英文

一个理想的受过教育者，不一定要学富五车，而只须明于鉴别善恶；能够辨别何者是可爱，何者是可憎的，即是在智识上能鉴别。

Good Taste in Knowledge

THE aim of education or culture is merely the development of good taste in knowledge and good form in conduct. The cultured man or the ideal educated man is not necessarily one who is well-read or learned, but one who likes and dislikes the right things.To know what to love and what to hate is to have taste in knowledge. ... I have met such persons, and found that there was no topic that might come up in the course of the conversation concerning which they did not have some facts or figures to produce, but whose points of view were deplorable.

Such persons have erudition, but no discernment, or taste. Erudition is a mere matter of cramming of facts or information, while taste or discernment is a matter of artistic judgment.
　　
In speaking of a scholar, the Chinese generally distinguish between a man's scholarship, conduct, and taste or discernment. This is particularly so with regard to historians; a book of history may be written with the most fastidious scholarship, yet be totally lacking in insight or discernment, and in the judgment or interpretation of persons and events in history, the author may show no originality or depth of understanding. Such a person, we say, has no taste in knowledge. To be well-informed, or to accumulate facts and details, is the easiest of all things. There are many facts in a given historical period that can be easily crammed into our mind, but discernment in the selection of significant facts is a vastly more difficult thing and depends upon one's point of view. CD Huefi (scholarship); hsin^ (conduct); ^hih or ^hihchien (discernment, or real insight) . Thus one's shih, or power of insight into history or contemporary events may be "higher" than another's.
　　
This is what we call "power of interpretation, " or interpretative in An educated man, therefore, is one who has the right loves and hatreds.

This we call taste, and with taste comes charm. Now to have taste or discernment requires a capacity for thinking things through to the bottom, an independence of judgment, and an unwill-ingness to be bulldozed by any form of humbug, social, political, literary, artistic, or academic. There is no doubt that we are surrounded in our adult life with a wealth of humbugs: fame humbugs, wealth humbugs, patriotic humbugs, political humbugs, religious humbugs and humbug poets, humbug artists, humbug dictators and humbug psychologists. When a psychoanalyst tells us that the performing of the functions of the bowels during childhood has a definite connection with ambition and aggressiveness and sense of duty in one's later life, or that constipation leads to stinginess of character, all that a man with taste can do is to feel amused. When a man is wrong, he is wrong, and there is no need for one to be impressed and overawed by a great name or by the number of books that he has read and we haven't.
　　
Taste then is closely associated with courage, as the Chinese always associate shihwith tan, and courage or independence of judgment, as we know, is such a rare virtue among mankind. We see this intellectual courage or independence during the childhood of all thinkers and writers who in later life amount to anything. Such a person refuses to like a certain poet even if he has the greatest vogue during his time; then when he truly likes a poet, he is able to say why he likes him, and it is an appeal to his inner judgment. This is what we call taste in literature. He also refuses to give his approval to the current school of painting, if it jars upon his artistic instinct. This is taste in art. He also refuses to be impressed by a philosophic vogue or a fashionable theory, even though it were backed by the greatest name. He is unwillingto be convinced by any author until he is convinced at heart; if the author convinces him, then the author is right, but if the author cannot convince him, then he is right and the author wrong. This is taste in knowledge. No doubt such intellectual courage or independence of judgment requires a certain childish,naive confidence in oneself, but this self is the only thing that one can cling to, and the moment a student gives up his right of personal judgment, he is in for accepting all the humbugs of life.
　　
Confucius seemed to liave felt that scholarship without thinking was more dangerous than thinking unbacked by scholarship; he said, "Thinking without learning makes one flighty, and learning without thinking is a disaster. " He must have seen enough students of the latter type in his days for him to utter this warning, a warning very much needed in the modern schools. It is well known that modern e-ducation and the modern school system in general tend to encourage scholarship at the expense of discernment and look upon the cramming of information as an end in itself, as if a great amount of scholarship could already make an educated man. But why is thought discouraged at school? Why has the educational system twisted and distorted the pleasant pursuit of knowledge into a mechanical, measured, uniform and passive cramming of information? Why do we place more importance on knowledge than on thought? How do we come to call a college graduate an educated man simply because he has made up the necessary units or weekhours of psychology, medieval history, logic, and "religion"? Why are there school marks and diplomas, and how did it come about that the mark and the diploma have, in the student's mind, come to take the place of the true aim of education?
　　
The reason is simple. We have this system because we are educating people in masses,as if in a factory, and anything which happens inside a factory must go by a dead and mechanical system. In order to protect its name and standardize its products,a school must certify them with diplomas. With diplomas, then, comes the necessity of grading, and with the necessity of grading come school marks, and in order to have school marks, there must be recitations , examinations, and tests. The whole thing forms an entirely logical sequence and there is no escape from it. But the consequences of having mechanical examinations and tests are more fatal than we imagine. For it immediately throws the emphasis on memorization of facts rather than on the development of taste or judgment. I have been a teacher myself and know that it is easier to make a set of questions on historical dates than on vague opinions on vague questions. It is also easier to mark the papers.
　　
The danger is that after having instituted this system, we are liable to forget that we have already wavered, or are apt to waver from the true ideal of education, which as I say is the development of good taste in knowledge. It is still useful to remember what Confucius said:

"That scholarship which consists in the memorization of facts does not qualify one to be a teacher. " There are no such things as compulsory subjects, no books, even Shakespeare's, that one must read. The school seems to proceed on thefoolish idea that we can delimit a minimum stock of learning in history or geography which we can consider the absolute requisite of an educated man. I am pretty well educated, although I am in utter confusion about the capital of Spain, and at one time thought that Havana was the name of an island next to Cuba. The danger of prescribing a course of compulsory studies is that it implies that a man who has gone through the prescribed course ipso facto knows all there is to know for an educated man. It is therefore entirely logical that a graduate ceases to learn anything or to read books after he leaves school, because he has already learned all there is to know.
　　
We must give up the idea that a man's knowledge can be tested or measured in any formwhatsoever. Chuangtse has well said, "Alas, my life is limited, while knowledge is limitless! " The pursuit of knowledge is, after all, only like the exploration of a new continent, or "an adventure of the soul, " as Anatole France says, and it will remain a pleasure, instead of becoming a torture, if the spirit of exploration with an open, questioning, curious and adventurous mind is maintained. Instead of the measured, uniform and passive cramming of information, we have to place this ideal of a positive, growing individual pleasure. Once the diploma and the marks are abolished, or treated for what they are worth, the pursuit of knowledge becomes positive, for the student is at least forced to ask himself why he studies at all. At present, the question is already answered for the student, for there is no question in his mind that he studies as a freshman in order to become a sophomore, and studies as a sophomore in order to become a junior. All such extraneous considerations should be brushed aside, for the acquisition of knowledge is nobody else's business but one's own. At present, all students study for the registrar, and many of the good students study for their parents or teachers or their future wives, that they may not seem ungrateful to their parents who are spending so much money for their support at college, or because they wish to appear nice to a teacher who is nice and conscientious to them, or that they may go out of school and earn a higher salary to feed their families. I suggest that all such thoughts are immoral. The pursuit of knowledge should remain nobody else's business but one's own, and only then can education become a pleasure and become positive.

中文

智识上的鉴别力

教育和文化的目标，只在于发展智识上的鉴别力和良好的行为。一个理想的受过教育者，不一定要学富五车，而只须明于鉴别善恶；能够辨别何者是可爱，何者是可憎的，即是在智识上能鉴别。最令人难受的，莫过于遇着一个胸中满装着历史上的事实人物，并且对苏俄或捷克的时事极为熟悉，但见解和态度则是完全错误的人。我曾遇见过这一类的人，他们在谈话时，无论什么题目，总有一些材料要发表出来，但是他们的见地，则完全是可笑可怜的。他们的学问是广博的，但毫无鉴别能力。博学不过是将许多学问或事实填塞进去，而鉴别力则是美术的判别问题，中国人于评论一个文人时，必拿他的学行和识见分开来讲。对于历史家尤其应该如此区别。一个满腹学问的人，或许很易于写成一部历史。

但所说的话或竟是毫无主见与识别的。而在论人和论事时，或竟是只知依入门户，并无卓识的。这种人就属于我们所谓缺乏智识上的鉴别力。

强记事实是一件极容易的事情。历史上一个指定时代中的事实，我们极易强记，但分别轻重和是非，则是一件极难的事情，而有恃于一个人的见解力了。
　　
所以一个真有学问的人，其实就是一个善于辨别是非者。这就是我们所谓鉴别力，而有了鉴别力，则雅韵即会随之而生。但一个人如若想有鉴别力，他必须先有见事明敏的能力，独立的判断力，和不为一切社会的、政治的、文学的、艺术的或学院式的诱惑所威胁或眩惑。一个人在成人时代中，他的四周当然必有无数各种各式的诱惑，如：名利诱惑、爱国诱惑、政治诱惑、宗教诱惑，和惑人的诗人、惑人的艺术家、感人的独裁者，与惑人的心理学家。当一个心理分析家告诉我们，幼年时代的脏腑效能的种种不同的运用，切实有关一个人日后生活中的志向、挑衅心和责任心，或便秘症引起暴躁的性情时，凡有识力者对之，只可付诸一笑。当一个人错误时，他简直就是错误的，不必因震于他的大名，或震于他的高深学问，而对他有所畏惧。
　　
因此识和胆是相关联的，中国人每以胆识并列。而据我们所知，胆力或独立的判别力，实在是人类中一种稀有的美德。凡是后来有所成就的思想家和作家，他们大多在青年时即显露出智力上的胆力。这种人绝不肯盲捧一个名震一时的诗人。他如真心钦佩一个诗人时，他必会说出他钦佩的理由。这就是依赖着他的内心判别而来的；这就是我们所谓文学上的鉴别力。他也绝不肯盲捧一个风行一时的画派，这就是艺术上的鉴别力。他也绝不肯盲从一个流行的哲理，或一个时髦的学说，不论他们有着何等样的大名做后盾。他除了内心信服之外，绝不肯昧昧然信服一个作家；如若那个作家能使他信服，那个作家就是不错的；但如若那作家不能使他信服，则那个作家是错误的，而他自已是对的；这就是智识上的鉴别力。这种智力上的胆力，和独立的判断力，无疑地必须一己的内心中先具着一种稚气的、天真的自信心。但一己的内心所能依赖的，也只有这一点，所以当一个学生一旦放弃他个人判断的权利时，他便顿然易于被一切人生的诱惑所动摇了。
　　
孔子好像已经觉得学而不思比思而不学更不好，所以他说：“学而不思则罔，思而不学则殆。”他必因看见弟子之中这种学而不思的人太多了，所以他要提出这种警告。这个警告其实也是现代的学校所极为需要的。我们都知道现在一般的教育，和一般的学校制度，都偏于割舍了鉴别力以求学问。视强记事实即为教育的本身目标，好像富于学问即会使人成为一个高士。但是学校中为什么要贬视思想？为什么要歪曲学制，而将愉快的求学企图变成了机械式的、严定尺寸的、划一的和被动的强记事实？我们为什么要把智识置于思想之前？我们为什么愿意称呼一个仅是读足了心理学、中古历史、伦理学和宗教学学分的大学毕业生为学成之士？这种学分和文凭何以会取代了教育的真正目标的地位？何以会使学生们的心目中也认为是如此的？
　　
理由很简单：我们所以用这个制度，因为我们是在将民众整批地教育，如在工厂里边一般。而一涉工厂的范围，则一切都须依着呆板的机械式的制度去行事了。为了保护学校的名誉和将产物标准化起见，所以学校要发给文凭，以为证明。为了须发文凭，便不能没有次第；为了须分次第，便不能没有记分；为了须记分，便不能没有大小考试了。这全部的程序，成为一个整个的合于逻辑的必然事件，而使人无从避免。但机械式的大小考试，为害之大，远过于我们所能想见。因为它立刻使人注重强记事实，而忽略了鉴别力的发展。我本人曾当过教师，很知道出历史题目确比一般的泛常普通智识题目较为容易，印批分数时，也较为省力。
　　
而危险在于这种制度一经订立之后，我们即易于忘却我们已渐渐或将要脱离教育的真正理想目标，即我所说的智识上鉴别力的发展。所以孔子所说：“多见而识之，知之次也。”这句话，仍有牢记的价值。世上实在无所谓必修科目，无必读之书，甚至莎士比亚剧本也是如此。学校好似已采用一种愚笨的概念，以为只须从历史或地理中采集若干有限的资料，便足以供一个学者所必须。我曾受过相当的教育，但我至今弄不清楚西班牙京城叫什么名字，并且有一个时期还以为哈瓦那是一个邻近古巴的海岛呢。必修课程的规定，其危险在于它义涵一个人只要读完这个课程，便已在事实上知晓了一个学者所应知晓的事情。所以一个毕业生离校之后，即不再企图更事学问，或再读一些书，因为他是已经学完了一切应该知道的学问了。这也无怪其然，因为这是一个合于逻辑的结果。
　　
我们须放弃一个人的智识有法子可以考验或测量的概念。庄子说得好：“我生也有涯，而知也无涯。”寻求学识，终不过是像去发现一个新大陆，或如爱奈托尔佛郎士所说：“一个心灵的探险行为。”我们如用一种坦白的、好奇的、富于冒险性的心胸去维持这个探索精神，则这种寻求行为便永远是一种快乐，而不是痛苦了，我们应该舍弃那种规定的、划一的、被动的强记事实方法，而将这种积极的滋长的个人快乐定为理想目标。文凭和学分如一旦废除，或仅仅值其所实值，学问的寻求即能趋于积极。因为那时做学生的至少要自问为什么而读书了。这句问话，在目下是无需他来答复的，因为现在每个学生都知道他为了要升入二年级，所以在一年级读书；为了要升入三年级，所以在二年级读书。这种外加的意念，其实都应该丢弃，因为寻求知识，完全是自己的事情，而和旁人不相干的。现在的学生，有许多是为了注册员的关系而读书，有许多是为了他们的父母或教师或未来的太太的关系而读书，以便取悦于耗费了许多金钱培植他们的父母，或以便取悦于看待他们很好很热心的教师，或以便将来可以多赚些钱去养他们的家口。我以为这类思想都是属于不道德的。寻求智识完全是自己的事情，而和旁人无干。只有如此，教育方能成为一种快乐，并趋于积极。