If there is someone who absolutely refuses to get a wife, believing women are like snakes and scorpions and cannot be approached, how should we try to persuade him?
First, we should make one thing clear: everyone is entitled to his or her own views and convictions. If a genuine conversation is impossible, then we should simply respect one another; there is no truth that says one must definitely get a wife.
But there is no harm in trying to talk him around, is there? If persuasion fails, then let it be.
The single camp’s argument is this: a wife is not indispensable to a good life. A single man can also live a happy life, and may even be freer and happier than many men who have wives, and so on.
This is not wrong. From a pluralist perspective, getting a wife is neither sufficient nor necessary for a good life; it is not something “indispensable.” However, a few more extreme people go further and claim that a wife is replaceable, that a wife has no special status at all—what is she, after all, but one more person in the bed? A hot-water bottle would do just as well. There is no essential difference between a wife and a hot-water bottle. A wife’s place can be taken by a hot-water bottle, or a sex machine, or a servant, or brothers and friends, and so on—that goes too far.
From a pluralist standpoint, I do not want to argue that a wife is “indispensable,” but I do want to make clear that a wife is “irreplaceable.” That is to say, I do not support the “necessity” of a wife, and I would even argue against those who think a wife is necessary. But I do want to defend a wife’s “specialness,” and strive to refute claims of the form “a wife is nothing but…”
How to clarify a wife’s specialness is something I shall not discuss here. Then, if we grant that a wife is irreplaceable, I further hope to argue that a wife can be “good.” For if a wife is always bad, and yet is irreplaceable, then the best choice can only be to reject wives and not get one. But if it can be said that a wife can be good, then her distinctive virtues are also things that nothing else can replace.
For a wife to be “good” there are two requirements: first, the wife herself must be in good condition—well developed, mature, and attractive; second, the man’s attitude toward his wife must be proper. Once these two conditions are met, getting a wife ought to be a good thing.
Once all these explanations have been completed, how then do we persuade others to get a wife? That is unnecessary. Behind getting a wife lies certain desire rooted in human nature. We may choose to suppress those desires and still have a good life; we may also choose to release those desires in other ways. But if one has a good wife, then those desires can be satisfied more reasonably and more appropriately, and getting a wife does not bring serious harm—in fact, it brings many more benefits. So why not get a wife? When there is a good wife by your side, why not cherish her well?
When persuading someone who does not want to get a wife, one uses “why not,” not “must.” If one has already sufficiently clarified a wife’s specialness, harmlessness, usefulness, and so on, then those who should get a wife will naturally get one; those who still cling to their own views may as well be respected, and there is no need for further persuasion.
If there are some people who absolutely refuse to believe in science, thinking that science is like a devil that brings people harm, how should we try to enlighten them?
First, we should make one thing clear: everyone is entitled to his or her own views and convictions. If a genuine conversation is impossible, then we should simply respect one another; there is no truth that says one must believe in science.
But there is no harm in trying to talk them around, is there? If persuasion fails, then let it be.
The anti-science camp’s argument is this: science is not indispensable to a good life. Without science, as with the Amish, one can still live a happy life, and may even be freer and happier than many people who believe in science, and so on.
This is not wrong. From a pluralist perspective, believing in science is neither sufficient nor necessary for a good life; it is not something “indispensable.” However, a few more extreme people go further and claim that science is replaceable, that science has no special status at all—what is it, after all, but a “grand narrative”? Myths and fairy tales are the same. There is no essential difference between science and myth. The place of science can be taken by myth, or astrology, or mysticism, or religious art, and so on—that goes too far.
From a pluralist standpoint, I do not want to argue that science is “indispensable,” but I do want to make clear that science is “irreplaceable.” That is to say, I do not support the “necessity” of science, and I would even argue against those who think science is necessary. But I do want to defend science’s “specialness,” and strive to refute claims of the form “science is nothing but…”
How to clarify science’s specialness is something I shall not discuss here. Then, if we grant that science is irreplaceable, I further hope to argue that science can be “good.” For if science is always bad, and yet is irreplaceable, then the best choice can only be to reject science and not believe in it. But if it can be said that science can be good, then its distinctive virtues are also things that nothing else can replace.
For science to be “good” there are two requirements: first, science itself must be in good condition—well developed, mature, and attractive; second, people’s attitude toward science must be proper. Once these two conditions are met, believing in science ought to be a good thing.
Once all these explanations have been completed, how then do we persuade others to believe in science? That is unnecessary. Behind believing in science lies certain desire rooted in human nature—human beings have a desire to know. Schrödinger put it well: “I was born into such a situation—that I do not know where I come from or where I am going, and I do not even know who I am. This is my situation, and it is yours too; each and every one of you is the same. Every person is in this predicament, and always will be. This reality cannot give me any answers. We eagerly want to know where we came from and where we are going, but the only thing observable is the environment in which we find ourselves. That is why we are so urgently and desperately trying our utmost to find answers. This is science, scholarship, and knowledge; this is the true source of all human spiritual striving.” (Nature and the Ancient Greeks, pp. 96–97) Moreover, the pursuit of the beauty of nature, the pursuit of order, the pursuit of certainty, and so on are all among people’s most fundamental desires. We may choose to suppress those desires and still have a good life; we may also choose to release those desires in other ways—for example, by conquering nature, or “torturing” nature. But if there is a good, free science, then those desires can be satisfied more reasonably and more appropriately, and believing in science does not bring serious harm—in fact, it brings many more benefits. So why not believe in science? When there is a good science by our side, why not cherish it well?
When persuading someone who does not want to believe in science, one uses “why not,” not “must.” If one has already sufficiently clarified science’s specialness, harmlessness, usefulness, and so on, then those who should believe in science will naturally believe, while those who still cling to their own views may as well be respected, and there is no need for further persuasion.
Science, like religion, art, and so on, is not indispensable to human culture as a whole, but they are all irreplaceable; if a culture lacks any one of them, it always feels as though something is missing. For each individual person, science, faith, family, wife, friends, career, and so on are each not indispensable, but they are all irreplaceable.
June 26, 2006
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply