中国时报十月二十二日黄昆岩文章指出,不知您有没注意到一个我们常犯的错误?老外描述一个知识渊博的人,用的是knowledgeable这个字,他们却不用这个字来形容一个思路清晰、有教养而又有知识的人,他们用的是intellectual,或是intelligent。如果查查韦氏英英字典,我们会恍然这两个字所指的就是我们所说的知识分子。 (chinesenewsnet.com)
相比之下,知识分子这四个字,在中文来说有一面倒地强调知识的多寡,而忽略了「知识分子」应该也得有思考的能力、正确的主见与智慧。实际上,中文所谓的知识阶级在英文叫intelligentsia,显示在老外的观念里,认为作为知识分子智慧是何等重要,我们却似乎把它抛开了。中文对这观念的错误不自觉,所以翻译类似的另一个名词时,前后无常的马脚立即表露。看看英文近年来的新名词intellectual property好了,我们不是把它译为「智慧财产权」?如果把intellectual译为知识分子,intellectual property的英译应该是知识财产权,而不该是智慧财产权,道理甚明。 (chinesenewsnet.com)
这观念的混淆,看起来是芝麻小事,但笔者认为这可是非同小可,它已影响了国内教育的方式,进而波及到社会文化的基质。不说别的,一般人会以为只要脑子里多装一些知识,就可获得知识分子的头衔,懂道理、增强智慧反而是次要的,这已严重的脱离了intelligentsia的本意。这种观念一盘踞在社会,竞相背书以填鸭方式传授知识的教育形态不成形才怪。这种教育方式已经在国内形成了一个极难摆脱的枷锁,成了教育改革的大障碍。澳洲的学者Zigas说这世上太多脑袋里装满知识,看起来却像没受过教育的人,笔者认为他指的是光有知识而没有智慧与看法的人,这种人不是intellectual,不是真正的知识分子。我们把intellectual property译为智慧财产权,是百分之百正确的,爱因斯坦说过联想与思考比知识重要。发明东西要运用脑子里的知识,从构想出发、经过分析、评估、修正、改进、精化而达到发现或发明、接着申请专利,成为智慧财产。这一系列的脑际作业都以知识为材料,以智慧为燃料,把一个脑际的构思成为一个具体的实体或诠释让它呈现,所以这权利名正言顺地该叫智慧财产。 (chinesenewsnet.com)
哈佛大学一位已退休的一般教育院长曾为知识分子下了如下的定义:一、要能作批判性的思考;二、要能对事物分析、判断、而且又终身学习。这些脑际作业,都要有科学方法的普通知识。专攻文科的人要特别小心,因为他们常有排拒科学知识的倾向;三、知识分子少不了国际观与历史观,视野之宽窄是「知识分子」的函数;四、要懂得利益冲突的意义,操守与行为要能考量伦理道德;五、要在本行有造诣。概言之,知识分子重要的是要有足够的知识供自己思考分析与做判断,要有主见与立场。因为知识分子有分析道理而开发新知的能力,而不是只在反刍吐出藏有原型的知识而已,过去的专制国家,尤其是共产政权,对知识分子都极为厌恶而频予压迫。 (chinesenewsnet.com)
知识分子的真正价值既然在智慧的累积,我数年前在清大演讲时,就主张知识分子这个名称误导性太大,我们应该用智识分子来取代知识分子这个错误的名词,表示这类人必须智慧与知识兼备。孔子曰:名不正则言不顺,如果我们用智识分子这个正确的称呼,也许更容易引导教育走向正确的方向。 (chinesenewsnet.com)
- posted on 10/22/2003
记得余英时说不应该叫分子,应该叫知识人。
分子,英文咋说呢?
没有人味的元素?螺丝丁?
“余英时在书中——(《士与中国文化》——极力避免“知识分子”而一律改用“知识人”,则属言之有理。因为“知识分子”一词是1898年在著名的德累福斯案中由克里孟梭所首创,中国古代的士是绝然不能等同于现代意义上的知识分子。在我看来,知识分子“应该是每一时代的批判性良知”,因此对“知识人”的提法是赞成的。譬如,在第二章《中国知识分子的古代传统——兼论“俳优”与“修身”》一文中,余英时说道:“……可见在帝王眼里,像司马迁这样的文史大家也不过和倡优差不多,可以加以戏弄的。司马迁之所以特立《滑稽列传》正有其身世之感。”这使我想起了刘宗迪先生在《知识分子和俳优》所言的“俳优们的装疯卖傻、装腔作势、谑浪笑傲、油腔滑调等等,与其说是世故滑头,不如说是基于对人性弱点的深刻体察基础上的明智选择”。两相印照,读者耳目一新之余也会不胜唏嘘。
” - posted on 10/22/2003
While he made an interesting point in comparing and contrasting two similar but discrete concepts, the author went too far in claiming the "conceptual confusion" has contributed to the current deficiencies in our education system and has other cultural ramifications.
His exaggeration of semantic impact on society is more than a bit far-fetching. Historically, the term “知识分子” did not come into use until the early 20th century, whereas the prevailing educational practices that emphasize memorization and fact accumulation can be traced back to at least several centuries earlier. In addition, the author implicitly assumed that the education system was built upon or around the notion of “知识分子”. The fallacy of that assumption is self-evident. Moreover, the author simply equated 知识 with knowledge, without etymologically examining the phrase. In fact, 知 and 识 have related but different connotations. “知” is close to knowledge. “识”on the other hand denotes abilities to reason, to rationalize and to analyze; these are exactly the qualities author wishes to express in his newly coined “new phase”. Finally, one is at loss as to what the author meant by “智慧”, as he seems to have made 智慧 and 知识 totally unrelated, if not completely opposite. However, according to the Random House Webster dictionary, the definition of “wisdom” includes, among others, “the quality or state of being wise; knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action; sagacity, discernment, or insight” and “scholarly knowledge or learning”. Wisdom and knowledge are in fact intertwined. They should not and could not be separated.
I fail to see how by merely adopting a different phrase, one can the miraculously solve the problems in our education and social systems the author singled out. I’m even more surprised to see him lecturing at Tsinghua on such a trivial issue. His overly simplistic and naïve views on the influence a phrase may have on a society of China’s size are certainly entertaining. If anything, the author himself is probably the only victim of semantics and old fashioned education. The final solution of social issues can only come from systematic changes in political and economic structures.
>
> 这观念的混淆,看起来是芝麻小事,但笔者认为这可是非同小可,它已影响了国内教育的方式,进而波及到社会文化的基质。不说别的,一般人会以为只要脑子里多装一些知识,就可获得知识分子的头衔,懂道理、增强智慧反而是次要的,这已严重的脱离了intelligentsia的本意。这种观念一盘踞在社会,竞相背书以填鸭方式传授知识的教育形态不成形才怪。这种教育方式已经在国内形成了一个极难摆脱的枷锁,成了教育改革的大障碍。 - posted on 10/22/2003
玛雅回来了。别跟我们说你又去了哪里。要说之前,一定要先打个招呼,我先把自己的神经刺激保护系统在脑子里启动起来,先要变得皮实些。:)
这观点的帖子好象比较常见。我觉得虚风子说的也自然有理。是何称法好象不是很重要,还是要看是何行为。修为定义才是根本。里面硬是能列了5条。彼此之间好象没什么关联,却也不正交。俺自己觉着,其实就两条,一是知识,即追求西方传统意义的truth原则;二是独立,独立于世俗利益和任何具体的利益集团。
俺比较寡学,诸子百家是否算现代意义的“知识分子”称呼,很怀疑。除此之外,似乎只觉着晚清民国时出了几位众所周知的分子,真正西方意义的分子。
自立转说,余英时认为不应该叫“分子”,要叫人,呵呵,忍不住笑了几声。他老人家又没有文革经历,怎么会对时代术语如此敏感。知识分子觉对是个时代的称呼,大概是中国从晚清开始彻底登上西方哲学思想、知识系统的快车以后,才有的。前50年至100年之间出现的?可惜实在没时间去求证这说法的来源。文革后普及的吧。这个分子的原意大概只是指受正规教育的人。
78年以后,中国思想界好象突然重视起了“真理”的“客观存在”,大概才开始忧虑,中国为什么几乎没有独立于世俗利益之外的真理的追求者和陈述者?这样的人只能从“知识分子”中诞生,所以才对这种社会分子提出了更高一层次的要求。时代飞速进步,前脚上去,后脚也要离地了,享受一下投奔真理的速度和力量。知识系统教育普及大众以后,这里要求的“知识分子”就一定会出来的。 - posted on 10/22/2003
I think the best said on this subject is by Edward W. Said in his "Representations of the Intellectual: The 1993 Reith Lectures".
Basically, intellectual is a function or role to play, not an actual person as an individual. You can be a scholar but not functioning as an intellectual. You can play the role of an intellectual and you don't need a Ph.D to do that. He also listed a few things to help define when an individul is functioning as an intellectual.
In my view, the problem today is we have too many scholars not functioning as intellectuals and too few individuals playing the role of intellectuals.
Maya once wrote: After work, let's write. I say, Tonight, let me be an intellectual. - Re: 智识分子与知识分子(黄昆岩)posted on 10/23/2003
大家也许没有注意,似乎有人(是阿成?)提到关于知识分子对于政府和统治阶级(者)的独立性问题。
大而言之,是个人和群体的关系问题——就是严复说的群己权界的问题——连孙中山也是理解成个人要服从整体,国家,就和穆勒(mill)的初衷有悖;而提倡绝对个人自由的说法,应该是马克思的:社会的发展应该以个人的发展为前提;就是说,个人——尤其是知识分子,是独立于社会主流的;当然老马没有想到他收获了一群跳蚱。。。。。。 - fengzi is insightful! I agree with your points.posted on 10/23/2003
- posted on 10/23/2003
According to Edward Said, an intellectual is not only independent from government or masses or mainstream, he/she is only functioning as an intellectual when his or her independent thinking is somewhat against these things. In other word, my understanding is that when a scholar is serving the government, he is not functioning as an intellectual anymore. So the roles are rotating. When you are in the cabinet and I am not inside the government I am functioning as an intellectual. When I serve the government and you give me an indpendent critism, you are an intellectual and I am not. I think that is a fair game. So, protecting intellectuals is actually protecting independent thinking and the voice of criticism. The current or fashinable way of defining intellectuals in China is actually just a promotion of those who have high degrees. It is actually a class war against workers and peasants etc. The term "to respect intellectuals" is only used for self interest and self promotion. It has nothing to do with the true nature of being an intellectual.
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation