Chapter 18 Chapter 17 Reversing Right and Wrong, Confusing Black and White

★The concept of sophistry The eloquence of the Chinese is world-renowned, and there were even full-time "lobbyists" in ancient times. In foreign countries, the word "sophistry" was first evolved from the Greek word "wisdom".So far, the word "sophism" in English still shares the same root "sophy" with the word "philosiPhy", which means "wisdom".It can be seen that sophistry is a kind of argumentative wisdom. "Ci Hai" defines sophistry as: not grasping the problem objectively from the overall connection of things, but proceeding subjectively, arbitrarily picking one side of things as an excuse, or making plausible arguments based on the superficial similarity of events to reverse black and white, Confused right and wrong.

The so-called sophistry is to deliberately reverse right and wrong and confuse black and white.Arbitrary, there is no reason at all; rumors, purely out of nothing.Sophists always have to come up with a lot of "grounds", which can confuse some people on the surface. The citizens of a city in ancient times did not know that a man who called himself a wise man was a sophist, and they were eager to listen to his speeches on wisdom. They spent a lot of money and finally invited the sophist who called himself a wise man to the platform they specially set up for him. . On the first day, the sophist came on stage and asked the audience, "Do you know what I'm going to say?" Everyone said they didn't know.So the sophist said: "Since you are so ignorant, what's the use of my speaking?" Then he walked off the platform.

The next day, he went up to the podium and said to the audience: "Do you know what I'm going to say?" Everyone remembered what happened yesterday, so they all said they knew.The man then said: "You already know it, and it doesn't make sense for me to repeat it." Then he walked off the platform. On the third day, the sophist stepped onto the podium again and asked loudly: "Do you know what I'm going to say?" Some of the audience said they knew it, and some said they didn't know it.Unexpectedly, the sophist said: "Those who know, go tell those who don't know!" After speaking, he walked off the platform and walked away.

The citizens had no choice but to leave the podium as a pillar of shame for the city.Of course, there are also a few citizens who know that this sophist has actually taught the citizens of this city three vivid lessons, all of which are about wisdom and are not difficult to understand.Of course, when viewed in conjunction, it is a complete lesson on sophistry. Sophistry is wrong in practice and right in logic. Zeno was an ancient Greek philosopher who was very good at sophistry.One of his well-known sophistry of "Achilles will never catch up with the tortoise" is this: Achilles is a hero who is good at running in ancient Greek mythology.Suppose the tortoise climbs a distance and then Achilles goes after it.Zeno believed that Achilles would never catch up with the tortoise.Because the former must first reach the starting point of the latter before catching up with the latter, but at this time the latter has climbed forward for a while.So the former had to catch up with this section of the road again, but at this time the latter climbed forward again.Because the distance between Achilles and the tortoise can be divided into countless small segments in turn, Achilles will never catch up with the tortoise even though he is getting closer and closer.

Of course, this conclusion is wrong in practice, but it is strange that there is nothing wrong with the logic of this argument. In ancient Greece, there is an even better sophistry that goes like this. There is no sound when one grain of millet falls to the ground, there is no sound when two grains of millet fall to the ground, and there is still no sound when three grains of millet fall to the ground. This is also wrong in practice and right in logic. The result of "wrong in practice, right in logic" shows that the situation of thinking is different from the situation of facts, the truth in thinking and the truth in fact are different truths, and these two kinds of truths have different uses respectively.For example, logical theorems and facts are often inconsistent.

There is a logical theorem that says "any false statement can lead to any false statement", which sounds ridiculous.As a result, someone really asked the great British philosopher Russell to prove that "Russell is the Pope" from "2+2=5".The incomparable Russell made the following proof: Assume 2+2=5; subtract 2 from both sides of the equation to get 2=3; transpose to get 3=2; subtract 1 from both sides to get 2= 1; The Pope and Russell are two people, but since 2=1, the Pope and Russell are one person, so Russell is the Pope. Some people say this conclusion is a joke. If so, it should be said to be a very profound joke.

It is indeed important to understand that ideas and facts are two different things.In fact, this is not difficult to understand. Points, lines, planes, parallel lines, triangles, circles, etc. that we learned in school do not exist in fact, they are just idealized things in thought.The connection of ideas to facts is only in the form of the application of ideas to facts.The two sophistries mentioned above are not useful other than a wake-up call to wrong ideas, because they are really absurd. "Chicken with three legs" is a famous sophistry of Gongsun Longzi, a thinker in the Spring and Autumn and Warring States Periods of China. It is said that a chicken has one leg, one leg is said that a chicken has a left leg, and one leg is said that a chicken has a right leg. There are three legs in total.In reality, some people often use the sophistry techniques in traditional culture to achieve their own goals.If it is declared that a man can neither study what he knows, because he has no need to study, nor what he does not know, because he does not know what to study.Therefore, the so-called "learning old" is meaningless.Some people also say that the starting point of sophistry is subjective idealism; others say that the starting point of sophistry is metaphysical materialism. From the perspective of dialectics, the essence of sophistry is a means of blurring the truth by using logical relations in language.

There is not much difference between the two words "sophistry" and "cunning argument" in ancient times. There is "cunning" in "cunning", and "cunning" in "qiao".Later, the meanings of the two words became increasingly separated, and a clear distinction emerged.Some people think that sophistry is a wrong argument, and sophistry is a correct argument.However, although all sophisms are false, not all rhetoric is true. What both have in common is that they are both logical.If in a debate, the debater uses "sophistry" to subdue the opponent skillfully, it can only be called rhetoric; in diplomatic occasions, one party uses "specious" arguments to counter the opponent's unreasonable demands, which is often called eloquence.

★Features of Sophistry Sophistry has many forms, all of which have certain characteristics.For example, specious, white horse is not a horse, severed contact, etc.Understanding the characteristics of sophistry is very helpful for a correct understanding of sophistry. ◎Plausible In ancient times, there was a rascal who refused to repay the money he borrowed from others.No way, the person who lent him the money had to sue the government. On this day, the county magistrate opened a court session to hear the case.The county master cut straight to the point and asked the scoundrel: "Why don't you pay back the money you borrowed?"

The rascal replied: "My lord, you don't know. The me now is not the me who borrowed the money. The one who repays the money should be the me who borrowed the money, not the me now." The county magistrate is a fool. Hearing what the rogue said, he felt that it seemed reasonable, so he declared the rogue innocent and closed the case. The person who lent money to the rascal became more and more suffocated, and in a fit of anger beat the rascal until his nose was blue and his eyes were swollen, and his head was bleeding. After a few days, the rascal's injury healed a bit, so he also went to the county master to file a complaint.The county magistrate sent the borrower and asked:

"Why did you beat someone in broad daylight?" The borrower replied: "Master, you don't know something. I am no longer the one who beat people. The one who punished me should be the one who beat people in the past, not the current me." The confused county magistrate thought, "That's right!" So he announced his acquittal and released him. This story vividly exposes the specious sophistry. The ancient Greek thinker Heraclitus had a famous saying: "One cannot step into the same river twice." He had a student named Cratylus, who was the earliest representative of the Sophists in ancient Greece.Cratylus pushed the teacher's above point of view to sophistry, saying that not only cannot step into the same river twice, but "not even once".If we asked him, "Is this the Yangtze River?" he would surely answer, "No, I can't say what it is, because it changes when I say it." Cratylus' argument reveals another main feature of sophistry: plausibility, uncertainty.The sophistical and indeterminate point of view is actually a relative point of view, which breaks through the previous absolute point of view and has certain progressive significance.However, its relativity rejects any absoluteness, and it overflows into relativism.Lenin once pointedly pointed out that from the point of view of naked relativism, any sophistry can be proved to be correct. It can be considered that whether Napoleon died on May 5, 1821 is "conditional" and can be purely for the sake of The "convenience" of man or mankind recognizes the scientific ideology (which is "convenient" on the one hand) and the religious ideology (which is "convenient" on the other hand) at the same time, and so on. Lenin summed up the sophistry's relativism ideological roots sharply.Marxism believes that any truth is both absolute and relative, and it is the unity of the two.From an absolute point of view, any truth contains objective content that does not depend on anyone, and cannot be overthrown, and every step forward in human cognition is an approach to the infinitely developing objective world; from a relative point of view, The cognition that human beings have actually achieved is always limited, and any cognition of truth is only a correct reflection of a certain aspect, a certain degree, and a certain level of the object.It can be seen from this that any truth is both absolute and relative, and any truth is a link in the transformation from relative truth to absolute truth. The sophistry of relativism is similar to the two-point dialectics of "one divides into two". In reality, sophists often call themselves dialectical materialists.It is certainly correct to talk about two aspects of an issue, but these two aspects should not go hand in hand, at least you should have your own analysis and judgment, otherwise what you talk about is tantamount to not talking about it, and it is not the dialectic of "one divides into two", but Paradoxical relativism too.Lenin once said that it only takes one small step, seemingly in the same direction, to turn truth into error. ◎Separate contact Separation of ties is a central feature of sophistry. In reality, some politicians in Western countries attack my country's family planning policy as a violation of human rights, using the sophistry of severing ties.They said: Fertility is a natural right of human beings, and family planning violates human rights.At first glance, this statement seems high-sounding.In fact, in essence, human beings are social beings, and any talk about human rights that is divorced from society is a sophistry that separates the connection.Procreation is a human right, but the implementation of this right cannot hinder the implementation of the more important human rights to survival and development.In a country with scarce resources like ours, if birth control is not carried out, more people will struggle in poverty, and the right to survival and development will be threatened.Treating reproductive rights as a purely natural issue is tantamount to equating human beings with ordinary creatures.Only by linking reproductive rights with social development can we scientifically formulate reproductive policies based on social reality. Gongsun Longzi, a famous sophist, wrote an article "On Jianbai", arguing that Jianbaishi (hard and white stone) is one thing, and "hard" and "white" are its two attributes.When you touch it with your hand, you only know its hardness but not its white color; when you look at it with your eyes, you only see its white color but you do not know its hardness.The properties of hardness and whiteness are separate from each other.He interprets the world with an isolated and static and therefore one-sided view, denying the existence of connections and contradictions between things.And dialectics holds that: the connection is inherent in the thing itself, exists objectively, and does not shift according to people's will.Connection is also common in all things. The elements inside any thing in the world are interrelated, and any thing is interrelated with other things. There is no absolutely isolated thing in the world.But these connections are diverse, some are direct, some are indirect; some are internal, some are external; some are essential, some are non-essential; some are horizontal, some are vertical. Analyzing from a dialectical point of view, the "firm" and "white" in Jianbaishi are both attributes of "stone", and the three are connected as a whole. The connection between them should not be separated, and they should be regarded as three isolated things .Xun Kuang, a thinker in the late Warring States period, criticized this view of separating things: "The separation between the same and the different is what the sharp ear cannot hear, the sharp eye cannot see, and the debater cannot speak. Although one has the knowledge of people, but does not know them well, if one does not know harmlessness, one is a gentleman, but if one knows harmlessness, one is a villain. A craftsman does not know harmlessness, but one is skillful, and a gentleman does not know harmlessness, and one governs. Princes like it, and they disrupt the law; common people like it, chaos.” Xun Kuang believes that the debates that separate hard and white, and similarity and difference are harmful. ◎A white horse is not a horse Sophistry has a famous assertion - a white horse is not a horse.This assertion was first put forward by a Song Dynasty native named Er Shuo in the Spring and Autumn Period, and was later developed into a "White Horse Theory" by Gongsun Longzi. They said: The concept of "horse" is defined in terms of shape; the concept of "white" is defined in terms of color.The regulations on color and the regulations on shape are not the same thing.Therefore, the concept of adding the two, that is, "white horse", is of course not the same concept as "horse", which only expresses the concept of body. This sophistry has already been criticized in Han Feizi's "Foreign Reserve Says Upper Left".Han Feizi told a story about his son going out of customs: his son said he rode a white horse to get out of customs.The gatekeeper mocked him and said, the approval document says one person and one horse, and you are riding a white horse, which is not a horse. How could your white horse pass through the gate?It made me feel embarrassed. This use of superficial phenomena to conceal the essence of things is another major feature of sophistry.Marxism believes that looking at things dialectically requires grasping the essence through phenomena, requires scientific analysis and research, and goes through a complex process of continuous deepening.In the argument that "a white horse is not a horse", the sophists actually only grasp the superficial differences between "white horse" and "horse": one is the concept of color plus shape, and the other is the concept of shape.They did not reveal the essence of "white horse" and "horse"—one is a genus concept, the other is a species concept; the genus concept expresses the characteristics that are different from other genera, and the species concept expresses the characteristics of the species; The two concepts are different, but this does not prevent them from having a common nature. But beware that any sophistry is done to cover up the truth. ★Sneaking Sophistry Sneaking is a common method of sophistry, and the common ones are changing concepts and topics.Dealing with this sophistry requires a certain skill. ◎The method of anti-swapping debate topics Sneak-changing the topic of debate means that in the course of the debate, the debater deliberately changes the meaning of the topic of debate, quietly and quietly replaces the topic to be debated with another topic, and secretly replaces the original topic with another topic , its purpose is, or to make the topic of debate beneficial to one's own side, or to cover up one's own grievances, or to avoid sharp contradictions, or to fish in troubled waters.This kind of sophistry that secretly changes the topic is also a sophistry that deliberately violates the requirements of the same law.The specific method of sneaking is often to use polysemy to confuse concepts that have the same form of words but do not express the same concept as the same concept. Once upon a time, there was a rich man who was very mean and mean.He hired three cowherd boys, and did not give him any clothes in winter.The cowherd boy asked the rich man for clothes, and the rich man said: "People say 'children's buttocks are three pots of fire', how can they freeze?" One day, a guest came to the rich man's house and asked the cowherd boy to boil water and make tea.After a long time, no tea was brought.The rich man went to the backyard to look for it. When he went to the backyard, he saw that the kettle was hanging on the bracket, and three naked cowboys were lying motionless on the ground with their buttocks facing the kettle. The rich man was furious when he saw it, and scolded: "What are you doing, why don't you boil water and make tea for me!" The three cowherd boys said calmly: "Master, didn't you say 'the child's buttocks are three pots of fire'?" ? There are nine pots of fire for three people, the water will boil in a while, don't worry." When the rich man heard this, he was speechless and speechless. In this story, the rich man used the "three pots of fire for the child's butt" to make a sophistry, and the three cowherd boys also used the sophistry form of "the child's butt three pots of fire" to fight against the sophistry. In the Ming Dynasty, a cabinet scholar surnamed Jin, his father was not well-known, and his son was very incompetent, but his grandson was admitted to Jinshi.The bachelor often scolded his son, calling him an unfilial son and useless.Later, the son couldn't stand the scolding, so he confronted the cabinet scholar: "Your father is not as good as my father, and your son is not as good as my son. What's wrong with me?" This son also used sophistry. Originally, what the son wanted to debate was whether he was successful or not, but he deliberately changed the topic of the debate to how "your son" compares with "my son", "your father" and "my father". "Compared to how, the original topic of the debate was avoided.Therefore, this is a typical sophistry of stealing topics. A university held a debate entitled "Purpose of Life."Many students spoke one after another, and the purpose of life is also varied: the purpose of life is for the happiness of others and mankind, only when everyone is for the happiness of others can one be happy, and so on. But one classmate disagreed with the above point of view. He retorted: Facing the harsh reality, I have to admit that life is a struggle and struggle for one's own survival. ...isn't it?Workers work to receive wages to live; farmers farm to clothe themselves and eat; writers write books to be seen by others in order to receive royalties; barbers seem to be purely for others, but they are also paid.It is true that there are people like Lei Feng who are dedicated to the people, and there are people who work selflessly for the happiness of mankind like some scientists, but such people must also have a basis for their own survival, that is to say, they must first strive for their own survival. Labor, otherwise, even if he cannot survive himself, how can he work for others? Here, the rebuttal used by this classmate is to steal thematic sophism.Because people not only have natural attributes, but also have social attributes.As soon as a person comes to the world, he is placed in a certain social relationship.Under the influence and constraints of these social relations, people learn to participate in social life and fulfill social obligations. This process is also the process of human socialization. As Marx said, the essence of human beings is "the sum of all social relations."Even human nature is no longer a purely animal natural attribute, but a socialized natural attribute.Therefore, "life purpose" refers to the purpose of life as a social attribute, which is a social problem.However, the rebutters attribute the essence of human beings to their natural attributes, secretly replace the debate on the purpose of life with the problems of human physiology and instinct, and draw the conclusion that "life is a struggle and struggle for survival". sophistry. In a debate, if two or more parties do not have a unified topic, the debate cannot proceed normally.Therefore, if we want to subdue those sophists who seek to succeed in conspiracy by secretly changing topics, we must expose the opponent's cover-up attempts to achieve the goal of winning the debate. ◎Anti-stealing concept sophistry Swapping concepts is a sophistry that deliberately violates the requirements of the law of identity.In a specific thinking process, our thinking must be deterministic, and its meaning cannot be changed casually, which is the requirement of the law of identity in language logic.By the same token, in the process of a certain debate, our thinking must also be certain, and we cannot change it casually.However, in order to achieve their sophistry purpose of disturbing the audience and to make their fallacies stand, sophists often adopt the method of randomly substituting the meaning of a certain concept.We call this kind of sophistry that casually changes the meaning of a certain concept as the sophistry of changing concepts.Because concepts must be explained in words, those who secretly change concepts always make a fuss about some words. On a bus, a young passenger smashed a window glass while trying to get off the bus. The conductor said to the young man kindly: "Comrade, you broke the glass, and you have to pay for it according to regulations." The young man asked back: "Why should I pay?" The conductor explained patiently: "If people's property is damaged, they should be compensated." The young man said: "I am a member of the people. I have a share of the people's property. There is no need to pay for it. I don't want my share!" This young man is sophistrying.He is playing a kind of sophistry that steals concepts. Logically speaking, "people's property" is a collective concept and is indivisible, but the young man deliberately regarded it as a non-collective concept to argue sophistry. Two middle school students approached the teacher and asked: "Teacher, what is sophistry?" This well-versed teacher of philosophy does not directly answer the question.He considered it a little, then said: "Two people came to visit me. One was clean and the other was dirty. I told them to take a bath. Come to think of it, which of them will wash?" "It goes without saying, of course it's that dirty man." The student blurted out. "No, it's the clean man." The teacher retorted, "because he has developed the habit of taking a bath; the dirty man thinks there is nothing to wash. Think about it again, who took the bath?" "Clean people." The two students changed their words. "No, it's the dirty person, because he needs to take a bath; and the clean person is clean, so he doesn't need to take a bath." The teacher retorted.Then, he asked again: "Now, who of my guests took a bath?" "Dirty man!" the student repeated the first response. "It's wrong again. Of course, both of them took a bath." The teacher said, "The clean person has the habit of taking a bath, while the dirty person needs to take a bath. How about it? Which of the two of them took a bath?" "It seems that both of them have washed." The student replied hesitantly. "No, neither of them took a bath." The teacher explained, "Because the dirty person doesn't have the habit of taking a bath, and the clean person doesn't need to take a bath." "It makes sense, but how should we understand it?" Two students said dissatisfiedly, "What you say is different every time, but you are always right!" This is sophistry.The reason why the result of "the teacher's teaching is different every time, but always right" is because the teacher involves two standards in the explanation at the same time, one is physical requirements and the other is psychological requirements.Every time the teacher chooses an answer that is different from the standard chosen by the students, he will naturally draw the opposite conclusion to the students.In other words, the concept that the teacher said is different every time.Therefore, student responses are always indeterminate.It can be seen that sophistry is caused in this way.Therefore, if students can think about the teacher's answer standard in a deeper level and point out his mistakes, the teacher's sophistry will be useless. Swapping conceptual sophistry is a sophistry trick, and we must not take it lightly in debates.If we lack the ability to rationally analyze this kind of trick, sometimes it will turn into a dilemma. The party with "reasonable" holds its breath secretly, while the party without "reasonable" is arrogant. As the saying goes: "To hit a snake, you have to hit seven inches." In the same way, the key to refuting sophistry is to grasp the essence and hit the vital point.Because the substantive issue is actually the key issue, the substance determines the problem, and the substance determines the basic tendency of the problem, grasping it can put the sophistry to death. When Trotsky joined the Bolshevik party led by Lenin, he made this statement: "The very fact that I joined the Bolshevik Party proves that I have placed at the party's door all that which in the past separated me from Bolshevism." Those "things that are separate from Bolshevism" are actually things that are anti-Party. For these things, one must either abandon them or keep them. The two must be one of them. Why did Trotsky say "put them at the door of the party"? ?This in itself is a kind of ambiguous, ambiguous political sophistry. Regarding this matter, Stalin retorted: "Did he put these things at the door of the party in order to store them for future struggles in the party, or did he simply take them and burn them? It seems that Trotsky Key placed them at the party gates for storage. Otherwise, how would one explain the continuous disagreements with the party which Trotsky entered into shortly after joining and which have not ceased to this day?" Stalin's rebuttal can be said to hit the nail on the head, pointing out the reactionary essence of Trotsky's playing with political sophistry, and exposing his true face of opposing the Bolshevik Party. ★Distortion law sophistry Distorting the meaning of words to achieve one's own purpose is a frequently used method of sophistry.Knowing some cases of twisted sophistry is very helpful for the use of twisted sophistry. ◎Use of distorted sophistry The king of Chu attacked the state of Wu, and Wu envoy Juwei led his people to comfort the Chu army.The Chu general shouted: "Tie it up, kill it, and smear the war drum with the blood of the envoy Wu." Then he asked Ju Wei, who had been tied up by five flowers: "Did you get a fortune-telling when you came?" Answer: "Divination." "Is the divination auspicious?" "auspicious." "Now I'm going to kill you, where is Ji?" Juwei replied: "This is where the auspiciousness lies. Wu Guo sent me here to test the general's attitude. If the general gets angry, then Wu will dig deep moats and build high fortresses; if the general's attitude is gentle, then Wu will The defense of the country will be relaxed. Now that the general is going to kill me, the country of Wu will definitely strengthen its vigilance after learning about it. If I kill me alone and save the country, what is it if it is not auspicious?" The "divination" and "auspiciousness" mentioned by general Chu were for Wu Shi alone, and Wu Shi was also clear about this, but he deliberately misinterpreted it as "divination for the country" and "good luck for the country". Ju Wei's words, if viewed from the standpoint of the state of Wu, are ingenious and clever, but if viewed from the standpoint of the general of Chu, they are out-and-out distortions and sophistry.It can be seen that the difference between sophistry and sophistry is not a question of logic, but a question of emotion and value. The envoy Wu was saved from death because of his ingenious argument, because the general of Chu fell into the trap of distorting the law and sophistry. The ancient Greek sophist Obrid got a lawsuit and went to prison.One day, the Grand Duke ordered Obrid to go to the grain drying field and take the grain pile back to the warehouse before it rained.Obrid dawdled, and the millet was soaked by the rain.The Grand Duke questioned Obrid, but he said: "Isn't a grain of grain a heap? Adding another grain can't make a heap, so every time you add a grain, you can't form a heap. Therefore, the heap never exists." , you asked me to transport grain piles, how can I do it?" The Grand Duke didn't know how to answer this sophistry. However, when Obrid received the wages from the Grand Duke for serving in prison (there was such a local rule at that time), the Grand Duke followed Obrid's sophistry and said: "A coin is not your wages, is it?" ? Adding another coin is not your wages, so every coin added is not your wages, so your wages do not exist at all, how do you ask me to pay your wages?" The Grand Duke retorted with actions, very good! In ancient times, a man was drunk and passed by the gate of a house, and then vomited towards the gate of the house. The gatekeeper of the family shouted loudly, "Why are you vomiting at the gate?" The drunk seemed to hear it, squinted his eyes, and said, "Yes, yes, it is the door of your master's house. It is the door of your master's house. It should not be facing my mouth." The gatekeeper suppressed a smile and said, "The gate of my master's house has long been facing this direction, and it wasn't built to face your mouth just today." The drunk man didn't seem to be drunk—he pointed to his mouth and said, "This mouth of mine, this mouth of mine is also quite old..." The gatekeeper finally couldn't help it, he laughed loudly, and didn't bother with the drunk anymore. Reason-imposed sophistry is easy to do when it comes from a drunk—wait until he sobers up; if it comes from someone else, then we have to punch him awake—but if we can’t, we’ll find another way. A guest came to an old man's house. In order to show off how smart his grandson was, the old man forced his grandson to recite 26 English letters in front of the guest. The little grandson got stuck just after reciting an A.Guest Inspiration said: "What's behind A?" The child could no longer remember it was B, but to cover up his ignorance, he said: "All other letters." Here, the guest's question—"what's after A"—originally has a clear meaning, that is, what is the letter immediately following A?The grandson of the old man is also clear about this point, but he deliberately pretends to be deaf and foolish and misinterprets it.This is a typical sophistry of misinterpretation. There was a man named Bu in the state of Zheng, and his husband and wife were usually at odds. Once, his trousers were worn out, so he asked his wife to make a new pair.The wife bought a few feet of cloth and asked him: "What do you do?" He said, "Do it like my old pair of trousers." After his wife made it according to the original pattern, she compared the ripped trousers and cut out holes in the ragged places so that it was almost exactly the same as the ripped trousers, and then gave it to her husband. When he saw it, he was furious: "How did you make it look like this!?" The wife took out the torn trousers and said: "Didn't you say to do as it is!" All of the above stories employ twisted sophistry.In response to this distorted sophistry, it is necessary to be able to point out the essence of the problem so as to uncover the conspiracy of the distorter. ◎Sophistry using ambiguity An American who could not speak Chinese well was once invited to a school celebration in China.The principal of the school politely invited him to speak on stage.This American friend was very happy. Unexpectedly, the first thing he said on stage was: "Today, the principal is kind enough to invite me to speak..." The principal and the teachers and students attending the school celebration were baffled by this sentence, and the scene was extremely embarrassing. It turned out that this American friend believed that "good intentions" means "good intentions".He did not know that the meanings of the two words were vastly different. Some people say: "Money is dirty, even the newly printed banknotes are dirty." The "dirty" here essentially means "evil", and it is defined from the perspective of a certain function of money.If someone says, "The money that has just been printed is new, but it will be dirty after a while", the "dirty" said by this person means unclean, which is defined from the perspective of superficial hygiene. Words in natural language are often polysemy.A word may have two meanings, three meanings, four meanings, or even more. Generally speaking, a word is often polysemy, but when it is used specifically, it must and can only have a clear meaning in a specific context, otherwise it will cause ambiguity. If the polysemy of words is used to deliberately create ambiguity in order to achieve a certain purpose, it is ambiguity sophistry. "Elephants are animals, so baby elephants are small animals." This is sophistry. "Elephants are animals" is true, but "little elephants are small animals" is false.Although the baby elephant is small, it is not a "little animal".This sophistry makes use of the ambiguity of "small" to make a fuss. "Small" has at least two interpretations: young and small. "Baby elephant" refers to a young elephant, while "small animal" refers to a small animal, and a young elephant is also much larger than a large ant. A visiting professor who returned to teach in China said to the students in class: "I'm going to ask you a question now. Those who answer correctly will get a prize. The prize is a dozen pens." When the students heard that the prize was so generous, they thought that the professor must be very rich after working abroad for a long time, so they all held their breath and waited for him to have a problem.After the old professor asked a question, a student immediately got up to answer.Because the question was not difficult, the student got it right quickly.Professor said: "Okay, you come to the front to receive the award." The student was overjoyed, and the other students looked at him with envy and jealousy.Unexpectedly, when the student walked up to the visiting professor, the professor pulled out the pen from his coat pocket, hit the student on the head lightly, and said: "I will reward you with a dozen pens." If the professor is joking with the students, it's not too much, but if the students insist on the old gentleman's promise, and he denies it and says: "I have already fulfilled it, the prize is a 'dozen of pens'." sophistry. ◎The sophistry of simply classifying affairs Some people like to divide the parent term into two sub-terms, the two sub-terms are opposite concepts, and the sum of the two is equal to the extension of the parent term. But this division can easily become sophistry if it is not used properly. A mother in ancient Greece said to her son: "If you tell the truth, you think people in the world are bad, and if you tell lies, you think God is bad. If you speak in front of people, you can either tell the truth or lie; therefore, if you speak in front of people, or Thinking that people are bad or thinking that God is bad.” Obviously, the mother meant to tell her son: It is best not to speak in front of people. People in the world are scary, and so are gods. It is hard to offend anyone. However, the clever son did not listen to his mother, he said: "Mom, that's not the case. If I say something empty and contentless, I can neither tell the truth nor tell the lie. Therefore, whether it is a person in the world or a god in heaven, I will not think it is bad." The son's rebuttal hits the nail on the head.The mother's mistake was to abuse the dichotomy. 有的人在看电影、电视时，对其中出现的人物，总是问：“好人还是坏蛋？” 这样划分虽然简单，但把处于善恶中间的人，不管三七二十一，统统推向了两极。生活本是七色阳光，如果仅用黑白两色去观察，很难得到正确的结论。 此类的二分法，随处可见，似乎是理所当然的，其实，完全忽视了对象的复杂性，忽略了中间状态。这通常是不可取的。 ★虚拟前提诡辩 虚拟前提是比较常见的诡辩术，了解这个方法对揭示对手的阴谋有非常重要的作用。 ◎常见的虚拟前提的诡辩 一个顾客走进一家商店，问有没有面包。 老板说有，两角钱一个。顾客说拿两个。老板说两个4角钱。这时，顾客问啤酒多少钱一瓶，老板说4角钱一瓶。顾客于是问道：“我想用这两个面包换一瓶啤酒，可以吗？”老板于是递上啤酒。顾客接过一瓶啤酒一饮而尽，然后拔腿就走。 老板忙说：“先生，你还没付啤酒钱呢！” 顾客说：“我是用面包换啤酒啊。” 老板说：“你的面包钱没有付！” 顾客说：“我没吃你的面包，为什么要付面包钱呢？” 店主懵了，无言以对，只好看着顾客扬长而去。 用没付钱的面包换没付钱的啤酒，还是等于没有付啤酒钱。这种算式如果成立，那么天下的流浪者们有福了。 古印度，有专门为国王服务的哲学家。其中有一个哲学家，一再向国王宣讲“人们所看见的一切都是幻觉”的观点。对此，国王半信半疑。 有一次，大象惊了，那位哲学家吓得面如土色，惊慌失措地逃跑了。看到这一情景的国王暗自好笑，事后讥讽他说：“你那天怎么吓跑了呢？你是被幻觉吓坏了吗？”哲学家不慌不忙地说：“国王，你看见我逃跑了是吧，可是，你看见的也是一种幻觉。” 这位哲学家的推理是这样的： ——人们所看到的一切都是幻觉； ——国王看到我被大象吓跑了； ——国王看到的也是幻觉。 这个推理在形式上是没有什么毛病的，但结论是荒唐的。问题出在什么地方呢？就在大前提上，“人们所看到的一切都是幻觉”这个大前提是虚假的。由于前提假，尽管推论符合逻辑规则，仍不免得出错误结论。国王大概不晓得这一点，因而未能击中要害，反倒被职业诡辩家钻了空子。 一个人问算命先生：“你算命灵验吗？你算算看我可以活到多少岁？”算命先生说：“我算命是非常灵验的，你假如不死的话，可以活到99岁；假如我算得不灵验，你在99岁之前死了，到时你可以来打我的嘴巴！”问话的人于是信了他，毕恭毕敬地向算命先生问起了前程。 这是算命先生们的秘密。当诡辩者使用虚假的条件命题来进行诡辩时，只要指出其条件满足而结果却不出现，就可将其驳倒。 有个农民挎着手机在干活，一个青年小商贩从他面前经过，向他借手机，想和一个大商人说几句话。农民说按照当地的习惯，他的手机不能外借。小商贩奇怪，连忙追问原因。农民说：“如果我把它借给你，你一定会感谢我，然后我们互相介绍，互相认识；相识之后，我就会请你到我家吃饭，你会看见我漂亮的女儿；你看见我漂亮的女儿，就会一见钟情；如果你一见钟情，你就一定会向她求婚；我呢，我必然要拒绝你的请求，因为我不愿意把女儿嫁给一个没有手机的人，所以……”话没有说完，小商贩不见了。 要揭穿这种诡辩，必须指出其中条件命题的虚假。当然，不与之辩也是一个办法。 古代有个叫叶衡的人，病得很重，知道自己不久于人世，对美好的人世留恋不已，却找不到解脱之道。 这一天，叶衡向前来慰问自己的朋友打听说：“唉，我很快就要死了，不知道一个人死后状况好不好？” 有个善于诡辩的人答道：“非常好。” 叶衡感到奇怪，问：“你怎么知道呢？” 那个善于诡辩的人解释说：“假如人死后状况不好，那么那些死者就会返回来。现在不见一个死者返回来，由此可见人死以后的状况肯定是很好的。” 叶衡上了当，但还是含笑而死。 用来确证某个思想为真的理由却是虚构的，这可以在某些时候给人以安慰，但不可以用来害人。 虚假前提的诡辩，未必只是大前提虚假，也可能是大前提真而小前提虚假，或者大小前提都虚假。 在《摩雅泰》影片中，恶毒的二头人为了杀害摩雅泰，进行了下面的诡辩： ——瘟疫病是琵琶鬼闹的； ——摩雅泰是琵琶鬼； ——所以应该烧死摩雅泰。 二头人为了达到其罪恶目的，从两个虚假前提中推出了极其荒谬的结论。 宗教神学为了证明宇宙在时间上是有开端的，作了如下的论证： ——宇宙是上帝创造的； ——上帝创造的东西在时间上是有开端的； ——所以宇宙在时间上是有开端的。 这两个“推理”就是依据两个虚假前提，因而结论必定是错误的。 反驳这种诡辩，必须利用有关知识，揭露其虚假前提。 ◎虚拟论据的诡辩 论据真实是证明有说服力的重要条件，因为论题的真实性要靠论据来证明，如果论据不真实，那就不能起到证明论题真实的作用。论据不真实的证明就好比建立在沙滩上的建筑物，迟早是要倒塌的。 诡辩论者常常用虚假论据进行欺骗。 1933年希特勒制造的“国会纵火案”，更是臭名昭著。 1933年2月27日晚上，柏林的德国国会大厦突然起火。奇怪的是，在同一时间内，竟有23处火舌在国会大厦四处腾起。这显然是有意纵火所致。 纵火事件一发生，希特勒当局马上通过广播宣告，在国会大厦抓到一个纵火犯——“荷兰共产党员”范德·卢贝。接着，内务部长戈林就发表公告，硬说纵火案是共产党干的，是共产党发动武装起义的信号。希特勒政府以此为借口，悍然取缔共产党和民主报刊，大肆逮捕共产党员和进步人士，其中包括在柏林的国际工人运动杰出的活动家季米特洛夫，把德国投入到法西斯的恐怖气氛中。 希特勒及其党徒一手制造的“国会纵火案”漏洞百出。其唯一“罪证”就是现场被捕的卢贝，并硬说卢贝是个“共产党员”。但是，很快有人揭发，卢贝并非共产党员，虽曾一度参加过荷兰共青团，但早被清除出团，是个出卖灵魂的家伙。接着，又查明有一条秘密地道可以从外面潜入国会大厦，而地道的另一头恰恰是在戈林家里。希特勒政府为了灭口，就把自己手下的卢贝判处了死刑。 “国会纵火案”发生后，德国法西斯当局煞有介事地在莱比锡组织了历时3个月的公开审讯。当时被诬告与卢贝同谋纵火的季米特洛夫，在闻名世界的莱比锡审讯中，英勇地以无可辩驳的事实驳倒了形形色色的伪证，揭穿了“国会纵火案”是法西斯党徒的一个预谋，给了亲自出庭作证的戈林和戈培尔以迎头痛击。最后季米特洛夫等被无罪开释。希特勒法西斯政府本想以“国会纵火案”嫁祸于人，打击共产党和进步运动，但结果搬起石头砸了自己的脚。从此以后，“国会纵火案”一直成为全世界的笑柄和弄虚作假、栽赃陷害的典型。 1931年9月18日，日本军国主义者有意制造了所谓“柳条沟事件”，作为向我国东北突然发动大规模武装进攻的借口。这一天夜里10点钟左右，盘踞在我国东北的日本关东军守备队用炸药炸毁南满铁路长沈线上的柳条沟（沈阳北郊）一段铁路。不久，日本关东军就下令向我沈阳北大营和沈阳市区进攻，理由是中国军队“炸毁南满铁路”和“袭击”日本守备队。这是地地道道的“贼喊捉贼”。 虚拟论据的诡辩，古今中外不乏其例。它的具体形式是多种多样的。有的利用强权逼供，有的利用匿名信无中生有，有的当众造谣撒谎，等等。尽管形式是多样的，但至少有一点是相同的：被虚拟出来的论据往往很具体，有鼻子有眼儿，不了解真情的人极易受骗。正因为这个缘故，这种诡辩是很有欺骗性的。 如果在论证中，引用自身尚待证明的判断，作为论据来证明论题的真实性，称之为预期理由的诡辩。 论题的真实性是建立在论据的可靠性基础之上的。如果论据尚不可靠，用以证明的论题的真实性也就可想而知了。 这种诡辩，实质是以主观意向为根据，凭想当然推论的。这种诡辩常常出现在那些自恃聪明的人的言谈中。 ◎混淆预想和现实 一对穷夫妻在穷聊。 丈夫问：“要是咱们有了钱，你准备怎么花呢？” 妻子说：“买最漂亮的衣服，吃最好的东西。” 丈夫说：“你挥霍浪费！应该存起来。” 妻子惊奇地说：“让白蚁吃个精光？最好咱们快快活活地把它花了。” 丈夫火了，把妻子揍得痛哭流涕。看见岳父大人来了，他又抢先解释说：“爸，她是个挥霍的女人！她要过花天酒地的生活，要把我的钱全部花光，所以我打了她。” 岳父大人问：“她是个挥霍的女人？你有钱供她挥霍吗？” 做女婿的于是回答：“我是说如果我们有钱，她就是一个挥霍的女人。” 岳父大人说：“废话，钱还没有，你已开始打人，怎么说因为挥霍？” 做女婿的喃喃地解释说：“是的，是的，没有钱，她就已经那样讲阔气了，如果有了钱，那她该是怎样讲究阔气的人啊！” 不过话说至此，他就已经溜出了家门，躲开了老岳父的铁拳。 在论辩中，我们必须正确把握真实与预想的关系，如果混淆了它们之间的关系，就会处理不好人际关系和家庭关系。 ◎虚拟原因的诡辩 在美国国务卿艾奇逊主持编写和公布的《美中关系白皮书》（1949）中，把中国人民革命的胜利归因于中国人口太多，这就是虚拟原因的一个典型例子。对此，毛泽东给予了有力的反驳： 革命的发生是由于人口太多的缘故么？古今中外有过很多的革命，都是由于人口太多么？中国几千年以来的很多次革命，也是由于人口太多么？美国174年以前的反英革命，也是由于人口太多么？艾奇逊的历史知识等于零，他连美国独立宣言也没有读过。华盛顿之所以领导反英革命，是因为英国人压迫和剥削美国人，而不是什么美国人口过剩。中国人民历次推翻自己的封建朝廷，是因为这些封建朝廷压迫和剥削人民，而不是什么人口过剩。俄国人所以举行二月革命和十月革命，是因为俄皇和俄国资产阶级的压迫和剥削，而不是什么人口过剩，俄国至今还是土地过多，人口很少的。 因果联系是一种必然联系，一定的原因必然产生一定的结果；一定的结果也必定是由一定的原因所引起的。所以，原因对结果来说，完全可以构成论证的依据。但是，并非任何联系都是因果联系。如果把本来没有因果联系的两个事项，硬拉到因果联系中加以论辩，就是虚拟原因的诡辩。 日食、月食时，野蛮人便敲锣打鼓，随后太阳、月亮又出现了；于是每次日食、月食时，他们都敲锣打鼓。所以他们论证说：“每次日食、月食时，敲锣打鼓后，月亮、太阳都出现了，所以说，敲锣打鼓是驱赶天狗、保护日月的有效手段。” 这就是虚拟原因。 倒因为果也可以归于这一类。 古人说，“物腐而后虫生”，多少年来人们信而无疑。直到17世纪时，布朗怀疑烂泥能生老鼠时，罗斯还大发雷霆地说：“谁要是怀疑这件事，我就请谁到埃及去，他就会看见无数聚集田间的老鼠，陆续地从污泥中孵出来危害居民。” 这种说法，一直维持到1688年，才被意大利的生物学家雷迪用科学方法加以否定。他把一块肉露出一部分，另一部分封闭起来。过一段时间肉腐烂了，蝇类下卵于露出的部分，结果露出部分的肉产生蝇蛆，而封闭的部分虽然也腐烂了，但却未产生蛆。 今天我们清楚了，食物之所以腐烂，是由细菌（或其他微生物）所致，因而可以说“虫生而后物腐”。 ★问题转换诡辩 当对方提出的问题不好或者不方便回答时，我们可以通过转换对方的问题来回答，这种方法就是问题转换的诡辩。 ◎用转换问题的方法解决难题 对方提出了一个使你难堪的问题，你并没有正面回答对方提出的问题，而是从对方的问题中引出一个新的问题推给对方，这种手法就是问题转换法。 孙先生抛弃了前妻另寻新欢，夏先生气不公，质问道：“你为什么抛弃了结发妻子？”孙先生并没有回答“为什么”，而是向夏先生提出了一个新的问题：“究竟什么叫'抛弃'？”把问题又推回去了。 这种诡辩是很毒辣的。从表面看来，A所提出的新问题并非无理，因为它是正确理解B所提出的问题的必要前提，即只有正确理解了什么是“抛弃”，才有可能正确回答“为什么抛弃”。如果确实需要，并且在解决了孙先生的新问题之后立即回到夏先生的问题上，也不是诡辩。但是，如果夏先生是明知故问，有意把问题岔开，那就是十足的诡辩。诡辩者往往是在你回答了他提出的新问题之后，进而又从中引出新问题，节外生枝，枝外生叶，没完没了。结果离最初的问题越来越远，以至毫无关联了。 甲：人为什么要有理想呢？ 乙：什么是“人”？ 甲：人是社会动物。 乙：“动物”又是什么？ 甲：动物是有神经、有感觉、能运动的生物。 乙：那“生物”又是什么？ 甲：你还有没有完了？ 乙：你答不出来就完了。 你看，本来是甲提出的问题要求乙回答，结果变成乙提出问题要求甲回答；本来乙答不出或不好回答，结果甲失败了。这样，诡辩者就达到了目的。所以，对这种诡辩的最好办法，就是抓住最初的问题不放，即使回答新的问题是必要的，也要及时拉回来，千万不能跟着对方从岔道跑下去。 一位叫约翰的病人问医生：“我能活到90岁吗？” 医生检查了一下约翰的身体后，问道：“你今年多大啦？” 病人说：“40岁。” “你有什么嗜好吗？比如说，喜欢饮酒、吸烟、赌钱、女人，或者其他的嗜好？” “我最恨吸烟、喝酒，更讨厌女人。” “天哪！那你还要活到90岁干什么？” 本来病人的期待是：戒绝烟酒女人得到肯定的评价，其结果则不但相反，而且把这一切当成了生命意义。否定了这一切，就否定了活到90岁的价值，那就是这一切的价值高于长命的价值之上。 有些教师也很善于使用这种方法。下课或辅导时，学生向他提出一个又一个疑难问题，有的回答了，有的他自己也不懂。本来应该实事求是，知之为知之，不知为不知，说“我也不懂，咱们一起研究吧”。但有的教师不肯放下这个架子，反问道：“你为什么要提出这个问题呢？你对这个问题是怎么看的？”结果把问题又推给学生。 ◎转换重音的诡辩 同一句话，假如重读部位不同，便可能产生不同的甚至完全相反的意义。 比方说有这样一句话： “我”没说她偷了我的钱（可是有人这么说）。 我“没”说她偷了我的钱（我确实没这么说）。 我没“说”她偷了我的钱（可是我是这么暗示的）。 我没说“她”偷了我的钱（也有他人偷的可能）。 我没说她“偷了”我的钱（可是她对这钱做了某些事）。 我没说她偷了“我的”钱（她偷了别人的钱）。 我没说她偷了我的“钱”（她偷了别的东西）。 从头到尾一字不差的一句话，重读的词不同，就会有如此不同的含义。用这种方法偷梁换柱的，就是重读法诡辩，或曰加重语气诡辩。For example: “我们不应讲我们朋友的坏话。” 在通常情况下，这是一句很好的话，用以相互告诫，有利于品德修养。但是，如果有人故意加重“我们朋友”这个片语，即： “我们不应讲我们朋友的坏话。” 那就等于说，我们可以随便讲不是“我们朋友”的坏话，把这句话的本来意义完全变了。 在一艘外轮上，船长和大副之间不和。大副动不动就酗酒，船长常常批评他。 一日，大副又酗酒，船长在记事簿上记道： “大副今天酗酒。” 次日，大副值班，见船长记其酗酒，灵机一动，提起笔来也记道：“船长今天没有酗酒。” 当船返回港后，港务局的领导检查了记事簿，认为船长和大副都酗酒了，决定都给处分。 大副玩弄的就是重读法诡辩，不仅欺骗了上司，而且害得船长也受了处分。 ★标准不统一诡辩 据传说，古希腊一个叫做欧提勒士的人，向当时著名的辩论者普罗泰哥拉学习法律。师生之间订有合同，合同规定，在毕业时欧提勒士付给老师一半学费，另一半学费等欧提勒士第一次出庭打赢官司时再付清。但欧提勒士毕业后并没有出庭打官司，普罗泰哥拉等得实在不耐烦了，就向法官起诉，要欧提勒士付另一半学费。 普罗泰哥拉的论证是这样的：“如果你欧提勒士这次官司打赢，那么按照合同，你应付给我另一半学费，如果你欧提勒士这次官司打输，那么按照法官判决，你也应付给我另一半学费。你这次官司或者打赢，或者打输，你都应付给我另一半学费。” 欧提勒士进行了反击，他回答道：“如果我打赢了这场官司，那么按照法庭判决，我不必给你另一半学费；如果我打输了这场官司，那么按照合同，我也不必给你另一半学费；我或者打赢或者打输，我都不必给你另一半学费。” 这个故事，乍听起来，师徒二人的话都有其一定的道理，但这并不能掩盖两者都用的是诡辩辩论方法的实质。师生二人之所以能得出对自己有利而又迥然不同的结论，是因为二人所使用的标准不一样，所以整个论题便是不确定的。 这就是“以讹对讹，以毒攻毒”的方法，就是指对诡辩进行反驳中，可以运用以毒攻毒的方法，即采用“以其人之道，还治其人之身”的方法。 古希腊著名诡辩家欧布利德在某大公那儿当谋士。有一天，他对他的同事说：“你们没有失掉的东西，那么你就有这件东西，对吗？” 同事答道：“对呀！” 欧布利德接着说：“你没有失掉头上的角，那你头上就有角了。” 人的头上是不会长角的，这是大家都了解的事实，可是，欧布利德却言之凿凿地“论证”他的同事头上有角。 为什么欧布利德会得出这么荒谬的结论，原因在于，他在不同意义下两次使用了“没有失掉”这个词语，但两次的含义却不一致。前一个“没有失掉”的是针对原来具有的东西说的，就是没有失掉原来具有的东西；而后一个“没有失掉”却是对本来没有的东西说的，就是没有失掉原来所不具有的角。 他的同事自然对这个荒谬的结论不服气，就拉他到大公那儿去评理。 大公很聪明，听了欧布利德的“论证”，对他说：“在这个城堡里，你没有失去坐牢的机会，那就请你享受三天吧。” 这里，大公巧妙地