刚刚在新语丝看到方舟子这段话, 与我心有戚戚焉.中国传统的说理方
式不具有逻辑性（甚至连“逻辑”一词都是舶来的音译），是中外许多
学者都早已指出了的一个事实。中国文人墨客只讲究如何以势压人、以
情感人，极少有人考虑过思维是否严密。所以虽然把文章写得如花似锦，
却往往经不起逻辑的推敲。影响至今，在中国人文学者中仍是个普遍现
象，只不过他们比古人多知道了“逻辑”一词，会反过来说人不合逻辑
罢了，虽然自己的思维才是混乱得一塌糊涂。主要的原因倒不在于如朱
学勤所说的“受害于中学教育文理分科过早”，而在于还没有受过恰当
的学术训练就变成夸夸其谈的学者了。
偶爹说
hmm i've got lots of thoughts on this but let me just throw a few things out there.
good writing, by definition, is valid, internally coherent, logical, unified, developed, and consistent writing. good writing programs in the US all emphasize the quality of the argument, which has a set of commonly accepted standards, as much as the mechanical and stylistic elements.
unfortunately, what i learned in high school and college was not argumentative writing. what i learned was ways to essentially reduce argumentation to a set of highly stylized rituals that are completely devoid of development and validity.
in addition, we were often taught to argue moot points, straw men hoisted up with the sole purpose of proving some politically sound slogan or virtuous banality. how do you write an essay when there's no content to begin with? writing is only meaningful when you have a genuine point to make, a heartfelt feeling to express, a bone to pick with someone. it is an exercise in futility when the conclusion is pre-written for you.
in other words, it's not that we have to excel in natural sciences in order to write well; it's just that our educational system has failed miserably in this regard.
good writing, by definition, is valid, internally coherent, logical, unified, developed, and consistent writing. good writing programs in the US all emphasize the quality of the argument, which has a set of commonly accepted standards, as much as the mechanical and stylistic elements.
unfortunately, what i learned in high school and college was not argumentative writing. what i learned was ways to essentially reduce argumentation to a set of highly stylized rituals that are completely devoid of development and validity.
in addition, we were often taught to argue moot points, straw men hoisted up with the sole purpose of proving some politically sound slogan or virtuous banality. how do you write an essay when there's no content to begin with? writing is only meaningful when you have a genuine point to make, a heartfelt feeling to express, a bone to pick with someone. it is an exercise in futility when the conclusion is pre-written for you.
in other words, it's not that we have to excel in natural sciences in order to write well; it's just that our educational system has failed miserably in this regard.
Now that happy moment between the time the lie is told and when it is found out.
-
helenClaire
- Posts: 3159
- Joined: 2003-11-22 20:12
