Ethics: Golden Rule vs Silver Rule

黃金定律 - 「推己及人」，重行善，同理心之積極表現。

白銀定律 - 「己所不欲，勿施於人」，戒行惡，同理心之消極表現。

世俗人視黃金要比白銀貴重，難道世俗人就認為「推己及人」要比「己所不欲，勿施於人」可取？

不同人對何謂善、何謂惡，本有不盡相同的標準。

按照黃金定律，倘「甲某人」認為被施以「丙某事」是好的，「甲某人」便應「推己及人」，施「丙某事」於「乙某人」。或許「乙某人」跟「甲某人」一樣，也認為被施以「丙某事」是好的，那麼「甲某人」施「丙某事」於「乙某人」便成善事，誠為大幸。現以「丙某事」= 「虐待」為例，「甲某人」認為被「虐」是好的，而「乙某人」跟「甲某人」為「同道中人」，也一樣認為被「虐」是好的，那麼「甲某人」施「虐」於「乙某人」便成善事。又或許「乙某人」跟「甲某人」不一樣，不但不認為被施以「丙某事」是好的，反認為被施以「丙某事」是不好的，那麼「甲某人」施「丙某事」於「乙某人」頓成惡事，誠為大憾。現再次以「丙某事」= 「虐待」為例，「甲某人」認為被「虐」是好的，而「乙某人」跟「甲某人」不一樣，不但不認為被「虐」是好的，反認為被「虐」是不好的，那麼「甲某人」施「虐」於「乙某人」便成惡事。黃金定律 maximises both 幸福&遺憾。

按照白銀定律，倘「甲某人」認為被施以「丙某事」是不好的，「己所不欲，勿施於人」，「甲某人」便不應施「丙某事」於「乙某人」。或許「乙某人」跟「甲某人」一樣，也認為被施以「丙某事」是不好的，那麼「甲某人」不施「丙某事」於「乙某人」便免於行惡，免卻一宗憾事。現再三以「丙某事」= 「虐待」為例，「甲某人」認為被「虐」是不好的，而「乙某人」跟「甲某人」一樣也認為被「虐」是不好的，那麼「甲某人」不施「虐待」於「乙某人」便是少做一宗惡事。又或許「乙某人」跟「甲某人」不一樣，不但不認為被施以「丙某事」是不好的，反認為被施以「丙某事」是好的，那麼「甲某人」不施「丙某事」於「乙某人」卻是少做了一件善事。最後仍以「丙某事」= 「虐待」為例，「甲某人」認為被「虐」是不好的，而「乙某人」跟「甲某人」不一樣，不但不認為被「虐」是不好的，反認為被「虐」是好的，那麼「甲某人」不施「虐」於「乙某人」就是少做了一件善事。白銀定律 minimises both 幸福&遺憾。

「幸福&遺憾 maximising」真的要比「幸福&遺憾 minimising」可取嗎？何以見得？

憂患、恐怖、驚怕

憂患[as Mou Zongshan said, this term was started in 徐復觀's 人性論:(先秦篇)]
恐怖
驚怕
How to translate the above 3 terms?
I try as follows:-
憂患意識 (ANXIETY)- my interpretation
恐怖意識(DREAD, according to Mou Zongshan)
驚怕意識(FEAR and TREMBLING, please refer to Kierkegaard's works)

Which of the above relate to God and religion?
Which need not refer to God's belief?
Which probably might be due to disbelief in God's care of our miserable life?
Which arises with sense of helpless self?
Which arises from sense of positive self and being?

孔孟思想：格物

明、清学人金聖嘆言：「格物」以「忠恕」為要門。何解？
與西方Schopenhaur and Kant, 或新儒学有何共通？
請教!

覺不覺覺之為不覺、不覺之為覺

Why in Chinese, "asleep" is "睡覺" and "awake" is "醒覺", both with "覺" as second in the compound word/term even though the same word is pronounced differently in the two situations?

In the first, "目垂"下, 卻又有覺, 此覺是什麽覺?
In the second, "酉" 伴有星(star)然後有覺, 則此覺又是什麽覺?

East & West in Common

Many "Meaningful" English words

Hong Kong is a horrible city.
Drilling here and there!
The drilling noise is the ugliest that always drives you crazy!
But it is not forbidden, seldom or never. Why?
Are Hong Kongers crazy?

Even the sight of the word is irritating!
Why not?
Look at it carefully.
It spells:
DR... ILL...ING
Being ILL even in the presence of a doctor (DR.)!!

If you are a girl, avoid the name J...ILL, avoid it please!
No wonder the Cantonese impolite language has such a word which sounds "D'...ILL"!

Remarkable Nietzschean Insight

Failure of human reasoning: The error of confusing cause and consequence AND what Nietzsche calls- the original sin of reason- "Immortal unreason"

To quote Nietzsche's words in his Twilight of the Idols and The Anti-Christ, page 59, Penguin, 2003:

"The newspaper reader says: this party will ruin itself if it makes errors like this. My [Nietzsche's] higher politics says: a party which makes errors like this is already finished- it is no longer secure in its instincts. Every error, of whatever kind, is a consequence of degeneration of instinct, disgregation of will..."

Is "this party" the "Birthday Party" nowadays?
Please need not ask me. Think about it yourself. Do not insult your own wisdom by asking anyone.

Words said- full stop

Words said are not to be claimed:

In explaining her translation of Plato's Symposium, a lady translator says that Socrates always starts a debate by asking the opponent first and then introduces his alternative views and arguments afterwards to win.

If we believe that it is difficult to back up a new assertion but always easy to attack and crush an argument by simply offering a counter-example, we should really reassess the contribution made by the unlucky opponent and by Socrates. Who is more constructive in the sense?

And then when all the young kids appreciate his wisdom, Socrates claims his own ignorance however, indirectly mocking everybody including his admirers and followers. Is he irritating? Is he nasty and disgusting?

And then we have another character, Plato, who never claims and discloses his own thoughts but keeps quoting, repeating, and reporting what Socrates is supposed to have talked about. Whenever Plato opens his mouth, he would start: "Socrates says...." and then again: "Socrates says...."

His authority comes from his knowing Socrates. Is he irritating? Is he a coward?

A lot of words should actually be his words, but he dares not say: "I say.... "

To him, "I say..." has no market. "I say..." is weak without power. "I say..." perhaps appears blasphemous for without God, without Socrates, and then without Plato himself.

God make Socrates speak and Socrates makes him (Plato) speak on Socrates' behalf. Nobody is entitled: "I say... " in the whole respectable Western and religious world, it seems.

In this world, so many religious people never hesitate to claim whenever they open their mouths, like Plato: "God say... " and then again: "God say... " If you ask them: "what about you, what do you say?" They will stop, and stare at you as if you were a devil or a skin disease carrier.

When we learn Greek philosophy, we really should be more critical, rethink why and whether it should be justifiable that we followers should praise Socrates so much and thank Plato so much. Are they really 100% respectable mentors and masters?

And then the tradition of "he says...", "God say... ", "Mao say... ", "Michael Jackson says... ", "[Except me and never I] say... ".... Who should be responsible for promoting, extending, and accepting such irresponsible way of talking?

Unless religious people are "God's Gods", no way are they capable of knowing what God say. Forgive me to say, these religious people whose lips always stick with "God say" are insulting God, if any. By the same analogy, Plato insults Socrates. And many are insulting their icons.