Greyscale @Greyscale@qoto.org
@freemo Doctor Freemo, How do you counter with someone who disagrees with the idea that wikipedia is a legitimate source of knowledge? So far as I can see, this kind of skepticism does have some point, not only because the editors of wikipedia may not qualify for the task, but also because wikipedia is getting more politicized than ever. In fact the problem is not limited to wikipedia, all the major institutions, the media, the academy, the ones who were supposed to reveal and pursue the truth, have all lost their credibility, and along with it the public trust. Even the very notion of objective reality itself has been under vicious attacks from these institutions supposedly protecting them. While I feel sorry for people buying into the fake stories promoted by certain politicians and writers, I can understand the deeper reason why they are behaving that way, because who is there to trust when the mainstream media and academy no longer care about the truth and are campaigning against you?
I think all this boils down to this question: In this ultra politicized world when the old authorities have become fraudulent and corrupt, how do we prove that those external sources we invoke are legitimately true? would that take too much effort? Yes, the task always falls on the individual to use his own reason and independent thinking to decide what is true, but our energy are limited and, we don't have so much time to define every concept or prove the credibility of our invoked external sources.
Any other instances without 500 words limitations apart from qoto?
@arteteco Potentials of both an excellent commander and a authoritative dictator.
On education in republican government
It is in republican government that the full power of education is needed. Fear in despotic governments arises of itself from threats and chastisements; honor in monarchies is favored by the passions and favors them in turn; but political virtue is a renunciation of oneself, which is always a very painful thing.
One can define this virtue as love of the laws and the homeland. This love, requiring a continuous preference of the public interest over one’s own, produces all the individual virtues; they are only that preference.
This love is singularly connected with democracies. In them alone, government is entrusted to each citizen. Now government is like all things in the world; in order to preserve it, one must love it.
One never hears it said that kings do not love monarchy or that despots hate despotism.
Therefore, in a republic, everything depends on establishing this love, and education should attend to inspiring it. But there is a sure way for children to have it; it is for the fathers themselves to have it.
One is ordinarily in charge of giving one’s knowledge to one’s children and even more in charge of giving them one’s own passions.
If this does not happen, it is because what was done in the father’s house is destroyed by impressions from the outside.
It is not young people who degenerate; they are ruined only when grown men have already been corrupted.
MONTESQUIEU
The Spirit of the Laws
On the principle of democracy
There need not be much integrity for a monarchical or despotic government to maintain or sustain itself. The force of the laws in the one and the prince’s ever-raised arm in the other can rule or contain the whole. But in a popular state there must be an additional spring, which is VIRTUE.
What I say is confirmed by the entire body of history and is quite in conformity with the nature of things. For it is clear that less virtue is needed in a monarchy, where the one who sees to the execution of the laws judges himself above the laws, than in a popular government, where the one who sees to the execution of the laws feels that he is subject to them himself and that he will bear their weight.
It is also clear that the monarch who ceases to see to the execution of the laws, through bad counsel or negligence, may easily repair the damage; he has only to change his counsel or correct his own negligence. But in a popular government when the laws have ceased to be executed, as this can come only from the corruption of the republic, the state is already lost.
It was a fine spectacle in the last century to see the impotent attempts of the English to establish democracy among themselves. As those who took part in public affairs had no virtue at all, as their ambition was excited by the success of the most audacious one and the spirit of one faction was repressed only by the spirit of another, the government was constantly changing; the people, stunned, sought democracy and found it nowhere. Finally, after much motion and many shocks and jolts, they had to come to rest on the very government that had been proscribed.
When Sulla wanted to return liberty to Rome, it could no longer be accepted; Rome had but a weak remnant of virtue, and as it had ever less, instead of reawakening after Caeser, Tiberius, Caius,a Claudius, Nero, and Domitian, it became ever more enslaved; all the blows were struck against tyrants, none against tyranny.
The political men of Greece who lived under popular government recognized no other force to sustain it than virtue. Those of today speak to us only of manufacturing, commerce, finance,b wealth, and even luxury.
When that virtue ceases, ambition enters those hearts that can admit it, and avarice enters them all. Desires change their objects: that which one used to love, one loves no longer. One was free under the laws, one wants to be free against them. Each citizen is like a slave who has escaped from his master’s house. What was a maxim is now called severity; what was a rule is now called constraint;c what was vigilance is now called fear. There, frugality, not the desire to possess, is avarice. Formerly the goods of individuals made up the public treasury; the public treasury has now become the patrimony of individuals. The republic is a cast-off husk, and its strength is no more than the power of a few citizens and the license of all.
There were the same forces in Athens when it dominated with so much glory and when it served with so much shame. It had 20,000 citizens3 when it defended the Greeks against the Persians, when it disputed for empire with Lacedaemonia, and when it attacked Sicily. It had 20,000 when Demetrius of Phalereus enumerated them4 as one counts slaves in a market. When Philip dared dominate in Greece, when he appeared at the gates of Athens,5 Athens had as yet lost only time. In Demosthenes one may see how much trouble was required to reawaken it; Philip was feared as the enemy not of liberty but of pleasures.6 This town, which had resisted in spite of so many defeats, which had been reborn after its destructions, was defeated at Chaeronea and was defeated forever. What does it matter that Philip returns all the prisoners? He does not return men. It was always as easy to triumph over the forces of Athens as it was difficult to triumph over its virtue.
How could Carthage have sustained itself? When Hannibal, as praetor, wanted to keep the magistrates from pillaging the republic, did they not go and accuse him before the Romans? Unhappy men, who wanted to be citizens without a city and to owe their wealth to the hand of their destroyers! Soon Rome asked them to send three hundred of the principal citizens of Carthage as hostages; Rome made them surrender their arms and ships and then declared war on them. Given the things that a disarmed Carthage did from despair,7 one may judge what it could have done with its virtue when it had its full force.
MONTESQUIEU
The Spirit of the Laws
"The purpose of education is completely different from the purpose of the party. Roughly speaking, the purpose of education is the development of a whole person, while the purpose of the party is the creation of the believer. Education is people-oriented, whereas the party is organization-oriented. In a party situation, if there is a conflict between the interests of the person and the organization, naturally the interests of the person must be sacrificed to the interests of the organization.
...... An ideal educated person, in terms of wisdom, at least to the limit, must have a correct and complete understanding of things and a spirit of independent confidence in his actions. To develop such a personality, the first need is intellectual curiosity. With intellectual curiosity, one is able to conduct independent research on a variety of issues or matters. The results of this research are the basis of our faith. This method of education, from the Party's standpoint, is the most dangerous. Their faith is already established; their problem is how to embrace it. Because the faith is to be embraced, there can be no free discussion and study; because there can be no free discussion and study, there can be no intellectual curiosity."
Unification of education is actually the policy of fooling the people. In fact, we know that the real policy of fooling the people is not to prevent the people from being educated. If the people are not allowed to be educated, they will not necessarily listen to him. So what is the real obscurantist education policy? The true policy of foolishness is for the people to be educated in only one way, that is, to receive only his education, only his thoughts, only his opinions: you must listen to me. So the One Teachings are just that: to teach him one thought, one viewpoint, and all other thoughts are evil and heretical and should be eliminated.
我认为tiktok这种类型的软件，即便被美国公司收购(或者被别的民主国家的公司收购，或者干脆就是本国的产物)，对民主制度也依然是一个很大的威胁，因为它使普通民众变得更蠢，更不专注，更没有思考复杂事物的能力。在民主制度下，普通民众是握有选票的，要参与国家决策的。如果这群人变得头脑简单，很容易被影响，那么民主制度就维持不下去。
在尼尔波茨曼的那个时代，电视是这种威胁的直接体现，随后我们有了社交媒体，有了Google, Facebook ，随后我们有了tiktok，tiktok大概是这种趋势发展到了极端的产物，它比电视更短，更吸引人，更富有刺激性，更支离破碎和无意义。电视和社交媒体已经对民主造成了难以估量的伤害，如今又有了tiktok，它将带来更坏社会影响，具体有多坏还有待时间的考验。然而不论民主制度的韧性有多强，如果情况一直恶化下去，也总有瓦解的一天。
"The world is intrinsically not predictable. That is a good thing, because it means that we will never possess all knowledge, and therefore there will always be new knowledge. It means that the present can never control the future, and therefore humanity will always be free."
https://nitter.net/robert_zubrin/status/1278681124944793611#m
脱序的结果就是许多人内心失去“平衡”及“稳靠感”。因而心身的马达总不能像俾斯麦时代的德国那样开得足。在脱序过甚的社会文化里，比较敏感的知识分子在心灵上常有一种说不出的茫然之感。人不能仅靠面包活着。人是必须活在表里如一的气氛中的。
现在，许多知识分子蔑视过去的价值系统，并因而对一切价值系统存愤疾的态度。他们自以为步入一个价值的真空地带，不受一切系统的羁绊。他们似乎如释重负。其实，根本没有这回事的！人实在是一种最奇怪的动物。当着他们不能勉力向道德境界升进时，就常会下降到受生物逻辑的作弄。当人的内心什么必须信持的原理原则也没有时，就有一种空茫无寄之感。自信力也就丧失了。他除了胃在蠕动，鼻子在呼吸，脉搏在跳动以外，好像什么也没有了。这时，他就成为街头的流浪者。信步走去，莫知所知。于是，任何人只要摆出一点肯定的态度，他就可以跟着他一起走，盲目地走。他完全流离失所了。所谓流离失所，并非一定没有房子住，也许他住的是高楼大厦，甚至出入汽车。然而，尽管他的身体在教室里，在办事室里，可是他的心田早已没有生物需要以上的原则，早已没有任何主张，早已无一点信持了。他放弃了自我，听任某甲今天装进什么货色就装什么货色，某乙明天装进什么货色就装什么货色。一切都“满不在乎”。多少知识分子，一忽儿被叫恭维某张，就恭维某张。一忽儿被叫詈骂某张，就詈骂某张。一切都“无所谓”。一切不和谐的动作都引不起剧痛。人，早已工具化了。他已经不是他的他了！这是最彻底的失所。虽然内心空虚，可是只要活着一天生物逻辑却一天不空虚。生物逻辑一天不空虚即一天要宰制他。内部的价值没有了，就追求外部的价值。孔雀要展屏。生物文化驱策着知识分子追求虚荣和面子，不择手段地制造空虚的声威，轻易地把自己的生命和时光换油条吃。规格没有了，风范随着秋风以俱去，体统只有在记忆里去追寻。剩下来的是藉挫折他人以弥补自己的挫折，藉锥痛他人来医治自己的创伤。多奇异的时代啊！罗素说，人是一种残暴的动物。被生物文化层愚弄而脱序的人可能更残暴。戈矛时代盛行身体残暴。知识分子则擅能进行“观念残暴”。冷漠的眼光一扫，就藉虐待以取快。虐待异类不够意思，虐待同类才够味。于是，我们看见今日若干中国知识分子的一幅悲剧图。
脱序，导引人们走向非洲的原野！
有许多人轰轰烈烈地活着，有许多人悲壮地死去。在一些角落地，也有许多人无精打采地挨日子。生命对于他们似乎是多余的。但是扔掉可舍不得。扔掉生命，需要比混着活有更大的勇气。一些人感到人生味同嚼蜡。然而，嚼蜡毕竟占有时间，也填充了空虚。所以，嚼蜡虽然没有实际的营养，但有画饼充饥的功效，它给人以象征的满足。于是，嚼蜡成了一种时髦。隔夜的馊饭，阴沟的积水，垃圾箱里的渣滓，都捧出来作经典。在无何有中，一切廉价的代用品出现。低级的刺激比没有刺激有助于驱走心田的疲惫，换来临时的快感。脱序者的生命在灰色中打发过去。
观念人物在一个动荡时代常削弱流行的信仰，批评既存制度的权威，为新的信仰之普及而开路。真正的观念人物视追求真理为一重要的事。照他们看来，上述行动人物的真理观简直荒谬到不能忍受。他们常视理想为第一。人身常置于理想之下，一切为理想，一切努力向理想集中。有些观念人物好争辩，乐于看到不同的思想之冲突。正如霍弗尔所说， 他们提出一个主张时，用意在炫耀才华，或希图惊世骇俗。“语不惊人死不休。”一般而论，观念人物渴望受到尊重。中国的观念人物，受传统影响，渴望出人头地。当他们得不到这些满足时，不是离异了自己，便是远避了现实。
从上面的陈列看来，真正的观念人物和行动人物有内在心性上的不调和。当势利抬头时，真理一定远避。就一特定的情况而言，真正的观念人物是对付不了行动人物的。由于前面所提到的中国知识分子与传承脱节，与社会及家庭脱节，与经济来源脱节，再加上因与行动人物脱节而与权位脱节，于是变成脱节人。脱节人最易陷于脱序（Anomie）的空虚之中。
脱序是伦范互相冲突造成的一种社会情况。在这种情况里，个人同时要适应两种互不相容的伦范。例如，“为公”是一种伦范，“为家”也是一种伦范。在有的情形之下，这两种伦范要实行起来会互相冲突。这种冲突到了某种程度，会使身当其冲者不知如何是好。这类冲突多了，就发生脱序的结果。在外来文化价值和主位文化价值冲突时，在社会文化激变时，在相当长期的混乱时，最易产生脱序的现象。脱序人在权威面前丧失了自己，又常为极廉价的自我拍卖者。在学校里教的是一套，进入社会行的是另一套，乃脱序之一源。在学校里教的是重理想、进步、正义，要规规矩矩，是就是、非就非。进入社会行的，必得是重现实，要懂得怎样“混”，要圆圆滑滑，势势利利，要明白是就是非，非就是是，要能对许多事视而不见、听而不闻。这两个价值系统背道而驰，使刚出学校的青年不易适应，甚至终于锐气消磨。积累所及，会使整个社会缺乏活力。所谓“阳奉阴违”也是脱序的一个报告目录。权威方面所说的话，所作的要求是一套。这一套不能实行，或不合执行者的利益；但是，又不能正面公开批评或反对。因为，根据过去的实际经验，批评或反对都有灾殃。这两个价值系统冲突。于是，分别办理：“表面敷衍”的是一套；骨子里实行的是另一套。
在一个权威主义的气氛浓厚而许多倡导又极不切合实际的社会文化里，一定会出现这类脱序现象。而且，由权威所发动的极不切合实际的倡导愈多，则脱序的现象也愈多。于是，许许多多本应可以用来做有益贡献的时间和精力悉浪费在应付权威倡导之中。这也就是说，于这样的社会文化里，在一方面权威的倡导势在必行，可是在另一方面代办又不能不巧为应付。这样一来，社会文化中许许多多分子的许许多多努力都在这两个不相容的价值系统的冲突里抵消了。社会文化中重要的价值系统因互相冲突而彼此抵消，结果之一就是脱序。
谈“理想”是中国近代许多知识分子的乐事和特长。所以，在变革运动的初期他们得到实际的行动人物藉重，因而这两种人物大致可以相处得不错。可是，等到新的统治结构出现以后，实现的问题逐渐来临，理想的问题逐渐褪色，权力的一元化问题成为转变的枢纽。随着这一转变，行动人物和观念人物无法不起分化。在观念人物之中，比较能放弃理想而自认为目的已达的人又变为辅治阶层。比较坚持原有理想而又天真的人慢慢滋生一种被诱拐（being betrayed）的感觉。当有别的机会时，这类的人可能投奔别的公司行号。第一流而又有独自思想的人，不是别立门户，就是遗世独立。
行动人物和观念人物的这种分化实在是动理（dynamism）上不易避免的结果。因为，行动人物和观念人物不仅在基本的想法上不同，而且在性格形成方面也不同。他们是一个运动中的两种异质要素。
行动人物的基本兴趣是成功。至于怎样成功的，使用什么手段成功的，是否由于因缘时会，是否由于巧取豪夺，对于这些问题他们认为是些空洞的问题。他们对于空洞的问题向来不感兴趣。行动人物在必要时也标榜一些主张。他们之所以如此，主要的作用是把主张当做结纳精干并吸引人众的工具。至于标榜的主张是否实行，那要看对他们同他们的团体是否有利。他们口里似乎也强调理想，但是他们更重视现实的人身崇拜。当着理想可以用作人身的装饰时，他们拉拢理想。当着理想妨害人身崇拜时，他们可以翻修理想，不然就束之高阁。所谓意底牢结，他们弄成一种制度化的心理。所谓制度化的心理，就是一个团体或组织以内的每个分子必须共同承认的成文的甚或不成文的那些前提。既然如此，他们不太注意到这些前提的本身是否为真，而只注意到是否为团体所要求而且大众是否承认。即令这些前提是假的，但是，既然团体是这么要求而且大众又这么承认，所以也就是真的。既然这些前提是真的，于是在势力圈内的任何个人也得承认他们是真的。这种“真理观”的作用是为了抒发团体的意志，维持建制的尊严，并且延续组织的存在。在这一关联中，所谓的“真理”与权威是不分的。行动人物的这种真理观与科学上的真理观很不相同。科学上的真理观是，一个语句如果合于某一事实，那末它便是真的。最低限度，这种真理观不受情感的拨动和意志的支配。行动人物的真理观是，因为我们需要它是真的所以它一定得是真的，至于是否合于事实那是次要的问题。就事论事，这只能算是一种团体应迫（group imperative）。
正如霍弗尔（Eric Hoffer）所说的，真正的行动人物并非要改造世界，他只要占有世界。他的内在冲动是要掌握和控制，并令既得权力能够行使。
群众性的运动之发展趋向，通常经由三个阶段。第一个阶段是宣传。第二个阶段是组织。第三个阶段是新的权力形态可能出现。在头两个阶段，有两种人物居于主导地位： 一种人物是狂热分子；另一种人物是观念之士。当然，有时一个人既可以是狂热分子又可以是观念之士。我之所以把二者分开，有两种理由。第一，在有些情形之下，有的人是狂热分子而不是观念之士，有的人是观念之士而不是狂热分子。第二，据我的经验所及，如果一个人的某些观念太清楚了，常狂热不起来。在第二个阶段里，即在组织阶段，常有一种潜在的行动人物（potential man of action）。这种人物常常隐身在组织中，职卑位低，不为人所注意。到了第三个阶段，如果有新的权力形态出现，那末这种潜在的行动人物可能脱颖而出，成为实际的行动人物（actual manof action）。所谓实际的行动人物，意指行政官、司法官、计划家，以及做最后决定的人，等等。
在群众性的运动之初期，除了狂热分子以外，是观念之士的黄金时代。所谓“观念之士”即是“搞观念的人”。例如，好谈主义学说的人，爱演说的人，擅长写文章著书立说的人。这一类的人物我们送他们一块招牌，叫做“观念人物”。群众性的运动之初期所需要的是宣传、煽动、激励这一类的汽油。因此，这一期间所需要的是新的观念启发，贬抑既存制度，对人众提供理想社会的蓝图，作海阔天空式的诺言，开列伟大的空头支票，种种等等。这些工作观念人物俱优为之，而实际的行动人物不太高明。所以，在群众性的运动之初期，观念人物得以长才大展，头角峥露。至少在表面上，这类人物此时居于主导地位。因此他们的人生得到最大的满足。
然而，好景不常！等到新的权力形态出现，就是该换主角演员的时候了。到了这一阶段，就是实际的行动人物登台的时候了。可是，从初期阶段到权力形态出现的阶段，中间并没有明显的形迹可分，同时观念人物满脑袋还是幻想。在事实上，从权力的巩固着眼，群众性的运动确有收场的必要。因为，群众性的运动是像洪水一般的盲力。这股盲力既可被“革命”工程师导来冲垮旧的统治建构，也未尝不可导来冲垮新的统治建构。在这一转形的过程中，从事巩固权力的实际行动人物首先要设计“收拾”的就是带头的狂热分子，其次就是鼓动性的观念人物。所以，紧接着旧的统治建构瓦解而新的统治建构成立时，往往发生内部的“权力斗争”或“整肃事件”。实际的行动人物富于对付人的经验，头脑冷静，精于计算，且行动不为自己口里所标尚的主义所拘限。狂热分子则沉醉于狂热之中。观念人物则执著于自己的观念，从观念的展望孔里延伸出对将来世界的美丽图像。这两种人因用心之不同，在“权力斗争”中常非行动人物的敌手。托洛斯基（LeonTrotsky）和史达林的对弈就是很有名的例子。俄国革命成了功，波尔希维克党人的政权已经拿到了手。史达林很现实地主张从事“一国社会主义建设”，而托洛斯基犹不忘理想，不尚权争，高唱“不断革命论”，终于被史达林打垮，流亡海外。接着而来的，是史达林所策划的一连串的整肃。在这一连串的整肃之中，始原的“革命人物”差不多都整完了。群众性的革命运动像一个大食魔（Gargantua）。为了维持它的生存和气力，它要吞食一个社会的一切才智、真诚、希望，以至于生命。
