《这个世界会好吗-梁漱溟晚年口述》书评

甲午年的第一个二十万字

#Has man a future?#中文名：这个世界会好吗？作者：梁漱溟、艾恺（美）类别：访谈录购买途径：豆瓣电子书15.2元字数：约197000字阅读时间：20140204—20140223时间跨度：20天实际阅读天数：16天用时：约24h35m（两次无计时）评分：四星本书主要由艾恺采访，梁漱溟晚年口述，后由艾恺翻译英文而成。众所周知，梁老主研儒家、佛教，艾恺选择采访梁漱溟并不是要从儒家和佛教的角度去切入剖析，作为一个历经民国、五四、内战、抗日、建国、文革之后还尚存的学者，一生与梁启超袁世凯段祺瑞蔡元培蒋介石毛泽东等都有过交集，尤其与李济深毛泽东感情非浅，当然与老毛的决裂那是后话。艾恺主要是想从梁老接触的人从事的运动等轨迹来了解他这个人，而梁老却更想要从佛教和儒家角度阐释他的世界观。所以个别篇章会出现主题的分歧，不要紧，大乘佛教小剩佛教大家听听就成，别固执，涉及到孟子语录孔子语录不认识也不必惊慌，个别连汉语的孟子语录都未曾读过，更何况英文呢？章节难度不一，介于四六级之间，只是个人认为。除了特别难的篇章，因为阐述的是深奥的哲学。总之八卦部分不难，也有兴趣。都是个人口味，大家不必当真，读一本书之前可以先看目录，要看英文书是否符合自己要求，可试读一个章节便知，对于思维跳跃比较快的访谈录，如果挑的正好是阐述儒家佛教部分，只能说你运气真真是够好的。其他不赘述，留作读后感再增补。今年的一百万字居然已完成五分之一的节奏，当然接下来的重心是听力和美剧的学习，原版书只是其次。本来是喜大普奔攻克20万，但看了一个老师的微博整个人都不好了，需要静静，再接再厉。

三方 ——《这个世界会好吗》读后感

By 翩跹乌鸦听状元姐提到后看了这本书。站在二十一世纪第二个十年的开始，去看在二十世纪八十年代时关于二十世纪二三十年代回忆的文字，无疑有一种奇异的错位感。按照梁老先生说，没有普遍的真理，大多数人遵从着社会的风俗行动，唯少数具有强大心理的人能够去做自己认为是正确的事情。梁老先生当算是那少数智者，但或许是我对其了解不深的原因？在这本访谈实录中，从文字中洋溢的气息里，我依然能够品尝出特属于八十年代的那种乐观。这种乐观，虽然普遍，但也只有在经历了内战，受苦于文革的长者口中说出，才格外令人信服。余秋雨提到，王元先生也有着类似的感觉：“尽管身边还有大量让人生气的事，但我可以负责的说，就学术文化研究而言，现在可能正在进入本世纪以来最好的时期。”如同春天一样，所有人的心情都欣然起来，无论上下。九天之上，先有胡的拨乱反正，又有在四川干出了成绩的赵，一批年轻人与老一辈看起来合作无间。九渊之下，虽然投机倒把的罪名打击了一片心思最活跃的无业青年，但主要是南方的大众，心思里已经开始琢磨着给自家找点副业干了。众多今后或渐渐壮大，或喧嚣一时的民营企业，纷纷迈出了资本积累的第一步。在文化界，也有着百家争鸣的气象，伤痕文学，朦胧诗，《少林寺》，《上海滩》……一切看起来都是有希望的，连带着在现在回忆起那时进入困境的国有、集体企业，起伏不定的宏观经济，严重的价格危机，似乎都被乐观的八十年代这个光芒掩盖了。直到一场暴雨，进入九十年代，整个社会格调陡然一变。由此而言，“后之视今，亦尤今之视昔”也不过是一时妄言。每个时代都带着特有的烙印，脱离那个时代去看，心思终是难以完全融合。带着这样先入为主的印象去阅读梁老先生的言语，反照当今的社会精神，不由有点叹息。这个世界会好吗？梁老先生彼时的回答是肯定的。因为对经历过辛亥革命，经历过内战，经历过文革的老人来说，相比五十年代的白手起家，八十年代无疑是更好地发展、研究、思考的时机。而如今呢？绝对不能说不好。但面对着改革进入攻坚期的内部形式，和经济危机之后国家间势力重新洗牌的外部挑战，中国再一次站到了需要大智慧的人选择方向的路口。在迷惘之际被问及对前路的判断，做出肯定的回答无疑需要我更为坚定的信念。这个世界会好吗？梁老先生的回答一直是肯定的。因为他健全的人格。无惑，源自他完善的思维体系。基于这套体系，他一直给出了正面的判断。而想建立起属于本人的体系，又何其之难。梁老先生不愿承认是学问家，自诩为思考家。前者非我能置喙，后者倒是毋庸置疑。反思自己，也曾想着以儒法道心构建起自己的架构来，终是懒得动脑格物，比照梁老先生以弱冠之龄便基本解决了他所说唯二问题之一的“个人的问题”的经历，更觉惭愧。运用大脑来想一些事情，不能继续宅起，无疑是要不断督促自己去做的事情。无论最后对前路做出怎样的判断，只要是自己给出的，圆满无逻辑漏洞的答案，便是当被接受而为之欣然自乐的。毕竟这便脱离了从俗俯仰的窠臼。这本书最大的特点，便是一位来自美国的研究者和梁老先生的对话。最近有普文二的笑话，在我看来，这是一个二逼青年在阅读一个普通中年和一个文艺老人的讨论。不幸的是，当年对于普通青年对于消费主义的疑问被历史证明了。可惜对此梁老先生语焉不详。在更多的时候，我虽然能够理解梁老先生的话，却始终有些雾里看纱。而艾凯的问题反倒是我比较好奇的，特别是关于近代那些著名人士的八卦。果然应了二逼青年眼中的文艺青年是2B的话。。。特别是关于毛泽东和蒋介石的判断和对于共产党的评价。虽然不排除话说多年便以为真的情况，但其独立的人格应当不会作伪。作为党外人士对社会主义的信任，无疑值得我用以坚定我的信仰。而关于蒋介石最大的贡献是让共产党上台的话，呃，不知道果粉会作何感想。最令我受触动的，居然是艾凯序言的内容。“这种可以融合多种相互矛盾的思想，正是典型中国传统知识分子的特质。”一语道破。不必太过关注具体遵循哪套理论，包容各方本就是该是中国传统文化的特质。“我们今日习以为常的学术分类，其实是司马迁在《太史公自序》中论及其父司马谈的《论六家要旨》，为诸子百家分门别类，而发明出来的体系。”更是如此。既然本就是不是“官方的”“科学的”关于诸子百家的分类，也不应该有“官方的”“科学的”分类，那么为何还要强以门户之见分割诸派理论。取我所需，构筑自我才是最终的目标。至于梁老先生，我敬重其儒佛修为和社会活动，不过个人不喜欢印度那种轮回的理论，因而对梁老先生关于世界，关于未来的一些判断也就敬谢不敏了。这个世界会好吗？我现在的想法是，无论好坏，都要用力活下去，活好，活出作用。而有朝一日能本着自我的思维体系去回答关于社会，关于自我的问题，幸甚。Ps. 近来有想研究一下阳明先生的冲动，不过之前欠下的帐太多了……（10/1000)

浮华流年 谁还淡定

《梁漱溟晚年口述：这个世界会好吗？》，一口气看完了。对佛教和儒学了解不多，看后不禁感慨，浮华流年，谁还淡定。其实配合同是艾凯编著的《最后的儒家——梁漱溟与中国现代化的两难》，从梁漱溟的言谈可以看出，他也并非淡定之人，尤其是年轻时候稍有焦（骄）躁。不知大家看后有什么体会。记录人艾凯教授翻译了口述，让人不得不思考一些问题：文史哲的汉译英工作谁在做？又是谁在读？那些看似一时“无用”的文字，却给人心灵的平静。

《Has man a future》------关于梁漱溟的三种人生态度

<<Has man a future>------关于梁漱溟的三种人生态度最近在读,<这个世界会好吗(梁漱溟晚年口述)>（美. Guy Salvatore Alitto）。因为是英文版，所以在很多问题上都似懂非懂。但这本书作为一个窗口，让我了解了梁漱溟先生这位学者、社会活动家，也由梁先生一人的口述中，衍生出无数民国人物的生活印迹，窥探到整个民国时期的世事变迁。还有一点，就是对于梁先生在东西方文化上的深刻比较理解，引发我对国学的兴趣，因为一直以来接触的都是西方书籍而作为一个中国人却对中国文化知之甚少。首先我想谈谈梁先生其人其思其事。“梁漱溟（1893年10月18日－1988年6月23日），原名焕鼎，字寿铭。著名的思想家、哲学家、教育家、社会活动家、爱国民主人士，著名学者、国学大师，主要研究人生问题和社会问题，现代新儒家的早期代表人物之一，有“中国最后一位儒家”之称。梁漱溟受泰州学派的影响，在中国发起过乡村建设运动，并取得可以借鉴的经验。代表作有《乡村建设理论》、《东西文化及其哲学》、《人心与人生》、《中国文化要义》等。”以上是公众对他的概要评价。而他让我佩服的，则是他对“思考”这件事的虔诚，以至于他必生都对人生问题和社会问题心心念念；他对“事实真理”的执着坚守，以至于在批孔批林的时候仍坚持“两者没有关系”；他对中国文化的信心，以至于在众多理论中他都坚持东方文化最终必将替代西方功利文明；他对社稷民生的关切，以至于在兵阀混战中东奔西走，搞乡村建设，即使历经多次外部挫折。但是，此阶段的我们，还无法深刻理解他的学术理论，也没有梁先生那般的匡扶济世之心，对于此阶段的我，最让我受启发的还是梁先生在他年少时所经历的心路历程，以及对人生经验的体悟。此体悟一言概之——“逐求，厌离，郑重”说实话，刚看到这三个词时，被震了一下。讶异于梁先生对人生的洞见之深邃，之广阔。因梁生于甲午战争前一年，其父梁济感慨于夷器之坚与我朝兵力之无用，故从小引导梁漱溟学习西方自然科学知识，也基于此，培养了梁先生幼年的实用主义观念。自然也对中国儒文化很陌生了。从而他也就形成了类似于西方功利主义文明为代表的“逐求”观。即人与现实生活逐求不已。用现在的话来讲就是追名逐利。而衍生到一个族群或文明来讲，美国便是及好代表，发展科技，征服自然，物质享受。殊不知，当今的中国社会，处于转型期，几乎人人都以此为人生观，“房子车子”便是当今中国人的逐求之物，甚至变成了唯一的目的。而当代的西方人，似乎已经感到了逐求人生观所带来的的危机，开始像人类的精神领域探索追求了。自从梁漱溟参加了京津同盟会，并为革命事业奔走相告最后目睹了官场险恶革命失败后，年轻的梁漱溟内心的判断准则开始动摇，就像每一位成长中的年轻人一样愤世嫉俗，悲观愤懑。转而他原先的逐求理念坍塌，潜心于佛道，并一直认为自己前世便是个和尚。这第二种人生态度便为“厌离”。后来他在《朝话》中分析说“此态度为人人所同有，而所分别者即在程度上深浅之差，只看彻底不彻底，到家不到家而已。”而其中最痛透彻地者为佛家，故梁漱溟一心向佛，即使母亲在弥留之际要求他早日娶妻，梁也决然地拒绝了。用现在的说法是年幼的梁漱溟真的很叛逆。但每一个血气方刚的少年，不都会经历这样一段我行我素的岁月么。引导梁漱溟走向第三种人生态度的是他父亲的死。他父亲因清朝覆灭，作为忠臣的他感到绝望最后投湖自尽。临行前他问儿子：这个世界还有救吗？梁漱溟答:有啊。而当几十年后美国学者艾凯问出同样问题时，得到了相同的回答。肯定的回答里透漏着老者“郑重”的人生态度。他父亲的死给他承重的打击。他转念开始读儒学读论语。不料翻开论语满篇的“乐”字。通过对中国文化的研究梁漱溟懂得了人应当自觉地尽力去生活。他认为一切儒家义理尽包含在“郑重”之中了。因儒家最反对仰赖外力之催逼，并反对引诱生活向前的欲望。随后他又概括：“逐求为世俗的路，厌离为道德的路，郑重为道德的路”。“在我十几岁时，极接近于实力主义，后转入佛家，最后方归转于儒家。厌离之情殊为深刻，又是转过来才能尽力于生活；否则便会落入逐求，落于假的尽力。故非心里极干净，无纤毫贪求之念，不能尽力生活。而真的尽力生活，又每在经过厌离之后。”高考完以后，大家纠结于选什么专业。经历了十几年的灌输式教育后，大家唯一的盼念似乎就是——考上理想的大学。大家陷入“逐求”的泥沼。除了达成那个既有的目标外，什么都不思考。什么都不追求。，因而当我们问自己：什么是你感兴趣有热情的事时，都愕然了。当高考结束，硝烟散尽，我们才突然发现，以前十几年的努力 ，其实真的轻如浮云。因为我们除了学会如何考试，其他什么都不会。一种无力空虚感包围过来，因为我不知道什么才是有意义的追求，什么又是浮云。生命的价值在哪里？难道那些数字就能说明问题？周遭人群庸碌无常，难道就很快乐？。。。突然就会觉得，什么都没意思。也许这就是“厌离”之感吧。每个人，在特定时间特定地点，总会考虑到这些问题。只是在浮躁的大环境下，把它说出来甚至诉诸文字，是很不靠谱的做法。因为大家觉得这世界理所应当觉得有比思考更重要的事情要做呢。所以只有把这些想法埋在心底，等着风干。但梁老先生却很执着的把他们一一摆上台面进行论证分析并得出了一套颇为完整的体悟，我觉得很欣喜。欣喜那些疑惑不必风干，欣喜还有智者也遇到过诸如此类的问题，欣喜还有一群人觉得思考一些形而上的才是正经事。虽然到目前为止我还是对“郑重”这第三种态度一知半解，但有一点是明确的，即：这个世界虽然有丑恶有不合理的事物存在且不在少数，但这个世界依旧值得我们去用心关照，我们各自的人生依旧值得去认真经历。Has man a future ?------yeah.

（精彩书评）Deeper unity lurks in Confucian embrac

该文刊载在2010年4月29日亚洲时报大中华版块，系新书《这个世界会好吗》（英文版）书评。Deeper unity lurks in Confucian embraceBy Francesco SisciBEIJING - Let's be fair. The issue is so real that it is puzzling to us even now: how can one be both Christian and Confucian? In the 16th and 17th centuries, at the time when the West was torn by cruel wars between Catholics and Protestants, Jesuits - the Catholic soldiers of Christ - fought blasphemy, and Protestants were arguing from the farthest East that a man could be both Catholic and Confucian.They were suggesting a path of communion with the Protestants, but were also brooding on something that was exotically different from the European and scholastic tradition, elaborating on the finest differences. The deeper unity of man, suggested in their approach, was a leap of reason for the West that ended only temporarily in the 18th century, when they were ordered to leave China.However, Confucianism and its talent for bringing things togetherstill lurked in China when Westerners came back en masse in the 19th century. Then China started to officially renounce its Confucian tradition, and embraced the Western tradition of distinctions: one would be either Christian or Buddhist, either Confucian or communist, either Western or Chinese. Most Chinese "converted" to the Western mindset, and yet a handful of Chinese didn't accept it.Liang Shuming, who died in 1988, insisted that Western distinctions didn't make sense, and Guy Alitto, an American, used his Western sensibility to bring up this issue for ears in both the East and West that had grown deaf to this old knowledge. Thirty years after being written in Chinese, the conversations between Liang, the old man from the Yellow River basin, and Alitto, the young man from Southern Italy via the US, have just been published in English (Guy Alitto, Has Man a Future? Dialogues with the Last Confucian, Foreign Language Teaching Research Press, 2010).Confucius is confusion in Western terms, Liang explained to Alitto. Liang claims to be Confucian and communist, Buddhist and Christian. Faith or belief is a way of life, an experience first:What, in my view, to my knowledge, is the difference between Chinese culture and Western culture, and Indian culture? It is that Chinese culture knows of human "rationality". Chinese cultures believe in the human; not in God, as with Western culture or in Allah as in Islamic culture. Chinese culture is built upon and trusts the human. The distinguishing characteristic of Confucianism is that it relies on, and is built upon, humans, not some other being. (p 17)The human experience brings everything together: ''Confucianism is with an 'all encompassing, empty and impartial mind' '' (p 139).This unity breaks the distinctions we are used to dealing with in the West. It is not enough in Chinese tradition to know things or to be ethically ''good'', but one man has to be both. This deeper unity has also crept into the communist tradition, where decades ago cadres were called on to be ''red and expert''. The sentiment is evident now since the party organization wants officials to be virtuous (de) and capable (cai). Alitto investigates and translates - for readers in the East and West intoxicated by the Western analytical mind - the eclecticism and the capability to eat, digest, and transform everything in a ''Confucian confusion'' called China. This tradition is alive and strong in China now, at a time when China is moving into the world, having eaten large chunks of Western tradition.The distinguishing feature of Chinese culture lies in this. Chinese culture puts importance on human relationships. It expands on familial relationships into broader society beyond the family. For example, a teacher is called "teacher-father", a schoolmate is called a "school brother". In ways like this, a person always has the close, family-like, intimate feelings. Applying such relationships to society, it seems to bring distant people close together, to bring outsiders inside. This is the distinguishing feature of China and Chinese culture. To put this feature into a few words, it is the opposite of the individual-centered, egocentric way. What is that, then? The essence of the matter is mutually to value and respect the other party. (p 23)Thirty years ago, Alitto saw this undying trend - long before the beginning of the Confucian revival in China and Asia. Is Confucius ready for a big cultural invasion of the West? Liang and Alitto, three decades ago, at the time when they were conversing for the book, thought the West needed Confucius as much as China did, and Beijing thinks so now. And it is not simply about the spread of soft power - it is a spiritual need of all men trying not to be separated from one another through tiny and ultimately insignificant cultural distinctions.Distinctions also exist in China, as Liang illustrates by delving into differences between Buddhism and Confucianism, but in a nutshell, they are distinctions of experience, not of abstract knowledge or of religious faith, which remain separate. This was a path already envisioned by the Jesuits centuries ago when they tried to bring Catholicism and Confucianism together and failed because some Western cardinals thought their own tradition was being endangered. In a way, Confucius was a vessel and Christianity the content, they argued, as early Christianity absorbed Greek thought in its early stages, and this helped the understanding and spread of the new religion.Now an American, Alitto raises the issue again, giving voice to the deep and very subtle reasoning of a Chinese master coming from an ancient time. He does it with extreme modesty, which is the true hallmark of a giant, yet he leads the conversation and makes clear what is shrouded in mystery - the unclear connections of the different branches of Chinese cultural tradition. Then who is the teacher in these conversations? The Chinese would argue it is Liang, who responds to the questions of the younger Alitto, as if Confucius was explaining the questions of his followers. Yet looking from another perspective - the Western one - the teacher could be Alitto, as in Plato's dialogues in which Socrates leads the reasoning by asking questions to his interlocutors.Looking from another point of view again, it is not important who is teacher as long as a greater truth comes up.The greater truth is probably this: Confucian is the name to the "confusion" of the Chinese tradition. And this is valuable: you cannot limit yourself by excluding other ways of knowledge. This brings tolerance and respect, yet it does not ignore the fact that differences exist and that improvements on other traditions can be achieved - as long as they're based on respect. Knowledge and rationality is not simply cold calculus, but it also has an ''emotional basis'' that can't be ignored. Otherwise emotions will pop up unexpectedly from some other parts. Experience is very important and thus the experience of teaching and learning together is fundamental. The West may need this, as also China does.Politically - and Confucius was very politically minded - can this be translated into Chinese soft power? It will not be easy, and it goes well beyond teaching Chinese language in a few Confucius Institutes. Meanwhile, China will have to go further down the road of reforms and opening up by fully digesting into its systems and “Confucianizing” some harder parts of the Western tradition - like, for instance, democracy.Francesco Sisci is the Asia Editor of La Stampa.