Good question! The trouble with traditional textbooks is not really their views, though I do dislike many of the views in traditional textbooks. After all, they represent a certain popular way of understanding problems, and that in itself is not too bad. But the problem lies in their style of argument and their attitude. In a sense, the strategy of traditional textbooks is quite powerful and ingenious (otherwise how could they have had such a profound influence in the Soviet Union and China?).
Similar strategies are actually used quite often in many other places as well. We ourselves may even use them unconsciously quite often.
In short, it is to set up a target of one’s own and then attack it oneself.
For example, if I want to attack XX-ism, I first pick out the ugliest aspects from all the various schools and factions of XX-ism, gather them together, then do a certain amount of organizing (usually by exaggerating them), and finally call this theory that combines every ugly side XX-ism, and then mercilessly refute it. At the same time, one often has to create an atmosphere of two armies confronting each other, lumping the opponent together as ugly, evil, and absurd, while representing oneself as beautiful, righteous, and correct.
The atmosphere of two armies confronting each other is created in the following way: first, define the ugly aggregate set up as the target as enemy forces, and define the force that courageously fights against it as the positive camp one occupies oneself; second, switch concepts, turning the various characteristics attributed to the enemy into the definition of the enemy itself (for example, first accuse metaphysics of being a worldview and methodology that is isolated, static, and one-sided, and then say that an isolated, static, one-sided worldview and methodology is precisely the definition of metaphysics). In this way, there is no need to ask any longer why the enemy has such vile propositions, because the answer is that the one who holds such vile propositions is precisely the definition of the enemy; third, smuggle matters past in the middle of the night, quietly changing the enemy’s original definition of “a concentration of every ugly aspect” into “anyone who is contaminated by even a little of it belongs to the enemy camp”; fourth, create further momentum, and classify everyone who does not agree with one’s own position as part of the enemy; in the end, the situation becomes this: for anyone who hopes to oppose the enemy of ultimate falsity, ultimate evil, and ultimate ugliness, the only choice is to join one’s own camp.
But in fact, the XX-ism that has been denounced beyond all recognition was entirely something of one’s own making; the so-called two-army confrontation was also nothing but a fantasy of one’s own. In reality, to escape an extreme position that gathers together all falsity, evil, and ugliness, there may be many paths, and one need not necessarily abandon all of its claims wholesale, nor is there necessarily only one place to which one can turn for refuge. But after such a round of offensives from all directions, all the complexity of the situation disappears, and what remains is only a stark, black-and-white, clearly divided battle scene; you have no room for choice, and can only take refuge in truth and justice.
The above description is not exaggerated. One often sees others using this kind of technique. Middle school textbooks used this strategy, but not very skillfully, because after all it was too contrived; and even in academic debates, this technique is often used in a more cunning way. For example, the critique of “interventionism” against “representationalism” by a certain senior student on the Keke forum a while ago, as well as the debate between brother yxy and me on Brother Jiang’s blog a while ago concerning materialism and idealism, both faintly gave the feeling of using the above technique.
In fact, we who oppose scientism also occasionally use this kind of technique. Of course, setting up an extreme position helps display the problem more vividly; bringing together all the extreme features of scientism does, to a certain extent, help. But this is only to reveal the problem and make it appear sharper, not to deliberately oversimplify the situation. By all means do not further apply the one-two-three-four steps; uglifying the opponent can only be done “up to the point and no further.” One must avoid “two armies confronting each other,” must not switch concepts, and must certainly not set oneself up as the sole representative of truth and justice.
2007年5月5日23时17分
Latest Comments
- UNIC
2007-05-06 00:15:26 Anonymous 220.171.180.81
Hahahahaha…..so that’s how it is….
The Chinese really do belong to the same lineage. And just look at the commercials on television now, especially those for height increase, health care, weight loss, and medicine….that amount of effort..
It seems everyone really did take their politics classes in high school and middle school very well!
Let me keep observing….take a closer look at the details…and keep thinking.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply