[轉錄] 漢英對照: 儒家學說的黑暗面

[medusan (他媽的bad bad boy混蛋)]

※ [本文轉錄自 Confucianism 看板]

作者: medusan (大濕不出事，萬古如長夜) 看板: Confucianism
標題: [轉錄] The Dark Side of Confucianism 儒家學說的黑暗面
時間: Thu Dec 23 18:51:44 2004

The Dark Side of Confucianism 儒家學說的黑暗面
2004 10月12日星期二
原文網址: http://zen.sandiego.edu:8080/Jerome/1097546969/index_html

Confucius, his name has become synonymous with Chinese culture, thought, and
philosophy. In Taiwan his birthday, September 28, is celebrated as Teacher‘s
Day. Born at the end of the Spring and Autumn Period, Confucius (551-479 BC)
is probably the most revered and dominant of Chinese philosophers. So who
would criticize or challenge his teachings and what has this to do with
current Chinese politics?
孔子之名跟中華文化思想哲學﹐幾乎等量齊名。他在9月28日的生日﹐在台灣被人當成教
師節來慶祝。生於春秋戰國末期(西元前551-479)的孔子可說是中國最受崇敬而又最有份
量的哲學家。 所以﹐ 誰沒事幹要敢來批評或甚至對他的教誨來下戰書﹖ 更何況這跟當
代中國政治又有何相關﹖

Confucianism upholds the nobility of man; it preaches benevolence,
responsibility and reciprocity in relationships. Superiors should set an
example and inspire others to be good; they should change themselves before
they seek to change the world etc. etc. etc. How can such teachings have a
dark side?
儒家學說崇尚人的高貴情操﹔它推崇仁道﹐責任感﹐及推己及人。在上位者要作榜樣以鼓
勵他人為善﹔治國必先齊家等等。這麼好的教誨裡怎麼可能會有什麼黑暗面﹖


A Taoist would simply say, “When everyone sees good in the good, the bad is
already there“﹐but let us look into specifics.
道家會很簡單的回說﹐”在人必稱善之時﹐惡已隱乎其中”﹐不過我們在此不妨好好做一
下檢視。

First a look at the history, the teachings of Confucius and his disciple
Mencius (c.372~289 BC) began to gain official prominence in Chinese society
from the Western Han Dynasty (206 BC~8 AD) on. The Emperor Wu Ti founded an
Imperial Academy (124 BC) where officials would be specifically trained in
the Confucian classics for a year and pass exams for positions. This began
the civil service examinations. From then on the works of Confucius began to

首先從歷史的角度來看好了﹐孔子與其弟子孟子(西元前372-289) 的學說是在西漢時期(
西元前206-西元後8年)才開始在中國社會正式發揚光大。漢武帝在西元前124年成立了五
經博士制(石頭注﹐相當於現代國立大學) ﹐ 官員必須特別學習儒家思想﹐為期一年﹐通
過考試後才得晉用。這也是文治政府科舉考試的起源。從此儒家學說奠定了國家意識理論
與制度的基礎。

By the time of the Tang Dynasty (618~907 AD) the Confucian classics had
become firmly entrenched in the civil service examinations. To hold any
official district, provincial and national position in China you had to know
Confucian thought forward and backward and how to express it (not necessarily
believe it). Confucian classics became the Bible or at least the catechism of
the state. This would continue even when China as a country (not as a
culture) disappeared and it became part of the Mongolian and Manchu kingdoms.
等到西元後618-807時的唐朝﹐孔學已在文治政府科舉考試裡牢牢紮根。從地方省份到中
央﹐想在中國撈個一官半職﹐ 不管你為信徒與否﹐都得把孔孟學說熟悉到能倒背如流收
放自如的程度。孔學地位崇高有如聖經﹐至不濟也等同國家基本教義。這種情況﹐即使在
中國國祚(而非文化)已亡而成了蒙古及滿洲王國的一部分﹐仍然一直持續不斷。

After two thousand years it is no wonder that Confucianism became completely
ingrained as part of officialdom and subsequently part of the culture. People
were taught the Confucian hierarchy and that harmony lies in submission; a
pyramidic submission where the many submitted to the few as we shall see
shortly. Picture the benefits to the emperor and state officials learning a
system, which justified them at the top of the food chain and required all

像這樣子過了兩千年﹐儒家思想之所以會如此徹底的融入官僚體系並因而成為文化的一環
﹐當然也就一點都不奇怪了。人民從小就接受儒家的社會階級劃分﹐並被教導和諧之道在
於順服的美德﹔我們待會兒就要來細究這種有如金字塔般順從的行為模式﹐它一級一級劃
分下來﹐眾人都要順服於少數的幾人。這對皇帝與國家官員的好處簡直是無以復加。 想
想吧﹐他們一旦精通這種體系﹐ 就可名正言順高高在上隨心所欲的對其他所有的人頤指
氣使。這麼好的差使誰不要﹖

Confucianism was of course not the only influential tradition in Chinese
thought. The Legalist tradition developed in the fourth and third centuries
BC after the death of Confucius. Legalism found its fullest _expression in
the Chin Dynasty (221~207 BC). Machiavellian in aim and view, this tradition
focused not on what should be, but what is. It analyzed power, how to acquire
it, how to maintain it, and how to control the people with it. Disorder or
dissent of any kind in the state was not to be tolerated.
當然儒家思想並不是中國唯一有影響力的傳統思想。法家起源於孔子死後﹐西元前三四世
紀。法家在秦代(西元前221-207)全盛﹐ 思想本質與目標均與馬奇維利理論符合﹐它強調
的是人性本惡﹐以法施教。這個學說對權力專精 - 如何取得權力﹐如何維繫權力﹐還有
如何以權力來控制人民。國家對任何混亂與異議都沒有容忍餘地。


Han Fei-tzu (d. 233 BC) is considered the chief proponent of legalism. Where
Confucianism stressed man‘s potential for goodness, Legalism stressed man’s
potential for laziness, evil, selfishness, and deviation. These two schools
of thought started from completely different premises, but interestingly
enough, Legalism would be credited in part with providing the mechanism for
unifying all the warring states under Chin Shih Huang (Shih Huang-ti), the
founder of the Chin Dynasty.
大家公認西元前233年的韓非子為集法家之大成者。儒家強調人性本善﹐法家則認為人性
本惡。這兩個學說的理論大相徑庭﹐ 然而有趣的是秦始皇之所以能一統天下而立秦﹐多
少是倚賴法家道統以成。

The defining word for legalism is control, control, control and control. The
state needs strong rulers but most especially strong laws to keep man in
check. Han Fei-tzu stated that the emperor could use two handles to control
the behavior of his subordinates. These were rewards that would appeal to man
‘s greed and stiff punishments that would inspire his fear. Legalism's
brief, ruthless _expression in the Chin Dynasty was short-lived in history
but it left a lasting mark on Chinese thought in reality.
法家最重視的莫過于控制控制控制控制再控制。國家不只需要強人領導﹐更需以法勝民。
韓非子說君王所立之法必須是「設民之所欲以求其功，故為爵祿以勸之；設民之所惡以禁
其姦，故為刑罰以威之」。法家雖因秦朝的短暫與殘暴而早夭﹐不過實際上卻在中國思想
上留下了不可磨滅的痕跡。

What is the link of these two unlikely philosophies? In Chinese society,
Confucianism would come to be held up as the ideal; while legalism would
become what was practiced. Despite their opposite views of the nature of man,
in this symbiotic relationship Confucianism‘s worldview would ironically end
up supporting the legalist position and herein is its dark side.
在這兩個天地有別的思想流派當中到底有何聯繫之處﹖中國社會裡﹐儒家思想屬於理想派
而法家為實用派。雖然它們對人性的詮釋有南轅北轍的差異﹐然其共生的關係卻很吊詭的
造成了以儒家世界觀來鞏固法家地位的結果 - 而這也就是儒家的黑暗面。

Confucianism was the product of an agricultural, feudalistic society; its
purpose was to keep harmony within the structure of such an outdated society.
To do this, it postulated that life should be seen in terms of five basic

儒家思想是個封建農業社會的產物﹔ 目的在於保持這種舊式社會結構的和諧。為了達到
這個目的﹐它認為人生可被視為為五大基礎關係並四種社會階級。這就是我們必須探討的
根本。

Simply put, the five relationships are emperor to subject; father to son;
elder brother to younger brother, husband to wife, and friend to friend. Some
would add a sixth, that of teacher to student. These relationships are role
relationships not personal relationships; they don‘t change; they are part
and parcel of a system that is hierarchical and patriarchal.
這五大關係簡單說來就是君臣父子兄弟夫婦朋友。有人說應該再加上個第六個﹐也就是師
徒關係。這些關係跟角色有關而無關乎個人人際關係﹔它們再怎樣也無變化﹔跟這個體制
的階級關係與父權中心息息相關。

Each of these relationships, except that of friend to friend depends on a
hierarchy. They contain superior and subordinate roles. Both the superior and
the subordinate have their duties and obligations, but let there be no
mistake; it is always in the context of superior and subordinate.
這裡除了朋友之外﹐其它每個關係都有分階級的高下。一為主一為從。主從皆有其應守的
本份與義務﹐ 可是我們千萬不要搞錯﹔它再怎樣也還是主從關係。

The four social groups or class structures of the society are the
scholar-gentry, the peasants, the artisans and craftsmen and finally the
merchants. The scholar-gentry were deemed fit to rule because of their
education. The peasants, the majority of the people, had second place and
were given the dignity of work; this supposedly was to compensate for the
fact that they had no real power. The artisans (3rd place) were allowed
artistic _expression, which is probably better than being a hard-working
farmer. Merchants were given the lowest class because they went for profit (a
despicable factor for Confucianists). How many would not postulate the
opposite view that in the real world, money is power?
這四個社群(或可稱為階級地位結構) 為士農工商。學而優則為仕為官。由於以農立國的
關係﹐農夫的地位僅次于士﹐很有工作尊嚴﹔順便也趁機補償一下農夫無權的現實。佔第
三位的是工匠技藝﹐ 他們的地位其實可能比苦幹的農夫要來得好些。商人的社會地位最
低因為他們志在謀利(最受儒家學者詬病)。可是不知有多少人考慮過﹐在實際世界裡﹐金
錢即權力﹐事實反而與此顛倒﹖

Is there a gap between ideal and practice? Today the world is trying to beat
a path to the great China market. At the same time the factories in China
pour forth all sorts of sundry items ”Made in China“。 Of those who have a
choice in this matter how many would freely choose a "noble" life of a farmer
tilling the soil by the sweat of his brow? How many choose a more
"despicable" but lucrative career? I rest my case.
理想與實際間有沒有抵觸﹖今天全世界都在擠破頭搶大中國市場。同時中國工廠也在源源
生產各式各樣”中國製造“的產品。那些有選擇能力的人中有多少還會自由選擇”高貴“
的農夫生涯而汲汲營營於農務﹖有多少會選擇一個”可鄙“卻賺錢的行業﹖這根本連問都
不用問。

However, to return to Confucian ideals. Life (as was said) is seen in terms
of role relationships, not personal relationships. Herein is the rub.
Initially the roles may have been spoken of as a superior/subordinate
relationship; in practice the change to superior/inferior is quick and almost
unnoticeable. Cut it whatever way you want; quote the obligations of those on
each side of the spectrum, at the end of the day, when push comes to shove,
one is on top and the other is on the bottom, one is in control and one is
not. There is no such thing as equality.
然而我們現在要回頭來探討一下儒家的理想。它所謂人生被視為一連串的角色關係﹐而非
人際關係。關鍵就在這裡了。起初這些角色乃主從關係﹔實際上卻在不知不覺間很快的演
變成上下屬關係。隨你怎麼說都一樣﹔不管你再如何從兩極尋求對於責任義務的註解﹐說
來說去說到後來就是這麼簡單﹐ 怎麼樣都是一個在上一個在下﹐一個有控制權﹐ 一個什
麼都沒有。沒有什麼平等可言。

A father never switches roles with a son; a wife never switches roles with
her husband; an older brother never switches roles with his younger brother.
A teacher never switches roles with his student; the emperor never switches
roles with his subjects (barring a revolution in which case he is killed).
Why in the past 2000 years had the ideas of democracy and the equality of man
never been recognized until the present? Confucian structures would not allow
it.
父親決不會跟兒子交換地位﹔妻子決不能與夫易位﹔兄長決不會與幼弟易位。師徒不能換
位﹔ 君臣不能易位 (除非出了革命他被殺了以外)。 何以在過去兩千多年來﹐民主與人
生而平等的意念﹐ 直到現在才被人接受﹖ 無它﹐儒家社會結構無法容許它的存在。

Is this idealistic hierarchical structure that bad? Women, particularly
feminists most easily saw through the mutual responsibility sham.
Confucianism's concept of roles for life has dealt them all the bad cards. In
such a society, a woman is first subject to her father (a male), then to her
husband (another male) and finally if she is widowed to her son (another
male). Women had to know their place and stay in it.
這種理想性的階級結構真的那麼糟嗎﹖女人﹐ 尤其是女性主義者﹐最容易看穿這種騙鬼
的相輔相成說。儒家思想裡所謂的人生角色派給女人做的都是爛牌。在那種社會裡﹐一個
女人首先得受其父宰制(一個男人)﹐ 然後再受制於其夫(又一個男人)﹐ 好不容易等到丈
夫死了﹐又要受兒子控制(再一個男人)。女人始終必須認命的接受她們的地位。

In such a position a woman must either become submissive and hope the
superior
lives up to his obligations or learn to compensate and fight for power by
becoming wily and manipulative, or resorting to cajoling and nagging. A woman
can never ask for straightforward treatment as an equal.
處於這種地位的女人要嘛就得乖順聽話﹐希冀在上位者會記得履行他應盡的義務﹐不然就
得學會如何尋求補償以佔上風﹐ 有的用狡猾的手段利用別人﹐有的則採取一哭二鬧三上
吊的手法以遂所求。女人永遠無法直截了當的要求別人平等對待。

Males have always had the opportunity for balance. Even if they were sons to
their fathers and younger brothers to their elder brothers, they could gain
balance in their lives by being fathers to their sons and husbands to their
wives. Such was not the fate of women.
男人卻始終不缺平衡反制的機會。即使他們身為子弟﹐ 總有等到為父為夫的一日。女人
可沒這麼好命。

If anyone has lived in Chinese society for any length of time, you quickly
see that despite all the external rituals of consideration and displays of
harmony it is primarily a power culture. The relationships may be expressed
as ideally mutual, but they are hierarchical in practice. The authoritarian
father-knows-best mentality pervades. When you witness a divorce between a
man and a woman it is almost always a bitter, hate-to-the-death affair
because it involves not only the two people but also an affirmation or
negation of what each believes is the way life and society should be. The
bottom line question in all matters business, political and social comes down
to who has the power?
只要在中國社會裡住過一段時日﹐你很快就能發現無論它外表如何禮節繁複互相體念和諧
非凡﹐ 骨子裡卻是著著實實的威權文化。它所謂的關係表面上一副滿腹理想相輔相成的
模樣﹐實際上卻是階級主義的實踐﹐充斥著父威深重(原文用語為“父親最行”)的專制心
態。每逢目睹夫妻離婚﹐幾乎每回看到的都痛苦難當﹐憤恨到了極點﹐ 因為它代表的不
僅只是夫妻兩個人的離婚而已﹐ 更代表了個人對生命及社會價值體系的同意或否定。無
論你從任何經濟政治社會的角度來看﹐最終我們會問的還是 - 權力到底在誰手裡﹖

And Legalism, is it still a viable part Chinese political thought? Look at
the People's Republic of China (PRC). The ”liberation“ of the masses
allegedly took place over 55 years ago in 1949, yet in how many ways does

而法家是否仍為中國政治思想重要的一環﹖看一下中華人民共和國就夠了。人民的”解放
“說是發生於55年前的1949﹐ 可是至今多少專政控制手段猶存﹖ 國家仍然是極權的一黨
專政。

When the students (not radical revolutionaries) expressed the wish for more
democratic participation in Tiananmen Square in 1989, they were ruthlessly
murdered and their movement was put down. Here was no Confucian trust in the
benevolence of man’s nature. It was a legalistic response that the Chin
emperor would be proud of. In the name of "preventing chaos" this and other
atrocities continue to be done.
1989年學生(非急進的革命分子)在天安門廣場表達他們期望參與民主的希望之時﹐他們被
無情的謀害﹐整個運動遭到鎮壓。根本就看不到任何儒家所謂的人性本善之說。如此法家
表現﹐恐怕連秦始皇也會感到驕傲。而像這種及其它以”防止混亂“為名的殘酷手段至今
猶現。

Even in matters of religious _expression, the state seeks absolute control.
The Falun Gong are beaten and jailed regularly simply because they wish to
gather in public. These elderly ”radicals“ are not to be trusted. In the
Catholic Church, the state wants to appoint all bishops. In Tibetan Buddhism,
Beijing chose the 11th Panchen Lama in defiance of the Dalai Lama. Control,
control, control.
連宗教信仰﹐國家也要全然控制。只不過為了希望能公開集會﹐法輪功信徒橫遭挨打坐監
之事曾出不窮。 連對這些年老的 ”反動分子“都沒有信心。國家要幫天主教會挑選主教
。而為了跟西藏佛教的達賴喇嘛唱反調﹐北京自己挑選第11世的班禪喇嘛。一切都是為了
控制﹐控制﹐控制。

Look further at the restrictions and continued monitoring and censoring of
news media and the Internet. The ”liberated masses“ are still denied free
access to information. They cannot be trusted with it. The list of controls
can go on and on.
我們不妨把眼光拉遠點來看看新聞媒體及網際網絡所遭受的限制與持續性監視和檢查。”
解放的大眾“到現在還無法自由自在的取得資訊。國家不放心把這些交到人民手裡。國家
進行控制的手段﹐數不盡也寫不完。

What then is the strange symbiosis of Legalism and Confucianism? How does
Confucianism support such a controlling system? In politics it generates a
winner take all mentality; there is no such thing as a loyal opposition
party. Once a power is established, the hierarchy must be maintained.
Confucianism's hierarchical worldview is anti-democratic. There is no place
for dissent. You can speak of an emperor losing the ”mandate of heaven“ but
this euphemism is only applied after the fact to those who lose the power
struggle not to those who have still maintained it despotically.
到底法家與儒家這種奇怪的共生何來﹖儒家思想何以會去支持如此具控制性的體系﹖在政
治上它導致了一種贏者為王敗者為寇的心態﹔從來就沒有什麼所謂的忠誠的反對黨這種觀
念。權力一旦建立了就一定要全力維繫其階級制度。儒家的階級世界觀根本就反民主。沒
有異議的餘地。當然你大可論述皇帝如何如何而會失去"天命"﹐ 可是這種婉轉的說法只
有在當政者在政爭失權後才派得上用場﹐對那些還在以專制獨裁來維繫政權的暴君﹐ 說
這些是沒有用的。

In the name of harmony, Confucianism legitimizes and provides legalists with
the time they need to consolidate their control. Look at the histories of
self-appointed emperor Yuan Shih-kai (d.1916) who blessed China by dying
early and Mao Tse-tung who did not.
以和諧為藉口﹐儒家學說讓法家主義者合法化並給他們足夠的時間來鞏固其權力掌控。歷
史不辯自明。看看自己稱帝的袁士凱(1916)吧﹐幸而他早死﹐救了中國一命﹐ 可惜毛澤
東沒有早死。

Chiang Kai-shek preached Confucian values but practiced a totalitarian,
one-party rule. His legacy of continued subjection of Taiwan to martial law I
have already treated in #12 of this series.
蔣介石一天到晚在宣揚儒家價值觀﹐可是自己骨子裡卻是十足的一黨專政極權獨夫。他把
台灣長久壓抑於戒嚴令下的臭名﹐ 我已在這一系列文章的第12篇中提及。

And what about other major philosophical traditions in Chinese thought like
Taoism and Buddhism? These may have influenced certain rulers and people but
they have never dominated central political thought. Interestingly enough,
Taoism allows the spark of individualism in a highly communal Chinese
culture. Taoism has become the safety valve to release the pressure created
by an over insistence on harmony. Taoism allows one to withdraw from the
world and operate in a different sphere. It is the thinking behind two
expressions that one often hears spoken privately. "The Laws are for other
people, not for me," and/or "The Law is only there as a reference point."
至於中國其它主要傳統哲學思想﹐ 如道佛之類﹐又如何﹖它們可能對某些君主及人民有
些影響﹐可是從未主宰過任何政治中心思潮。不過有趣的一點是﹐道家在極度公共化的中
國文化裡點燃了個人主義的火花﹐為過度講求和諧的社會提供了減輕壓力的安全閥。道家
容許個人遁世而逃避到另一境界。 人們日常在私下耳熟能詳的兩句話裡﹐ 就隱含有道家
玄機﹕ 如”法律豈為我輩而設“﹐ 以及 ”法律只是給你放在那裡作參考用的。“

Buddhism on the other hand provides a viewpoint that promotes concern for
other people, those outside one’s family. Always suspect in the eyes of
strict Confucianism, Buddhism is credited with removing the warlike spirit
and curbing the acquisitiveness of Tibetans who once had captured the capital
of the Tang Dynasty. Buddhism did not have such political influence on China,
which in true legalist fashion pursues its aims to control the past Manchu
conquered territories of Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Taiwan etc.
從另一面來說﹐佛教則提供了另類思考﹐ 要對家人以外的他人加以關懷。雖然從純粹儒
家觀點來看﹐佛教教義啟人疑竇﹐ 然而佛教仍受其推崇﹐認為曾在唐代侵犯京城的藏人
﹐其好戰的天性都因接受佛教而化解﹐並使其不再如此貪得無厭。對中國的政治﹐佛教倒
是沒有引起過這麼大的影響﹐它仍然以法家道地的作風﹐尋求統治西藏蒙古台灣等曾被滿
清舊朝征服過的領土。

There is nothing wrong with Confucian values per se. However, the true
examiner
of any philosophical system must go beyond the system‘s professed values and
examine the underpinnings, presuppositions and "paradigmatic baggage" it
brings with it. Platonism, for example, saddled western thought with an
outmoded dualistic way of perceiving the world for over 2000 years. Many are
still locked into a Platonic idealism.
儒家思想本身並沒錯。不過一個人若要確實解讀任何哲學體系﹐就必須超越體系本身所宣
稱的價值觀念﹐ 而仔細研考底下的理論基礎﹐前提﹐及隨其而來的各種例證包袱。就拿
柏拉圖哲學來做例子好了﹐兩千多年來﹐它一直把西方思想圈在一個老掉牙的二元論裡來
體驗世界。很多人到現在都還擺脫不掉柏拉圖的唯心論。

Where should Chinese turn? They do have one example that has broken the
political mold of the past. Taiwan has shown that democracy is not
antithetical to Chinese thought. Democracy happened here. It came however not
from the Kuomintang ruling party but from the tangwai (those outside the
party) who were already on the island.
中國人該走向何方﹖他們其實有個已經打破了往日政治窠臼的例子可尋。台灣早就顯示出
民主制度跟中國思想無所違逆。民主在此茁生。然而它來自於身在台灣的黨外人士﹐ 而
與統治的國民黨毫不相干。

Taiwan’s history in its experience of numerous and various outside rulers is
different from that of China. One ruler, Japan, had already established a
multi-party system and Diet form of government in the 1890‘s before Taiwan
came under its control. Taiwan’s taste and struggle for democratic
participation had definite roots in its Japanese era when it had gained the
right to elect its own representatives to the Japanese Imperial Diet.
台灣歷史﹐ 跟中國相異之處在於它經歷過無數不同的外來統治者。其中之一的日本早在
1890﹐在還未管轄台灣之前就已建立了多黨系統與國會政府。 台灣對民主的愛好與奮鬥
早奠基於日治時代﹐ 當時台灣已能選舉自己的議員代表他們參加日本帝國國會。

Is there a chance that those on the other side of the Taiwan Strait could
learn from Taiwan‘s struggles and example? This is highly unlikely. A false
interpretation of Confucianism’s respect for history and tradition
interferes. This misinterpretation has already created a legacy of cultural
superiority that can only look backward for ideals. It prevents Mainland
Chinese from even thinking they could learn from a period tainted with

海峽對岸的人民有可能從台灣的奮鬥中求取經驗嗎﹖答案是非常不可能。利用儒家對歷史
傳統的尊重來誤導人民﹐為其一因素。這種誤導早已造成了一種傳統上的文化自大狂﹐認
為自己老舊的東西才是好的﹐也使中國大陸人根本無法想像他們可以從日治時代學到任何
東西。

Taiwan and China look on Japan with different eyes. For China, Japan will
always be the cultural son, the student who learned from the Tang Dynasty.
The teacher can never change roles with the student; the father can never
change roles with the son. Japan will always have the inferior role.
台,中對日本的看法大不相同。對中國而言﹐日本永遠都是文化上的兒子﹐是在唐代跑來
取經的學生。老師決不會跟學生易位﹐ 就如父親決不會跟兒子掉換角色一樣。日本永遠
都是不夠看的下屬。

It would also be unthinkable for Beijing to imagine it could learn from
Taipei (i.e. Taiwan). Since the Manchus once controlled a part of the island
of Taiwan, Beijing can only see Taiwan with eyes of control. Whenever Taiwan
offers the olive branch for open dialogue between the ”two Chinas,“ Beijing
responds in legalist fashion that it does not trust Taiwan‘s motives. As if
history has ever given Taiwan reason to trust the motives of the wolf on the
other side of the Taiwan Strait.
至於要叫北京想想它能從台北(就是台灣啦)學到什麼也是徒勞。光從滿清曾管轄過台灣這
一點說起就好了﹐ 北京只能從控制的觀點來對待台灣。台灣再怎麼樣釋放善意以期“兩
個中國”間能進行公開談判﹐ 北京都會以法家手法來回應說它不信任台灣的意圖。還說
得一副好像歷史給過台灣任何理由來相信海峽對岸那匹狼會有什麼善良意圖一樣。

What is left? Legalistic control is not the answer. A reexamination of the
spirit underlying the May 4th Movement (1919) is needed to establish the
proper role of Confucianism. At that time at least the traditions of language
and literature were freed.
那怎麼辦呢﹖ 法家的控制不是答案。我們應該重新檢驗1919年五四運動的精神以正確的
建立儒家思想所應享的角色。 至少當時語言及文學都得以從傳統裡解放了出來。

In the western world, it was learned that the separation of Church and State
was a necessary part of the development of democracy. Christianity still
remains a part of the culture and ideals, but democratic participation must
be free of it. In theory, in a perfect world, one can make a case for a
Christian state, an Islamic state, a Hindu state or a Confucian state. But
the world we live in is not the world where these religions and philosophies
were formed and it never will be. Perhaps those idealized pasts never existed
in reality.
至於西方世界﹐ 它已學到政教分離是民主發展必要的一部分。基督教仍然為文化理想的
一部份﹐ 然而它不能干涉到民主的參與。 從理論而言﹐ 在一個完美世界裡﹐無論是基
督教國家﹐回教國家﹐印度教國家﹐或儒教國家都無妨。可是我們存在的世界並非原本發
展出這些宗教哲學的世界﹐ 未來也不可能達到。 可能這些理想化的過去根本就不存於實
際的世界上。

The dark side of Confucianism with its roles and structures must be faced; if
not those with a legalist mentality and outlook will always manipulate it to
their ends.
儒家的黑暗面﹐ 包括其角色與結構﹐我們遲早都得面對﹔ 倘不如此﹐ 那些擁有法家心
態與期待的人永遠都會利用它以遂其利。


對祁夫潤專欄文章的迴響與評論，請移駕祈夫潤專欄的迴響與評論 一欄 Japanese rule.authoritarian control remain? The totalitarian one- party state still rules.relationships and four class structures. This is the base we must examine.others to be subservient. Who would not want to perpetuate such a system?be serve as the ideological background and framework of the state.

--
Men willingly believe what they wish.

~Julius Caesar

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) 
◆ From: 61.63.86.91
推 bipolar:推一下  請問可以借轉嗎
推 medusan:歡迎轉載
--
台北‧老是‧天災
非典‧淹水‧色情
露奶‧慢跑‧俊馬
依法處理‧謝謝指教‧好膽邁造
傳真機在天涯

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) 
◆ From: 59.115.147.240
推 tetsuro:很好的文章。
推 whackup:推好文
推 aler:推好文 對岸的如果看得進去就好了  不過  大概比登天還難吧
推 TAIWANSHIRT:看不到幾行就會開始說'洋鬼子懂啥中國文化?''