Before I went to Shanxi, I once ran into LY in a bookstore. He mentioned the problems with the papers I write: they involve too much, their contents are too mixed, the theme is not clear enough, the logic is not coherent enough, and the key issue is that they are not sufficiently “standard” — that is, I have not really mastered the conventions of the academic paper. He also said that my year-paper was almost rejected in the reviewers’ discussion, and only because LY spoke up for me did it end up receiving an excellent grade. In fact, I am aware of these problems myself. The general style of my papers is to take a few keywords as the themes of the chapters, but the logical connections among these keywords are weak, and the overall structure of the paper is not very distinct; it is even harder to reach the ideal of logic linking up tightly, one link after another.
In fact, that tightly linked, interlocking quality is not the state I pursue. An overly rigorous structure almost makes a paper “airtight”; a more ideal paper should leave enough “gaps,” leaving room both for myself and for readers to arrive at different conclusions. I also do not much like reading or writing abstracts — though I do understand their importance — because an abstract is meant to tell the reader what this paper is about, which ends up limiting the main framework of the whole paper, whereas I prefer to gradually come to understand it as the paper unfolds. Of course, the things that set out the outline and grasp the essentials, the introductory things, are still necessary. Relatively speaking, what I prefer is the table of contents, or else keywords — which is why my earlier papers liked to list a very large number of keywords, until Teacher Liu reminded me that keywords generally only need three or four.
In the past I had considered separating papers from essays, but recently I have completely cured myself of this schizophrenia. Of course, my papers will still definitely be written a bit more properly; however, that is only a compromise, not something I want to “pursue” in the sense of writing in a rigidly proper way. What I hope for is to maintain an appropriate tension between rigor and casualness. The name “Suixuan” was not chosen for nothing; that character 随, “suí,” has always been what I emphasize more.
As for academic “standards,” of course I still respect them, just as I respect etiquette and customs. But they cannot become my fetters. Just as etiquette is formalized ethics, what matters more behind academic standards is academic cultivation and honesty. Any paper I write, or any text at all, will never plagiarize or steal from others; whenever I quote someone’s exact words or borrow someone’s inspiration, I will certainly do my utmost to indicate the source. More than that, there are often many lines of thought or propositions that I in fact arrive at independently, and if later I find, through further reading, that earlier people have already mentioned something similar, I will still add a citation — whether he is an authoritative giant or an obscure nobody.
Any paper, even some small assignment for a specialist course, must be built on the basis of extensive reading. At the very least, I always need to have read two or three books before I dare begin writing an article — a few scattered glances and cursory leafings do not count. Sometimes the books I read are of no use, but even if, on a certain topic, I can only find bad books, I still have to go through a few of them. Reading the classics is of course beneficial, but sometimes one can also derive benefit from bad books — because I need to think about why he could write so badly, exactly how badly he wrote…
My papers, and any writing whatsoever except for the political theory exam, are completely sincere; I absolutely do not write anything against my conscience. I may conceal the facts, but I will never write lies. My papers, of course, are even more an expression of my true position and views. Although what I emphasize at different times and in different contexts may contain certain contradictions, these are generally only differences of perspective and emphasis. I am willing to take responsibility for what I write — that is to say, I can at any time explain what I have written and the relationships among the things I have written.
I despise plagiarism in papers, but since I publish almost all of my papers on my blog, I naturally am not afraid of others plagiarizing or stealing my ideas. I wrote about this long ago: for me, I do not believe that what I am writing now is all that precious. I will keep surpassing myself; at any time, plagiarists can only steal my current, immature ability, but they cannot steal my future. As for those who copy, I want to thank them for their recognition of me and for the dissemination of my ideas.
I do not actively seek publication for any of my current papers. In the previous two cases, it was the teachers who took the initiative to recommend publication. In such situations, I will accept and thank the teachers for their appreciation; however, both of those articles were essay-like in nature, and neither was my main area of concentration. As for papers on philosophy of technology, neither now nor in the next few years will I seek publication in any way.
July 10, 2007
Latest Comments
- mist
2007-07-29 11:08:11 Anonymous 124.17.16.85
My style is different; I read less. Whatever the predecessors have said about a certain issue, no matter how good it may be, it is theirs, not mine, and has nothing to do with me. As for me, I shall write my pen and write my heart~
But later I discovered that doing this is just like a primitive man making a wheel and being delighted with himself, without knowing that planes and high-speed trains already exist outside… - Gu Chu
2007-07-29 12:54:35
Basically, I agree with you. As for me, I read and think at the same time. I do not much like sitting there doing nothing and brooding over things, but instead I think about problems while reading. In the end, what matters is still what I myself think, so after reading a book I am not very good at summing up the author’s thoughts, because I do not especially care about that.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply