{
  "format": "arthurs-review-publication-proof/v1",
  "createdAt": "2026-07-13T15:37:36.778Z",
  "publicUrl": "https://blog.leesaitool.com/commentary/blur-big-word",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-11T13:55:44.054Z",
  "updatedAt": "2026-05-18T09:52:41.457Z",
  "article": {
    "titleZh": "模糊的大道理",
    "titleEn": "Vague GRAND Truths",
    "slug": "blur-big-word",
    "category": "commentary",
    "excerptZh": "那些模糊的大道理，一旦你讲清楚了就是错的了。 ",
    "excerptEn": "Those vague grand truths have one in common: the moment you spell them out, they're wrong.",
    "seoDescription": "",
    "bodyZh": "今天的话题还是跟我们学校的内容有关。学校里在学习古希腊神话，其中要学习 Greek cultural values，还有从中提取道理。 今儿有一篇，是关于有一个父一个子，是凡人，但是做出了翅膀飞行，然后那个儿子飞得太高，翅膀融化死了。 所以古希腊人的文化价值就是说，人不能做，神的事情，或者说你要对你现有的生活，所有物（etc）满意。 \n\n延伸到现在，就是怎么样定义不越界，怎么样定义什么时候做得到什么时候做不到的。 正好就使用古希腊 来举例。古时候人们敬佩和畏惧宙斯的力量，宙斯拿双手就可以送出一束闪电，击中大地，可以杀人。 那么再看一看现在的人类呢？人类有哪一方面做的不如古代的神？人类的能力已经远远超过了古代人对于神的想象。二战期间，美军对于东京进行轰炸的时候，出动了 300 多架轰炸机，一晚上投掷数千枚炸药，一次性可以炸死几十万人。核武器也被研发了出来，一次性释放的力量相当于数次地震。驱雨弹被研发了出来，发到天上就可以下雨。自然力量几乎已经完全在人类的掌控之中。\n\n培根就说过，科学的目的是为了支配自然。要是所有人都使用和遵守古希腊的文化价值，那我们是永远不能达到现在的惊人成就的。就在 16 世纪、17 世纪，人飞上天还是一种几乎完全不可能的想象。到了 20 世纪，仅仅三四百年，人类就可以翱翔在大气层，可以登陆到月球，可以将航天器发射到离地球数千亿公里之外的轨道上。\n这时候，那些遵守文化价值的人要说了：这些定义是以前的人的腐朽的定义，现在人自然有更加好的定义，或者说更加好的边界。我又要问了，这个边界是谁定义的？\n\n公元前的时候，神话定了边界，结果没有一点是对的。在之后的数千年间，教会定义了边界，结果人类陷入了思想的最大的停滞之中。自从工业革命以来的数百年间，没有什么边界的定义能够保持几十年以上，凭什么有人能告诉你，有一个边界是你要遵守一生？\n\n举这一个例子只是要证明一点，那就是词汇的定义很重要。前面讲的神话的故事，要是作为娱乐，无可厚非。要是作为人生大道理，就要经过严谨的逻辑推理和论证。那个故事很明显是经不住推敲的。从一个不可靠的故事里面推出来的道理，自然而然的可以知道也是不可靠的。比如说你要向人们推销，人要知道自己的边界这样的道理。为了保持你的严谨性，你不得不说：人要知道一个人通过自己的能力可以对他人或者自然施加的影响的边界，并且遵守。（人类发展的历史就是人类通过自己的力量改变周边环境的历史）但是你一旦严谨的表达，就会发现很多问题。\n\n再举一个例子，顺应自然。比如“自然”是什么？癌细胞扩散是自然的，你要顺吗？洪水淹村是自然的，你要顺吗？人类所有的文明进程，本质上就是对抗自然进程。一旦把自然定义清楚，你会发现这句话要么是废话，要么跟人类实践完全矛盾。\n\n很多人也喜欢说做真实的自己\n“自我”是什么？你现在的想法，还是十年前的，还是未来的？自我是固定的还是变动的？如果自我是变动的，那你遵守的是哪个版本？如果自我是固定的，有什么证据？这句话听起来深刻，但它的核心概念自我本身在哲学上就是一个几千年没解决的问题。\n\n这类词语还有一个共同特征值得你睁大你的小眼睛稍微瞄一眼：它们的模糊性不是偶然的，正是靠着披着一层模糊的面纱才能在各种场合都可以大摇大摆地兜售自己，从而获得普世真理的地位。这本身就是一种修辞策略，大白话就是想让你相信。",
    "bodyEn": "So today's thing is still about sth from my school. They're teaching us Greek mythology in class, and part of that means learning about Greek cultural values and extracting lessons from them. Today's story goes like this: a father and a son are mortals, but they build wings and fly. The son flies too high, the wings melt, and he falls to his death. So the Greek cultural value here is: don't do the gods' work, or you should be content with what you have, with the life and the things you already have.\n\nNow extend that to today, and the question becomes: how do you define overstepping? How do you define what you can do and what you can't? And Greek mythology is a perfect example here. Back in the day, people revered and feared Zeus's power — he could raise both hands and hurl a bolt of lightning at the earth, kill people on the spot. So now look at humans. In what way do humans fall short of the ancient gods? Human capability has long surpassed what ancient people ever imagined the gods could do. During WWII, the U.S. bombed Tokyo — over 300 bombers deployed, thousands of pounds of explosives dropped in a single night, killing hundreds of thousands of people in one go. Nuclear weapons were developed — a single detonation releases energy equivalent to multiple earthquakes. Rain-inducing shells were invented — fire them into the sky and it rains. The forces of nature are practically entirely under human control.\n\nBacon said the purpose of science is to dominate nature. If everyone followed and obeyed Greek cultural values, we would never have achieved these astonishing accomplishments. In the 16th, 17th century, humans flying was still an almost completely impossible fantasy. By the 20th century — just three or four hundred years later — humans could soar through the atmosphere, land on the moon, launch spacecraft into orbits billions of kilometers from Earth.\n\nAt this point, the people who cling to these cultural values will say: those definitions were outdated definitions from old dead people; modern humans naturally have better definitions, better boundaries. And I'd ask again: who defines these boundaries?\n\nIn ancient times, mythology drew the line and not a single one of those lines turned out to be right. For thousands of years after that, the church drew the line and humanity fell into the greatest intellectual stagnation in history. In the centuries since the Industrial Revolution, no definition of a boundary has held up for more than a few decades. So on what basis can anyone tell you there's a boundary you should obey for your entire life?\n\nThis example is just to prove one point: the precision of definitions matters enormously. The mythological story I just told — fine as entertainment, no problem at all. But if you're using it as a grand life lesson, it needs to survive rigorous logical reasoning and argumentation. That story obviously doesn't hold up under scrutiny. A lesson drawn from an unreliable story is, naturally, also unreliable. For example, if you want to sell people on the idea that \"people should know their limits\" , to maintain your rigor, you'd have to say: people should know the boundary of what one can do to affect others or nature through one's own capabilities, and respect that boundary. (The history of human development is the history of humans changing their surroundings through their own power.) But the moment you express it rigorously, you run into all kinds of problems.\n\nAnother example: \"follow nature.\" What even is \"nature\"? Cancer cells spreading that's natural, should you follow that? A flood destroying a village that's natural, should you follow that? The entire history of human civilization is, at its core, a process of fighting against nature. Once you pin down what \"nature\" means, you realize this statement is either a tautology or completely contradicts human practice.\n\nA lot of people also like to say \"be true to yourself.\"\nWhat is the \"self\"? Is it what you think now, what you thought ten years ago, or what you'll think in the future? Is the self fixed or fluid? If it's fluid, which version are you obeying? If it's fixed, where's the evidence? The phrase sounds profound, but its core concept of the self is itself a philosophical problem that hasn't been solved in thousands of years.\n\nThese kinds of words share one more common trait worth you opening your eyes a little wider to notice: their vagueness isn't accidental. It's precisely by wearing a layer of vagueness that they can swagger into any context and sell themselves as universal truths. That is itself a rhetorical strategy. Plain talk it's just to make you believe.",
    "coverImagePath": "uploads/2026/05/1631d52e-23e3-4389-9668-b726e91ac85c.webp",
    "tags": []
  }
}