine branches of thought: Confucianism, Taoism, Moism, the School of Religion, the School of Law, the School of Logic, the School of Diplomacy, the School of Agriculture, and the Miscellaneous School. But among them the most influential at that time were Confucianism, Taoism, an d Moism. In almost every book written at the end of the Chow dynasty, we are informed that these three were struggling for exist-ence. To illustrate this I cite from the polemic speeches of Mencius, a great defender of Confucianism at that time:

 "Philosophere mperorsc easet o arise;t he princeso f the states give reins to their lusts; and the scholars indulge in unrational discussions. The words of Yang Chu and Mo Ti fill the world. The discourse of the people has adopted the views either of Yang or of Mo. Yang's doctrine is: each one for himself; then there will be no king. Mo's doctrine is: love all equally; then there will be no father. To have neither king nor father is to be beasts. . . . If the doctrines of Yang and Mo are not stopped and the doctrine of sages not set forth, then the perverse speakings will delude the people, and stop the path of benevolence and righteousness. When benevolencea nd righteousnessa re stopped,b easts will be led on to devour things and address myself to the defence of the doctrines of the former sages, and to oppose Yang and Mo. . ."4

Now Mo Ti was the founder of Moism, and Yang Chu was the disciple of the founder of Taoism, Lao Tse. This pass-age seems to me to be a vivid picture of the state of war existing between these three powers. They were not only struggling for existence, but each one of them had the am-bition to conquer the whole empire.

To illustrate their doctrines a little more in detail I choose Lao Tse (570 B. C.?-480 B. C.?), Yang Chu (440 B. C.?- 360 B. C.?), and Chuang Tse (350 B. C.?-275 B. C.?) to represent Taoism; Mo Tse (Mo Ti, 500 B. C.?-425 B. C.?) to represent Moism; and Confucius (551 B.C.-479 B. C.) and Mencius (372 B. C.-289 B. C.) to represent Con-fucianism. Referring to the three tendencies which I just mentioned, Taoism stands for nature, Moism for art, and Confucianism for the mean. It seems tome that in every aspect of their doctrines, Taoism and Moism were always at the two extremes and Confucianism in the middle. For instance, with regard to their ethical theories, Mencius agrees in arranging them in a scheme as I do. He said:

"The doctrine of the philosopher Yang was: each one for himself. Though he might benefit the whole world by plucking out a single hair, he would not do it. The doctrine of the philosopher Mo was: to love all equally. If by rubbing smooth his whole body from the crown to the heel, he could benefit the world, he would do it. Tse Mo held a mean between them. By holdingi t without leaving room for the changeablenesso f cir-cumstances, he resembled them in maintaining his one point to the exclu-sion of others."5

 It goes without saying that to hold the mean while leaving room for the changeableness of circumstances is the only right way of action. It is exactly the teaching of Con-fucianism.- I shall make it clearer a little later.

II

The teaching of Taoism can be summarized in one phrase: "returning to nature." The omnipotent Tao gives every-thing its own nature, in which it finds its own satisfaction. For instance:

"In the northern ocean there is a fish, called the Leviathan, many thou-sand li 8 in size. This Leviathan changes into a bird, called the Rukh, whose back is many li in breadth. With a mighty effort it rises and its wings obscure the sky like clouds. At the equinox, this bird prepares to start for the southern ocean, the Celestial Lake. And in the 'Record of Marvels'w e readt hat whent he Rukhf liess outhwards, the wateri s smitten for a space of three thousand li around, while the bird itself mounts upon a typhoon to a height of ninety thousand li for a flight of six months' dura-tion. . . . A cicada laughed, and said to a dove: 'Now when I fly with my might, it is as much as I can do to get from tree to tree. And some-times I do not reach, but fall to the ground midway. What, then, can be the use of going up ninety thousand li in order to start for the South?"' 7

This passage is cited from a chapter entitled "The Happy Excursion" from Chuang Tse's work. It shows clearly that both the great Rukh and the small cicada are perfectly sat-isfied, each with his own excursion. They continue to be so as long as they live in accordance with their nature without imitating artificially each other. So everything is perfect in its natural condition. Art simply disturbs nature and produces pain. For, as Chuang Tse said;

"A duck's legs, though short, cannot be lengthened without pain to the duck, and a crane's legs, though long, cannot be shortened without misery to the crane, so that which is long in nature cannot be cut off, nor that which is short be lengthened. All sorrows are thus avoided,"8

Yang Chu's egoism, therefore, is not selfish in the ordinary sense of that word. He was simply teaching that every man should live as his nature wishes to live; but he need not impose upon others what he thinks to be good. So he said:

"If the ancient by injuring a single hair could have rendered a service to the world, he would not have done it; and had the world been offered to a single person, he would not have accepted it. If nobody would damage even a hair, and nobody would have the world for profit, the world would be in a perfect state."9

Another passage from Chuang Tse:

"'Tell me,' said Lao Tse, 'in what consist charity and duty to one's neighbor?' 'They consist,'a nsweredC onfucius,'i n a capacityf or rejoicing in all things; in universal love, without the element of self. These are the characteristicso f charitya nd duty to one's neighbor.' 'What stuff!' cried Lao Tse, 'does not universal love contradict itself? Is not your elimination of self a positivem anifestationo f self? Therei s the universe,i ts regularity is unceasing; there are the sun and the moon, their brightness is unceasing; therea re the stars,t heir groupingsneverc hange;t here arebirdsa nd beasts, they flock together without varying; there trees and shrubs, they grow upwards without exception. Be like these; follow Tao; and you will be perfect. Why, then, these struggles for charity and duty to one's neighbor, as though beating a drum in search of a fugitive? Alas! sir, you have brought much confusion into the mind of man.' "l

Thus the Taoists see only the good aspects of what is called the state of nature. Every kind of human virtue and social regulation is to them against nature. As Lao Tse said:

"Cast off your holiness, rid yourself of sagacity, and the people will benefita hundredfold.D iscardb enevolencea nd abolishr ighteousness, and the people will return to filial piety and paternal love. Renounce your scheming and abandon gain, and the thieves and robbers will disappear. These three preceptsm eant hat outwards how is insufficient, and therefore they bid us be true to our proper nature: to show simplicity, to embrace plain dealing,t o reduces elfishness,t o moderated esire."1 1

The government, if the Taoists need any, must be extreme laissez-faire.

"As restrictions and prohibitions are multiplied in the country, the people grow poorer and poorer. When the people are subjected to over-much government, the land is thrown into confusion. When people are skilled in many cunning arts, strange are the objects of luxury that appear. The greater the number of laws and enactments, the more thieves and rob-bers there will be."12

Government should imitate nature:

"The Tao in its regular course does nothing and so there is nothing which it does not do." 13 This is because Tao lets everything work for itself in its own way: "Therefore the sage said: 'So long as I do nothing, the people will work out their own reformation. So long as I love calm, the people will be right themselves. So long as I am free from meddling, the people will grow rich. So long as I am free from desire, the people will come naturally back to Simplicity." '1 14

 So what man ought to do is to accord with his nature and be content with his destiny. To illustrate this passive nature of Taoism I cite from Chuang Tse:

"Tse Lai fell ill. . . . Tse Li went to see him. Leaning against the door, he asked the dying man: 'Great indeed is the Creator! What will he now make you to become? Where will he take you to? Will he make you the liver of a rat? or an arm of an insect?' Tse Lai answered: 'Where a parent tells a son to go, East, West, South, or North, he simply follows the command. The Yin and Yang (the two forces of nature) are more to a man than his parents are. If they hasten my death and I do not quietly submit to them, I shall be obstinate and rebellious, but they are not mistaken. The great mass of nature makes me to be moved with the body, to be busy with life, to be at ease with old age, and to be at rest with death. Therefore what has made my life a good makes also my death a good."' 15

 Knowledge is of no use and can do only harm:

"Our life is limited, but knowledge is not limited. With what is limited to pursue what is not limited is a perilous thing." 16

What we need and ought to know and to get is the Tao, but it is in us. It is like the God of the pantheistic philoso-phy. So what we ought to do is to know and to control ourselves:

"He who knows others is clever, but he who knows himself is enlight-ened. He who overcomes others is strong, but he who overcomes himself is mightier still." 17

Besides, we have to use an altogether different method to know and to get the Tao. Lao Tse said:

"He who devotes himself to knowledge seeks from day to day to in-crease. He who devotes himself to Tao seeks from day to day to diminish. He diminishesa nd againd iminishest ill he arrivesa t doingn othing. Having arrived at the point of doing nothing, there is nothing which he does not do." 18

 As Tao is already in us, it can be known not by adding something artificially to it, but by taking away what has been artificially added to it before. That is what Lao Tse meant by "diminish." So the arguments of those who were simply interested in intellectual exercise were to the Taoists of little value. Thus in Chuang Tse's book one passage reads:

"To wear out one's intellect in trying to argue without knowing the fact that the argumentsa ret he samei s called' threei n the morning.' 'What is three in the morning?' asked Tse Yu. 'A keeper of monkeys,' replied Tse Chi, 'said once to his monkeys with regard to their chestnuts, that each was to have three in the morning and four in the night. But to this the monkeys were very angry, so the keeper said that they might have four in the morning and three in the night, with which arrangement they were all well pleased.' 2 19

 Thus Taoism stood for nature as against art.

III

The fundamental idea of Moism is utility. The sanction of virtue is not that it is natural, but that it is useful. In the book bearing Mo Tse's name one passage reads:

 " Righteousnessi s what is beneficialt o us. Benefiti s that whichw e are glad to have." 20

Thus Mo Tse's position in ethics was essentially that of utilitarianism. He was also a pragmatist and an empiri-cist. He said:

"For argument there must be a standard. If we argue without a stand-ard, it is just like fixing morning and night on a moving circle: we cannot know clearly whether it is right or wrong, useful or harmful. For testing an argument there are three standards. What are these three standards? They are: to trace it, to examine it, and to use it. Where trace it? Trace it in the authority of the ancient philosopher kings. Where examine it? Examine it in the facts which the common people see and hear. Where use it? Put it into practice and see whether it is useful for the benefit of the country and the people. These are the three standards for argu-ment." 21

Among these three standards, the third seems to be the most important. So Mo Tse taught the doctrine of uni-versal love, because it seemed to him to be the most "use-ful for the benefit of the country and the people." To let him speak for himself, I select from the chapters entitled "Universal Love":

 "The business of the benevolent man must be to strive to promote what is advantageous to the world and to take away what is injurious to it. At the present time, what are to be accounted the most injurious things to the world? They are such as the attacking of small states by the great ones; the inroad on small families by the great ones; the plunder of the weak by the strong; the oppression of the few by the many. . . . Let us ask whence all these injurious things arise. Is it from loving others or advan-taging others? It must be replied 'No'; and it must likewise be said' They arise clearly from hating others and doing violence to others.' Do those who hate and do violence to others hold the principle of loving all, or that of making distinctions between man and man? It must be replied, 'They make distinctions.' So then it is the principle of making distinctions between man and man, which gives rise to all that is most injurious to the world. On this account we conclude that that principle is wrong. . There is a principle of loving all which is able to change that which makes distinctions. . . . If the princes were as much for the state of others as for their own, which one among them would raise the forces of his state to attack that of another? He is for that as much as for his own. . . 'So then it is the principle of universal, mutual love, which gives rise to all that is most beneficial to the world. On this account we conclude that that principle is right. . . . Others may say, 'It is good, but it is extremely hard to be carried into practice.' But how can it be good, and yet incapable of being put into practice? . . . I apprehend there is no one under heaven, man or woman, however stupid, though he condemn the principle of universal love, but would at such a time (the most dangerous time), make one who held it the subject of his trust. I apprehend there is no one under heaven, however stupid, man or woman, though he condemn the principle of universal love, but would at such a time (the most dangerous time), prefer to be under the sov-ereign who holds it.".22

 This shows that the doctrine of universal love is not only advantageous to others, but to those as well who act ac-cording to this principle. In the book that bears Mo Tse's name three chapters are devoted to describing the disad-vantages of war. War is not only injurious to the conquered, but to the conqueror as well. Even occasionally some of the states may make profit at the expense of others, it still cannot be justified. He compared this to medicine. There is medicine; if ten thousand people use it and only four or five are benefited, it is surely not a good medicine. Mo Tse stood for the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

He also, unlike the Taoist, knew the imperfection of human nature. Mankind is too shortsighted to see its own interests. Men cannot be convinced that loving others is advantageous to themselves and selfishness can do only harm. So, Mo Tse, again unlike the Taoist, saw the need of authorities to regulate human action. He taught that there is a personal God. Men should love each other, not only because so doing is advantageous, but also because it is the will of God. Even belief in the existence of spirits and ghosts as the invisible watchers over men's conduct is upheld as a valuable aid in maintaining morality.

The function and authority of the state are likewise emphasized by Mo Tse as aids to a right life:

"In ancient times, when mankind just began to enter the world and had no political association, every one had his own righteousness. If there was one man, there was one righteousness;if two, two righteousnesses;if ten, ten righteousnesses;th e morem en, the morer ighteousnesses. Every one considered his own righteousness as right and others' as wrong. Therefore, people were against each other. . . . The world was in disorder and people were like birds and beasts. They knew that the reason that the world was in disorder was that there was no right leader; therefore, they elected a wise and able man to be their emperor. Then the emperor ordered the people, saying: 'If you hear what is good and what is not good, tell all of them to your superior. What your superior considers as right, all of you must consider as right; what your superior considers as wrong, all of you must consider as wrong."' 23

This is altogether different from the Taoistic conception of the state. Besides this, Mo Tse also emphasised the im-portance of education. In the book that bears his name, one chapter is entitled: "What is Dyed," in which one passage reads:

 "Master Mo Tse saw one dyeing silk. He sighed and said: 'Dyed in blue, the silk becomes blue; dyed in yellow, the silk becomes yellow. What it enters changes; it changes its color accordingly. By entering five times, it is turned into five colors. Therefore it is necessary to take care of the dyeing."' 24

Following this he cited a long list of facts to show how some men became good by associating with good men, and others bad by associating with bad men. Human nature seems to him to be a tabula rasa and its color depends entirely on how one dyes it. This again is very different from the Taoistic conception of human nature.

In contrast with Taoism Mo Tse denied predestination. Reward and punishment either by God or by the state are the results of men's voluntary action. If the will is not free, men will not be responsible, for their bad doing, and will not be encouraged to do good. They will think, as Mo Tse said:

 " He who is punishedi s predestinedt o be punishedb ut not becauseh e is bad. He who is rewarded is predestined to be rewarded but not because he is good. Therefore if they become princes, they will not be righteous; if they becomem inisters,t hey will not be loyal. . . . 25

Thus Mo Tse worked out many devices for making people good. His ideal is to have the greatest number of population, with the necessary external goods, living to-gether peacefully and loving each other. Mo Tse said:

 "When a philosopher governs a country, the wealth of that country can be doubled; when he governs the world, the wealth of the world can be doubled. It is doubled not at the expense of others, but by utilizing the country and by cutting off useless expenditures. . . . What is it that is not easy to be doubled? It is the population only that is not easy to be doubled. But there is a way to doublei t. The ancientp hilosopherk ings had a law saying: 'When the boy is twenty years old, he must have a home; when the girl is fifteen years old, she must have her man. . . . 26

This is Mo Tse's ideal of progress. Progress is possible not by struggle and competition, but by universal love and mutual help. To this I must add that the ideal of Mo Tse is not a Platonic one. Mo Tse was too realistic to be content to put his pattern in heaven. He was ready to fight against anything that seemed to him to be incompati-ble with the increase of wealth and population. He taught economy of expenditure because, as he said:

"Philosopher kings do not do those things which increase the expendi-ture but not the profit of the people." 27

He was also against music and fine art, because they have nothing to do with the fact that:

"People have three troubles: those who are hungry but have no food; those who are cold but have no clothes; and those who are tired but cannot rest." 28

He was also against the Confucianist teaching of the lux-urious way of burying the dead and the three years' mourn-ing on occasion of the death of parents. Because people ought not spend their time, energy, and wealth in this way; in doing so,

"The country must become poor; the population must become small; and politics must becomec orrupted."29

These steps probably represent the decisive attitude of Moism to oppose nature. Indeed if one sees things wholly from the point of view of intellect, music and fine art are really of no use at all. If we know that death is a natural process, what is the use of mourning? Suen Tse said:

 " Mo Tse was blindedb y utility, and did not know refinement."3 0

This criticism is quite justified.

Anyway, Mo Tse was certainly a philosopher who taught men to find happiness in the external world. He did not think, as the Taoists did, that men are most happy in the state of nature, and. that what men need and should do is to return to nature, instead of turning away from it. He knew, in contrast with Taoists, that men in nature are im-perfect, foolish, and weak; that, in order to be perfect, strong, and wise, they need the help of the state, of virtue, and of a personified God. So in his philosophy there was a strong sense of progress and of the future. In the book bearing his name one passage reads:

"Pung Ching Shin Tse said: 'The past can be known, but not the future. Mo Tse said: 'Suppose that your parents are at a place one hundred li from here, and meet some trouble: they ask you to go to them within one day; if you can do so, they will be alive; if not they will die. Now there is a good car with a good horse, and a bad horse with a car with square wheels. I ask you to choose between them. Which one will you take?' 'I take the good car with the good horse in order that I may be able to arrive earlier' was the answer. Mo Tse said: 'Then why do you say that you cannot know the future?' 31

This is indeed a good illustration of utilizing the past to control the future. The spirit is scientific. In the book bearing Mo Tse's name there were several chapters de-voted to what we now call logic or definitions. They must be the product of Mo Tse's followers, if not of the master himself. They contain many definitions which are sometimes interesting and scientific. For instance:

"Space is that that covers different places. Duration is that that covers different times. Cause is that after getting which a thing can be. Circle is that one middle has the same length to all sides. Energy is that by which a form arises." 32

There are many others like these, which seem to be germs of science. Indeed Mo Tse was famous also for making machines to defend the city-wall, to which several chapters in the book bearing his name are devoted.

This is all I wish to say to support my statement that Moism stood for art as over against nature. Now let us turn to the third system, Confucianism.

IV

Confucianism, as I said before, is a mean between the two extreme standpoints of nature and art. But at the time immediately after Confucius, there were two types of Confucianism. The one, represented by Mencius, stood nearer to the extreme of nature; the other, represented by Suen Tse, stood nearer to that of art. The teaching of Confucius himself was nearer to the extreme of nature. So afterwards Mencius was and is considered as the true and legal heir of Confucianism. Here I follow tradition in choosing Confucius and Mencius to represent Confucian-ism, but shall discuss Suen Tse in another place and shall consider him as another philosopher in Chinese history who attempted to develop the art line of Chinese thought.

Confucius, as Mencius said, was a "sage of time."

 "When it was proper to go away quickly, he did so; when it was proper to delay, he did so; when it was proper to keep retirement, he did so; when it was proper to go into office, he did so:-this was Confucius." 33

 So Confucius emphasized discrimination of situations. It is not a first question whether I should love a person in such and such a way or not; the first question is who that person is. Mencius said:

"In regard to the inferior creatures, the superior man is kind to them, but not loving. In regard to people generally, he is friendly to them, but not affectionate. He is affectionatet o his relatives,a nd friendlyt o people generally. He is friendlyt o people generally,a nd kind to creatures."3 4

He said again in another place:

"Here is a man, and a stranger bends his bow to shoot him. I will advise him not to do so, but speaking calmly and smilingly, for no other reason but that he is not related to me. But if my brother be bending his bow to shoot the man, I will advise him not to do so, weeping and crying the while, for no other reason but that he is related to me." 35

Thus was developed the doctrine of loving with a difference of degree, as over against that of universal love on the one hand and that of each for himself on the other. We ought to love with difference of degree, because it is human nature. Thus one passage in the work of Mencius reads:

 " E Tse said: 'Accordingt o the principleo f the learned,w e find that the ancients acted towards the people as if they were watching over an infant. What does this expression mean? To me it seems that we are to love all without difference of degree; but in practice we begin with our parents.' Seu Tse reported this to Mencius. Mencius said: 'Does E Tse really think that a man's affection for the child of his brother is merely like his affection for that of his neighbor? . . . Heaven gives birth to crea-tures in such a way that they have one root, and E Tse makes them to have two roots." 3n

Human nature, according to the teaching of Confucianism, is essentially good. This seems to have been a tradition even before the time of Confucius. Because human nature is originally good, so the sanction of virtue is its being admirable and desirable. Thus Mencius said:

"Men's mouths agree in having the same relishes; their ears agree in enjoyingt he same sound;t heir eyes agreei n recognizingt he same beauty; shall their minds alone be without that which they similarly approve? It is, I say, reason and righteousness. The sages only apprehendedb efore us what our mind also approves. Thereforer easona nd righteousnessa re agreeable to our mind, just as good food is agreeable to our mouth." 3

 In another place he said:

"What is desirable is what is called good." 38

 But, although human nature is originally good, it is not to be inferred that men are born perfect. They cannot be perfect until their innate reason is completely developed, and their lower desires are wholly taken away. Thus Mencius said:

 "The feeling of commiseration is the beginning of benevolence; the feeling of shame and dislike is the beginningo f righteousness;t he feeling of modesty and complaisanceis the beginningo f propriety;t he feeling of approving and disapproving is the beginning of wisdom. . . . Since all men have these four feelings in themselves, let them know how to give them their development and their completion, and the issue will be like that of fire which has begun to burn, or that of a spring which has begun to find vent. If they have their complete development, they will suffice to love and to protect all within the four seas. If they be denied their devel-opment, they will not suffice for a man to serve his parents." 39

 And to develop reason on the one hand is to diminish the lower desires on the other:

"To nourish the mind there is nothing better than to make the desires few." 40

So in order to develop men's natural faculties, they need some positive organization. The simple Taoistic way of returning to nature is not sufficient here. Therefore the state is indispensable:

" In the Book of History it is said: 'Heaven having produced the people in the lower earth, appointed for them rulers and teachers."' 41

 But teachers and rulers are not to be separated. Most of the Chinese political ideals are the same as Plato's. King must be philosopher; philosopher must be king. This is especially emphasized in the Confucianist's conception of the state. The chief duty of the state is first to maintain a certain amount of wealth to enable people to live, and then to teach them. Thus one passage in the Confucian Ana-lects reads:

"When the Master went to the state of Wei, Yen Yew acted as the driver of his carriage. The Master observed: 'How numerous are the people!' Yew said: 'Since they are thus numerous, what shall be done for them?' 'Enrich them,' was the answer. 'And when they have been enriched, what more shall be done?' The Master said: 'Teach them."' 42

Moreover in a state, teaching is more important than en-riching. In the Confucian Analects another passage reads:

 "The Duke King of Tse asked Confucius about government. Con-fucius replied: 'The prince is prince, the minister is minister, the father is father, and the son is son.' 'Good,' said the duke, 'If, indeed, the prince be not prince, the minister not minister, the father not father, and the son not son, although there is food, can we enjoy it?"' 3

As for the individual, external things are determined by destiny. Therefore in' the Confucian Analects we read:

"Death and life have their determined appointment; riches and honors depend on Heaven."

44 And Mencius said:

 "When we get by our seeking and lose by our neglecting; in this case seeking is of use to getting, and the thing sought for is something which is in ourselves. When our seeking is conducted properly, but the getting is only as destiny determines, in this case our seeking is of no use to getting, and the thing sought for is that which is without us."45

Therefore, what man should do is to seek what is in himself. The fact that he is not able to control what is outside him does not make him imperfect; he is given by Heaven the godly reason within him, in which he can find truth and be happy. So Mencius:

 "He who has exhausted all his mind, knows his nature. Knowing his nature, he knows Heaven. To preserve one's mind and nourish one's nature, is the way to serve Heaven. When neither a premature death nor a long life makes any difference, but he waits in the cultivation of his character for whatever comes; this is the way in which he establishes his Heaven-ordainedb eing."4 6

 In another place he said:

"All things are already in us. Turn our attention to ourselves and find there this truth; there is no greater delight than that."47

 In this point Confucianism is much nearer Taoism than Moism. Happiness and truth are in our mind. It is in our own mind, not in the external world, that we can seek for happiness and truth. We are self-sufficient, if only we develop our innate power. To learn is to cultivate our character according to our rational nature, not to make intellectual exercise or simply to remember mechanically what the books said.

We have now completed our general survey of the three original types of Chinese ideals. We have seen that in the theory of existence, the power that governs the universe, to Taoism is the omnipotent Tao or Nature, to Moism is a personified God, and to Confucianism is the Heavenly Reason. In the theory of the state, Taoism needed a "laissez faire " government, if any; Moism needed the state to regulate the different individual opinions, and Confucian-ism needed it to develop men's moral faculties. In the theory of life, Taoism said that human nature is perfect in itself and that every one should only live in accordance with one's own nature; Moism said that human nature is not perfect in itself, and that one should love all equally in order to make possible the prosperity of all; Confucianism said that although human nature is good, one needs efforts to "'develop,"t o "'nourish,"a nd to "complete" it, and that although one should love others, the difference of natural relation should be considered. In the theory of education, Taoism taught a return to nature, Moism taught control of the environment, and Confucianism taught the way of self-realization. These seem to me to have justified my statement that in the history of Chinese thought Taoism stood for nature, Moism for art and Confucianism for the mean. We have seen that they struggled bitterly for ex-istence. The result of that great war was the complete failure of poor Moism, which soon disappeared once for all. The causes of the failure of Moism were unknown; but, I think, the chief cause must have been the defect of the system itself. To illustrate this I cite from Chuang Tse a passage:

"Mo Tse composed the treatise 'Against Music' and the subject of another was called 'Economy in Expenditure.' He would have no singing in life, and no wearing of mourning on the occasion of death. He in-culcatedu niversall ove and a commonp articipationin all advantages,a nd condemned fighting. . . . The teaching of such lessons cannot be regarded as a proof of his love for men; his practicing them in his own case would certainly show that he did not love himself. But this has not been sufficient to overthrow the doctrine of Mo Tse. Notwithstanding, men will sing, and he condemns singing; men will wail, and he condemns wailing; men will express their joy, and he condemns such expression. Is this truly accordingt o men'sn ature? Throughl ife toil, and at death niggard-liness; causing men sorrow and melancholy and difficult to be carried into practice, I fear it cannot be regarded as the way of sages. Contrary to the minds of men, men will not endure it. Though Mo Tse himself might be able to endure it, how is the aversion of the world to it to be overcome?"48

Truly the aversion of the world to Moism had not been overcome, and people turned their back from it after the disappearance of the enthusiastic, great personality of Mo Tse himself.

But, as already noted, there was another man at that time, who, although different from Mo Tse, tried to develop the art line of Chinese ideal. He was Suen Tse (269 B. C.?- 239 B. C.?), who considered himself as the true successor of Confucianism. He taught that human nature is absolutely bad andthat to make it good is the dutyof ruler andteacher. He condemned Chuang Tse as:

"One who was blinded by nature and did not know human."49

According to his own ideal, he would conquer nature instead of returning to it:

"It is better to treat nature as a thing and regulate it than to consider it very great and always think of it. It is better to control nature and use it than to follow and admire it." 50

This is nearly the same as the Baconian conception of power. But, unfortunately, his pupils did not develop his thought along this line. They carried out their master's political philosophy and carried it too far. In the third century B. C. Shi Hwang Ti, or the "First Universal Em-peror," of the Chin Dynasty, unified again warring states into one, and Li Si, the disciple of Suen Tse, became the Premier. He helped the emperor in every respect to unify the empire and carried the authority of the government to an extreme. Having abolished the existing feudalism and thus absolutely unified the empire politically, he took a step farther to unify the people's thought. He burned books, killed scholars, and ordered the people to come to the state or government professors to learn things. Thus the emperor became an extreme tyrant and the people rebelled. Suen Tse's teaching, together with the Chin Dynasty, disappeared soon and forever.

V

After the Chin Dynasty the "art" motive of Chinese thought almost never reappeared. Soon came Buddhism, which again is a "nature" philosophy of the extreme type. The Chinese mind oscillated among Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism for a long time. It was not until the tenth century A. D. that a new group of men of genius succeeded in combining these three, Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism, into one, and instilling the new teaching into the Chinese national mind, which has persisted to the present day.

Because this new teaching started in the Sung Dynasty, it is known as the " Learning of Sung." These philosophers themselves claimed that their teaching was the genuine Confucianism. But it must be a new Confucianism, if it is Confucianism at all. Most of its representatives were at first believers in Taoism and Buddhism, and afterwards came back to Confucianism. Then they picked from the "Li Ki" as their textbooks two chapters, to which few scholars had paid any attention before that time. Truly it was their merit to call attention to these two chapters, "The Great Learning" and "The Doctrine of Mean and Common," which embodied Confucianism in a very system-atic way. I cannot refrain from citing from the "Great Learning" certain passages, which were regarded till very recent time by the Chinese people as the sole aim of life. The passages are:

"The doctrine of the Great Learning is: to enlighten the enlightened virtue, to make people love each other, and to stop at the supreme good. . . . The ancients who wish to enlighten the enlightened virtue in the world first ordered well their own states. Wishing to order well their own states, they first regulated their own families. Wishing to regulate their own families,t hey firstc ultivatedt heir ownc haracter.W ishingt o cultivate their own characters, they first rectified their minds. Wishing to rectify their minds, they first sought to be sincere in their wishes. Wishing to be sincere in their wishes, they first extended their wisdom. Such extension of wisdom lay in the investigation of things." 51

This in a few words gave an admirable exposition of the Confucianist aim and art of life. The philosophers of Neo-Confucianism picked out these passages and uncon-sciously read Taoism and Buddhism into them. They differed from the original Confucianism in that they set up what they called the "'heavenly reason " as over against 'human desire," conceptions which were really suggested by the ideas of "Norm" and "Ignorance" in Buddhism, and were never spoken of very much before this period. According to the genuine Confucianism, as we have seen, although human nature is good, the good is only a germ or a "beginning," to use the term of Mencius, and much effort is needed to "nourish," to "develop," and to "complete" it. Now according to Neo-Confucianism, the heavenly reason, though covered by human desires, is as perfect as ever, and men need only to remove these desires, and the true mind, like a diamond, will shine itself. This is very like what Lao Tse called "to diminish." Yet Neo-Con-fucianism differed from Taoism and Buddhism radically and attacked them seriously. It held that in order to "diminish" human desire and to recover the heavenly reason, it is not necessary for one to be in a state of complete negation of life. What is necessary is to live according to reason, and it is only in life that the reason can be fully realized.

Now these philosophers set out to investigate the "things," of the above quotation, and faced immediately the question: What are these things? This gave rise to two types of Neo-Confucianism. The one said that the "things" are all external things and affairs. It is impos-sible to investigate all of them at once, and no one carried this interpretation into practice, not even the interpreter, Chu He, himself. The other said that "things" refer to phenomena in our mind. This interpretation was more successfully carried out. There were many subtle and convincing arguments from both sides, and all of them made some great contributions to the theory and what may be called the art of life.

This period of the history of Chinese philosophy was almost perfectly analogous to that of the development of modern science in European history, in that its productions became more and more technical, and had an empirical basis and an applied side. The only, but important, difference was that in Europe the technique developed was for know-ing and controlling matter, while in China that developed was for knowing and controlling mind. To the latter technique India has also made a great contribution. But while the Indian technique can be practiced only in the negation of life, the Chinese technique can be practiced only within life. Arts differ according to the difference of ideals.

But these controversies are not important for the present purpose. What concerns us here is the ideals that direct the Chinese mind, not the methods of realizing them. We may, therefore, say that so far as the ideal or aim is con-cerned all types of Neo-Confucianism are the same: the ideal is to diminish the human desire in order to recover the heavenly reason, and that is all.

VI

Such is the Chinese idea of good. In the history of man-kind Mediaval Europe under Christianity tried to find good and happiness in Heaven, while Greece tried, and Modern Europe is trying to find them on earth. St. Augustine wished to realize his "City of God," Francis Bacon his "Kingdom of Man." But China, ever since the disap-pearance of the "nature" line of her national thought, has devoted all her spiritual energy to another line, that is, to find good and happiness directly in the human mind. In other words, Mediaeval Europe under Christianity tried to know God and prayed for His help; Greece tried, and Modern Europe is trying to know nature and to conquer, to control it; but China tried to know what is within our-selves, and to find there perpetual peace.

What is the use of science? The two fathers of modern European philosophy gave two answers. Descartes said that it is for certainty; Bacon said that it is for power. Let us first follow Descartes and consider science as for certainty. We see at once that if one is dealing with one's own mind, there is at first no need of certainty. Bergson says in Mind Energy that Europe discovered the scientific method, because modern European science started from matter. It is from the science of matter that Europe gets the habit of precision, of exactness, of the anxiety for proof, and of distinguishing between what is simply possible and what is certain.

 "Therefore science, had it been applied in the first instance to the things of mind, would have probably remained uncertain and vague, however far it may have advanced; it would, perhaps, never have distinguished between what is simply plausible and what must be definitely accepted." 52

So China has not discovered the scientific method, because Chinese thought started from mind, and from one's own mind. Is it necessary for me when I am hungry to prove to myself with roundabout, abstract, scientific method that I am desiring food?

Besides, Chinese philosophers considered philosophy as something most serious. It is not for intellectual informa-tion, it is for doing. Chu He, the philosopher of Neo- Confucianism, said that the sages would not tell what virtue was like; they simply asked you to practice it; as they would not tell how sugar was sweet, they simply asked you to taste it. In this sense we may say that Chi-nese philosophers loved the certainty of perception, not that of conception, and therefore, they would not, and did not translate their concrete vision into the form of science. In one word China has no science, because of all philosophies the Chinese philosophy is the most human and the most practical. While the philosophers of the West are proud of their clear thinking and scientific knowledge, the Chinese philosopher would say with Marcus Aurelius:

"Thanks, too, that in spite of my ardour for philosophy, I did not fall into the hands of a professor, or sit poring over essays or syllogisms, or become engrossed in scientific speculations." 3

. . . "Nothing is more disheartening than the weary round of spying anything, probing (as Pindar says) 'the depth of the earth,' guess-ing and prying at the secrets of our neighbors' souls, instead of realising that it is enough to keep solely to the god within, and to serve him with all honesty. . . ." 54

But, although in comparison with the West China is short of clear thinking, in compensation she has more rational happiness. Bertrand Russell said in the Nation (London) that the Chinese people seem to be rational hedonists, differing from Europeans through the fact that they prefer enjoyment to power.55 It is because of the fact that the Chinese ideal prefers enjoyment to power that China has no need of science, even though science, accord-ing to Bacon, is for power. The Chinese philosophers, as I said just now, had no need of scientific certainty, because it was themselves that they wished to know; so in the same way they had no need of the power of science, because it was themselves that they wished to conquer. To them the content of wisdom is not intellectual knowledge and its function is not to increase external goods. To Taoism, external goods seem to be something that can only bring confusion to man's mind. To Confucianism, while they are not so bad as Taoism supposes, they are by no means the essentials of human welfare. Then what is the use of science?

It seems to me that if the Chinese people had followed Mo Tse identifying good with useful, or Suen Tse so as to try to control nature instead of admiring it, it is very likely that China would have produced science at a somewhat early time. Of course this is only a speculation. But this speculation is justified by the fact that in the books of Mo Tse and Suen Tse we do find the germs of science. Unfortunately or fortunately this "art" line of Chinese thought was conquered by its opponents. What is the use of science, if intellectual certainty and the power to con-quer the external world are not included in the idea of good?

 One question may be raised: Why could Europe turn its attention from heaven to earth, whereas China at the same time could not turn from the internal to the external? To this I answer: No matter whether the people of Europe tried 'to find good and happiness in heaven or in earth, their philosophies all belong to what I called the line of "art." Before the establishment of Christianity, Stoicism, which seems to me to be the "nature" line of European thought, taught man to serve his god within. But then came Christianity, which taught man to serve his God without. Man was no longer a self-sufficient being, but a sinner. Accordingly the European mind occupied itself in proving the existence of God. Philosophers proved it with the Aristotelian logic and by the study of natural phenomena. Philosophy and science, according to most philosophers of scholasticism, even Roger Bacon, were needed to explain the contents of the Scripture. Modern Europe has continued this spirit of knowing and proving the outside, only changing God for "Nature," creation for mechanism-that is all. There is a continuation of his-tory, but no clear demarcation between medieval and modern, Europe. Both try to know the outside world. They first try to know it, and after getting acquainted with it, they try to conquer it. So they are bound to have science both for certainty and for power. They are bound to have science, because they all suppose that human nature is imperfect in itself. Men are weak, foolish, and helpless. In order to be perfect, strong, and wise, they need something that is to be added artificially. They need knowledge and power. They need society, state, law, and virtue. Besides they need the help of a personified God. But how about what I called the "nature" line of thought? If everything good is already in us for all eternity, what use to search for happiness in the external world? Will that not be like what the Buddhist said about a beggar asking for food with a golden bowl? What is the use of scientific certainty and power?

To speak of things in abstract and general terms is al-ways dangerous. But here I cannot refrain from saying that the West is extension, the East is intension; and that the West emphasizes what we have, the East emphasizes what we are. The question as to how to reconcile these two so that humanity may be happy both in body and in mind is at present difficult to answer. Anyway, the Chi-nese conception of life may be mistaken, but the Chinese experience cannot be a failure. If mankind shall afterwards become wiser and wiser, and think that they need peace and happiness in their mind, they may turn their attention to, and gain something from, the Chinese wisdom. If they shall not think so, the mind energy of the Chinese people of four thousand years will yet not have been spent in vain. The failure itself may warn our children to stop searching for something in the barren land of human mind. This is one of China's contributions to mankind.

YU-LAN FUNG.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.

作者  | 2011-1-13 15:24:34 | 阅读(1746) |评论(0) | 阅读全文>>

余秋雨:为文化做“减法”

2011-1-10 17:05:13 阅读832 评论0 102011/01 Jan10

[主持人]:现场各位观众以及正在收看我们节目的各位网友们,大家下午好,这里是由人民日报总编室、人民网联合主办,人民日报文化新闻版、人民网文化频道联合承办的大型报网互动栏目《文化讲坛》,今天是我们讲坛第15期。  [15:10]

  [主持人]:我们邀请到中国文化学者余秋雨作为讲坛的主讲嘉宾。余秋雨先生早年曾担任过上海戏剧学院院长,获得不过鲁迅文学奖、台湾白金作家奖等,他不仅曾经考察并阐释大量的中华文明,而且穿行过世界最危险的地区,考察了世界的重要文明遗址,写下了诸如《文化苦旅》、《山居笔记》、《千年一叹》、《行者无疆》等一大批广为人知的文化大散文。余秋雨先生还曾经受邀到耶鲁大学等海内外重要的知名大学进行访问、演讲,传播中华文化。就在前不久他曾经应邀去香港、澳门、台湾等地区进行巡讲,传播中华文化,台湾当地媒体也对余老师的演讲进行了关注和报道。所以我们先用热烈的掌声欢迎余秋雨老师今天作客文化讲坛,带来主题为“为文化做减法”的主题演讲。  [15:11]

  [余秋雨]:各位朋友,还有网上的大量网友,大家好。很高兴能在人民网给大家谈一个话题。这个话题的题目就叫“为文化做减法”,这个在我看起来是一个现在迫切需要的一个命题。刚才主持人已经说了,我这些年在做什么,我需要给广大朋友说一下,就是大家可能很少看得到我在做什么,因为我不上网,也不用手机,在干嘛呢,20年了,这20年主要做两件大事,一个是考察,在世界,不管危险不危险的地方,不断走,不断走,不断写,不断写。第二就是讲述中华文化。主要是在境外讲述,因为中华文化需要有人去讲述它,如果不被讲述的话,这个文化因为太庞大、太艰深很容易被误会、误读,所以在做讲述者,主要在做这两件事。  [15:11]

  [余秋雨]:我去考察的情景可能大家从我的书上可以看到,确实走了很远的路,讲述的地方也挺多。这两年我一方面在香港一座大学担任很奇怪一个名称“健全人格奠基教授”,每年要去五个月,澳洲大学希望我担任人文艺术学院的院长,那当然不要经常上班,开学、毕业时去学校就可以了,有这个名称。  [15:14]

  [余秋雨]:前不久去了台湾,台湾很多城市做巡回演讲,走来走去有一个非常大的好处,就知道我们在宏观意义上文化犯了什么病?比较重要的病和我们人生当中一样,就是我们的地球的环保我们现在讲减排,我们的很多人需要减肥,我们的心理需要减压,减减减,这个减已经成为现实人生过程当中一个非常重要的一个命题,我们过去不懂得的时候,只知道加加加,但是在中国古代哲学里边,就是在一定条件下,多就是少,少就是多。对我们现在的很多当代人来说,信息非常方便得到它,许许多多的阅读材料拥塞在我们周围,在这种情况下,我们最大灾难很可能是多,而不是少。所以在这个时候减法就非常重要。我们在减肥的时候,我们把那些非脂肪减掉,我们突然发现,这些脂肪可以不属于我,当它减时我的生命力又重新回来了,精气神也回来了,文化也是这样,文化有很多臃肿的部位,有很多不必要的东西,就像脂肪一样,你去掉它,你的生命力更强悍。  [15:15]

  [余秋雨]:这个问题在文化领域比较大,你如果去听演讲的时候,你听到很多古代很多朝廷谋术,这个大臣和那个大臣怎么勾心斗角,那个妃子和那个妃子怎么样,这个很好看,但是写多了,文化文化文化,好象出现大问题了,你看书店里,有很多中国古代的成功术、制胜术,在办公室怎么制胜你的上司的技术,很多都被认为是一种文化,因为它印成字、印成书,而且里面有很多古文加在一起就成了文化。  [15:15]

  [余秋雨]:你在网上看就更多了,各种各样的信息,大量挤压着你,我们学校里给我们文化,我们电视给我们文化,我们讲座给我们文化,这样就产生了一个这样一个悲剧,就是我们天天都在接触各种各样的文化,但是为什么时间长了以后,大家感觉中国经济发展非常好,但是精神文化还是滞后的。那么多文化,却给人感觉精神文化反而滞后。所以这里面肯定遇到一个大问题,就是我们要做一点减法。做减法说到底是有选择的办法,所谓做减法就是用我们选择的办法把不知道东西选掉它,去掉它,把好的东西留下来。这个做减法的过程也就是选择的过程,而这个选择的过程实际上是对中华文明和世界文明重新解读的过程,在现在讲起来其实特别重要了。  [15:16]

  [余秋雨]:我前面讲到了,因为我们接受文化信息的道路太多,获得太方便,所以我们这个成为一个非常重大的课题了。  [15:20]

  [余秋雨]:我想从两个方面来说这个问题。第一,用减法清理文化思路,第二,用减法走出文化误区。这两个有关,但是是前后两个部分,一个是由减法清理文化思路,就是说我们在大的思路上可能已经要用减法了,就是怎么样去除不必要的杂质,留下最本质的东西,这是思路。第二个问题就更严重了,就是我们现在由于没有做减法,进入了好多误区,做过减法以后,可能这个误区可能就会减少,本质东西也可能出来。  [15:20]

  [余秋雨]:我现在先讲第一个。就是用减法清理文化思路。  [15:20]

  [余秋雨]:文化思路是必须清理的。为什么呢?因为文化问题太复杂了。我这里正好前两天看到有一个人,美国的文化人类学家叫罗伦斯·劳威尔曾经说过这样一段话,他说,在这个世界上没有别的东西比别人更难琢磨,我们不能分析它,因为它的成份无穷无尽,我们不能叙述它,因为它没有固定的形态,我们想用文字来定义它,突然发现就像要用手去抓空气一样,什么也没抓住。这是很多年以前美国一个文化人类学家的感叹。他觉得最难琢磨的东西是文化,最抓不住的东西是文化。正因为这样的,我们就感觉到有一个大问题,正因为如此,所以,什么东西都可以在文化这个概念里装进去了,就像我们前面讲的一样,一切东西都可以装进去了,所以这个做减法就成了一个非常必要的东西。  [15:21]

  [余秋雨]:那么,在做减法的时候,有一件事情要清楚,就是我要在论述一个概念的时候,和其他的概念有重叠的部分,虽然也很重要,但是你必须把它去除掉,比如说我们在人民网我们在讲人民日报是什么,你说有铅字印在白纸上什么,这个话对吗?对,别的报纸也是这样。你没有论述人民日报是什么。文化也是这样,我们论述的很多很多东西是文化吗?对,但是它没有把文化最重要的本性讲出来,没有把文化不同于非文化的那些内容讲出来。你讲你是谁,你说我有脚,我有脚指头几个,我有手,这和别人一样,你说你是谁,往往是你的制高点,比如说你的精神,你的判断力。这是决定你。文化也是这样,我们要取得文化的那个制高点,它最关键的东西是什么,而不是说像人一样,你有皮肤,是你都有,这完全属于你的范围,并没有错,但是大家知道,没有错的东西不见得把它的本质就讲出来。  [15:21]

  [余秋雨]:那么我认真做了思考,我大概在两年多前,曾经在凤凰卫视里开了一个《秋雨十分》,我曾经提出过文化概念。这个概念我就读一下,我读一下以后,我再做一个简单的解释。我对文化列了一个最简单的定义,文化的定义有很多很多,人类到现在为止,已经创造过有名的文化定义有两百多个,每个定义都非常长。我进行认真筛选以后,我觉得我们现在所需要,能够说明文化是什么的,我定了这样一个定义,就是文化是一种精神价值和生活方式,它通过结论和引导创建集体人格。  [15:24]

  [余秋雨]:这稍微已经有点复杂了,但是我可以担保它是所有文化定义中最简单的。里面有三个关键词:精神价值、生活方式,这是两个第一层次的关键词,能够说明文化是什么。但是,最后,它是创建集体人格,我们说中华文化就是中国人的集体人格,这是它的终结点,这个集体人格,我们的前辈,比如说鲁迅先生,把集体人格说成是“国民性”,鲁迅先生为什么比别的作家更厉害一点?因为他一直在研究“国民性”的问题,其他作家没有集中研究,所以他在文化的层次上更高。  [15:24]

  [余秋雨]:这个集体人格由哪几个方面组成?精神价值和生活方式组成的,这个组成我们的文化。当然,你说,写散文、诗歌是不是文化?唱歌、跳舞都是。但是它没有把这个制高点拎出来,所以中华文化对它的掌握还比较薄弱,就是说我们在建设中华民族的集体人格上我们还有差距。这个集体人格就是首先现代要确定一个很好的精神价值,指的是这个。这个说起来非常长。我也曾经有过一些论文,我在美国的一些大学演讲的时候也在这个方面讲过很多话,今天因为时间关系,我就不多讲了。  [15:24]

  [余秋雨]:但是我想说明一点,就是说在文化思路上要做减法,就是减掉那些不太重要的部位,去寻找那些最重要的部位。所以,如果把这句话缩短了,台湾有一个出版家,他用我的定义,他引用我的定义说,我能不能改写成台湾的读者比较容易理解的余秋雨先生的文化定义,他说,文化是一种集体的精神人格,我觉得也可以。就是这样,讲得比较简单一点也可以。那么我们创建文化创建什么,那就有道理了,这就对了。  [15:24]

  [余秋雨]:大家看到,日本品牌去年、前年都非常惨,它市场份额丢得很多,有的甚至到了快退出竞争的地步。所以,他们寄望在3D能够实现翻身,因为它其他的技术没有,比如屏的技术没有,它没有优势,其他应用优势它赶不上中国的企业,所以它寄望在3D这种技术能够实现翻身。但是我们也看到,3D为什么在全球来看投入那么多的资源,3D并没有卖火,应该说是有它的原因的。3D没有火起来,我相信,但是未来3D应该说是方向,所以从国内的品牌来讲,我们一定是在技术上和在产品上赶上潮流,同时,如果你要想取得领先,你要超越,你要第一个能够引导市场,这样你才能在市场上比较主动,否则的话就会比较被动。这是从产品上。  [15:29]

  [余秋雨]:这是文化的思路上做减法的第一点,就是文化是什么。  [15:31]

  [余秋雨]:第二,中华文化是什么?中华文化的本性是什么?我们概括的也很多,刚健有为、厚德载物、海纳百川等等我们有很多这样的语言来概括,这个好不好?都没错。但是遗憾的是,当它一旦翻译成外文,别的民族就说,这个品质我们的文化也有,只不过你们用古代的文言文讲出来罢了,我们也有我们自己的古代语言,我们过去没有很开放时,我们老一代学者就喜欢用古代的书上四个字、四个字的句子概括中国文化,一旦到今天就麻烦了,一旦翻译出来以后,人家说,这是你们中国人特有的文化吗?有朋友从远方来你们很高兴,这是中国人的特点吗?我们难道不高兴吗?他们一定会这么来说。  [15:31]

  [余秋雨]:自己不愉快的东西不强加于别人,这是别的宗教都有的话,难道是你们独有的吗?这就牵扯到第二个问题,就是要用减法来清理思路,我们在讲中华文化的特点的时候,需要两点,一个是我们特有的。别的大文化好象碰到了边有可能,但是主要是在中国。第二,主要在,但是在中国还不行,必须被几千年的时间,被很多很多人共同实践了的东西。这才是做了减法以后留下的中华文化的本性。  [15:31]

  [余秋雨]:所以,我在美国哈佛大学演讲的时候举了几个例子。我说,据我很多很多年的考察和认真学习,我觉得中华文化和世界其它文化不同的地方有几个特性。一是在社会模式上,它建立了礼仪之道。二是,在人格模式上,它建立了君子之道。三是,在行为模式上,它建立了中庸之道。  [15:31]

  [余秋雨]:我在一些大学演讲的时候,我会讲很长时间,但是这三个“道”确实是其它文化所没有的,几乎没有。比如说在社会模式上建立礼仪之道,它什么意思呢?就是我们的祖先确信认为,文化当然可以不断被讲述,但是随着讲述者的水平、随着讲述者的语言方式、随着听讲者听到讲述的可能性,都不是很稳定,所以他们觉得需要把文化变为一种行为模式,变成一种仪式。比如孝道,你要向爸爸妈妈请安,你见到多年不见的朋友,你有一些基本的礼仪,过节的时候也有一些礼仪,这些礼仪是文化的载体。可是礼仪变得很严格。文化可以,讲述者可以没有,礼仪却是不识字的人当中代代相传,所以中国人被人家称为礼仪之邦,礼仪是一种理想,这一点是中华文化值得研究的,在行为模式上建立了礼仪之邦,在人格模式上建立了君子之道,这点也很重要。  [15:34]

  [余秋雨]:因为在我们民族文化当中,世界上很多民族文化当中,人格的理想不一样,有的人格理想是先知,有的人格理想是觉者,有的人格理想是巨人,有的人格理想是绅士,有的人格理想是骑士,有的人格理想是武士,而我们中国人的人格理想是君子。就像我们都知道君子,你可以有很多很多别的称呼,比如,我们这样一个人,最后去世的时候,你不要写你是副部级干部、正厅级干部,你不要写你是北大毕业或者哪毕业,说这儿安息着一个君子,这是对中国来说最高的评价。  [15:37]

  [余秋雨]:而且中国的语言方式是这样:从孔子开始,他把君子这么一个概念怎么来论述呢?他找到对立面——小人。用很多很多排比的方式来说明君子是什么。他不用定义。这和西方理论方式不一样,比如说“君子坦荡荡,小人长戚戚;君子成人之美,小人是反过来的;君子和而不同,小人同而不和;君子予以已,小人予以利;君子求助己,小人求助人。说一点文化都可以背,结果2000多年下来,中国人的第一“剑仙”就是你是君子还是小人,这是人格模式上的中国文化和其他民族所不一样的创建。  [15:37]

  [余秋雨]:第三,在行为模式上是中庸之道,大家不要以为好象你好我好大家好,以为滑头哲学就是中庸之道,就是反对一切极端主义,因为中国是农耕文明。我们祖先很早就知道,因为农耕依赖四季,所以人冷不到极端,冷到极端,春天就来了,热也热不到极端,热到极端秋风就起了,四季轮回的。后来无论是《周易》,无论是孔子直接建立的中庸之道,就是告诉我们这个民族不采取极端的东西,我们历史上也出现过极端时期,比如说有一些时期,包括“文革”时期,但是时间不会很长,因为它掌握了整个民族的命脉的方法论,或者行为模式,是中庸之道。  [15:37]

  [余秋雨]:我随便讲讲,我只是说明在对中国文化的认识上,我们要找到一个独特性,一个实践性这两个特点。独特性就是其他民族在这个问题上没有这么强烈,第二,实践性就是多少年来它已经被实践了,我说前面三个道都在中国古代实践了,这可能是中华民族的特性所在,我只是举一个例子,大家可以不同意我的观点,但是我需要有独特性和实践性这两个标准,一定是做减法的标准,我们不能把那么多古代词汇都丢在那,你可以换一个词汇,希望你能够找出这样一种方式,就是其他文明所没有的,而且我们国家确实长期实践的,要找出这样的特征来,这就是减法做得比较好。  [15:38]

  [余秋雨]:那么中华文化有什么缺点呢,今天实在没时间了,如果大家看我在凤凰卫视做演讲时,就讲中华民族毛病,其实毛病很多,今天就不详细讲了,比如我经常讲,近三十年来我们中华文化到底有什么进步?这点如果不做减法的话,我们会讲出很多得奖作品,在我看来这只是现象领域的事情,不太重要。在文化就是精神价值和集体人格上,近三十年至少有三个方面的文化获得进步,一个是民生文化。这个方大家都觉得民生非常重要,民生非常重要,过去不是这样的,过去最重要好象是阶级斗争或者路线斗争,老百姓生活空洞地在乎,但是不太在乎,现在民生放在非常重要得前面。各个层面。所以民生文化在现在处于这三十年来高扬的地位,这个高扬是对的,不是错的。  [15:38]

  [余秋雨]:第二,多元文化在这二三十年肯定提高了,我们对于我们所不熟悉的艺术作品,我们所不熟悉的文化思维,现在的宽容度肯定大于30年前。我们在电视剧里看起来太不舒服的东西,我们一般也宽容了,年纪大的人看到年轻人的东西也宽容了,在多元文化也宽容了,对海外民族东西,我们甚至会带着很大的热情去面对。  [15:41]

  [余秋雨]:第三,由于几次抗击大灾,我们建立了一种过去很少建立过的生命文化,我们现在不断提出生命第一,不断提出抢救、抢救、抢救,这个在我们的中华文化中,过去历史上从来没有这么提出过,就是生命,一个陌生人的生命,却成为全中国关注的对象,历史上没有出现过的事情。  [15:41]

  [余秋雨]:世界历史上有出现过,但是没有这么强烈的出现过。所以生命文化这些年是高涨了,我觉得这一切比我们有多少作品都重要,实实在在我前面讲到文化是一种精神价值,在精神价值上往前大大地推进了,这点我是非常希望我们能够坚持的,就是在民生文化、多元文化、生命文化上能够继续往前推进,重要推进。  [15:41]

  [余秋雨]:在这三方面我有个感觉,普通的民众比文化界的人更敏感、更愿意投入。倒不是说文化界的不好,他由于受到原来文化思维的影响太深,对民生文化和文本文化相比,文化界是说文本文化,不太在意民生文化,文化界已经有点落后了。对于多元文化来说文化界也有点落后了,他比较固守自己某一个流派、某一个主张,吸收起来有点障碍。那么对生命文化更是如此了。  [15:41]

  [余秋雨]:我觉得文化界还有不少朋友对生命文化比较漠然,比如说在抗震救灾的时候,比较起来文化界还有不少人参与,但是比其他各界要漠然一点。很多文化人甚至跟我讲,我们要保持距离,我当时有点生气,什么保持距离,人都大量压在哪,你还保持距离?  [15:42]

  [余秋雨]:所以文化界在这三个文化情景下相比较而言比较落后。大量在发言的人,说了很多话的人,恰恰在这三个方面倒比较落后,讲的都是奇怪的别的话语,这点我们要帮助他们,希望他们一起能够投入到更好的我们的进步上来,我们已经取得的进步上来。  [15:42]

  [余秋雨]:问题当然也非常多,这样的话我就要进入到第二个题目,第二个题目就是“用减法走出文化误区”,前面第一个题目是“用减法清理文化思路”。大家记得吗?我前面讲到清理文化思路是至少三个例子,我只是举例,什么是文化?什么是中国文化的特性?什么是近三十年中国文化实质性的进步?这个用减法来做清理,大家慢慢地会感觉到这样的清理方法可能使我们的文化话语减少,减少以后反而显得重要,而不是一堆,堆在一起。可以不同意我的结论,但是希望关注我做减法的这个思维,我用做减法可以把本质的东西拉一点出来。这样我们的文化思考就会干干净净地逐步深入,而不是在一片嘈杂声当中无可选择、无所适从、手足无措,文化界经常会造成这样的情景。  [15:42]

  [余秋雨]:现在我需要讲的更大的一个问题就是用减法走出文化误区。由于分不清什么是重要,什么是不重要;由于分不清什么是多余的脂肪,什么是最关键的肌肉;由于分不清什么是我们需要面对的压力,什么是我们虚假地给我们自己承受的压力。由于分不清,所以我们在文化领域里确实产生了很多不必要的误区。有没有可能用减法的方式,减少那些误区。这样的话,我们就可能在文化上走得更顺畅一点。  [15:42]

  [余秋雨]:第一个误区,我们有没有可能减少一点谋术文化,增加一点大道文化,或者大爱文化。谋术文化,我需要讲一讲。这个是这些年来需要做减法的一个非常重要的点。我曾经和一些大学的低年级学生和一些高中生,我曾经认真给他们做过一个调查,我发现他们现在最熟悉的中国传统文化绝大多数是谋术文化。很多很多古代的战争故事,了解一些战争打仗,了解一些,作为历史也是需要的,他们也知道很多宫廷故事,他们也知道很多皇帝、大臣的名字,但是背后的东西都是谋术、谋术、谋术。这个对两个东西不利:一个对年轻人心理健康不利。他们这些孩子从小的时候为了取得好成绩,已经在家长和老师的某种误导下,已经进入到某种竞争,这种竞争已经进入到谋术的边缘,你再用文化的角度去告诉他,我们古代是怎么闹的,古代是怎么折腾的,这对他们的心理建设真的成了一个非常大的问题。  [15:44]

  [余秋雨]:另外,也影响中华文化的外部形象。我们不是要打造成一个漂亮的外部形象,不是。大家应该明白,我们的很多过去的官方史学家所写的谋术真是和中华民族绝大多数人所守望相助的日子是关系不大的。我小的时候是从农村出来的,我知道在农村里边,遇到灾害、遇到逃荒,大家是怎么过日子,不能说每个人都那么崇高,但是真的没有那么多谋术。用谋术来概括中国几千年的历史,肯定是一种错误的概括,但是这个错误的概括确实被好多外国的学者误解了。  [15:44]

  [余秋雨]:我到海外演讲的时候,经常被问到这样一个东西。他说,我们看到中国经济那么发展,我们多么希望想了解中国文化。所以我们看你们的电视剧,听你们的演讲,看你们的书籍。看来看去更多的就是中国人太厉害了。这是他们比较客气的话。我的解释是,中国人真的没有那么坏,你完全搞错了,中国人没有那么坏。  [15:45]

  [余秋雨]:我说,你看这个自然灾害,我们中华民族是现在古文明当中唯一没有中断,发展到今天的文明,一个文明不中断,我们遇到这么灾害,我们知道,只有守望相助才可以让文明延续,因为局部地区它完全无法面对一次次大的灾害,一个民族可以延续这么久,表现它确实有一种和衷共济、互相援助的精神是有的。但是我们史学家很少写这个,只是留下我们儒家学说这样的话,“大道之行也,天下为公”。这是中华民族非常重要的思维。所以我觉得有没有可能减少一点,做减法,减少一点谋术文化,留一点空间给大道文化。这个大道文化,我们是不是在抗震救灾,在一次次我们对抗泥石流、对抗各种各样的自然灾害时,我们就感觉到大道文化了,我们并不认识灾区的人,但是大家都可以倾其所有去支援,这是一个真实的中国,不是虚假的中国。  [15:46]

  [余秋雨]:汶川地震发生的时候,你看那么多人去支援的时候,甚至还没有经过哪个政府部门动员,支援已经开始了。所以这是真实的中国,也是中国传统的孔子所说的“仁爱精神”、墨子所说的“皆爱精神”的大发扬。这是在中国文化中其实是具备的。孟子讲得更彻底,他说,井边的小孩要掉下去了,你是本能地把他拉住,还是你要打听一下他的爸爸妈妈是谁,对我有没有好处。孟子认为,这就是人和禽兽的区别。能够本能地伸手去救的是人,如果你还考虑这个孩子我值得不值得救,你就是禽兽了。这是我们祖先对我们非常重要的教化,这是中国的大道文化、大爱文化,这个能够让出一些部位来。我前面讲到中华文化的明亮的部位,这也是君子文化的一个部分了,成人之美,一个明亮的部位。而那个权术文化是一种现实,中国争权夺利好多年,这是一种现实。但是如果老在弘扬三国的计谋,老在弘扬宫廷里的针锋相对,老在弘扬这个东西,这就有点误读。  [15:46]

  [余秋雨]:所以希望在这里做减法,我讲得地方大家明白,或者讲得比较重要的是在谋术文化里能不能多做一点减法。我相信我们的文化先辈的在天之灵也一定会同意。他们花了那么多时间来区分道和术的区分,道和术在中国古代古语当中是一对范畴,是一对概念。我们的文化哲学家一直希望我们能够更多的人进入道,而不要进入术。而我们现在术实在是太多了,比如权术、谋术,各种各样的术。  [15:46]

  [余秋雨]:大家设想一下,如果我们再活下去,我们的后辈再活下去,如果充满在一个极端聪明的,充满了谋术的世界,你会不会感到好呢?我会感到一种巨大的不安全感。所以就希望我们的中国在文化的传播上能够减少谋术的领域。  [15:46]

  [余秋雨]:第二个减少,有没有可能减少一些民粹文化,增加一些理性文化,我必须说我们在人民网进行这样的演讲,我们的普通民众能够在网上自由地发表自己的意见,能够提供不同的资讯,我们通过网上可以听到各种各样的消息,而且可以做各种各样的调查和咨询,这是中华文明一大进步,我们先要把它肯定下来,但是我们不能不承认在现在的传媒特别发达的时候,确实产生了一种民粹文化,什么叫民粹文化?就是非理性的发表了一种极端的意见以后,有更多的不加分辨的人,大力跟随造成一种隐性的暴力,这叫民粹文化。  [15:50]

  [余秋雨]:因为我年纪比你们大,我经历过“文革”,我知道,“文革”说到底是一个民粹运动,是一个无政府主义的民粹运动。开始的时候有极“左”的政治,后来说不上极“左啊”政治了,你打倒我,我打倒你,乱成一团了。我的父亲被打倒10年,我的叔叔也自杀了,你说他到底极“左”、极“右”说不明白,最后问他,到底谁把我爸爸关了十年?他们回答是革命群众。我带着我的奶奶去问,我的叔叔怎么自杀了,他是工程师,什么也不是,回答也是革命群众。其实这个“革命群众”是打引号的,是不知道名姓的,那种被极端主义情绪裹卷的毁坏性的力量。  [15:51]

  [余秋雨]:民粹文化有几个特点:一是什么时候大家特别喜欢听谣言,听到谣言以后就激动,听到谣言激动以后,这个谣言和激动带有明显的指向性的攻击对象,就是不断要寻找靶子,而这个靶子没有分辨的权利,这个时候我们民粹就构成了。历史上不仅是中国,世界各国历史上都有这样的时期,这其实是很可怕的。我们自己想一下,我们自己的脑子应该不错吧,但是如果被这种裹卷的时候,我们的脑子也会失灵,我们会像傻瓜一样地听信谣言,我们像傻瓜一样地会产生一些激动,这个时候你要当心,你进入了民粹文化的怪圈。  [15:51]

  [余秋雨]:这点我们一定要注意,如果我们不注意的话,我们的文化就会毁在民粹上。大家要明白,我们在网上发言是非常巨大的自由,我们要这种自由,网上发言我们要明白,所有的领导干部也要明白,这是局部的意见,不是能够代表广泛的意见,因为专业发言的人不是那么多,而且也没有非常科学的取证途径,我们要寻找民意时,要有非常科学的调查机构,有一种非常科学的方法没有,即使是真正的民意,它也不能代表固定的明星,因为民意是不断变动的,为什么国外有的时候过几天就要进行民意测验?因为它是变动,明星是比较固定的,真正是明星的话,他也未必一定就是真理,否则,我们人类历史上为什么所有的关注人类命运的思想家都是寂寞的呢?大思想家都是寂寞的。  [15:51]

  [余秋雨]:大家设想一下,如果在改革开放之初,如果有民意来投票的话,会不会通过?难度很大,因为这意味着很多人下岗,因意味着很多铁饭碗不能保,如果那个时候用民意投票,因为当时的民意完全无法来测试中国经济的发展到这个地步,完全无法预见,领导人无法预见,现在人也无法预见,如果我们现在就减排、低碳进行民意的话,难度也很大,就是说一些非常大的终极性的问题,包括一般的民众,包括我们自己,是缺少直接的感性判断能力的,我们要明白这一点。  [15:54]

  [余秋雨]:这个民粹主义如果落到艺术上就产生这样一个问题,就是收视率、排行榜,以排行榜作为唯一标准和最高标准,这就进入到民粹了。不管东方美学和西方美学都告诉我们,美是对人的提升,而不是现场的快感,它是对人的提升,它是对人的引导。  [15:55]

  [余秋雨]:我前不久在台湾给好几个城市讲课的时候都做过很多,我对台湾的大学生说,因为民粹是全世界都有的事情,我说如果你们设想一下,把人类历史上最优秀的艺术家交给当时当区人海选,几个人可以选上?认真思考过,一个人都选不上,就是人类历史上最优秀的艺术家、那些钢琴家、那些诗人,包括我们的屈原、那些哲学家,那些决定人类文明成为高贵的那些人物,放到当时当区海选的话,有几个人可以选上,我想一个人也选不上,他们总是寂寞的,你看孔子,走了14年,讲给谁听谁都不听,他只能讲给学生听,最后学生出了一本本书。老子也是这样,大思想家很寂寞,我们不能说老百姓都可以接受的真理才是,不是,所以在这个问题上我们要减少民粹文化,为什么讲减少?我们还分不清有一些是我们过去不了解的民意,我们正通过网络语言来了解、搜集、监督,这是件好事,我们肯定它是好事,如果否定的话我们要走回头路,所以在这个前提下要警惕民粹,要减少我们特别听谣言,特别喜欢激动,特别喜欢寻找攻击对象,那个时候的发言频率一定要减少,我们要冷静,想想对不对,当然很多人围攻无法申辩人时,这个时候我们要警惕一下,我能不能要参与。  [15:56]

  [余秋雨]:我想讲一下德国大作家康德,他说什么叫知识分子?知识分子最低标准也是最高标准,是敢于在一切公共空间运用理性。这是康德对知识分子提出的很高的标准,这个标准是对的,要运用理性,不能卷到民粹里去。有时人类在做一件事时,一个理性的知识分子出现了,他觉得情况可能不完全如此。所以,我们为什么讲文化和知识分子是社会的定力呢?当大家都有点被什么裹卷时,大家的眼光都会看一个人,因为这个人是知识分子,他有独立的思考,这样的人能不能多一点?现在遗憾的是,有一些知识分子往往走在民粹主义的前面。老百姓倒没什么,被他们的漂亮的语言一概括、激动的语言一概括,风起来,这样的可不可以减少一点,包括中国历史上,包括“文革”,煽风点火往往是那些“左”派文人,老百姓很难做分析。所以这个东西我们要警惕,还是要增加理性文化,减少民粹文化。对民粹文化,等它发生到极端的时候,我们甚至要用理性去抵制,不能以这个东西作为唯一的标准。社会学上它不是唯一的标准,因为有很多命题是需要思想家认真思考,需要科学思维认真地来研究的。民粹文化说到底就是非科学文化,就是找到这件事。  [15:57]

  [余秋雨]:艺术上、文化上也是如此,我们一定要明白,现场观众齐声欢呼的当成快感的东西未必是文化,我们一定要明白这一点,如果这一点不明白的话,就像人民网里面,我的朋友,一个作家梁晓声先生曾经说过一段话,文化不能把老百姓变笨了。大家都需要笑,有时我们的笑声在现场,包括我在内,有的时候大笑笑得很有水平,有的时候笑笑就没有水平,包括我们自己也是这样,有时笑了以后就后悔,我们怎么会那么低俗的笑,我不能诱发这种笑,然后变成一个大的海洋,就像梁晓声说的一样,文化让人越来越笨了。这有可能,文化让人变笨的可能是完全有的。所以我们不能用民粹的文化来解决,把人提升了。就像在课堂里一样,很多老师有很好的学问,但是又有很好的叙述能力,他总是让人能够把不懂的东西有一种抬头仰望,把学生提升上去。我们不能把老师赶走,把课本赶走,让成绩最不好的学生来背课本。这在“文革”当中有这样的事情,我们在文化中不能这样。  [15:59]

  [余秋雨]:一般民众在没有经过充分的审美教育的情况下,没有经过很好的艺术熏陶的情况下面的现场快感一定不是我们当代艺术的第一标准和最高标准。如果我们长期限于此的话,那么这种民粹主义的艺术文化一定会扩大到民粹主义的政治文化、民粹主义的社会文化,我一点不夸张地说,这会引起灾难。估计到最后谁也没有判断力,谁也不会负责任,我们一起参与了,齐声喊打倒,就像文化大革命把谁打倒,我的叔叔怎么死的,他们说革命群众,这是很大的灾难嘛。  [16:02]

  [余秋雨]:我问我叔叔一个问题,是不是有一个很坏的政治人物让他们死呢?没有。因为我的爸爸、我的叔叔太小了,不值得任何政治人物来关注,谁搞死了他们?就是他们单位的人哄起来,听了谣言,而且这个谣言没法申辩。最要命的安世清。有时我们说我们有证据、我们有民间法庭,证据在民间有几百个专案组,做了十年,为哪个人平反过?证据也会滔滔不绝地来。如果说民间法庭,我可以这么说,民间法庭是对法庭的最坏的破坏、最恶劣的破坏。因为我们所谓的法制社会,法制有规则,需要有法律,需要有条文,需要有律师,需要有反驳制度,需要有上书制度,需要有合议庭,需要有法官,这一整套叫法制。如果没有的话,大家齐声说打倒这个人,真的打倒这叫法庭吗?这不叫法庭,正好是对法律的一个反动,这是完全错误的。  [16:02]

  [余秋雨]:所以我第二个就是有没有可能减少一些民粹文化,增加一些理性文化。  [16:02]

  [余秋雨]:第三,这个可能我可能和有一些朋友观点上不太一样。就是有没有可能减少一点复古文化,增加一点创新文化。复古文化这个事情比较复杂。我们当然非常热爱我们中国的传统文化,这是肯定的。我有一点权利讲这个话。二十几年前,我当时还是认认真真正厅级的干部,我都辞职去寻找当时谁也不关注的中华文化的遗址,就写出《文化苦旅》。那是我到世界各地去冒险的时候,其实我也是反复把中国文化和那些古文明进行对比,在对比中我进行读解中华文化,所以我对中华文化平心而论是非常非常关注的,但是突然,这些年,所有人都在讲古代的东西的时候,我就产生了一种纳闷了,这好象用文言文说出来的东西都叫文化,这肯定搞错了。我在想,20年前谁可以讲几句英文就是有文化,我当时讲课时,英国的白字讲得挺好的,古代的流氓文言文也讲得挺好的,我们不能说古代的东西都是非常好,恰恰不是这样,不能完全复古。如果一个民族的生命力,文化生命力是创新、创新、创新,它的生命的点一定是创新。  [16:04]

  [余秋雨]:如果一定要讲复古的话,比我们中国人更有权利复古,谈古代的东西,更有环境怀古的是谁?第一是伊拉克,因为巴比伦文明比中华文明产生得早,产生得更辉煌,在巴比伦文明之前,美索不达亚文明,两河文化和埃及文明,这个文化非常辉煌,到我们中华文明还没有怎么成熟的时候,他们的数学、天文学,他们的法学已经相当地成熟了,第二个是尼罗河边的埃及,也比中华文化早,早得太多,大家试想一下,如果伊拉克和埃及老在国际上老讲他们的古代,我们是不是稍稍感到有一点不合时宜?我们会稍稍会感觉到不太对,一样的。我们的文明在历史上一定是在巴比伦文明和埃及文明之后,我们很可能和印度并驾齐驱,或第三、第四名这个慢慢再讨论,今天我们不讨论这个问题。但是我们试想一下,他们老在做这样的文章,我们是不是觉得不对,我们从他们的例子会想到我们。  [16:05]

  [余秋雨]:我们对传统文化异常尊重,而且在尊重前提下寻找我们新的价值系统,这点我是非常地主张,我多少年也在努力,但是我们不能鱼龙混杂,把古代并不重要的东西整天讲个没完没了,让我们年轻人感到满脑子打开电视、翻开书都是古代,这个朝代没讲完,讲那个朝代,讲得太多了一点。我们要寻找中国几千年传统当中的魂魄,比如说我这次在台湾和美国一个政治人物有一个争论,他跟我讲,我们讨论一切问题的起点和终点都是西方的真理之路——逻辑,我说不对,终点你和我都不能预计,因为我们活多长我们不知道,但是起点我可以保证,因为你所说的西方政治逻辑产生两百年,但是中国已经生龙活虎地生活了五千多年,这不是一般的生活,完全不知道你们系忙今天产生的政治逻辑的情况下,我们产生了诸子百家,我们产生了秦汉文明,我们产生了大唐,我们产生了两宋,这都产生了,你不能说这些都要抹掉,这是抹不掉的,这是很辉煌的。我们当时在唐代的时候,长安是世界文明当中特别骄傲的一座城市,我们在宋代的时候,我们在世界的经济总量的多少比例,我想你们也都知道,所以,在这样的情况下,一切起点都要从近两百年的西方开始,我们就不接受。在这个问题上,我一定要按照文化逻辑去说话。但是在这个时候,我们要注意,真的不能把古代的哪一个文人说过几句话就当做一个能够压倒一切现代思维的东西。我们也不要成为有一个梦想,我们可以把2500年前一个哲学家的话语可以拿给我们的后代去抵抗其它的文明,因为我们古代这些哲学家,我是很佩服哲学家,他们千好万好,但是有一点,他们没有遇到别的文明,他们没有找到对话的各种各样的逻辑,他们没有看到其他的思维方式,没有看到过。我们把这个武器交给我们的后代,完全让他们去的话,那是一种冒险。  [16:15]

[余秋雨]:大家看到,日本品牌去年、前年都非常惨,它市场份额丢得很多,有的甚至到了快退出竞争的地步。所以,他们寄望在3D能够实现翻身,因为它其他的技术没有,比如屏的技术没有,它没有优势,其他应用优势它赶不上中国的企业,所以它寄望在3D这种技术能够实现翻身。但是我们也看到,3D为什么在全球来看投入那么多的资源,3D并没有卖火,应该说是有它的原因的。3D没有火起来,我相信,但是未来3D应该说是方向,所以从国内的品牌来讲,我们一定是在技术上和在产品上赶上潮流,同时,如果你要想取得领先,你要超越,你要第一个能够引导市场,这样你才能在市场上比较主动,否则的话就会比较被动。这是从产品上。  [16:15]

  [余秋雨]:我想鲁迅先生、胡适先生、蔡元培先生等等很多很多人,他们对中国文化当中某一些弊病的指出,一定是有道理的,当然有的时候有点过分,但是总的说来是有他的逻辑思考,因为他们这些人都非常精通古代文化,他们不是不懂的人,他们非常精通。  [16:15]

  [余秋雨]:而且也不是说,我们中华文化古代有多好,我们“文革”当中把它完全中断了,所以我们现在要恢复。“文革”当中天天喊万寿无疆,也是古代文化,只不过是取了古代文化当中不好的东西。古代文化当中有不好的东西,我们应该承认这一点,所以盲目地复古在这个问题是上没有道理的,我们要寻找到我们古代文化的精气神,而且对它进行本质化提炼,让我们后代能够比较轻松、愉快的接受,这一点非常重要。  [16:15]

  [余秋雨]:如果是一座大山压,压得我们年轻的生命喘不过气来,你说他能够为这种压得我喘不过气来的文化传播吗,不会,我们这些人都会用一种反抗心理,青春期都有反抗心理,你压得我越久,我对它的反抗越严重。  [16:16]

  [余秋雨]:你有没有一种可能,能够把它提炼简化,然后比较生动愉快让我们下一代知道,而且生动愉快地让外国人知道呢?创新。创新是很重要。我们国家不断提出创新、创新、创新。但是这些年来,我们在文化上对创新的敏感是不够的。我们在电视里面很少让大家感觉到哪一个创新让全国激动。我们所激动的往往是拍卖。拍卖也很好,古代文物的拍卖。但是一个民族的敏感点如果都在遥远的古代,一个古墓的被挖掘,一个古人的被叙述,一个古代皇帝的一个阴谋重新被读解,也可以。按照多元化文化按的观点也可以。但是现在很麻烦,因为信息畅通,任何热点都具有一种风起云涌的积极效应。  [16:16]

  [余秋雨]:如果多少年下来,我们的脑子当中装了很多用处不大的老古董,而对任何新的创新没有敏感的话,我们的文化很难说是成功了,这点我们要千万注意。现在我们每一年都会发布全世界创新文化的新成果,我们中国人在这方面的贡献还不够大,还很难拎得上去。这一点一定要引起我们的注意。  [16:18]

  [余秋雨]:所以对复古文化要做减法,我一直在研究古代文化,但是一直要做减法,这个减法是选择的过程,让大家都投入古代文化一个良性选择的努力当中。减少不必要的那些不太重要的部位。等大家能够真正地尊敬我们,让我们一起尊敬古代的人,我觉得这个非常重要。  [16:18]

  [余秋雨]:最后一个,我觉得我们要对什么东西做减少?就是减少地域文化或者分割性的文化,叫分割文化,为整体文化让出部位来,就是中华文化的整体文化和全人类的整体文化,我们现在的环保,这些文化,都是全人类的文化,要为整体文化让出部位来,而不要在地域文化和分割文化上投入过多的精力。现在这些年,显而易见又太重了。  [16:18]

  [余秋雨]:我和大家有点不一样,因为我走来走去,是一个旅行者,我在海外走了很多地方,在国内走了很多的时候,我发现大家都陷入了一个毛病,都在讲地域文化极端重要性。而且引起了争执,这个古人是我们的,不是你们的,你们我们只是一条边界,是这个省还是那个省,是这个县还是那个县,大家真是争得脸红脖子粗,很严重。  [16:18]

  [余秋雨]:前不久我看到报纸上登出来,有几个省为李白到底是哪里人,不仅争得很不愉快,还是还打官司,不知道最后有没有判决。  [16:21]

  [余秋雨]:但是我作为一个传统文化研究者,想告诉大家,李白出生地既不是这个省,也不是那个省,是吉尔吉斯斯坦的图特马克那个城。但是这一点都不影响李白是中华文化的最高代表之一,一点不影响。所以这个地域不是那么重要,你属于哪个省,属于哪个地方,这不太重要,而且也不能为你当地的文化增光添色。  [16:21]

  [余秋雨]:现在有很多省经常做这个事,把我们省里到全国各地,到世界各地出了名的人拉回来,证明我们是文化大省,我对这样的举动我经常要予以劝阻,我劝阻是这样一句话,我说你拉过来可以,你可以报销路费和车费,但是所有人要问一句他们为什么离开了,为什么不能在这里待下去,反而证明你不是文化大省,其实那个人也不是背叛你,文化无界,文化人有故乡,但是真正大文化是没有界限的,它感动所有的人,它文化越大,感动的面积就越大,而不要再继续做地域文化的文章,我们这里人杰地灵、我们这里了不起,前不久,我去一个地方,他们的领导告诉我,我们这个儿历史上曾经出过一百个进士,不得了,说很抱歉,你有没有看我那篇文章,标题叫“十万进士”,就是中国出过十万进士,你这个地方才出一百个太少了,这不能比,这个没有意思,比来比去,到底是什么水平,我们也可以另外来论述一下,也不见得是文化最高代表。  [16:24]

  [余秋雨]:李白连科举都没有考过,完全不是最高代表的一个标志,如果地域文化再闹腾下去的话,一定闹出很多笑话,而这个笑话的最后成果是一个悲剧。就是中华文化到底是什么,大家不清楚了。被分割了,一个总体精神就不清楚了。  [16:24]

  [余秋雨]:深圳一些大学生给我讲,余先生,我们深圳建市才20年,所以我们和一些有文化积淀的城市相比,我们太丢人了。我说深圳的年轻朋友们,你们读的唐诗和西安的孩子们读的唐诗是一样的唐诗,你们永远地拥有同样的精神财产,是一样的,这个分割是没道理的。  [16:24]

  [余秋雨]:中华文化为什么成为唯一的不中断的传下来的文化?有重要的一点就是它的整体性。我们的文人,不管出生在哪个穷乡僻壤,他只要开始学文化就知道,“天下兴亡”是怎么回事,就知道“五湖四海”是怎么回事。他觉得有一个整体意识,如果是小小分割,中华文化早就完了。  [16:24]

  [余秋雨]:德国一个社会学家曾经讲过这样的话,他没有来过中国,他说得很好,他说,中华文化必须是整体,理由很简单,每一种文明都由大河组成,中华文化由长江和黄河两条大河组成,这两条大河每一条都流经十几个省,如果分割开来,上游一个省可以轻而易举地毁坏下游一个省的生态。所以为了他们的文明根基,两条大河,中国必须是整体。  [16:25]

  [余秋雨]:这话讲得蛮好的。为了这个话,我还专门到德国一个小城市去看,他已经不在了,去看他的学校,他所在的工作室,我都去看。我们现在也要明白,我们现在要论述的是中国文化的整体,而不是论述这个省、这个县,你热爱自己城市是可以,保护它的文化遗迹也是对的,但是你不要把文化做这么小的分割。  [16:25]

  [余秋雨]:歌德讲过一句话,人类为自己的聪明划了很多界限,但是最后这个界限都会被爱全部推倒,我觉得歌德是讲得有道理。  [16:25]

  [余秋雨]:如果我们整体合成的话,而且又反对前面所说的那么多的复古主义,那么多的民粹,那么多的谋术,如果这样的话,我们中华文化能够增加它的大道文化、理性文化、能够增加创新文化,能够有一个很好的整体合成,那就是中华文化复兴。中华文化的复兴和这个有关。如果这个分割的话,我们似乎在做文化,但是实际上对文化是一种侵害。  [16:25]

  [余秋雨]:很多人不知道,很多在做文化的人,可能是侵害了文化。如果你还是不断地在谋术文化、民粹文化、复古文化和分割性的文化上投入过多的精力,对文化的推进,对中华文化的推进,没有太大的好处。  [16:26]

  [余秋雨]:最后我还想讲几句话。我们对文化要培养起更大的热诚来。十几年以前在纽约开过一个会,这个会叫“经济转型和文化坚持”。在经济大幅度的发展和转型的世界潮流当中,请很多经济学家谈论文化,他们得出一些共同结论值得我们关注。  [16:26]

  [余秋雨]:他们得出结论是,一个人要赚到钱,让自己过得好,让自己家人过得好,让自己朋友过得好,在经济发展的时代不难。但是有个问题产生了,他已经赚了几辈子也花不完的钱,他为什么还在赚钱?好多大企业家为什么还在赚钱?一研究就是,第一,为了安全感。第二,为了自由,第三,为了荣誉,第四,也和荣誉有关,他是为了自己心中的一个目标,比如说慈善。  [16:26]

  [余秋雨]:不管是安全感,还是自由、荣誉、慈善,这一切全是文化概念,所以纽约开的那个会上说,经济行为实际上都以文化为目的。所有的经济行为,都以文化为目的,这个文化就是我前面讲的精神价值和集体人格,而不是写诗、唱歌,不是这个,按照这个的话,都以文化为目的。  [16:26]

  [余秋雨]:所以,在经济社会里,我们每一位企业家,每一个人都知道,你们在追求经济,这一点没错,但是它最后的追求目标还是文化。这肯定是这样的,因为这涉及到精神价值,否则你赚那么多钱有什么用呢?如果在没有钱的时候,如果你精神价值可以的时候,你的日子也会过得很不错。他们甚至于讲这样的话,就是经济是以货币的方式来购买货币买不到的东西。这个话有点绕口、有点幽默。但是它的基本思路我们明白了,就是他在追求一个目标。  [16:26]

  [余秋雨]:我曾经讲过我的一个美国朋友,他曾经跟我说,他曾经订立过三个目标:第一个目标是要使自己的一切都多;第二个目标是让自己的一切都要好,“都”就是钱多,都用名牌,第三个目标,名牌已经用不完了,所以他要独,比如说每个东西只有一件,比如说游艇是唯一的,直升飞机也是唯一的,他说余先生,我很不幸的是,我在60岁全部达到了,他在美国富豪榜中排得很前面。我天天想自杀,因为我生活太无聊了,他说,幸好有一天,我到越南去,我的飞机很空,我的职员在我的飞机里放了很多轮椅,我把一把轮椅推到一个先天性残疾的小女孩身边的时候,我从她的眼神里里看到了一种最灿烂的生命的光辉,于是我想我必须这样做。所以他到处在全世界做慈善,他到北京来给北京质量博物馆赠送了一个古化石,他说我要让世界上最优秀文化的古城的孩子们能够接触到其他文明的古化石,我很感动了。他一下子不想自杀了,他找到了自己的文化目标。  [16:26]

  [余秋雨]:这个就是很多经济学家、很多企业家共同的结论。就是说我们的赚钱是为了文化。就集体文化来说也是这样。有的时候,我不知道我们在座的朋友有没有这个担忧?我经常会有这样一个对比,比如说在德国,它发动了两次世界大战,但是世界上为什么对他们的误会很少?中国,没有发动世界大战,我们总是被欺负的,我们从来不欺负他们,为什么误会这么多,各种各样原因,其中一个原因是文化,你光讲文化不同还不行,就是我们缺少我们更强有力文化来感动和熔化很大范围的民众,德国有了贝多芬,有了巴赫,有了歌德,有了我的专业一个根基黑格尔、康德,他们成了人类的一种共同的导师,这样的话,大家觉德意志文化是崇高,是可以理解,出现希特勒是一个小丑,可以理解,而我们文化虽然伟大和悠久,但是我们还没有足够的作品让很多不了解的人,包括我们自己的后代深深地感动,我们自己在做我们自己的自说自话的文章,一定都很感动,其实人家没有什么感动,所以这个方面的距离很遥远。  [16:26]

  [余秋雨]:所以我的意思大家明白吗?我们在经济发展社会里我们一定要重视文化,这是第一,第二,在我们需要在国内、国外,和我们的后代建立我们的尊严,建立我们高贵的时候,我们更需要来传播我们的文化,这两点如果做不到的话,其他的经济行为、政治行为都有可能减分,而且可能是严重的减分,所以在这个意义上,我们为文化做减法的目的是让文化的真正有价值的部位凸显出来,而不要成为一个极其热闹喧嚣的文化闹剧,这个喧嚣的文化闹剧中处处都是文化,处处又都不是,这要命,所以要做减法,为文化减肥,为我们自己减压,轻轻松松拿我们最有生命的文化走上新的道路,我就讲到这里。  [16:28]

  [主持人]:非常谢谢余老师,我们在创新的载体发布您讲座的信息,当时不到十分钟,就有一个网友留言说,余老师讲为文化做减法,到底是什么意思,我们到底为文化减去什么,我想您一个多小时的讲座,实际上已经回答这位网友的问题,就是用减法理清思路,用减法走出文化误区,我们要在谋术文化、民粹文化、地域文化上做减法,但是我们观众肯定有很多思考和启发,我们下面的时间来互动。  [16:29]

  [提问]:您是戏剧方面的专家,我想问一个相关的话题,现在各种地方戏都出现了也没有人看,也少人演的境况。一种人认为,既然它这样,是符合艺术规律,就要让它自然消亡吧,还有人认为这是非物质文化遗产,我们要大力保护,这是不是也涉及到你说的加减法的问题呢?  [16:36]

  [余秋雨]:这个问题问得非常及时,也非常重要,因为碰到我们的专业,正好是符合我们今天说的做减法,我们现在把中国所存在的172个剧种,全部作为非物质文化遗产保留下来,不瞒大家说,我认为太多了,必须做减法。这个减法的标准是,有过去东西的重要传承,而不是一般传承;另外,今天的观众还能自然地享受,就是他还能够靠卖票养活自己的剧种,但是还有重要传承,这个东西可以成为非物质文化遗产,在我心里当中是不多的。我这样的话,不是糟践我们的地方戏曲,因为大家都知道,我是《中国戏剧史》这本书的作者,现在很多学校还用我的教材,还是用我这本书,我对中国戏剧非常了解,但是我必须明白地讲,我们如果把所有的地方戏剧全部保留下来的话,有问题。理由很简单,所有的文化艺术的现场都是在新陈代谢,它是一个生存竞争的自然过程。有一些东西需要我们国家力量保存,比如在我心目当中,昆曲、京剧,这个需要保存,因为它沉淀了太多的东西,它需要保存。但是,不是所有的省份的所有剧种都要依此类推,都把他们那的东西成为非物质文化遗产,这就成了大问题了。  [16:36]

  [余秋雨]:你可以设想一下,我们中国历史上最优秀的剧种之一就是元杂剧,比昆曲还要精彩。但是我们现在没法把它当作非物质文化遗产保护。理由很简单,这次陈凯歌先生拍的《赵氏孤儿》就是元杂剧里面的一个剧目,另外像关汉卿,我们整天讲的《窦娥冤》《望江亭》,《西厢记》都是元杂剧,但是,我想告诉大家,元杂剧只活了70年,当它觉得应该消亡,被替代的时候,它像英雄一样倒下,倒下也倒下得非常壮丽,这才对,而不是打强心针,躺在床上,没人看,我还打强心针,打了强心针还是没人看,我继续打,这是不对的,艺术不应该是这种道路走出来的,打强心针,如果是一般东西也罢了,它又牵扯到很多艺术家的艺术生命,这个如果打强心针的办法就不对了。所以我觉得需要精选。  [16:36]

  [余秋雨]:当时在广东省曾经有一位领导曾经做过这样一件事,我觉得很受启发,他觉得在中国那么多剧种里面,在地方剧种,按照广东人的一些观点,有八个剧种有可能活到21世纪,他就把这八个剧种的首席演员请过来演出,其中就包括我的妻子马兰,她到广东去演出。但是,是不是这八个剧种,是不是可以缩小一点,或者再扩大一点,这都可以考虑,但是至少广东提供了一种思路,就是我们正处于一种选择的过程当中,而不是一切东西都必须长命百岁。  [16:37]

  [余秋雨]:文化被淘汰其实不是一件坏事,如果文化都不被淘汰,那它完全是止步不前,或者它永远没有一个态势,没有往前走的态势了。我们不断讲创新,创新要有空间,空间哪来?就是淘汰以后,新的空间创造出来了,所以在这一点上,我不管以前我们做多少保护,这样的保护是应该的,保护对于破坏是好词汇,对于改革不一定是好词汇。  [16:37]

  [余秋雨]:在世界上贸易保护主义,保护两个字是坏词汇,所以我们这一点要明白,在过去曾经不尊重的情况下,我们保护,这个心态是可以的。但是我们要继续把中国文化推向创新之路的时候,保留那么多的东西是有问题的,能不能有更多的年轻艺术家,比说像我的学生的学生的学生,这样的人,有没有可能不要再分到一个已经没有太多希望,两年也没有一个观众的剧团里面去了,有没有可能让他们和流行音乐,能不能和西方的音乐剧,能不能和这些东西联合在一起,创造出一种新的剧种,能够为当代的年轻人知道。大家知道,当年的元杂剧,当年的昆曲,当年的京剧,都是当年的流行剧目,那么多的粉丝,那么多的热潮,一定是这样的,否则它凭什么活着呢?它是民间艺术,它凭什么活着呢?所以你的问题提得很好,正好从另外一个侧面说清楚了我的主题,为文化做减法,我的说法就是为地方戏曲做减法。谢谢。  [16:37]

  [提问]:余老师您好,刚才听了您非常专业的演讲,听您演讲的过程中我在思考一个问题,我的问题是,目前有一种说法,我们的许多演出总是完全靠实力走出去,而是政府抱出去、送出去,这种做法是由于我们目前文化国情所决定的吗,是不是中国的文化太少,我们向世界传播自己的文化必须经历这样一个阶段吗?  [16:39]

  [余秋雨]:对外文化交往,其实我们现在还处于起步阶段,完全靠政府的方式来输出文化,确实有很多弊病。首先的弊病就是它不在乎票房。如果不在乎票房的话,就送票。很多老华侨、新华侨都拿到了票。出于爱国热情去看戏。这个情况和我们艺术真实的生命力比较起来是有问题的。所以文化体制改革的一个方面就是让文化走向真实。这个其中包括对外交往当中,文化交流是一种自然的渗透。  [16:40]

  [余秋雨]:其实据我所知,多少外国人如饥似渴地想了解中国文化。因为他们看到他们和中国做生意,他们在用中国制造的日用品、穿中国制造的服装,他们多么希望了解中国的文化,但是我们能够让他们接受的的文化提供的太少,我们是想象当中的文化,我们想象当中自然的剧目出去,一定轰动,回来也确实有这样的报道,什么剧种轰动了伦敦,去过伦敦的人都知道,不可能法身的事,怎么可能轰动伦敦,轰动北京都不可能,怎么可能轰动伦敦,这是不可能的事情。就是这样自说自话的过程。  [16:40]

  [余秋雨]:我觉得中国文化在文化体制改革上有几个领域做得不错,一个是电影、一个是出版,这是开始做得比较前面的,就是按照真实的情况。国际上也容易被接受。大家不要小看出版,有好几个出版集团都和国际一些大的出版商已经签订了合同,做得相当好,在逐步地往前推进,外国书籍的引进和中国的书籍翻译正在开始逐步地做,这个前途做得比较好。  [16:40]

  [余秋雨]:其他领域,包括你所说的演出,我个人现在觉得还有点落后了,就是和我的本行有关的,这个比较落后,这个落后要一步一步地推进,要在观念上改变过来。就是文化的交流,中国文化和世界文化的融合,这一定不是政府所做的事,严格讲起来不是政府所做的事,政府可以签订一项协定什么的,但是实际上,一定是一些跨国的文化公司以文化产业方式来完成的。  [16:41]

  [余秋雨]:好莱坞曾经为美国的文化带来很高的荣誉,但是显而易见,好莱坞和美国的国家是没有关系的,它是一个民营的,完全是民间的一个电影文化产业。法国政府有一段时间想用国家力量抵挡好莱坞,但是实际上没有成功,所以我们怎么走出你刚才所说的这条路,我们要建立具有国际规模的一个个文化产业。这样的创新文化产业越多,您刚才所说的这些毛病就会越来越被克服,克服的状态会更好,所以这点平心而论我比较乐观,谢谢你。  [16:41]

  [提问]:我之前刚才对您文化的创新观点,我听到教授不同的观点,因为他是西安人,他在我年轻时我是不听秦腔的,但是我到40岁,我忽然发现我非常痴迷我的父辈、祖先的文化形式,如果按您的心态,比如说现代人不接受,它可能就被淘汰掉了,他的观点,人的理性在人的自然传承和流动过程中是无能为力的,我想知道您怎么看待文化基因的问题,怎么面对自然的新陈代谢和文化的多元化之间的关系?  [16:41]

  [余秋雨]:你牵扯到文化社会情商的问题。比如说秦腔,比如一个什么剧种,能够唤起我们对父辈的记忆,这就像涉及到世界各国独有的活体博物馆的建立。我们有时看到不是活体博物馆里面的展品的时候也很激动,比如看到商代的青铜器,就非常激动,比如里面的文字可以唤起我对中国图案的记忆。但是我们不能设想它成为日用产品在中国普及,这不可能普及。所以要建立活体博物馆,像有一些剧种,包括我很喜欢的剧种,它应该是一种以活体博物馆的方式出现,就是说它永远没有普及的欲望。  [16:43]

  [余秋雨]:这个普及包括你所说的那个教授,在教授群里,我们的父辈也不应该普及,也只是少数人会喜欢这个,不是说所有人都会喜欢,应该给大家有一种选择的自由,他们要选择的时候,他们也可以遇到票子,比如说我两个月以后就能听到我家乡的越剧,不是每天来演出,痴迷越剧的一些中年人、老年人,包括一部分青年人,他们在那里聚会,像盛大的典礼一样,演出。也有一批人在那里演出,这批人受到很好的待遇。有很多企业家支持他们,政府也可以支持他们,因为他们实在是代表了中国的传统文化。  [16:43]

  [余秋雨]:但是这个问题在哪呢?问题在于它只是局部的、中化的、少量的,有即兴的演出。不应该让它们振兴振兴振兴到了需要在新时代普及,这个悲剧我们已经20多年没有成功过,这个是文化社会管理学上的问题,该什么放在什么部位上。  [16:43]

  [余秋雨]:我当然也有时喜欢听,我有时莫名其妙,我突然会喜欢京剧的唱腔。比如说京剧里老生的唱腔,但是他们的场次可以多一点,他们的力量高,或者集中力量强,也不能想象中按照原汁原味在下一代全部多普及,这个情况就有点不一样。但是有的地方活体博物馆,也确实让中小学生去看看,我们经过认真选择后,中国有几个剧种,所有大学生都应该听到,这个很好,我很愿意以后晚年做这样一件事,让大家都能够听到传统的东西,听到以后,你以后回忆起来以后,这个东西可以强化,有的企业家比如你说西安几个企业家,因为投资可以建立一个新的博物馆这很好,但是在国家规模上,我不认为应该把已经完全没有票方的东西变成硬性的行政命令在那里苦苦地维持,这不是一个明智的文化政策。谢谢。  [16:43]

  [提问]:我是人民网文化频道的,非常荣幸能有这个机会向您提问。今天是冬至,在卖饺子的摊铺前排了很多人,如果说平时人们关心的是饺子是什么馅的,今天他们更多的是问是否还有饺子可以买。可以说,现在人们吃的不是饺子,而是吃的文化。但是如果你要再问为什么冬至这一天要吃饺子,肯定没有几人可以说出所以然来,所以面对看似民俗文化的传承和缺失您是怎么看的?  [16:44]

  [余秋雨]:我们在这个问题上经常会走到奇怪地片面,比如说有这样一个过程中,我们会想起是不是中国节日过少了,我曾经回答北大学生的问题,是不是要抵制洋节日,比如说抵制元旦、妇女节,我们不能走极端,我们的生态当中有一些团聚的机会,有一些尊敬老人的机会,有一些我们合家团聚的机会我们要珍惜,它的理由,它里面到底有多少历史原因、逻辑原因。我个人认为不需要做过多的解释,它有就好了。我从小听到的有关这个节的理由,和我后来在书上看到不一样,我学生和我听到也不一样,对这个不一样,我们不要愤怒,这就是自然生态的一种流传,不要究其根底。比如我们最大的规模就是端午节吃粽子、划龙舟,据说是纪念屈原的,但是划龙舟的人有几个人能读得懂离骚,有几个人知道屈原的生平,都不太知道。但是这个不知道也一点不降低我们在吃粽子、划龙舟这件事情的愉快程度。所以,我们的生态不要太纠结,前面我讲到要重视民生文化,就是要重视自己所造成的人和人之间的亲情的组合,亲情的交往,这个我们要保留下来,不要快速把这个东西快速投向学究,这一讨论以后,不好玩了,这样就不好了。  [16:47]

  [余秋雨]:至于你讲冬至吃饺子的问题,我特别注意民生的问题,大家有可能看到至少在中央电视台讲过,我们在课本上讲四大发明时,至少我们可以讲一个前提,就是几个世纪以后,在欧洲所了解中国的四大发明,其实中国有很多比这个四大发明更重要的发明,比如,第一我认为是农耕文明,就是节气,就是冬至吃饺子,这是中华文明作为农耕文明最大的发明,这个时候该播种,这个时候该收割,这是我们农耕文明能够延续这么多年,是炎黄子孙的。第二是中医中药。那么多人群,太容易被传染病消灭了,所以神农尝百草,这其实比后来的火药指南针更重要,我认为四大发明不重要,前面还有发明,所以第一个发明是节气的话,作为农耕的炎黄子孙我们要在节气里过日子,我们要过爸爸妈妈过的冬至,我们要过爷爷奶奶过的端午,这是作为中国人文化精神方式的一种延续,这是很美的一件事,谢谢你。  [16:51]

  [提问]:你好,余老师。据说您受到浙江普陀这边的邀请,很快将去浙江普陀和张艺谋的团队一起策划、设计制作大型实景演出《印象普陀山》,我们知道张艺谋团队的印象系列在全国现在已经推出四五部,之前在《印象海南岛》,在海南岛的演出遭遇了滑铁卢,最终被转让出去。您刚才也谈到文化的创新问题,不知道您在下一步和张艺谋团队合作做《印象普陀山》的时候,您对印象系列的创新上有什么具体的想法?  [16:51]

  [余秋雨]:我必须说明我没有和他们合作,我那是去看看,作为观众,观众在过去的时候,因为《印象普陀山》是怎么样把佛教和文化联在一起,和实景演出联系在一起,我产生很大的好奇,我觉得很有意思,我始终认为把宗教结合在一起,是人精神的制高形态,西方中国和中国文化相比,我们一点不逊色,但是在艺术上有点逊色,因为他们出现了贝多芬、巴赫、米开朗基罗等,但是中国宗教也有千般的优点,但是在宗教艺术上有点缺陷,我不能说就可以完全弥补这一点,但是和联结在一起的有点期待,我们既没有策划也没有合作,我只是作为最普通的观众去看一下。  [16:51]

  [提问]:因为印象系列在国内很多地方都争着抢着想上,我们也知道排队的地方政府也有很多,您对印象系列遍地开花这种文化现象有什么看法?  [16:51]

  [余秋雨]:我觉得挺好的,他们还很严格,我觉得把自然的山水和人的演出,是一种大的审美,又和旅游联系在一起,这是一件非常好的事。其实他们也很严格,他们一定是山水致胜,有话题的,而且原来的游客量也不少,他们这样才去做,到现在为止每一个都不错了,如果做不好,也不是他们的原因,也可能是市场判断上的问题,我觉得这整个说起来,到现在为止我现在看起来也是比较好的文化现象,因为大家都真实地买票这点非常重要,大家真实地愿意去看,而且它的真实和山水联系在一起,因为我研究戏剧的,我当然要注意戏剧在20世纪发展的一种叫环境戏剧,戏剧有很多现代化的发展,有的是现场空间,观众可以参与,这是一种,另外更重要是环境戏剧,环境戏剧是当电影和电视已经全方位地替代了你的剧场的审美的时候,这个戏剧遇到的很大危机,你看电影,你剧场里演不出的东西,电影都可以拍出来,在家里看电视多方便就是说你的优势被电影电视取代了,在这种情况下,他们想出非常重要的方法,就是环境戏剧。  [16:54]

  [余秋雨]:就是在大环境里让人机参与,不仅您参与,山水也参与,这点电影电视难以替代,这种情况下,环境戏剧就成了20世纪后期,人类戏剧发展非常重要的一股潮流,很多戏剧家带了很多观众,带他们到山上去,不知道是去演出还是旅游,所以我有点兴奋的地方是,它和我在戏剧学上所坚持和论述的环境戏剧联在一起了,这是蛮好的,他们做的规模很大,不一定做环境戏剧非常大,我看到有一个环境戏剧非常好,把改革开放30年改成环境戏剧,不是演出,大家看了都热泪盈眶,突然想爸爸妈妈的生活,和小时候的生活,就是这个演出和生活联在一起,这是一种戏剧新生的状态,所以张艺谋先生所做的事情也是这样,有的时地方就是真的渔民,有的地方是真的农民,他们像过日子在做,但是在特定的景观之下,在特定的灯光之下就成了一种天地大美,我说这个话,另外我想补充一个意思,就是说我们现在的媒体,往往对于我刚才所说的世界艺术理论上的思考太少,在做印象肯定会讲票房的问题,很少像我这样说戏剧,在电视电影的冲击下,要在环境戏剧当中寻找自己的生命,人类在环境戏剧中做了哪些事,这是一般观众了解比较少,这是我们传媒上的一个缺陷,就是不能太民粹了,因为一民粹就不了解了,一定是要大家提升,我们的戏剧评论者老是说哪个演员在谈恋爱,这太低了,是不是说一点高的东西,一般观众不知道的东西,这个更好一点。  [16:57]

  [提问]:余老师您好。最近,上海有一个戏剧演员周立波,他在微博上发表了一些言论,比如互联网的“公厕论”、“自宫论”,还有他和网友对骂,批评网上的名人,与网友形成了互相争论的过程,他的形象也受到很大的侵害。后来他被网友骂得后来他被网友骂得不得不关闭自己的微博。在这种情况下,您如何看待微博这种新兴的媒体平台对中国文化的影响,和对中国文化圈的影响?最近我看到有一句话感觉非常不错,他说微观可以改变中国的一些东西。  [16:57]

  [余秋雨]:宏观也可以改变。我有一个遗憾,周立波我认识,挺熟悉。我想讲这样的问因为我这个人有一个遗憾,我不上网,最要命,你们在这个方面给我提出的问题,我实在很难开口,因为我完全不了解。尽管是最后一个问题,但是非常抱歉,我不知道发生什么,我光知道有两件和我有关的事,和周立波无关,和我有关,几个月前曾经网上有一个消息说余秋雨先生已经去世,几月几号,在上海哪个医院去世,很明确,消息来自于台湾的联合报,我在上海去世怎么台湾联合报报道,为什么我知道呢?因为家里马兰接到电话太多,所有电话说余先生好吗?都是这样问,我在今天郑重辟谣,而且露出来的图像是余秋雨先生还活的,而且活得样子还挺好,还生龙活虎的,有时确实网上会产生这种谣传,而且有的谣传传得非常快,而且会产生一些争论,如果我自己不出来,如果是我的秘书出来和他们辩论,他们一定有大量的语言说,余秋雨肯定死了,为什么他自己不出来,不止一次了,曾经南方有一个媒体说我死了,马兰说没死,他们说不可能,为什么他自己不出来。比如说灾区的捐献,你有没有捐献,你可以知道,我当时捐建的图书馆都在,所以走很重要,就是说实际看那个图书馆都在,而且是很多倍的钱。  [17:00]

  [余秋雨]:我有一个劝告的东西,一个要理性,你们一定要看实证,中国最缺少实证,如果余秋雨先生死亡,需要主治医生自己发言,如果有没有捐献问题,你一定要到实地看,那个东西造了没有?造了。你再讨论几个月太可笑了,所谓我对于这些东西还是要保持理性,你说微观改变中国是有道理的,但是改变是从好的方面改还是从不好的方面改,还有一些担忧,有一些细节性的问题,但是无法抵制,慢慢走,结果改变是不好的改,我当时有一个印象,一些极左的事一开始也是从微观的东西起来的,慢慢极“左”的东西变成大潮,还有损害别人,比如说骂人的风潮变成大潮。比如说我们都是媒体,人民网、人民日报的人,你一定要明白的这个演员是没有媒体的,他很难申辩,我们生活当中也是这样,有人骂你你就离开,现在如果五百人骂你你肯定不回答,所以有时公平很难建立,这种小小的微观,有时变成一种事时,有可能让我们苦苦坚守的文化秩序受到严重的损害,这点是我们不愿意看到的,所以,我们去享受我们自由的时候,我们一定要知道,自由是组合什么样的社会、世界,这点要注意。谢谢你。  [17:00]

  [提问]:余老师刚才在演讲过程中给我印象特别深,您讲到近30年来,我们在文化方面有三大进步:一个是民生文化,一个是多元文化,一个是生命文化方面。您刚才也提到了一点,在这三大进步的过程中,其实我们文化界是落后了。我想请问余老师,今天讲的主题是为文化做减法,是不是面对这三大进步,我们文化界是不是应该做一些加法,目前文学工作者、文化工作者再增加一些什么样的元素?  [17:02]

  [余秋雨]:文化为什么落后呢,它是一个前提,这个前提是,改革开放之初首先是推动经济,是社会改革,没有很早推动文化改革,这个理由何在?因为文化没有国际标准,文化没有定量定性分析,如果当时推动争论非常多,所以文化滞后了,放在一边,文化体制要有待于改革,我们全世界都需要文化了,所以未被改革的领域突然又成了老师,麻烦出现了,这个整体没有改革。原因我前面讲了,比如说文化缺少可以改变的坐标,所以这个就是成了我们现在社会大发展、文化落后整个社会的现实。  [17:02]

  [余秋雨]:其实真的到中国,我也和香港、台湾朋友去说,你可以到中国大陆看看,中国大陆并不是像文章讲得那么糟糕,所以他们说,我们要了解中国的文化我们要看哪几个本书,我说你看到去大陆考察,因为书里的观念实在是太老了,是冷战时期的思维,讲了很多阶级斗争,那就很糟糕了。你讲的很对,希望文化话语能够向这几个文化靠近。第二,我要补充你的一点是,不能说叫文化界去投入这个,文化界本身的队伍已经改变了。很多很多年轻人进入这是一个方面,另外我们过去文化界有很严重的问题,其实和过去1949年以前的情况不一样,就是说现在很多官员很有文化,而且还是大文化人,我见到很多人,小说写得很好,有的散文和诗歌也的很好,但是成了大官员,第二年轻人也没有经过文化界,所以在这个上面,文化界概念要宽松,新的文化创建是跃界的参与,当跃界参与时,我前面所说的文化分量会增加,如果还留在原来的时候,我觉得情况就不对了,我们一般理解文化界,好象是作协、文联这样的。文化界以前的界限不太对了,要呼唤新的年轻人,和原来文化界之外的人大家一起创造文化,我觉得现在的文化界就不错,谢谢你。  [17:12]

  [主持人]:其实今天在我们现场有一位非常特殊的观众,她就是我们人民日报副总编辑马利,马总有一个问题想问您。  [17:12]

  [马利]:30年前余老师就是我的老师。我认为当时我们同学们都特别爱听余老师的课。但是我们当时都觉得你就是时代的先锋,而且我非常奇怪,你现在为什么不上网。我要是不听您讲,我真的不知道。刚才他们问的网上的问题,你说你对网上的事情都不太了解,而且你也不上网。我觉得有点好奇。因为我们当时心中都很崇拜你,我们觉得你真就是代表一个时代的先锋。  [17:13]

  [余秋雨]:这不是我的绝对原则,说不定过几年我会上网,特别是我们的马主编讲了以后,我可能会上网。但是现在由于我前面讲的一个非常重要的原因。我现在文化的起步是在非常恐怖的地方,一天天地走,一天天考察,走很多很多地方,一个是没有上网的条件,这是第一。第二,我的文化思维是完整的,我现在还没有太多地关注此时此刻的网络文化。我很关注的是一个整体文化。比如我现在比较认真地研究的就是中华文化在西方政治原则产生之前曾经给人类提供过哪一些最优秀的社会思维,我在研究这个。  [17:13]

  [余秋雨]:现在这个朋友发生了一个大事件,那儿发生了一个大事件,我会走神,我会分析,怕的是这个。但是如果当这个东西都研究得差不多,我的特点就是研究特别专注。我在研究唐代的时候,我这几个月看的书全是唐代的,如果是晚唐诗人,那么我看的就是晚唐的。你给我讲现在什么什么,我就进不去。平心而论,这就是我的读书方法,我就怕这个来干扰我。  [17:13]

  [余秋雨]:我为什么当时辞职呢?就是为自己可以创造一个可以脱离现实的某一种条件,当然脱离不是永久脱离。如果我真的以后上网了,我成为网上一个非常重要的人物都有可能。但是现在允许我不上网一段时间,不上的时候,我自己很得意地说,我不是很得意地说,我说从孔子到爱因斯坦都没有上过网。我暂时和他们生活一段,但是我一点都不降低我对网的、对中国现代化文明推进的高度评价,很多无法解决的问题,通过网上就解决了,好多无法表述的意见都可以表述出来。  [17:13]

  [余秋雨]:而且你想想看,实际上我们过去所追求的很多梦想,现在有网反而实现了。既然它那么风生水起,我就去寻找网上的朋友,没有时间思考的问题,因为一上网就很忙乱,要天天关注,我看到上网的人都非常忙乱,每天有很多很多消息,让我安安静静地想到王安石、苏东坡,这个对现实有好处,我对现实其实也不是漠不关心,我对电视台的《新闻联播》还注意,还不是完全不注意,还注意,注意大标题,注意以后,我把这些拉在一起,大概有好处。我想我们生活当中,对文化的要求各种各样,希望中国的文化容忍有一个不上网的余秋雨。谢谢。  [17:13]

  [主持人]:谢谢余老师。其实我们今天的节目也是在网络上进行直播。我想无论是网友,还是现场的观众,听到您说“先容忍一个不上网的余秋雨”,后面也期待您有可能的话,可以多到网上和我们交流,包括我们马总也在不断点头。我提议现场的观众再次用热烈地掌声感谢余秋雨老师作客我们的《文化讲坛》。我们今天的节目到此结束,也欢迎大家继续关注《文化讲坛》。  [17:14]

作者  | 2011-1-10 17:05:13 | 阅读(832) |评论(0) | 阅读全文>>

邓皓--2011春夏古兰中国红发布会

2011-1-7 18:10:44 阅读423 评论0 72011/01 Jan7

请点击查看影音文件...

作者  | 2011-1-7 18:10:44 | 阅读(423) |评论(0) | 阅读全文>>

viv

2011-1-4 14:32:53 阅读406 评论0 42011/01 Jan4

viv - 梁冬 - 人生在思考

viv - 梁冬 - 人生在思考

viv - 梁冬 - 人生在思考

作者  | 2011-1-4 14:32:53 | 阅读(406) |评论(0) | 阅读全文>>

查看所有日志>>

 
 
 
 
 
 

文化的震撼力:昆曲 牡丹亭·惊梦

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

Man VS Wild

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

Obama胜利演说:美国的变革到来了

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

话剧《李白》濮存昕

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

Alexander(亚历山大大帝)

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

越剧 孔乙己

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

太极意境

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

孔雀舞(杨丽萍)

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

印度肚皮舞

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

殊途同归

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

李敖清华大学演讲

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

Louis Vuitton路易威登

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

李敖北大演讲

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

世界文化遗产——昆曲

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

三文鱼精神

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

平安中国 和谐为本

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

大河之舞

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

内蒙古自治区 巴彦淖尔市 射手座

 发消息  写留言

 
诚恳 性子急 所有的教导只不过是一个譬喻,用来帮助心灵看到真理,如果在心理建立起独立思考的能力,并能从“并无特殊之处”中产生对自己以及世界的深刻了解,那么这个人就立起来了。
 
近期心愿http://blog.sina.com.cn/liang303dong
博客等级加载中...
今日访问加载中...
总访问量加载中...
最后登录加载中...
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
心情随笔列表加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

醉花缘

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
网易云音乐 曲目表歌词秀
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

催眠大师 格兰亚历山大

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
列表加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

杭州花式调酒表演

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

埃及舞

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

言有终

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

舞皇杰克逊最经典演出

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

未来水世界

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

李敖复旦大学演讲

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 

新白娘子传奇

 
 
模块内容加载中...
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2018

注册 登录  
 加关注