Author: Xu Ben, Author is a professor at St. Mary's College in California
Source: "Bright dialogue: Eighteen lectures on public reasoning"
On April 2, 2009, " Southern Metropolis Daily " published a short article of mine, "Mr. "Mr. "Unhappy" must learn to reason", I talked about some logical fallacies and irrational discourse characteristics of " China Unhappy ".
Some readers feel that they are still unsatisfied. I hope I can talk about the rationality of public discourse more deeply. Some want to know what logical textbooks can allow junior high school students to learn logical and rational thinking as soon as possible. Some even point out the social and political environment required for reasoning. "In China, where the fundamental conditions for democratic political procedures are lacking, there is too little public reasoning." Feedback like
makes me feel it is necessary to discuss the lack of public discourse rationality in China. Let me quote that short article first.
Reading "China is unhappy" made me think of one thing. A few years ago, a friend who was a professor at Nanjing University told me that the crisis of Chinese public rational discourse has reached a point where it is necessary to take action. He felt that it was necessary to compile a writing textbook for college students to help train their basic logical reasoning skills.
In foreign countries, this kind of training starts from junior high school. After high school and then to college, it is constantly strengthened, allowing students to develop the necessary reasoning habits when interacting with others. Not to mention high school and university education, just take Sharpen Up!, an English textbook used by students in the first grade of junior high school in , California, , (equivalent to the sixth grade of Chinese primary school) as an example, there are chapters of "logical reasoning" and "guard for publicity" to help students understand how to not deceive people or be deceived during the process of writing and reading.
Many of the "logical fallacies" and "propaganda techniques" (deceptive statements) can be seen everywhere in "China's Unhappy". Here we use the several fallacies listed in this junior high school textbook to give a few examples.
oversimplification: "In fact, whether it is the subprime mortgage crisis or the US trade deficit, to put it bluntly, Americans consume too much and produce too little, forming a gap. How to fill this gap? One is to grab it, the other is to cheat." If "consumption" is really the culprit of the economic crisis , why are there economists who advocate using stimulating consumption to help get out of the economic crisis as soon as possible?
4 Theory of the floating and empty: "This financial crisis reflects the comprehensive decay of American society from top to bottom." Is American society really "full decay" from top to bottom? This general overview of the absence of exceptions can be self-defeating as long as there is a counterexample.
cycle argumentation : "When it comes to Sarkozy's performance, he has obvious biological nature. His fluttering clouds and rains seem to be funny." It has biological nature, so it is funny; it is funny, so it is a biological (not like a human).
false dichotomy: "In the past few decades, there has been no one in China, no decent writers, no decent thinkers. Qian Zhongshu , Han Han , what is it? They are hyped like this, but there is actually no decent originality." Either "having" or "no" at all. Is originality really measured in this way? Besides, are the five authors of "China Unhappy" themselves included in the "undespicable" crowd in the past few decades?
4 Uncredited reasoning: "We are in a long-term hidden truth. The Chinese embrace the West with the greatest passion and tell the West with the kindest attitude: 'We are moving closer to you.’”Is there any evidence? Did China embrace the Western bipartisan system or multi-party system ? Have you accepted the Western universal human rights theory?
verbally, swear, and swear badly: " Wang Xiaobo 's 'dogs', should have grown. "You see, they (scholars) either plunged into the arms of those in power, or sat in a slant on the lap of the capitalist, or were wrapped up by two people overnight. "Is it well-educated to scold people as "dogs" or slandering them as "prostitutes"? " Obama cannot save the United States." Since "there is definitely no good result" and "doomed to fail", why should we discuss it?
Improper analogy: " Russia is just an old cucumber without green paint, Americans are old cucumbers with green paint, but in fact, they are all old cucumbers in essence, half a pound of pounds. "There is no necessary category relationship between the country and cucumber. Is it said that the country is cucumber and old? Does it mean that the history is long? The United States has only more than 200 years of history, so what about China with a history of 5,000 years?
from Sharpen Up! Such junior high school textbooks can be seen that an important part of school education is language education, which is not only a literacy and writing skills, but also through learning to use text language to develop a rational thinking habit of public reasoning. Only a society that reasons is a decent and tolerant society, which requires respecting the other party who has different opinions from you.
Be tolerant and kind to your opponent, and you should state the other party's arguments. Try to be comprehensive, accurate and calm. Don’t say “I’m unhappy” or “I’m angry” as soon as you open your mouth. These are the homework that the authors of “China Unhappy” need to make up for. Many readers are bewitched and unaware. Although they are educated, they lack basic rational analysis ability. Is there any serious negligence and failure in school education?
Public reasoning is not a quarrel, not like the author of “China Unhappy” What we said is to "stimulate" people or to exhale. The more successful the quarrel, the more failure the reasoning is. Quarrel is a vicious discourse behavior that intensifies the opposition of interpersonal opinions, and the purpose of reasoning is to try to eliminate opposition of interpersonal opinions and resolve differences. Public reasoning is to reach consensus through communication and persuasion.
Public reasoning is the achievement of public civilization and a good society The fundamental conditions for relations and democratic political order. China's public reasoning mechanism is not sound, and improving the awareness of public discourse rationality should become an important project in school education at all stages.
logic, reasoning and civic quality
Due to the limitation of the space of the current commentary short article, I just use the junior high school textbook Sharpen The logical fallacies and propaganda techniques mentioned in Up! give a few examples. In fact, there are far more logical fallacies that may arise in different links of reasoning. I will discuss this in this book. The logic and reasoning problems shown in "China Unhappy" are quite primary, which should remind us that Chinese citizen education has a great lack of reasoning ability in the beginning. The authors of "China Unhappy" are victims of the lack of rationality in Chinese public discourse, not the initiator. They just help regenerate this public discourse that lacks rationality without knowing it. domineering, ambiguous, anti-logical, and less rational language has become a common in China's public cultural texture Chronic disease.
It is easy for people to think that in the presence of such language, the cause is all "logic", but it is not like this. logic, especially formal logic, is only the superficial part of public reasoning. of course, because it is on the superficial level, it is also the most obvious. In the teaching of theory (argument and persuasion) for junior high school, high school, and even lower-grade students in college, logic only accounts for part, not all.
reasoning also includes two other parts: credibility (ethos) and emotions (pathos). And reasoning itself cannot be separated from the overall reasoning environment of society and politics.This book will also cover other reasoning factors and environmental conditions outside of logic and logical fallacy assessment (including citizen quality and upbringing, value authority jointly recognized by the reasoning group, and democracy and rule of law ). To understand public reasoning, it is necessary to take into account all the main aspects of reasoning at the same time.
Teachers generally help improve students' ability to evaluate argument rationality (including logic) (which is part of critical thinking education), but they will not spend too much time "teaching" the logic part. It’s not because logic is not important, but because the basic logic of speaking or writing is simple and common sense, and does not require special in-depth discussion, just point it out.
The basic logic is like the basic syntax. Chomsky (Norm Chomsky) regards language ability as the basic ability of human thinking. For example, a senior or junior high school student knows the structure of subject-predicate object , adjectives are used to modify nouns, adverbs are used to modify verbs, etc. This is not a special knowledge, and no children who can use language normally will make mistakes.
The basic logical thinking is similar. If adults want to convince children, they must also be reasonable. If they reason, they must have logic, otherwise it will "not make sense." The more reasonable adults are, the more opportunities a child will have to learn to reason. Children understand the truth and do not need special logical knowledge. As long as you think normally and are willing to think, the relationship between reasons and conclusions can be understood by just a little tip.
is based on this basic ability of human beings. As long as ordinary people pay attention, they can always see the fallacy in illogical public language. Logical thinking can therefore become common sense of citizenship that any ordinary person can possess.
The reasoning of written writing cannot be separated from clear and rational thinking. There are two other factors in addition to this: language (text) and thought (content). In the middle school stage, since students' thoughts need to be formed and mature, text theory teaching generally focuses on basic thinking and writing skills, and requires students to be smooth in writing, well-founded in words, and clear in structure.
Of course, in addition to the basic reasoning logic, we must also pay attention to the logic of the article structure, such as clear theme, beginning and end, a level of discussion, fully considering and responding to opposing opinions, having a discussion first and then a conclusion, etc. When guiding and reviewing students' compositions, teachers will put their positions aside and try to evaluate their reasoning ability from the students' standpoint objectively to see whether they can express clearly, be in orderly, be self-justified, and convince others with reason.
I did this when pointing out the logical fallacy of "China Unhappy". "China Unhappy" is a book that promotes nationalism, but I do not argue with the authors about nationalism. My topic is universal reasoning, not nationalist reasoning.
Nationalism is similar to religious and political beliefs, and the key lies in "faith". But no matter what you believe, the logic is the same as it reasons. Speaking things on a logical level is of course primary, because it first puts aside the possible differences in thought and position between readers and writers.
In college, students have majors and are relatively mature, and when writing papers, the content requirements will also be increased. At this time, the teacher will evaluate the moral principles and political stances discussed by the students. If students write content that favors or advocates violence, racial discrimination, hateful nationalism, teachers will certainly not refuse to comment.
However, no matter how profound or creative the professional knowledge is, the basic logic and language requirements required for reasoning are still unavoidable. This is also why it is necessary to pay full attention to basic education in middle schools. In fact, if does not have the basic smooth and reliable logic of writing and writing, no matter how amazing the ideas are, there will be no means or power to convince others.
The values of rational discourse are equal, respect, and treat others reasonably, and on this basis, do not humiliate others, do not deceive others, do not discriminate against others, do not harm others, and do not use any violence (including verbal violence) to treat others. This is also the value of a decent society.
As the ethical philosopher Avishai Margalit said, the first principle of a decent society is not what to do, but what not to do. To express the fundamental moral principles of a decent society from the opposite side, it is to highlight the serious destructive effect of certain behaviors on social moral order. The use of irrational discourse is an act that seriously damages social rationality and true order.
The three parts of logic, language (text) and thought are combined. A rigorous logical reasoning language will also be modest and polite. You will carefully define the main concepts you use, without insulting words, without quarrels, and try to use fewer words with preset emotions.
reasoning will also tend toward human freedom, equality, and dignity values in terms of thought, advocate tolerance, respecting the rights of others, and opposing suppression of different opinions. On the contrary, discourses without logic will inevitably support its "reasoning" with means other than logic, such as violent, arbitrary, threatening, and domineering words, attacking the other party's personality, insulting and insulting, and even suppressing the other party's speech.
discourses like
will inevitably have oppressive, hatred and violent tendencies in their thoughts. people should have opinions and opinions through their free thinking and independent judgment, and do not have to have some thoughts or make such thoughts because they are coerced, deceived, or feel afraid.
Irrational discourse is not only a disadvantage of individual discourse, but also a harm to the entire society. Rational discourse is a characteristic of democratic society, while irrational discourse is often born with autocracy. Unreasonable discourse may exist in any society, but it will only prevail in an authoritarian society and even become a discourse of power of the government.
School education attaches importance to students' rational discourse ability. From a social perspective, it is a kind of civic education that helps maintain democratic public life order. In terms of citizen cultivation and nature, it is a humanistic education that improves the quality of the people.
Public reasoning habits must be cultivated from an early age
Public discourse logic and reasoning are not just a kind of knowledge, but also a habit, and habits need to be cultivated from an early age. Once a person misses the period when it is easy to develop mental and discourse habits, it is difficult for him to truly become a habit even if he has the opportunity to acquire relevant knowledge later. How can the habit of reasoning be developed? Taking the existing public reasoning education in the United States as an example, roughly talk about practical experience that can be learned from in this regard.
American students usually enter the first grade of junior high school at the age of 11 (equivalent to the sixth grade of primary school in China). There are public reasoning parts in the English textbooks for the third year of junior high school. Although the degree and content focus are different, they are very coherent. These contents appear repeatedly because public reasoning is not only about book knowledge, but also a civic habit and quality that needs to be cultivated in students.
In the education of American public schools, the preparation for public theory education has actually started since the first grade of elementary school, but the term "reasoning education" was not clearly stated for students of lower age. For example, the "Outline of Reading and Language Arts (Teaching) in California Public Schools Kindergarten to Grade 12" has specific requirements for the "reasoning" in the fifth grade of elementary school.
First grade of elementary school: "Recapitulate the main points in simple reasoning and narrative paragraphs". Second grade: "Retell the facts and details in the text, explain and organize the opinions to be said." Grade 3: “Distinguish between the main points and the details that support these points in the rationale”. Grade 4: "The difference between 'reason' and 'result', 'facts' and 'views' in the rationale text." Grade 5: "Distinguish the 'facts', 'proven inferences' and 'views' (views that are yet to be proven) in the text."The fifth grade was first clear that this was a requirement of "expository critic". 2
After the fifth grade of primary school, reasoning assessment has continued to be used as a basic reading requirement in junior and senior high school. Among them, the sixth grade is the most critical year. The sixth grade has systematic requirements for students' rational evaluation ability based on the fifth grade, and there are three items in total:
1. The appropriateness and appropriateness of the arguments used to judge the author's conclusions;
2. Use accurate and persuasive quotations to reasonably state opinions;
3. Observe reasoning, fallacy inferences, rhetoric and propaganda that lack argument support in the text. 3
In specific teaching, public reasoning for grade six is divided into two parts: one, analyze logical fallacies; two, beware of publicity. Both of these items
need to be continuously discussed and deepened in actual reading through emotional and specific examples. There are five logical fallacies to be identified in : oversimplification, overemphasis theory, circular argumentation, false dichotomy, and unfounded reasoning.
There are ten kinds of publicity methods to be wary of: follow the crowd, abuse, prejudice, snobbery, the words of the common people, boasting, "scientific" basis, testimony, intimidation tactics, and implicating. The contents of these two parts are merged into "logical fallacy" in some textbooks, because "propaganda" is originally a misleading discourse that uses ordinary people's logical thinking to think about weaknesses and flaws.
The focus of public reasoning in the sixth grade is to distinguish between "facts" and "views", which is a preliminary involvement in the fourth and fifth grades of primary school. Facts are recognized knowledge, while ideas are only personal opinions. No idea is automatically correct and must be proven to be correct.
proof means persuading others and telling others clearly why the idea is correct and what is the reason. The view must be proved and justified. Four commonly used reasons are: facts, examples, data, and expert opinions.
public reasoning in the sixth grade emphasizes that there are two ways to identify "objective facts" and "personal opinions".
First, the factual statement can be confirmed, such as " Lincoln is the President of the United States". The statement of views must be confirmed through reasoning and discussion, such as "Lincoln is a great president."
Second, the fact statement uses words that have common confirmation meanings, such as "circular", "European", "wood", "toxic substances", etc. The words used in "view" are personal understanding, such as "beautiful", "ugly", "good", "smooth", and "nonsense". To sum it up, the facts say, "Please verify." The opinion says, "I'm right, that's right." The fact statement is modest and negotiated; while the opinion statement is arrogant, monologue .
The requirements for students' "reasoning assessment" ability in the seventh grade are: "Evaluate whether the arguments used by the authors in supporting conclusions and positions are appropriate, accurate, and relevant, and pay attention to examples of bias and stereotypes." Among them, "note 'bias' and 'steroid'" are new requirements, and they are also transitioning from formal logic to social fair content. Grade 8 requires reviewing the "reasoning assessment" for grades 6 and 7, focusing on "evaluating the unity, coherence, logic, as well as internal consistency and structure of the text." 5
The content of the seventh and eighth grade books is deeper than that of the sixth grade, and the improper reasoning and fallacies analyzed are also more complicated. For example, eighth grade textbooks already contain works by classic American writers. When reading the works of the author Edgar Allan Poe , there is a comment in the textbook that contains fallacies of reasoning. The comment reads: " Allan Poe 's novels and poems are all about restless and even crazy characters."
teachers will tell students: "All" here is a fallacy of "universal generalism". Common generalist expressions include words such as "every...", "all...", "everyone...", and "always..."The comment also wrote: "A writer who has no mental problems cannot write such a story, otherwise how can Poe can understand what madness is." What is being made here is the logical fallacy of "false opposition" (either "crazy" or "not crazy").
In fact, writers can use imagination to write about madmen, but they don’t have to be madmen. The comment reads again: "We know that writers are a bit strange, especially those who write horror stories." "We know" is similar to "undoubtedly", "well known", "everyone knows...", and is committed to the logical fallacy of "there is already a problem", because what "knows" is precisely what needs to be proven. 6
High school has improved its ability to "reason and evaluate" students compared with junior high school. High school is divided into two stages. The first stage: from the ninth to the tenth grade, the "reasoning assessment" requires that there must be awareness of the other party in reasoning, and reasoning is "dialogue", not "one-sided".
reasoning article In addition to formal logic, writing also requires structural logic (for example, the order and logical transition of different parts of the article), and can predict and avoid misunderstandings that readers may have in advance. In addition, students are also required to pay attention to the relationship between the overview and the argument, correctly understand the argument (not expecting the text to be meaningful, not misinterpreted, and constantly taking the meaning), and clarify the structure, tone, and readers of different texts (such as academic journals, newspaper comments, different audiences of political speeches, etc.). 7
The second stage of high school is from grades 11 to 12. The object of reasoning evaluation at this stage is "public documents", such as government announcements, policy notes, political party propaganda, public service departments' purposes, regulations, regulations, trade and recruitment information, etc.
"Bright Dialogue" Publisher: CITIC Publisher
Of course, everything published, as long as it discusses public topics, is a public text, which covers a large part of the public. Since these publications are all public texts, they must undergo public rationalization assessment. Anyone printed in lead type does not necessarily make sense in theory. This is the basic truth that repeated theory evaluations should tell students.
In many universities, whether it is liberal arts or science, public theory is a compulsory course for first-year college students. Writing in primary and secondary schools is part of the English course, but different universities are different. The universities offer special writing courses.
Many university writing classes have a school year content. The first semester focuses on basic writing skills, such as description, narrative, comparison, persuasion, debate, and commentary; the second semester is entirely rational writing, called "argument and persuasion" or "analysis and research". College students basically have to write "papers" when taking various courses. "Reasoning Writing" is to help students improve their general discourse ability. It is not only professional writing, but also public reasoning in social life.
In American schools, from primary school to junior high school, high school, and then to university, there is a continuous and continuous teaching process for theory education. From the fourth grade of elementary school, the compulsory courses alone have 10 years. It can be seen that it is not easy to cultivate the habit of reasoning
What is particularly important is the 3 years of junior high school. Students at this period have the strongest education plasticity, natural curiosity and curiosity, and can quickly absorb and transform the knowledge they have learned into habits. The reason why the United States has relatively high civic quality, national independent thinking ability and civil society rationality is, in addition to the country's democratic traditions, attaching importance to civic education should be an important reason. The democratic order of reasoning is complementary to high-quality rational citizens.
The more successful the quarrel, the more the reasoning fails
The examples I gave about the fallacies in "China Unhappy" were all taken from the first grade textbooks in California, the United States. This standard is indeed very limited. I have been teaching theory and argument writing in college for more than 20 years. I have used many types of university textbooks. Of course, the level is much deeper, but the truth is the same.
There are still various logical and reasonable fallacies in college students' compositions, but as long as they point them out, they can understand why those fallacies are, and there is no one who refuses to admit it, because logic is like mathematics and can prove its authenticity. Teachers will also make logical and reasoning mistakes, just like doctors will also get sick. The important thing is to make mistakes. You should know that they are wrong. Just like getting sick, don’t force yourself to say that you are healthy.
The teacher and the students discuss logic and reasoning, which itself is a reasoning process. The teacher cannot just say to the students that the logic of your words is wrong. The teacher must tell the students why they are wrong. Students will only agree with the teacher when they accept the reasons given by the teacher.
The relationship between teachers and students is not only equal, but must not be confrontational. Otherwise, it will be like Wang Xiaodong . If you say that his article has logical problems, he will say that you don’t understand logic at all. 9
The irrationality of the discourse of "China's Unhappy" seems to have formed a fixed mindset and discourse habit that is opposite to reasoning. Its mindset is "confrontation". No matter whether the other party says it right or not, it must be "attacked back" and will never admit it.
The corresponding discourse habit is "quarrel", which will cause harm to the other party to the greatest extent using verbal violence (mockery, abuse, and sarcasm). The reason why such fixed thinking patterns and discourse habits themselves are irrational is that they do not want to be reasonable. How do you reason with someone who doesn’t want to be reasonable?
When I was writing a short review, I actually underestimated the irrationality of the irrational discourse of the author of "China Unhappy". I think that just by pointing out the problem of logical fallacies with examples, it can arouse the empathy of the author of "China Unhappy", but this is not the case. Wang Xiaodong, one of the authors of
, gave a reply that refused to admit his consent: "Frankly speaking, the language logic in the book "China Unhappy" is very strict." Wang Xiaodong stated his views here, and whether the views are reasonable needs to be explained or proved.
Just as Wang Xiaodong defended himself with "rigorous logic", he made another logical mistake. He gave himself a 100% praise ("very"), and it was the hardest to prove correct.
It's like a person saying, I've never made any mistakes. As long as the other party finds an counter-proof , it can refute such a full-name proposition (logically called "over generalization fallacy") . In this case, his correct and powerful way of reasoning should be to refute the logical fallacies I listed one by one.
If he can prove that the example I gave is not his fallacy, it will be enough to prove that I am accusing unreasonably, and he is logically rigorous, but unfortunately he did not do so.
Another example, Wang Xiaodong sarcastically said: " Southern certain urban newspaper, it's better to spend more money. Spend more money to hire a better writer to scold us. Don't be reluctant to spend money. You are a big newspaper, because you can't bear to spend money. Isn't it a shame to hire such a writer to scold us?"
He didn't know, and he made another logical fallacy here: the reason and the result are inconsistent, because "spend money" is not the reason for "writing good articles". No matter how much money you spend, you may not be able to buy good articles. Books like “say no” make a lot of money, but the articles are not well written.
The reason why the reason and result are not matched is that there is an "unreliable assumption" between them. These three constitute a fallacy of three-paragraph argument: (1) Anyone who pays a lot of money will definitely buy a good article (this is an unreliable premise); (2) Because this article did not pay enough money; (3) This article is bad.
. Is it worth it for a famous writer to analyze logical fallacies like students who write articles for beginners? Is it worth it? In a society where public reasoning has become a trend and people generally have logic and reasoning habits, it is certainly not worth it to regard common sense things as a serious public topic.
However, in a society where public reasoning is seriously lacking, even some "writers", "scholars" and "thinkers" cannot distinguish the difference between reasoning and unreasonable, and in a society where many irrational readers have a market, the situation is different. Reminding the public about the necessity of public reasoning and logic has become a very worthy, urgent and public enlightenment.
readers who agree with "China's Unhappy" often agree not only with the views of the book, but also with its discourse of confrontation, abuse, violence, and quarrel. For example, a netizen named Liu Anliang left a message on Wang Xiaodong's blog: "I will fight back on you " China Youth Daily ". Written to "China Youth Daily":
"Why do you always see articles criticizing "China is unhappy"? Why can’t you read the articles that praise and agree with "China is unhappy"? You can't be so biased even if you pull the frame? Why do you pretend that you can't read this book? What else can you represent the youth in Youth Daily ? Just like your magazine, you still want to lead readers and young people’s thoughts. Don’t dream! "
Netizen Liu Anliang uses quarrel or fight to see the differences between Wang Xiaodong and China Youth Daily. What he wants to do is to "retaliate", not reason. Quarrel is a confrontational and refusal to reason. The more fierce the attitude, the more ruthless the talk, the more successful the quarrel is, but the more failure the reasoning is.
Some of the "hard tricks" and "shard tricks" of quarrel (such as not admitting the account, biting back, and you are wrong, and verbally abused) are exactly what the reasoning words are abandoned. The quarrel is compared to who is louder, who is better at using language to violently use language , and who can hurt the other party better. The more hurt the two parties in quarrel. Deep, the smaller the possibility of reaching consensus and compromise on "reason". Quarrels must be killed, and reasoning requires interpersonal communication. These two happen to be contrary purposes.
There is also a net name called "Shanzi". After watching " Qiang Qiang Threesomes " program Cha Jianying's criticism of "China's Unhappy" and left a message on Wang Xiaodong's blog:
"This Ms. Cha (I really don't want to call her that because I think she is a neutral person like Li Yinhe ), she is basically just a mess... I think she is spreading rumors and slandering the Chinese people. From the perspective of presumption of innocence, she can only be considered mentally retarded... Her behavior of slandering the Chinese people for revenge and self-defense is just like the United States and the West invading China, and is a gangster.
I just glanced around in a hurry, and I was really not interested in seeing the woman spraying her with a female or a male hormone. Finally, I want to say that woman uses cunning and shameless means... Judging from this woman's cunning means of cursing people, I think she deliberately confused right and wrong, not really stupid - it was her butt (living in the United States for more than ten years) that determined her brain - she obviously sold sex but pretended to be holy (open her mouth and shut up from the perspective of our Chinese, considering the Chinese). This woman is really not a thing. "13
quarrel language is simply the echo of "China Unhappy".
Wang Xiaodong claimed that "China Unhappy" sold 320,000 copies a month after its publication, and most of them were praised for it. If it is true, after reading messages like "Nanzi" by netizens, people cannot help but worry about the general spread of irrationality in China.
"China Unhappy" is just the tip of the iceberg of the evil ecology of China's public discourse. All people who may have different opinions from it are the targets of its quarrel, humiliation, ridicule, and abuse.It originally relies on the combination of highly emotional, violent and hatred nationalism and populism . For it, reasoning is simply dispensable.
This language with strong subjective colors and cannot be self-disciplined has been popular in the Internet and popular culture for a long time. As Zhu Dake pointed out in "The Feast of Rogues", this discourse with the Internet as the main speech space is the obvious characteristics of "coaxing guests" violence, impulsiveness, tyranny, and hatred.
The "rogue society" in the network is crazy, violent, impulsive, susceptible to bewitching and irrationality with the physical gangster society discussed by Gustave Le Bon more than 100 years ago.
The main body of the Internet is "coaxing guests", " coaxing guests is anonymous netizens who use cool language, erotic language and foul language to judge public events or characters in moral-aesthetics." coaxes the masses to wander between the offline mask society and the online virtual society. They can be gentle and obedient masked subjects offline, and they can be sharp and violent masked rebellion online. Online coaxing guests to wear invisible "vard" (network pseudonym), using masks instead of masks, and copying the self-hiding and deformation strategies in real society in virtual society.
This self-hiding and deformation reflects the distorted desire for freedom in the personality of the new totalitarian regime and the violent tendency to coexist with it. "The anonymous registration system of the Internet defends freedom of thought and speech, protects necessary just criticism and truth statements, and also provides a cradle for the development of online violent discourse. anonymity effect creates a large number of 'anonymous people', and they can vent their personal anxiety freely without taking any role responsibility for it."
irrational masses are extremely exclusive, suppressive and violent. It always tends to turn very complex problems into simple concepts in slogans. Individuals in real life feel the power of many people among the excited crowds. Therefore, when sticking to their ideals and opinions, they always tend to be very domineering.
This mass public opinion catharsis is both paranoid and noble; it is both domineering and ideal. It combines two distinct factors: sublime and violence. Its lofty realm successfully aroused the masses' imagination-ridden noble feelings (nationalism, nationalism, populism, patriotism), allowing them to find their own happiness in worship and obedience.
Its violent tendency is based on "moral purification" to exclude all heresy and dissent, and to show and boast about its intolerance and fanaticism with confidence. Such mass behavior just supports the common logic and legitimacy of totalitarian rule: for the sake of noble goals, any exclusion, restraint, oppression, and harm to the individual can be implemented by any means. This is also the main feature of the discourse of "unhappy" nationalist.
Self-talk is not public reasoning
The lack and pathological public discourse in a country occurs gradually. As Bozman said in "Entertainment to Death", changes in the language environment are the same as changes in the natural environment:
"At the beginning they accumulate slowly, and then suddenly reach the critical point that physicists call. A river gradually polluted will suddenly become toxic, most fish are extinct, and swimming becomes a danger. But even so, the river looks normal and people can still row on it. In other words, even if life in the river is dead, the river still exists, its purpose has not disappeared, but its value has been greatly reduced, and its harsh conditions will have adverse effects on the surrounding environment."
China's public language deterioration has reached and exceeded such a critical point. There are also people who write in such public languages. Many of them are carried out in a rough, distorted, hidden and even flattering way, and their public value has been greatly reduced.Of course, there are also "say no" writing, which is a virus that spreads irrational discourse in an already pathological environment.
For a long time, there has been no clear public discourse that is widely used and adhered to by the public society in China (there may be some exceptions in academic publications). This is first because people fail to clearly distinguish between public and private discourse. This difference is generally emphasized to students in theory writing classes in American universities.
For example, when a student writes an essay, the teacher will tell the student that there are generally three stages from brewing to writing. At the beginning, the writer writes down some of his own thoughts or opinions (often "talk" with others when he is "brewing"), which is called "notes". Notes are scattered, intermittent ideas, unwritten, and are written for yourself. There is no need to consider who the readers are, what different views will be, etc. Notes are a private domain writing.
Once you have a preliminary idea, the next step is the draft. The draft is basically written for yourself, but the expression or structure of the writing is more complete than the notes, which is called "notes". The notes have been basically written in a coherent manner and can be read. "Notes" and "diary" are the same word: journal. This is because most of the words and diaries I write casually are of the same nature, mainly for myself to read.
The third stage is the carefully considered "essay" of . It is written by the author for others, so it must be considered as its publicity, what arguments others will ask for, what different opinions may be, how to effectively convince them, etc. This awareness of the difference between private and public domain discourse needs to be continuously cultivated to make it a habit.
In China, the difference between private domain and public domain of discourse is very vague, so that public domain discourse is often improperly affected by private domain discourse. Reasoning must distinguish between public and private discourse, because the "I and I" relationship of private domain discourse is difficult to smoothly transform into the "I and you" relationship that public domain discourse should have.
For example, since the 1960s, education at all levels in China has called for "learning Lei Feng". What we learn is not only good people and good deeds, but also Lei Feng's way of thinking and expression. The most typical text is "Lei Feng Diary". There are many texts in Chinese textbooks in primary and secondary schools that are similar to "Lei Feng's Diary". Teachers require students to read a way of only talking about "deep understanding" and not "reasoning evaluation" (in fact, many teachers themselves do not know that there is such a reasoning evaluation).
The words in "Lei Feng's Diary" were written for him by Lei Feng, which is a kind of private domain writing. Lei Feng said: "Listen to the Party everywhere and be a tool for taming the Party resolutely and unconditionally." The subject he omitted was "I". No matter what Lei Feng makes for himself, it is his own business, and the words "me and me" do not require public reasoning.
However, if Lei Feng is speaking to another person and saying "you" must do this, it will become the words of "me and you". At this time, he must give the other party some sufficient reasons. Giving sufficient reasons is public reasoning.
"Learn from Lei Feng" is a behavioral imitation based on irrational discourse mechanisms. What it requires is that you can do whatever Lei Feng does; what Lei Feng thinks, you can do what you can do. Apart from "Lei Feng does this" and "Lei Feng thinks this", you no longer need to have other reasons, nor can you ask "why". Using such thoughts and behavioral patterns to regulate society for a long time will inevitably abolish the role of public reasoning and will inevitably weaken the public's reasoning ability.
The language of "Lei Feng's Diary" itself does not matter whether it is good or bad. Lei Feng has only received primary school education, so it is not easy to write such a diary. He is kind-hearted, and although he has some utilitarian motivation for doing good deeds (or there wouldn't be so many photos and deeds), we should not treat the good people and good deeds he did with a skepticism and cynicism.
However, it is harmful and useless to elevate the language of Lei Feng’s diary to public reasoning. There are few rational evaluations of "Lei Feng's Diary". For example, some people praise Lei Feng's language for being good at "trick of comparison", "contrast and application", and "parallel and continuous use", which is a language role model that young people should learn from. Lei Feng said, "I understand the principle that a flower cannot be dressed up in spring. Only when a flower blooms together can the garden be filled with spring. A flower blooms alone is not spring, but a flower blooms together is full of spring."
praise commented: "Popular metaphor, sharp contrast, vividly illustrates the profound truth that advanced people should lead everyone to make progress." Lei Feng just used a metaphor, and he didn't even say the truth. Where did the "deep truth" come from? If you insist on interpreting Lei Feng's words as "reasoning", then there is an obvious logical problem here, that is, no one has ever said that "a flower can dress up in spring"!
first propose a "wrong idea" that does not exist at all, and then refute it. This common logical fallacy is called "scarecrow tactic". In fact, "A single branch is not spring, but a hundred flowers bloom in the garden" is a common saying, and common sayings or proverbs belong to oral culture and cannot be used directly as arguments, because doing so may lead to the fallacy of "following the crowd".
Potzman pointed out: "In a purely spoken culture, intelligence is often related to the ability to create aphorisms, that is, the ability to create aphorisms with wide applicability. It is said that Solomon knew 3,000 proverbs. In a society of printed words, people with such talents are at best regarded as weirdos, or even arrogant annoying.
In a purely spoken society In the meeting, people attach great importance to memory. Since there is no written text, the human brain must play the role of a mobile library. Forget what to say or do is a dangerous thing for society and a manifestation of stupidity. In the culture of printed text, remembering a poem, a menu, a regulation, or most other things is just for fun and will never be regarded as a sign of high IQ. "
reasoning is what Postman calls the "culture of printed text", although it can also be expressed in the form of speaking. The communication of reasoning must be especially dependent on words. When logical fallacies appear in oral words, one sentence after another is often impossible to "listen" at once. Of course, in the text expression, if you just read it roughly, you can't read it. Therefore, a basic learning and reading training in theory education is "recise reading".
No matter how well written, how literary and knowledgeable the diary is, it is a kind of words to talk to oneself and to speak to oneself. Therefore, no one will make public reasoning requests for unpublished diaries. However, once a diary (or other form of private writing) is published and there is an attempt to enlighten and influence others, it has entered the field of public discourse and must be tested by "reasoning assessment".
"China is unhappy" contains many self-talks and self-talks that cannot stand the test of "reasoning evaluation". This phenomenon is also common in many other publications in China. This is the language that the generation of scholars who grew up studying "Lei Feng's Diary" (of course, there are different degrees) learned to use subtly.
In private domain discourse like diary, the "I" seems to refer to him personally, but the scope of this "I" is sometimes not just an individual, but a small group composed of close friends. The close relationship between members of small groups is different from the relationship between strangers and strangers between members of public groups. The kind of reasoning that strangers are particularly needed by public groups of strangers can often be abandoned for small groups of people who are close to each other.
This is because, in small groups of close people (such as families, gangs, churches, political parties), there are some maintenance forces outside of "reason" (family affection, loyalty, common beliefs, comradeship, etc.), and there are also some combination principles that have nothing to do with equal dialogue (son's filial piety to parents, gang rules of gangs, religious rules, party discipline, leadership/leadership level, etc.).
The words "public domain" in the small group of close people actually do not fully meet the requirements of public reasoning. For example, within a democratic party, there may be words of reasoning. But reasoning is not an inevitable feature of all party discourse. In order to ensure unified will, the Party may issue "instructions" at all levels at the organization. At best, such instructions will only amplify "me and me" to "between us". However, this "we" discourse is based on the bureaucratic and hierarchical relationship between superiors and subordinates, and it does not conform to the "I and you" discourse of equal dialogue.
When the view of a political party (as the name suggests, a small group) is to be conveyed to social groups outside it, the gay relationship between us must be converted into an equal citizenship relationship between "we (we) and you (you), and the "reasoning" that was not necessarily needed before becomes necessary.
However, the reality is that political parties' views are placed directly into society and require other groups to accept them like party members, which has almost become a common practice in China. The two different discourses of "we" and "we and you" are seriously confused, making the equal public reasoning discourse of "me and you" never able to be established in China.
"China is unhappy" was talked about by several friends, and it is not impossible to say that they are "comrades". This is a typical "between us" discourse. As long as the authors want, they could have completely transformed this "between us" discourse into "we (we) and you" discourse.
Just like students' compositions must convert notes and journals into essays, they must do this consciously. However, perhaps because of not receiving education in this area, the authors of "China Unhappy" have not been able to complete this critical step.
Not only that, nationalism itself can easily become an emotional discourse between fellow practitioners. It contains a natural relationship of "we" and natural closeness, which can easily form the tendency of "we" to exclude "you" or "they".
Nationalist discourse must be convincing, and special attention must be paid to transforming the relationship between "we (we) and you (you), so that we can establish a public reasoning relationship with the "other" that is not necessarily in love but equal and mutual respect. And this is precisely what the authors of "China Unhappy" don't know how to do it, or they don't want to do it at all.
High-profile publicity is not public reasoning
Any discourse communication is composed of three key parts: information sender, information, and information recipient. Among them, the relationship between the sender and the recipient is particularly important because it largely determines what nature of information is transmitted during the communication process. If the relationship between the sender and the recipient is free, equal, and mutually respectful, then the information transmitted is reasoning.
The same goes for the other hand. In order to transmit rational information, there must be a relationship of freedom, equality and mutual respect between the two parties in the communication. Therefore, what kind of discourse you choose in means what kind of interpersonal relationships you choose; or it can be said that what kind of interpersonal relationships you have, what kind of discourse you have.
For a long time, China's public language has been influenced and shaped by propaganda discourse. : Between the sender and recipient of the propaganda discourse, what exists is not an equal relationship that can ask questions and must be communicated, but a hierarchical relationship between "leaders" and "mass" (led). Even with different "leaders", information transmission is carried out in the hierarchical relationship between "superior" and "subordinate".
The discourse formed in this hierarchical relationship is "instruction", not reasoning. Instructions may sometimes be accompanied by some explanation, but their purpose is to strengthen acceptance, not to accept the doubts, questions and rebuttals of the opposition and to have reasonable dialogues with them. Propaganda discourse is arbitrary, and it pursues simple, direct and easy-to-accept effects. It has a very clear position, but often lacks reasons to state the position.
Promotion is different from "persuasion". Zhuweit and O'Donale's "Propaganda and Persuasion" defines "propaganda" based on this difference: propaganda is one-way to implement the intentions and needs of the information sender; while persuasion is two-way interactive, taking into account the communication needs of both the information sender and the recipient. Propaganda is condescending and can use any means to achieve its goals. It may violate the principle of truth at any time in certain links of communication; while persuasion must treat the other party equally and abide by the principle of truth honestly.
Propaganda often does not allow the audience to ask questions, so it relies on some external coercive force to maintain the information transmission mechanism; while persuasion must allow and encourage the other party to ask questions, both parties are free and uncoerced autonomous subjects. Therefore, between propaganda and persuasion, it is not only the choice of discourse style, but also the difference in the discourse system environment. In a society where a certain force can promote whatever it wants, there must be some uncontrolled coercive system.
Propaganda is often used in contemporary discourse to specifically refer to the dissemination of information that is engaged and completed by the organizational system. The ideas and opinions that were spread in propaganda were religious at first (17th century), and later political and party. The 20th century is an era of maturity, development and diversification of publicity, which is not only used for party slogans, mass mobilization, ideological control, and public opinion guidance, but also for commercial advertising.
The object of modern political party propaganda is the masses, and it is also one of the main means of mobilizing and controlling mass society. It was in the 20th century that the original neutral word "propaganda" became a derogatory term, gaining the meaning of falsehood, deception, deception, playfulness, manipulation, and brainwashing. This is also why American junior high school textbooks put logical fallacies and propaganda techniques together to arouse students' alertness.
Nationalism can easily become a kind of propaganda, a very high-profile propaganda. There is a natural institutional force behind nationalism. Both state and political party organizations often use nationalism. Even among the people, nationalism will not have nothing to do with state power. There is no equal relationship between "nation" and "individual". The nation will never be wrong. The mistake is all about the individual, so those who speak on behalf of the nation will always be upright and arrogant.
Nationalism is not easy to mess with. No matter who it is, "unpatriotic", "traitor" and "traitor" are all very heavy hats. In refuting this nationalism and pointing out its irrational characteristics, it even occurs that rational nationalist thinking cannot debate irrational nationalism at all, because there is no such dialogue as reasoning between reason and irrationality.
The primary premise of reasoning is to be willing to reason. Irrational and unreasonable are not only because I don’t know how to reason, but also because I am unwilling to reason at all. , such an extremely strong, domineering and violent irrationality, has gone beyond the scope of nationalist discussion itself. There is also such a situation in real life. Those who are reasonable cannot be unreasonable. If this becomes a universal reality, then society will also fall into a terrible state of irrationality and no right or wrong.
The nationalist discourse of "China is unhappy" is permeated with the arbitrary and domineering spirit of high-profile propaganda. There are many "judgments" with simple conclusions and no detailed reasons. It is a reprimand and unhappy declaration made with a condescending attitude, and simply disdain to consider possible dissent. The metaphor of "painting old cucumbers" is an example.
According to Wang Xiaodong, this statement refers to "national vitality". "(the metaphor of cucumber) refers to the vitality that this country now has. China has a longer history than the United States, and China has also failed in modern times, but China is now rising. For example, China's economic development speed is much faster than that of the United States."
What Wang Xiaodong didn’t know is that in any discussion, metaphors cannot provide direct “reason” for “conclusion”, and at best it is just an explanation. In other words, no matter how many explanations are made, if there is no reason to directly prove the conclusion, the conclusion is still unsatisfied. If it is a discussion of "national vitality", readers should be clearly told to tell them what national vitality actually refers to, what indicators should be, etc.
The reasoning discussion on national vitality is not about being the one who says "energetic" and the other who says "inactive", nor is it about making a choice between two completely opposite positions. Behind different positions, there are often different understandings about the nature and standards of vitality. The result of reasoning discussion is often the discovery that the understanding of vitality is actually much more complicated than "having or not".
Arbitrary slogans or metaphorical "judgment" is often a kind of trap of discourse that eliminates the opposing reasoning in advance. He said it was an old cucumber, but you disagreed with it. He said it was not an old cucumber. It seemed to be a refutation of him, but in fact he had fallen into his improper metaphor, because the country cannot compare it with cucumber.
"China is unhappy" sets a similar discourse trap for nationalism, as if the debate is between "nationalism" and "anti-nationalism" (labeled as "liberalism". In fact, this is a fallacy of "false opposition", because nationalism and liberalism are not both one or the other and mutually exclusive. As Tamir, the author of Liberal Nationalism, pointed out, some ideas of nationalism are inherently contained in liberal social and political practices.
demonstrates these ideas to make liberalism more widely accepted. Both liberals and nationalists often exaggerate the boundaries between universalism and specialism between their respective positions. In fact, this boundary is not tenable at all, so there is no need to stick to it. The idea of liberalism is not based on universal principles as it thinks it is.
Otherwise, why should citizenship in a liberal democratic country depend on birth rights and kinship, rather than the individual's nationality choice? Why do liberals believe that everyone should not be politically loyal to the most just government in the world, but should only be loyal to his own government (as long as this government acts fairly)? Why are the welfare of liberal democratic countries limited to their own citizens and not to be indirectly involved in others?
The conceptual behavior of liberalism actually contains certain values of nationalism. While liberalism cultivates national ideals, it also cherishes other humanitarian values that measure national ideals. "The result of this process is to re-clear legitimate national ideals and (right) means to pursue these ideals."
What is completely different from the nationalist argument of "China is unhappy" is that Tamir's discourse on nationalism uses a rational and detailed written rationalization language. Tamir's rational written reasoning language is completely unfamiliar to the authors of "China Unhappy", which only knows how to "talk" and "talk", and they must master it through humility.
In "Entertainment to Death", Postman was full of worries about the loss of people's ability to think due to changes in reading and receiving habits in the era of popular culture. He believes that in terms of reasoning, writing is better than spoken language, and the expression method of writing will have a healthier impact on culture. "The epistemology of printing culture is declining, and the epistemology of television culture is growing simultaneously. These will have serious consequences in the public, one of which is that we will become more and more ridiculous (due to naive thoughts)."
Piaget's theory is that people with only spoken language are less intelligent than those with written words, while people in "TV culture" are mentally inferior to those of the first two.
reasoning is a kind of thinking ability. It requires us to grasp the issues discussed as comprehensively and completely as possible and adopt a real and objective attitude. This requires reasoners to be careful of logic in the process of speaking and writing. At the same time, the reasoning must also be able to understand and judge the other party's attitudes and different positions.
When judging the reliability of reasoning, he must do several things at the same time, "including deferring the judgment until the entire view is completed; keeping the questions in mind until it has been decided when, where or whether they can be answered; using all relevant experiences as a counter-proof of the existing view. It must also be able to abandon knowledge and experiences that are not related to the view involved."
If many people in a society can do this frequently and consciously, they can help improve the thinking, judgment and reasoning ability of the entire society, and on this basis, they can also help maintain a rational, open and diverse civil society and democratic order. The actual influence of such discourse on people's politics and society cannot be ignored.
