Humphrey

Imagine this. You got a shiny new job at a civic center. You left the woke department whose discipline you were trained in for it. Good paycheck, no more insanity. But your new colleagues aren’t from your discipline. They’re specialists in the history of political philosophy, in American political thought. They’re…Straussians. What do you do? You’ve heard of these odd creatures. The rumors, the jokes. You’ve read a couple snippets online, maybe an article or even a book. Burnyeat, Norton? But now you have to work with them, talk with them, engage with them intellectually. You ask questions to be polite. They have answers, plausible responses. They correct misconceptions and caricatures. Things you’ve never heard. It even starts to sound sort of sensible. And somehow they have, as a school, not only resisted the insanity of the contemporary academy, the insanity you’ve just fled—they’ve actually been ahead of the curve in diagnosing it. Odd creatures! So, what do you do? Do you think, maybe, just maybe, your training misled you? About the soundness of its methods? About this school of thought? About alternatives and challenges? Do you reflect on why your discipline was so susceptible to ideological pressure? Do you consider, maybe, that reflecting on the regime and its pressures, on persecution and esoteric writing, may be healthy for a scholar, perhaps even part of his task? Do you even consider joining their ranks? Or do you continue with the caricatures? With half-baked attempts at engagement and criticism? I’ve seen a lot of the latter. Some by friends or acquaintances. And all to a letter evince a failure to appreciate the basics of the school, to say nothing of the man himself. We’ve heard it all before. We know esotericism has its pitfalls. But that doesn’t invalidate the thesis. It means that it should be applied judiciously. Perhaps you could even be of some help. Talk to your new, strange colleagues. Learn from them. Become one of them. It’s not that bad, I swear. Submit.

中國自明清開始接觸西方文明，一直抱住一種「天朝上國」的優越感，自認為世界中心、文明頂峰。但歷史的真相其實剛好相反——幾千年來，大多數人連基本溫飽都難以維持，戰亂與饑荒反覆出現，甚至出現人相食、易子而食的極端情況，本質上是一個弱肉強食的世界。 直到與英國等西方國家交戰並戰敗之後，才被迫開始改革；再到大饑荒與文化大革命這些沉重代價之後，才真正願意走向改革開放，承認自身制度與文明的不足，並開始向西方學習。這一段時期，是少數真正能夠正視現實、保持謙虛的階段。 但近十多年，隨着經濟發展，一種熟悉的循環再次出現——優越感回來了，自信變成狂妄，開始重新強調自身道路的優越性，甚至試圖否定普世價值。為了證明這一點，不斷作出錯誤判斷，走上一條難以逆轉的道路。 大躍進就是一個典型例子。當時提出「超英趕美」，本質就是一種對優越性的執念。當現實證明失敗時，為了掩蓋錯誤、維護這份虛假的優越感，不惜掩蓋數千萬中國人被餓死的事實。問題從來不只是政策錯誤，而是背後那種不願承認失敗的思維。 更深層的問題在於，中國社會一直無法實事求是地看清自己：既有盲目的自卑，又有盲目的自大。該學的時候不願學，該反思的時候不願認錯，結果就是悲劇一再重演，一次又一次付出沉重代價。 歷史其實已經給出答案——真正走得通的，從來不是自我陶醉的優越感，而是像改革開放初期那樣，願意承認不足、保持謙虛、向外學習。 否則最終承受代價的，永遠不是上層，而是最底層的普通中國人。而這種循環，過去發生過多次，將來亦會再次發生，陷入無盡的反覆循環之中，不見天日

用一个古老的故事里的一句话来说： 世上最好的事情就是不出生。 其次就是一出生就死掉。 但我的朋友，这些东西你都已经失去了。 只要你作为存在者，开始积累你的人生，那么清零就是损失。 作为生命的拥有者，失去它就是损失。 就像一个人可以不需要毒品，但你已经是瘾君子了，毒品就成了必需品。

查了一下全国人大的数据，有点绷不住，法团味大得批爆。之前说香港是法团主义，和大陆比那是小巫见大巫了。 2026年全国人大： 👉 代表一共提了 226件议案 👉 结果是：0件进入大会审议，0件当场通过 不是通过少，是一件都没有资格上桌投票。 这些议案最后去哪了？ 统一打包 → 交给各专门委员会“研究处理”。

江学勤：中国人实际上非常尊重西方文化，他们一直致力于推广西方经典，因为中国人认识到这些经典内含着巨大的文化价值和永恒真理。倒是西方人自己一直在抛弃经典，毁弃文化。 塔克卡尔森：好吧，我必须要结束这次访谈了，不然我要在镜头前哭了。

文化程度高的人说话喜欢用扎实的证据和严谨的逻辑链来包装我感觉。

我感觉文化程度不高的人说话喜欢用我感觉

我觉得他不像个导游，像个历史学方面的教授出来做兼职，这个历史和英文词汇量我怀疑老外都不一定听懂明白！