常常聽見別人說他的人生哲學,我於是想:哲學其實有兩個功用,亦可分作真偽。有一些人的哲 學,在心理上的作用是文過飾非,為自己的行為、選擇找一個漂亮/抽象/冠冕堂皇的籍口,在事情發生以後來建立自己行為的連續性,其實他自己心裏比誰都清 楚,他只是不經思考而隨便做的決定,這是我心目中的偽哲學;相反,有另一些人事事都講求原則和理由,時刻都追求自己行為的合理性,因此他會盡量在事前想清 楚一件事才做,希望事情的動機、過程和結果盡量和他的做人原則/哲學相乎,例如他的人生哲學是「平等主義」者,則他做什麼事都是以平等的理念為先,盡量對 所有人一視同仁,而不是對人的態度一時一樣,隨自己的情緒起伏而定。另外,前者會檢討自己的人生哲學看起來合不合理,想一想如何在過往不同的選擇建立連貫 性,像中共一樣調整整體哲學/理論來適合自己的行為,例如一時又毛澤東理論,一時又鄧小平理論,一時又「三個代表論」等等;後者則會檢討自己的行為合不合 乎自己的人生哲學,如何令未來自己的行為更有一致性及整體性,如何避免自己的行為出錯,如何減低行為和人生哲學不相乎發生的機會等;保守主義者,可能因為 一次待油站惡劣態度的店員太有禮貌而深深懊悔,檢討自己在什麼情況會忽然對低下階級的人友善,如何避免此等情況發生等。
在心理學的研究,亦支持人可以以行為的連貫性來分類的說法,有一些人的行為可預測性較高,因為他們講求原則,要世界乎合他們的做事方式;相反,另一些人的 行為可預測性較低,因為他們較重視的是適應環境,如何和環境配合而作出最有利自己的選擇。一般來說,行為的內在連貫性對於同一個人來說,多數是常數,即真 哲學的人行真哲學的路,偽哲學的人行偽哲學的路,各不相干。
2008年7月4日 星期五
真哲學和偽哲學的分別
2008年5月26日 星期一
The two kind of freedoms
When liberal talks about freedom, they often confuse two kinds of freedom. One kind of freedom is what usually guarantee by law: The freedom from fear, The freedom from deprivation, The freedom from torture, the freedom from religion. However, there is one kind of freedom which many of us ignore because of its nature: It is the freedom to become a better human, the freedom to self-actualize, the freedom to realize one’s potentialities. That is the freedom which Eric Fromm talked about in his books, and is a central tenet of Humanism.
One of disadvantage of Liberalism as compare to Humanism is that it lacks a goal of how to apply the freedom. Liberal only said what the state shouldn’t do, but it seldom said what the state should do to promote the physical and psychological health of its citizen, or at least how should the citizen use the freedom from state for a goal not just better themselves but also benefit the society as a whole. Those liberals have a strong case when conservative is imposing their ideal life into everyone else, but conservative has an upper hand in the sense which it give clear direction to its follower. Humanist could compete with conservative in the merit of the goal of freedom, which liberal can’t.
It appears to me that the major difference between political left and right is on the issue of freedom. For the political right, the left is imposing their positive freedoms onto the society, thus deprive the citizen a choice of not using the freedom positively. For the political left, the right is forcing their negative freedoms onto the society, thus deprive the citizen a choice of using the freedom positively.
One of disadvantage of Liberalism as compare to Humanism is that it lacks a goal of how to apply the freedom. Liberal only said what the state shouldn’t do, but it seldom said what the state should do to promote the physical and psychological health of its citizen, or at least how should the citizen use the freedom from state for a goal not just better themselves but also benefit the society as a whole. Those liberals have a strong case when conservative is imposing their ideal life into everyone else, but conservative has an upper hand in the sense which it give clear direction to its follower. Humanist could compete with conservative in the merit of the goal of freedom, which liberal can’t.
It appears to me that the major difference between political left and right is on the issue of freedom. For the political right, the left is imposing their positive freedoms onto the society, thus deprive the citizen a choice of not using the freedom positively. For the political left, the right is forcing their negative freedoms onto the society, thus deprive the citizen a choice of using the freedom positively.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)