Chapter 36 about sublime

This happened in the 1970s: the river flooded and washed away a national utility pole.An educated youth went into the water to chase him, but he drowned when he failed to catch the telephone pole.The educated youth was commended and became a revolutionary martyr.This incident caused a little confusion among the educated youth: Is one of our lives worth a piece of wood?The result is that confused people get criticized, and to tell you the truth, I was one of the confused people myself, so I still remember this incident vividly.In my opinion, we have eaten food for many years to grow so big, and it must be worth more than a piece of wood; it is not worth trading us for wood.But people told me: National property is where the righteousness lies. When seeing it being washed away by the water, you don't even think about it, you have to go into the water to fish it.don't say wood

, even if it is a straw, you have to jump into the water.They also said that my argument about whether it is worthwhile is a kind of backward speech-fortunately, I haven't said that I am reactionary. In fact, when I was young, I was a standard young man with good water skills.When the water washes away the log, I must be the first to jump into the water. If the water is too strong, I may also be drowned and become a martyr, because I am not a duck after all.That said, I don't lack for the sublime, I just can't sing those high notes.After more than 20 years, I also read some books. From the book knowledge and personal experience, I came to the conclusion that there are only two kinds of people in our society since the beginning of Confucius and Mencius.One writes the scripts of life, the other acts out those scripts.The former type includes ancient sages and political cadres in the 1970s; the latter type includes ordinary people in ancient times and educated youths in modern times.This is what is meant by the so-called superior wisdom and inferior stupidity, and those who work hard govern others.In terms of temperament, I am only suitable to be an actor, not a screenwriter, but when I see that the script is too bad, I can't help but say a few more words, and I am treated as a backward person.After so many years, I am used to it.

In a civilized society, there are always sacrifices to be made by the individual—sacrifice of the “ego” for the achievement of the “superego”—and these sacrifices are noble acts.I never refuse to act in such a play, but I always hope that the plot is reasonable-I think such a request is not too much.For example, when floods wash away national property, we young people have the responsibility to rescue it. There is no doubt about it, but we must always ask what to fish for.It is reasonable to fish for wood, but it is too much to fish for straw.Such remarks are the antithesis of the sublime.People now would agree that it wasn't my fault: the script was poorly written.From this, it can be deduced that the sublime is not always right, and the low side sometimes has some truth.In fact, even a high-profile person will not jump into the water when a straw is washed away, but it does not prevent him from continuing to say so.In fact, some sublime is known hypocrisy, which is worse than depravity.

Man has the right to reject a hypocritical sublime, just as he has the right to refuse to go into the water to catch a straw.If this is true, it will put forward higher requirements for those who create or advocate social ethics: they must not only care about romance and sensationalism, but leave room for it;For example, Mencius invented a kind of ethics, saying that it is human conscience and ability to respect relatives and elders, and that being filial to parents, loyal to the emperor and patriotic is the righteousness of the world.Therefore, it is noble for the subjects to dedicate everything to the ruler.Mencius's articles are very sensational, which makes me feel ashamed. If he is willing to write poetry, he will be China's Byron.It's a pity that it doesn't make sense.After the subjects have sacrificed everything, what do they live on?For example, in the 1970s, people said that being unselfish is what is noble.It is better to take one step forward to die for the sake of publicity than to step back and live half a step back for selfishness.It doesn't make sense: we're all dead, who's going to do the work?Notorious hypocrisy abounds in the days of sentimental ethics; for to live by those high-pitched ones is to die of exhaustion or starvation--high-pitchedness plus hypocrisy to make a viable way of life.We know from history that Neo-Confucianism in Song and Ming Dynasties was a kind of high-profile.The more prosperous Neo Confucianism, the more hypocritical people are.We know from personal experience that the seventies were at their highest pitch.The educated youth did everything in order to go to college and return to the city.There is a kind of hypocrisy that is not to be condemned, because it is in order to be alive.Now some people are advocating the pursuit of the sublime. I don't know if they are advocating rationality or sensationalism.If it is the latter, it is an old problem.

In England, on the contrary, there is an ethics that is not at all sensational.Let us begin with the opposite—Mr. Russell says of the utilitarian ethicists: "These are men whose theories are base, but who care for the welfare of their fellow men, and whose personal character is impeccable." of.Then let us say it in reverse—since our ethicists here advocate the opposite ethics, the evaluation should also be the opposite.Although their theories are lofty, they ignore the interests of the majority; this kind of paranoia is also rewarded by the government. In the 1970s, if they sang well, they could be promoted-it's hard to say how good they are.I always feel that people with a sensational temperament are wasting their talents by singing high-profile: you should try to write poetry—in my opinion, the political cadres in the 1970s had the temperament of poets—and leave the work of creating social ethics to those It is not a bad thing for a person who is good at reasoning to be both public and private.