2009-12-22

Life is easy, and life is tough

Recently there are much more discussions on "working" among friends. Of course it is natural as everyone are now in work or are graduates-to-be.

As a thoughtful person, you may now have a clear mind what you are doing. But the next moment you begin considering whether you should/can do it well, or even question on the meaning on all the efforts you've made. Then you lost interest on it and fail to do anything constructive for quite a long time.

Then someone who is really smart may come and ask you to find a better place, then you will have a easier life. But thoughtful people are people who are not smart enough to consider efficiency. Then you would simply find such comment insulting. To those people, being stubborn does deteoriate both their physical and mental life. But giving up is nothing better, or maybe worse.

As a hardworking person, you have a complete set of targets. You would finish every task one by one, with all your effort, without thinking.

I would call such kind of person simple-minded, though such a mind may lead to a easier life. I find it intolerable to have my life dominated by any particular thing, no matter how attractive it seems to be. At least I have to say, I think it is undesirable to work with extreme concentration for a long period of time. Partly because I find too many things interesting; partly because I don't want to be brainwashed.

You may love your work, but never have yourselves overwhelmed by your work. You need something interesting enough to work on, but when you find your work exciting and rewarding, be careful. It would be extremely dangerous when you start to define your lives (or yourself, at worst) with your job.

Don't believe it! Then you can enjoy TVB soap, flash games and internet forums happily.

One has to feel good, while never stop reinspecting himself.

So, actually you are not fucked by your job or position. You are simply fucking yourself.

Keep warm, instead of being over heated.

Life is easy, but life is tough.

2009-12-20

亂說中國哲學及其他

"權變"二字可以完全解釋我的道德準則. 個人亦不相信生活能夠得到數學性的答案. 因此對道德哲學沒有丁點興趣也不是甚麼奇怪的事.

沒 興趣歸沒興趣, 如果因為認識不夠而沒興趣可真冤枉. 想著這些無聊事, 終究還是花了點時間在道德哲學的課上(GPA當代政治哲學, PHI中國哲學史一). 結論: 維持原判. 政治甚麼的就不再多說了. 本來打算亂說一點對中國哲學史及中國哲學(先秦)的觀感, 最後還是忍不住說了其他話題.

哲學史的課有不少時間花在名詞解讀上, 並參照其他古人今人的理解, 看那一種比較符合本義. 說真的, 個人覺得這些討論並不重要. 每一種思想, 固然有其發生歷程. 但當這種思想被說出來, 被記錄下來之時, 便成為一獨立個體, 能脫離其歷史文化背景而影響不相干的後世. 解讀文獻不過是產生思想的過程. 因此個人認為, 拿起文獻, 不論忠於原著與否, 甚至不論能否自圓其說, 以合意的方式解讀即可, 亦不會令因此而產生的想法貶值 (話雖如此, 但個人對"作者已死"的想法仍感到不太舒服). 反正哲學與有組織宗教不同, 胡亂解讀經典在現世不會受人的懲罰, 死後亦不用受神的懲罰.

另一個問題更為根本. 個人對"哲學地", "文學地"閱讀文獻很有保留. "哲學", "文學"本來就是近代的玩意. 古人不分文史哲, 當然無法想像後人這樣讀書. 將這樣讀書就像沒有了讀書的感覺. 特別是"莊子", 拿來當作說給小孩聽的故事比當作哲學文字實在合適太多了 (事實上, 某人十二三歲時拿起一本與故事書無異的莊子, 好像明白了甚麼. 從這裡到往後輕飄飄的生活, 便是一條直路).

要說中國哲學以道德哲學為主, 應該沒有甚麼人反對吧. 極度簡化地說, 就是談人應該做甚麼, 怎樣才能達到, 以及這樣做的原因是甚麼; 進而應如何治國. 只有極少部份涉及宇宙觀及知識論問題.

儒家將治道講作個人私德的延伸; , 法亦將天下繫於一人身上. 中國的政治哲學, 大抵到此為止. 甚至到了現代仍有極多人抱這種想法, 當政者做了一兩件微小的好事就感激流涕, 一切劣積均可拋諸腦後. 實是愚不可及.

批評孔孟的古人在學理上或許沒有勝過孔孟, 其批評在現實上卻是顯然易見的. 以禮作仁義的表現, 最後人人都強裝做出了禮的條目而無仁義. 推己及人, 由親及疏, 結果是更大的自私. 這些都是發生過, 並仍在發生的事. 單從這方面看, 已知這些東西根本行不通.

有 朋友說, 讀論語孟子, 令人不得不質疑那些狗官憤青到底是否中國人. 聽到這種說法, 一時間太過激動地為偉大祖國辯護而忘記了重點. 事後再想, 這種說法可能又是受中化毒害的結果. "與青年談中國文化"一文, 極盡能事讚揚"中國人"的優秀面, 將現實與理想中的中國人混為一談, 誤導讀者. 生於現代, 若在受過兩千年的教訓後仍執迷於理想面而裝作看不到一塌糊塗的歷史, 則太過可笑.

說到一塌糊塗的歷史, 平心而論又不可完全歸咎於某種思想. 畢竟歷史從來都一塌糊塗. 但也應追究儒家為何能夠維持統治地位至今. 當然我是不知道的. 亂想了片刻, "科舉"二字跑了出來. 考試拿第一可以升官發財. 既然如此, 考試考些甚麼, 便讀甚麼吧, 怎會有學其他東西的閒情? 學生向來就是這個樣子 (也比不知為何而努力讀書強多了). 這樣, 當中國作為世上最多人懂得讀書識字的國家時, 卻在知識, 技術方面停滯不前, 確實可笑.

至此已經離題萬丈, 拜託把文章完結好吧! 倒沒有甚麼結論可言. 哲學說到底是價值判斷的遊戲. 只不過很對不起, 要談道德價值倒不如多讀點歷史, 不要再沉迷於不合理不切實際的空想.

2009-12-09

怕難

文字的欺騙性很高
此話怎說?
任何人一打開真槍實彈的科學課本都會立即打消閱讀的念頭, 這種殺氣來自數式
但滿是文字的書一點都不嚇人
總會有人認為, 既然認得書中所有的字, 在有限的時間內, 多厚的書應該都能讀懂
但也不排除只讀懂全書的字的可能
這就是所謂文字的欺騙性

對文史哲有興趣的人, 早晚都會遇上這些陷阱
此時便會有人自認為程度不夠, 自絕於這些怪獸之外
與這些恐懼巨著的人相較, 個人還是覺得不自量力的人比較可取
雖然一本書讀不完, 個人感覺也不會太好
把書打開, 然後莫名奇妙地放棄的事, 也不止一次

但只想著按步就班, 事半功倍, 不是辦法
因為本來就沒有甚麼步驟
而難度, 亦不過是印象中的難度

就以文學為例
作家, 導演不會遷就任何人
絕少有"給初學者"的作品
你以為武俠或科幻小說是初階, 應該先看, 可就大錯特錯
習慣了劇情片, 要離開可不容易

因此早晚也得踏出第一步
硬著頭皮去把他看完, 再找下一本
有一天幸運找到談得來的作者, 門便開啟了
迎面而來的, 是作者的友人, 作者的友人的友人, 和作者的友人的敵人

一本三百頁的小說, 一小時十頁, 看完了看不明白, 大不了就當作浪費了三十小時吧
電影更簡單, 兩小時三小時, 根本不算是甚麼
怎樣也比玩flash game做功課來得有意義
日積月累, 觀感會有所改變亦不足為奇
只在乎你有多想去把他們看懂

到頭來, 還是勤有功?
至少, 我們還是應該慶幸, 世上沒有太多不勤而有功的人

2009-12-08

In this optimized world

One or two years before, I believed that every process of significant importance is optimized.
What does it mean? It means the strategies, varies from trading, marketing, politics and diplomacy, are formulated in such a way that the cost being minimized, while positive effect maximized, with absolute rationality. Maybe some people find such a believe ridiculous. But for those who assume political and commercial leaders are ideally rational and selfish, such a conclusion is obvious.

Recently I am not so sure. For the numerical world, i.e. the business sector, optimization has already been a profession, in which a great variety of problems can be reformulated and solved in standard ways. And it is almost no doubt that my previous description on optimizing business has already been a goal for all big business. However, politicians cannot share the success of rational optimization in business sector because of their difference in the mechanisms of pricing.

In the political world (either external or internal affairs), there is no rules in pricing (at least in this stage). Maybe one day political considerations can be done with mathematical precision, but such a day is still far far away. In this stage, a leader with absolute rationality is still rare. Though I don't like to view everything in historical or cultural sense, it is still important to understand how much a society can shape individuals' minds. The seeds of irrationality are then introduced.

However, in any sense it is impossible to price according any moral value, unless everyone in the world is brainwashed. It is because the self restrictions a moral entity set to himself simply means surrender. Though the blind public always has moral sentiment, great politicians can rephrase the power consideration by moral argument, without any emotional involvement. Then the public will be willing to die for you.

Goodbye John Rawls. Let's greet Mr. Machiavelli.

2009-12-07


亂解EVA, 下場之慘大概與亂解可蘭經相若. 更重要的是, 自作多情地將個人觀點強加在作品之上並無限放大根本沒有意義 (單憑這句話已足以招至殺身之禍). 因此只胡說一下細微末節.

只 從第一印象看, 本片不過不失吧. 唯出現太多"可以完結"的點, 讓人不耐煩. 畫公仔畫出腸嘛, 其實又不太離譜, 不過個人覺得可以再收斂一點. 至於重做十多年前的題材, 難免畫蛇添足, 要加插些迎合現時觀眾口味的元素, 不喜歡也沒辦法. 至於預告嘛, 就是爛, 無須多言.

劇 場版將原本十數集的超人怪獸劇情大大濃縮, 而加以發揮真正重點, 較為有力. 但沒有前期的醞釀, 難以令人感受後發而至的衝擊. 這是劇場版必然的限制, 因此亦更顯得電視版無法取代. (但出自同一導演手筆的其他片集亦有此蛇頭虎尾的現象, 問題出在個人身上亦不足為奇.)

據 聞當年電視版因經費不足而走樣 (說真的, 個人覺得所謂走樣的三集一點也不賴). 現在有足夠資本, 導演希望能真正完成當年的構思, 或再加發揮, 有其道理. 撇開這個漂亮的想法, 不得不提的一點, 當然是以EVA作為如此受歡迎的作品來說, 拍成甚麼樣子也會有大量死忠去看. 看完即使極不滿意也仍會光顧週邊商品. 至於對十多年前的落後電腦特技無動於衷, 加上不耐無盡的洗腦片段的一般觀眾, 華麗並有速度感的劇場有一定的吸引力. 如此穩賺不賠的生意, 也沒有不做的理由.

因新劇場版而接觸EVA的人, 大概只有少數會回去看原來的版本. 這不是優劣對比的選擇, 問題只出在科技. 對此不得不感到可惜. 更不用提只有極少人能夠欣賞的真正的結局. 因為熱血不是EVA要說的話. 如能從中感受緩慢的孤獨迷惘看到一點光亮, 則不管怎麼說也錯不了的.

無論如何都要活下去, 可真是樂觀.

忽然覺得秀明拍的電影比動畫好了.