题干

阅读下面的文字,回答问题。

宽容骑士

何满子

    在市场经济发展中,近年出现了一些宽容骑士。人数不多,却舌端花生,笔底波澜,颇能引人驻目停耳。如议论某人某事某现象,其公式大抵是:有好的一面,也有不好的一面;要肯定其积极面,也不能忽视其消极面。因此主张对万事万物要大度能容,说起来娓娓动人。初视之,仿佛在主张老黑格尔的“凡是存在的都是合理的”这一例题;细辨之,则是在鼓吹均衡论,亦即“此亦一是非,彼亦一是非”的相对主义。而其所开的药方则是:请君稍安毋躁,随着市场经济的发展,一切新秩序、新关系、新伦理都会自然形成,急什么!骑士们指点江山,笑傲众生,讽嘲他人为短视、狭隘、红卫兵心态。他们是站在云端里静观世变的哲士,不食人间烟火。

    世上的万事万物,当然也很难判定清一色的绝对的好坏利弊,此所以无可无不可的发源地生哲学也有其市场。对万事不加评价,连称好好的司马徽之类的人物也确实能招人喜欢,八面玲珑,今语称之曰到处摆得平。但是,常人要修炼到宽容骑士那样的道行是很不容易的。我还怀疑,骑士自身是否真能心理气和地宽容大度到底;当别人触犯了他们,对他们“宽容论”表示非议时,是否真能沉得住气。如果也会气急败坏,暴跳如雷,那就证明骑士们不客气对一切要有宽容气度,而他本人却并不对一切都逆来顺受,维持其宽容的矜持;则即使不便说骑士的“宽容论”是虚伪的,至少也说明“宽容论”有点什么破绽。

    诚然,事物的是非利弊,其价值判断不宜绝对化,但人们凭常识、凭经验、凭理性的思考,是得以定出应有的标准来的。鸦片烟能镇痛安神,作麻醉剂入药,但它毕竟是毒品,上了瘾是要把人报废的。当然,鸦片烟的例子太极端,太彰明昭著,即使宽容骑士,也不会向禁鸦片烟一事说教。

    倘若弊害不那么明显,效验不那么迅疾的事物,例如近年来迅速膨胀的市场大众文化中的庸俗趣味之泛滥,有人如果提点意见,向社会提点警告,宽容骑士就要出来说教了:不要太停泊呀,要尊重不同君族的精神文化的追求呀。其公允宽大之态可掬,而且动辄还以莫非还想回到“文革”时期的文化沙漠相恐吓。似乎要多样化就得让人吞咽一切污泥浊水,容忍一切乌七八糟的垃圾,连人们皱个眉吭个气的权利也应被剥夺。骑士们是提倡宽容的,怎么对别人不合他们心意的言谈就没有宽容的雅量呢?

    又如,有一种脏话连篇、耍嘴皮子调侃人生、将严肃的问题化为一笑的所谓“玩个梦”的文化,有人要写,有人要印,有人要读,也只好由它。舞台上有个把小丑,算不得什么,也算是多样化吧。可是有人对这类无聊的嬉皮笑脸表示不满,也该算是多样化的声音之一种吧?宽容骑士却又出来干预了,说这种人生调侃有重大贡献,它摧毁了往昔虚假的神圣、崇高、英雄观念;却丝毫不提它在摧毁虚假的同时,把人生应有的庄严、神圣、崇高也连根摧毁了,它所呼唤的是一种否定一切的着地打滚的人生。

    总而言之,骑士们所提倡的是一种泯灭是非、无爱无憎的窗帘。那么,社会文化、社会道德等等的是非利弊靠什么来解决呢?骑士们的回答是,人是无能为力的,正确的途径就是大家躺着,静候社会的自我调节来解决。谜底就是市场规律“万能论”。

    十九世纪和二十世纪之交有一派社会主义认为,资本主义的市场规律能使资本主义自动成长为社会主义。排除了人在历史创造中的能动作用,是一种扩大的拜物教。这种将一切都托付给市场经济来自我调节的高论,是否也和商品拜物教的教旨极其相像呢?

上一题 下一题 0.0难度 选择题 更新时间:2019-05-25 05:44:17

答案(点此获取答案解析)

同类题3

阅读理解

    The question of what children learn, and how they should learn it, is continually being debated and redebated. Nobody dares any longer to defend the old system, the parrot-fashion(way of learning by repeating what others say)of learning lessons, the grammar-with-a-whip(鞭子)system, which was good enough for our grandparents. The theories of modern psychology have stepped in to argue that we must understand the needs of our children. Children are not just small adults; they are children who must be respected as such.

    Well, you may say, this is as it should be, and a good idea. But think further. What happens? “Education” becomes the responsibility not of teachers, but of psychologists. What happens then? Teachers worry too much about the psychological implications(暗示) of their lessons, and forget about the subjects themselves. If a child dislikes a lesson, the teacher feels that it is his fault, not the child's. So teachers worry whether history is “relevant” to modern young children. And do they dare to recount stories about violent battles? Or will this make the children themselves violent? Can they tell their classes about children of different races, or will this encourage racial hatred? Why teach children to write grammatical sentences? Oral expression is better. Sums? Arithmetic? No; real-life mathematical situations are more understandable.

    You see, you can go too far. Influenced by educational theorists, who have nothing better to do than write books about their ideas, teachers leave their teaching-training colleges filled with grand, psychological ideas about children and their needs. They make complicated preparations and try out their “modern methods” on the long-suffering children. Since one “modern method” rapidly replaces another, the poor kids will have well been fed up by the time they leave school. Frequently the modern methods are so complicated that they fail to be understood by the teachers, let alone the children; even more often, the relaxed discipline so necessary for the “informal” feeling the class must have, prevents all but a handful of children from learning anything.