Sartre (p.3)

[kit]

In beginning of his book (pp.3-4), Holms talked about Sartre. I believe the book was primarily written for Christians, especially evangelicals. Wheaton College is a well-known evangelical-based liberal arts college. The book was published in 1977. It was very common in the 70s for evangelical writers to make bold statements, such as:

(1) “Such loss of meaning is a commonplace both in contemporary and in existentialist philosophy.” (p.3)
(2) “Each of us ultimately stands alone without understanding of love or anything to make life meaningful and whole. “ (p.3)
(3) “Religion offers Sartre no hope.” (p.3)
(4) “Even the modern religious man has largely lost the religious unity of life.” (p.4)

I think the book was not apologetic in nature since Holms assumed that we (similar to the Christians in his classes at Wheaton) would listen to him. This is the background we need to keep in mind.

For those who have read Sartre, I am not sure how you feel. In the old days (late 70-80s), while I was reading 余達心的「荒漠行」, the above statements were familiar. Today, with a more opened mind, I am inclined to be more sympathetic to Sartre and other atheist existentialists. I think we have something to learn from them, rather than just condemning that they don’t believe in God and promote life as meaningless.

For Sartre, in his “Existentialism is a Humanism”, his famous phrase “existence precedes essence” allows humans to define their own essence/nature through freedom. Practically, as a free being, we have been defining ourselves through learning. I can’t believe that one will allow him/herself to be dominated by our traditions, including our family, church, society, etc. But are we totally free? This is another big issue. Some other existentialists/phenomenologists in Sartre’s period might use the term “conditioned freedom” (Alfred Schutz, Merleau-Ponty, etc.).

We know that there are also some Christian existentialists, such as Kierkegaard, Marcel, Jasper, etc., and some existentialist theologians, such as Tillich and Bultmann. For Holms, these Christians might not be classified as “good” or even not “true” Christians by Holms. What do you guys think? Tillich and Bultmann were classified by Holms as theological relativists (p.5).

One last remark: I am wondering if we can replace the words Sartre and existentialist in pp. 3-4 with Foucault and postmodern. If that is the case, what is the value of philosophy/humanities for us today?

[clement]

In beginning of his book (pp.3-4), Holms talked about Sartre. I believe the book was primarily written for Christians, especially evangelicals. Wheaton College is a well-known evangelical-based liberal arts college. The book was published in 1977. It was very common in the 70s for evangelical writers to make bold statements, such as:

(1) “Such loss of meaning is a commonplace both in contemporary and in existentialist philosophy.” (p.3)
(2) “Each of us ultimately stands alone without understanding of love or anything to make life meaningful and whole. “ (p.3)
(3) “Religion offers Sartre no hope.” (p.3)
(4) “Even the modern religious man has largely lost the religious unity of life.” (p.4)

I think the book was not apologetic in nature since Holms assumed that we (similar to the Christians in his classes at Wheaton) would listen to him. This is the background we need to keep in mind.

For those who have read Sartre, I am not sure how you feel. In the old days (late 70-80s), while I was reading 余達心的「荒漠行」, the above statements were familiar. Today, with a more opened mind, I am inclined to be more sympathetic to Sartre and other atheist existentialists. I think we have something to learn from them, rather than just condemning that they don’t believe in God and promote life as meaningless.

For Sartre, in his “Existentialism is a Humanism”, his famous phrase “existence precedes essence” allows humans to define their own essence/nature through freedom. Practically, as a free being, we have been defining ourselves through learning. I can’t believe that one will allow him/herself to be dominated by our traditions, including our family, church, society, etc. But are we totally free? This is another big issue. Some other existentialists/phenomenologists in Sartre’s period might use the term “conditioned freedom” (Alfred Schutz, Merleau-Ponty, etc.).

We know that there are also some Christian existentialists, such as Kierkegaard, Marcel, Jasper, etc., and some existentialist theologians, such as Tillich and Bultmann. For Holms, these Christians might not be classified as “good” or even not “true” Christians by Holms. What do you guys think? Tillich and Bultmann were classified by Holms as theological relativists (p.5).

One last remark: I am wondering if we can replace the words Sartre and existentialist in pp. 3-4 with Foucault and postmodern. If that is the case, what is the value of philosophy/humanities for us today?

尼采明白上帝死了之後人的困境。但福柯跟尼采也強調人自我創造價值，無須理會虛無縹緲，甚至桎梏人性的宗教價值。價值在於自我創造，以向這個荒謬的世界作出抗議，並在自己之中覓得自己生存的依據。不論人生是否有意義，都與上帝的存在無關，上帝不再對當代人具有適切性，這是當代的一種淡漠的無神論（indifferent atheism）。

觀點主義（perspectivism）同相對主義（relativism）是不同的。後者認為一切觀點都是相對的，依人而定，不存在任何共同的絕對標準，因此沒有真理可言。但前者仍然認為各人處於不同處境底下仍然可以根據自己的觀點而堅持自己的立場，仍然可以從自己的觀點出發談（自己的）真理。真理受限於源自不同歷史文化處境的觀點立場，因而大家應該儘量擺脫的視域限制，達致對自我、世界、上帝更廣闊的理解。

上帝同無意義之間，還有很多替代性選擇，並非非此即彼，要麼信上帝，要麼無意義！

[wonggk]

Just got the book today (my wife got it through inter-library loan from her seminary). Browsed through the first two chapters. My first impression is that while the content might be thought-provoking during the 70's, it has lost its punch after 30 years.

I have lived and worked in the U.S. for over 20 years (in the "secular" world), and I have never seen that kind of polarization between "sacred" and "secular" that he referred to. (Or, may be this was just something within the philosophy-theology small circle?)

[clement]

Just got the book today (my wife got it through inter-library loan from her seminary). Browsed through the first two chapters. My first impression is that while the content might be thought-provoking during the 70's, it has lost its punch after 30 years.

I have lived and worked in the U.S. for over 20 years (in the "secular" world), and I have never seen that kind of polarization between "sacred" and "secular" that he referred to. (Or, may be this was just something within the philosophy-theology small circle?)

Actually is there a loss of a unifying religious view at all ?

[wonggk]

Actually is there a loss of a unifying religious view at all ?

I am not sure I understand your question, but let me see if I am on the point.

As far as my experience goes, I don't think there was ever a "unifying religious view" in the first place. When I first arrived in the U.S. in the 70's, the evangelicals, the charismatics, the social gospelist etc. were fighting like dogs and cats (and they still are).

But among Chinese churches, I do sense that now different sects are more willing to criticize others. For example, 30 years ago, no one will dare to say anything bad about Wang Ming Du (sp?) Sung Shung Jei (sp) el at. And big name pastors can go by acting like a complete jerk (can't name names here, or Daniel will give me a hard time :) ). But now, Chinese Christians are a lot more out-spoken about these "famous Christians".

I may be too far off the topic now, so better stop.

[銀狐]

Just got the book today (my wife got it through inter-library loan from her seminary). Browsed through the first two chapters. My first impression is that while the content might be thought-provoking during the 70's, it has lost its punch after 30 years.

I have lived and worked in the U.S. for over 20 years (in the "secular" world), and I have never seen that kind of polarization between "sacred" and "secular" that he referred to. (Or, may be this was just something within the philosophy-theology small circle?)

本書的確是幾ｏｕｔ的，但近代的哲學作品，又似乎久了一點以往文人的筆下細膩，好難取捨。

[clement]

I am not sure I understand your question, but let me see if I am on the point.

As far as my experience goes, I don't think there was ever a "unifying religious view" in the first place. When I first arrived in the U.S. in the 70's, the evangelicals, the charismatics, the social gospelist etc. were fighting like dogs and cats (and they still are).

I may be too far off the topic now, so better stop.

I am not sure what is the time period the author is referring to when he is making similar statements concerning the loss of a "unifying religious view".

[Daniel_Cheung]

當初想，out out地不緊要，只要話題仍是對我們有意義，可能out out地反會讓我們嘗試多點補充和修正（或反駁）他的想法。希望如此。 :p

[kit]

I am not sure what is the time period the author is referring to when he is making similar statements concerning the loss of a "unifying religious view".

Clement talked about the loss of a "unifying religious view". I think we are talking about the "loss of religious unity of life" (p.4). Clement, I might have misunderstood your point, please clarify a bit for us.

Holms has taught at Wheaton since 60s and the book came from his lectures and his interactions with the students there. During the 60s and 70s, Christians in North America were busy with responding the challenge of existentialism - meaning of life. I came to North America in late 70s. This kind of polarization between "sacred" and "secular" was not uncommon at that time, among both Chinese and local churches.

Holms made the statement about the "loss of religious unity of life" (p.3). It's a common claim among evenagelicals.

The content is "out"? That is not important (we still read Kant and Hegel, right?). What we need to understand is the spirit behind it. Today, we live in postmodern age. Do we respond appropriately to the postmodern challenge, similar to what he did to existentialism in 60/70s?

[Daniel_Cheung]

其實為甚麼Holmes說Tillich是相對主義者？凡有存在主義成份的思想就是相對主義（or perspectivism）？請問Kit當年的基督徒是怎樣看「相對主義」之類的呢？他們認為那是甚麼？

[clement]

Sorry, I think I have misquoted the words. I have an impression that the author does mention "unifying religious view", but am not sure about it.

Clement talked about the loss of a "unifying religious view". I think we are talking about the "loss of religious unity of life" (p.4). Clement, I might have misunderstood your point, please clarify a bit for us.

Holms has taught at Wheaton since 60s and the book came from his lectures and his interactions with the students there. During the 60s and 70s, Christians in North America were busy with responding the challenge of existentialism - meaning of life. I came to North America in late 70s. This kind of polarization between "sacred" and "secular" was not uncommon at that time, among both Chinese and local churches.

Holms made the statement about the "loss of religious unity of life" (p.3). It's a common claim among evenagelicals.

The content is "out"? That is not important (we still read Kant and Hegel, right?). What we need to understand is the spirit behind it. Today, we live in postmodern age. Do we respond appropriately to the postmodern challenge, similar to what he did to existentialism in 60/70s?

[nkcwong]

觀點主義（perspectivism）同相對主義（relativism）是不同的。後者認為一切觀點都是相對的，依人而定，不存在任何共同的絕對標準，因此沒有真理可言。但前者仍然認為各人處於不同處境底下仍然可以根據自己的觀點而堅持自己的立場，仍然可以從自己的觀點出發談（自己的）真理。真理受限於源自不同歷史文化處境的觀點立場，因而大家應該儘量擺脫的視域限制，達致對自我、世界、上帝更廣闊的理解。

上帝同無意義之間，還有很多替代性選擇，並非非此即彼，要麼信上帝，要麼無意義！

The question has to do with whether perspectivism is going to collapse into relativism. If everything is just a matter of perspectives, if there is never a perspective that is superior to other perspectives, if there is never a better or worse perspective, then you just invite relativism in through the back door. If whether 纏足 is morally acceptable just a matter of perspectives, then there is no strong grounds for foreign missionaries in the 19th century to oppose to this practice in China. I don't have much trouble with perspectivism when it's applied to art, but to morality? I have serious reservations.

To follow up on that, if there are no better or worse perspectives, then I doubt if you can appeal to "perspectives" themselves as criteria for judging what is better or worse. There has to be some "objective" or at least "trans-perspectival" standards as evaluative benchmarks. And that's where perspectivism hits its brakes.

[nkcwong]

There is also another potential problem with perspectivism. It has to do with internal consistency. Arguably, French impressionism is different from classicism, but even within each perspective, there is still a difference between good and bad artists. I can certainly try to paint like Monet, but my paintings are not going to be exhibited in the Notre Dame Cathedral. How do you tell whose perspectives are better even within the same perspective if you don't appeal to some standards that are not merely a matter of perspective?

[clement]

The question has to do with whether perspectivism is going to collapse into relativism. If everything is just a matter of perspectives, if there is never a perspective that is superior to other perspectives, if there is never a better or worse perspective, then you just invite relativism in through the back door. If whether 纏足 is morally acceptable just a matter of perspectives, then there is no strong grounds for foreign missionaries in the 19th century to oppose to this practice in China. I don't have much trouble with perspectivism when it's applied to art, but to morality? I have serious reservations.

To follow up on that, if there are better or worse perspectives, then I doubt if you can appeal to "perspectives" themselves as criteria for judging what is better or worse. There has to be some "objective" or at least "trans-perspectival" standards as evaluative benchmarks. And that's where perspectivism hits its brakes.

There is also another potential problem with perspectivism. It has to do with internal consistency. Arguably, French impressionism is different from classicism, but even within each perspective, there is still a difference between good and bad artists. I can certainly try to paint like Monet, but my paintings are not going to be exhibited in the Notre Dame Cathedral. How do you tell whose perspectives are better even within the same perspective if you don't appeal to some standards that are not merely a matter of perspective?

你懷疑能否訴諸「觀點」本身作為判斷好壞善惡的（客觀／超觀點）標準，我當然認同你的懷疑，因為的確不能從「觀點」本身產生一種「客觀」／「超觀點」的標準（正如你不能要求科學作出科學範圍以外的事情，這並非科學本身的限制，而是科學本身根本不是這樣用的←不過我承認這個比喻未必恰當）。除非我們像哈貝馬斯那樣，設想一種普遍化原則，設法通過溝通行為達致共識（這只是其中一個辦法，當然還有別的）吧。

我談的觀點主義，起初主要是指人生體驗上同宗教見解上觀點不同，各人有其不同的經驗構成。在我看來，觀點主義也是一種抗衡相對主義和避免絕對主義之霸權的一種折中方法，起碼我忠於我的立場同見解（這些立場同見解仍然是可變的，隨著心意更新，隨著境界升遷而變化）。

其實觀點主義也未必太壞。起碼，例如在解讀《聖經》的時候，我們是否要以當代人的標準尺度來量度古人的言行？（有時難怪近代以來不少反基人士對［尤其是舊約］聖經大加鞭撻。）我們進入古人的視域中，才能作出恰當的評價。這些都是常聽到的論調。

你提到的「纏足」問題自然是很好的回應。這的確是一個難題。問題是：我們要用誰人的標準作為標準呢？我們如何解決差異問題呢？似乎觀點同標準是在於你我處於哪個時空脈絡哪個文化背景，在於這個群體同那個群體的利益衝突和力量較量。「觀點」是一個很好的對話出發點。但如何能夠達致共識，我都好有疑問。我也認為在法律同道德問題上，觀點主義有所不足。但結論是否就是，必定存在利益衝突，必定要有人被犧牲了－－但最好不要是我？

[kit]

其實為甚麼Holmes說Tillich是相對主義者？凡有存在主義成份的思想就是相對主義（or perspectivism）？請問Kit當年的基督徒是怎樣看「相對主義」之類的呢？他們認為那是甚麼？

I became a Christian in mid-70s in HK and then moved to Canada in late 70s. During that time, relativism in any typical evangelical church was seldomly talked about. Existentialism was thought as relativism and atheism. During Sunday services, pastors liked to criticize secular way of life, such as life as meaningless or freedom. Existentialism was often used as an example and they took a very critical approach to philosophy itself. Those who read Tillich were treated as "liberal" Christians (ie., not "true" Christians). Of course my view could not represent all at that time. Gorden Wong might have more to add.

Of course I have to say Holms has oversimplied Tillich's theology as relativism in order to achieve his goal, stating that Truth is absolute. It is generally understood that Tillich takes the human situation as equally important as the Christian message in his correlation method. But it's not that simple!

[nkcwong]

[QUOTE=clement]在我看來，觀點主義也是一種抗衡相對主義和避免絕對主義之霸權的一種折中方法，起碼我忠於我的立場同見解（這些立場同見解仍然是可變的，隨著心意更新，隨著境界升遷而變化）。
QUOTE]

暫時不高談哈伯馬斯等等這些思想家，先撇開absolutism及relativism這類字眼。只是想討論一個簡單的問題﹕

我贊成「心意更新變化」，但問題是變好或是變壞。沒有超出個人perspective的觀點作為價值判準，我哪裏知道是變好或變壞？基督徒是嚮往真、善、美這個大前提，相信你與我都贊成，但如果沒有獨立與perspective的價值判準，那麼我怎樣知道我追求的社會公義等等，熟好熟壞，我怎知道我的心靈不是在倒退？

[nkcwong]

其實觀點主義也未必太壞。起碼，例如在解讀《聖經》的時候，我們是否要以當代人的標準尺度來量度古人的言行？（有時難怪近代以來不少反基人士對［尤其是舊約］聖經大加鞭撻。）我們進入古人的視域中，才能作出恰當的評價。這些都是常聽到的論調。

你提到的「纏足」問題自然是很好的回應。這的確是一個難題。問題是：我們要用誰人的標準作為標準呢？我們如何解決差異問題呢？似乎觀點同標準是在於你我處於哪個時空脈絡哪個文化背景，在於這個群體同那個群體的利益衝突和力量較量。「觀點」是一個很好的對話出發點。但如何能夠達致共識，我都好有疑問。我也認為在法律同道德問題上，觀點主義有所不足。但結論是否就是，必定存在利益衝突，必定要有人被犧牲了－－但最好不要是我？

「例如在解讀《聖經》的時候，我們是否要以當代人的標準尺度來量度古人的言行？」

閣下可否舉例？

[nkcwong]

這些立場同見解仍然是可變的，隨著心意更新，隨著境界升遷而變化。


It seems that you are talking more about situatedness here than perspectivism. Situatedness only means that one starts out with particular circumstances, being born into a certain culture, living in a certain country, speaking a certain language, etc. Situatedness doesn't imply that one cannot transcend one's own situation. But the term "perspectivism" suggests that one sees things from one's perspectives. It's more of an epistemological concept, but situatedness doesn't necessarily imply perspectivism.

I only said it's a possible equivocation but not necessarily the case.

[clement]

「例如在解讀《聖經》的時候，我們是否要以當代人的標準尺度來量度古人的言行？」

閣下可否舉例？

例如亞伯拉罕獻子一事，或許今天我們覺得很過分，但在古人的眼中，可能不過是一件普通慣常的事情，神祇要人獻子，人向神祇獻子，未必是那麼大的信心試煉——起碼未必是我們所想那麼大的試煉。

再看《士師記》，有個父親許了諾言，看見誰第一個出現就要殺了他來獻祭，結果殺了自己女兒……這些在我們看來都「古古怪怪」。

[clement]

It seems that you are talking more about situatedness here than perspectivism. Situatedness only means that one starts out with particular circumstances, being born into a certain culture, living in a certain country, speaking a certain language, etc. Situatedness doesn't imply that one cannot transcend one's own situation. But the term "perspectivism" suggests that one sees things from one's perspectives. It's more of an epistemological concept, but situatedness doesn't necessarily imply perspectivism.

I only said it's a possible equivocation but not necessarily the case.

你說的是，我的立場介於兩者之間，我又不敢太樂觀（認為必定能夠達致共識），又不是太悲觀（認為必定不能達致共識）。我又傾向於認為觀點立場不同會產生不同利益群體之間的衝突。之前我主要想回應「觀點主義容易滑轉為相對主義」的論調，於是想向相反方向思考。

[clement]

我贊成「心意更新變化」，但問題是變好或是變壞。沒有超出個人perspective的觀點作為價值判準，我哪裏知道是變好或變壞？基督徒是嚮往真、善、美這個大前提，相信你與我都贊成，但如果沒有獨立與perspective的價值判準，那麼我怎樣知道我追求的社會公義等等，熟好熟壞，我怎知道我的心靈不是在倒退？

就算有獨立的標準，你怎麼得知這是獨立的標準，而不是自己或自己所屬群體標準的無限放大呢？從經驗來看，基督徒例如在追求社會公義的事上也常意見分歧，各自都能找到支持己方立場的經文根據（這是經文的豐富性吧）。

就算有獨立的標準，如果只有上帝知道（God knows），我們無法知道，我們就只能按照自己的謙卑良心去行事了。

或許個人的「良心」可以作為個人的準則，但有沒有共同的「良心」可以作為大家共同的準則呢？

我也不太知道。

[wilson]

就算有獨立的標準，你怎麼得知這是獨立的標準，而不是自己或自己所屬群體標準的無限放大呢？從經驗來看，基督徒例如在追求社會公義的事上也常意見分歧，各自都能找到支持己方立場的經文根據（這是經文的豐富性吧）。

就算有獨立的標準，如果只有上帝知道（God knows），我們無法知道，我們就只能按照自己的謙卑良心去行事了。

或許個人的「良心」可以作為個人的準則，但有沒有共同的「良心」可以作為大家共同的準則呢？

我也不太知道。

1. 在不斷追問個人良心是否可以作為個人的準則的同時，有否考慮：即使個人有清晰潔淨的良心，期望以良善的動機，透過正確的行動，達到適切處境需要的結果。但個人是否有足夠的行善能力？罪對我們良心有何影響？罪又如何影響一群人的價值取向？

2. 相對主義否認了人對世界可以有客觀的，唯一的描述。既然沒有了客觀的"看"，只有不同視角的"看作"。而這些視角之間又是享有同等的權利。所以便沒有對錯之分，只有視角之別。

3. Huntington曾認為不同的文明(即一個文化實體)擁有不同的歷史、語言、傳統，以及宗教。他認為文明間的差異，只能以衝突的形式來解決。Hans Kung認同文明間的多元性，仍努力尋求世界倫理的構想。前者著重差異(many)，後者著重相同(one)。

[clement]

我想，就算是相對主義，也有強義弱義之別。強義的相對主義認為一切都是相對，那麼這種主張就難免自我否定；但弱義的相對主義可能只是對能否有所謂「客觀唯一的描述」表示保留：誰人的「客觀唯一」？誰人的合法性？誰人的道德？


其實，我仍在探索之中，並無預先排除基督教作為客觀標準的可能性。只不過，我對如何達致共識（共識是主體間的，而非客觀的）比較有保留。

[維記wei_kei]

或許個人的「良心」可以作為個人的準則，但有沒有共同的「良心」可以作為大家共同的準則呢？

我也不太知道。

按社群主義的看法，即使是個人的良心，在相當程度上都是由其所屬及對其有significance之社群的"集群良心"所形塑出來；反過來個人良心又會出現鞏固、調節或衝擊這個集體良心的對話或辯證的互動過程。
而我也認為即使有所謂的客觀標準存在，仍受限於人並不能站於其自身以外去掌握客觀真理，因為理解過程－－不必然是有意識的－－只會出現在主體（按：社群主義理解下的主體）中，主體的理解又必然是通過本己的視點，然後再產生主體與他者在對話互動中的視界溶合（fusion of horizons - Gadamar語），才經過反省和思考，透過語言轉化出能安身立命的道德體系，所以即使是"客觀"的真理或道德體系，仍是經過主體被理解和溶合的過程後才被掌握，肯定已是經過轉化而吸收的。所以視點主義不同於相對主義，正是因為視點不是任意而有的，更不會主張任何立場都對的，相反地是有相當堅實道德立場的。與其說視點主義為相對主義開了後門，我則認為視點主義的危險反而是因缺乏開放性而變成獨斷的原教旨主義。

[nkcwong]

例如亞伯拉罕獻子一事，或許今天我們覺得很過分，但在古人的眼中，可能不過是一件普通慣常的事情，神祇要人獻子，人向神祇獻子，未必是那麼大的信心試煉——起碼未必是我們所想那麼大的試煉。

再看《士師記》，有個父親許了諾言，看見誰第一個出現就要殺了他來獻祭，結果殺了自己女兒……這些在我們看來都「古古怪怪」。


事實是否等於應該的？可理解，可體諒、或可容忍的是否等於應該如此的？當時的宗教，獻人祭不是什麼奇怪的事情，神借用當時熟悉的（壞）風俗習慣要亞伯拉罕上一個信心的功課，並不等於神喜歡獻人祭----除了耶穌基督以外，更不等於神真的要亞伯拉罕獻子。

[nkcwong]

其實，我仍在探索之中，並無預先排除基督教作為客觀標準的可能性。只不過，我對如何達致共識（共識是主體間的，而非客觀的）比較有保留。

Clement, I don't mean to keep going after you. It's just that you have raised some serious points that I feel compelled to address. So please forgive me for being so persistent.

是共識重要，還是真理重要? 真理只是共識的產品嗎？綜觀中西古代文化，男尊女卑是有相當大的共識的，難道「男尊女卑」是真理？現在社會普遍趨勢是男女平等，難道又只是共識的產品而已嗎？

[clement]

事實是否等於應該的？可理解，可體諒、或可容忍的是否等於應該如此的？當時的宗教，獻人祭不是什麼奇怪的事情，神借用當時熟悉的（壞）風俗習慣要亞伯拉罕上一個信心的功課，並不等於神喜歡獻人祭----除了耶穌基督以外，更不等於神真的要亞伯拉罕獻子。

我最初說：「例如在解讀《聖經》的時候，我們是否要以當代人的標準尺度來量度古人的言行？」 然後你問道：「閣下可否舉例？」然後我說：「例如亞伯拉罕獻子一事，或許今天我們覺得很過分，但在古人的眼中，可能不過是一件普通慣常的事情，神祇要人 獻子，人向神祇獻子，未必是那麼大的信心試煉——起碼未必是我們所想那麼大的試煉。」然後你提到上面所引的文字。不過我不太明白你想回應哪點。

我也同意實然（事實如此）不等於應然（應該如此）。

[clement]

Originally Posted by clement

「就算有獨立的標準，你怎麼得知這是獨立的標準，而不是自己或自己所屬群體標準的無限放大呢？從經驗來看，基 督徒例如在追求社會公義的事上也常意見分歧，各自都能找到支持己方立場的經文根據（這是經文的豐富性吧）。就算有獨立的標準，如果只有上帝知道（God knows），我們無法知道……」

「其實，我仍在探索之中，並無預先排除基督教作為客觀標準的可能性。只不過，我對如何達致共識（共識是主體間 的，而非客觀的）比較有保留。」

Clement, I don't mean to keep going after you. It's just that you have raised some serious points that I feel compelled to address. So please forgive me for being so persistent.

是共識重要，還是真理重要? 真理只是共識的產品嗎？綜觀中西古代文化，男尊女卑是有相當大的共識的，難道「男尊女卑」是真理？現在社會普遍趨勢是男女平等，難道又只是共識的產品而已嗎？

你是否很害怕共識？或者對共識一詞比較多疑？

理論上看，我認為真理重要，從實際上看，即從解決現實問題的角度看，我認為真理不比共識來得適切（relevant）。要解決問題，達致共識就夠了，無須一個超越時空限制的普遍真理，況且這個真理是否存在，能否為人所認識，誰能認識，這些複雜的問題都大大超出了問題本身。問題是：就算有獨立的標準，如果只有上帝知道，我們無法知道，或者各自有不同的理解和主張……有甚麼用處？當你提出是共識重要還是真理重要這個問題時，不如你先考慮下怎樣可以在現實世界區分同辨認出這兩者。

你提到的「男尊女卑」及「男女平等」是很好的例子。你根據甚麼認為何者才是「真理」？理性？（基督教的）上帝？直覺？現況？

我認為「男女平等」本的確是共識的產品，而且是現代鬥爭的結果，本身不是自然而然的，是人類的文化成就。但你問我「男女平等」是否「真理」，我並不知道，而且並不那麼肯定。有趣的是，不論是「男尊女卑」及「男女平等」，都可以在基督教那裏得到解釋，起碼從歷史上我們可以發現基督教能夠適應於主張「男尊女卑」及「男女平等」的不同時代。

[維記wei_kei]

Clement, I don't mean to keep going after you. It's just that you have raised some serious points that I feel compelled to address. So please forgive me for being so persistent.

是共識重要，還是真理重要? 真理只是共識的產品嗎？綜觀中西古代文化，男尊女卑是有相當大的共識的，難道「男尊女卑」是真理？現在社會普遍趨勢是男女平等，難道又只是共識的產品而已嗎？

我看真理是甚麼的問題，還是一個不得不討論的問題吧！
（c.f. http://www.christianroundtable.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1603&postcount=4）

[clement]

我看真理是甚麼的問題，還是一個不得不討論的問題吧！


好了，假設能夠在形式上對真理加以界定，那又如何？如何具體化落實到內容上的定義，以致能夠解決任何的現實難題？就算大家都接納同一種真理觀，問題在何種程度上得到解決過呢？

[nkcwong]

Originally Posted by clement

「就算有獨立的標準，你怎麼得知這是獨立的標準，而不是自己或自己所屬群體標準的無限放大呢？從經驗來看，基 督徒例如在追求社會公義的事上也常意見分歧，各自都能找到支持己方立場的經文根據（這是經文的豐富性吧）。就算有獨立的標準，如果只有上帝知道（God knows），我們無法知道……」

「其實，我仍在探索之中，並無預先排除基督教作為客觀標準的可能性。只不過，我對如何達致共識（共識是主體間 的，而非客觀的）比較有保留。」



你是否很害怕共識？或者對共識一詞比較多疑？

理論上看，我認為真理重要，從實際上看，即從解決現實問題的角度看，我認為真理不比共識來得適切（relevant）。要解決問題，達致共識就夠了，無須一個超越時空限制的普遍真理，況且這個真理是否存在，能否為人所認識，誰能認識，這些複雜的問題都大大超出了問題本身。問題是：就算有獨立的標準，如果只有上帝知道，我們無法知道，或者各自有不同的理解和主張……有甚麼用處？當你提出是共識重要還是真理重要這個問題時，不如你先考慮下怎樣可以在現實世界區分同辨認出這兩者。

你提到的「男尊女卑」及「男女平等」是很好的例子。你根據甚麼認為何者才是「真理」？理性？（基督教的）上帝？直覺？現況？

我認為「男女平等」本的確是共識的產品，而且是現代鬥爭的結果，本身不是自然而然的，是人類的文化成就。但你問我「男女平等」是否「真理」，我並不知道，而且並不那麼肯定。有趣的是，不論是「男尊女卑」及「男女平等」，都可以在基督教那裏得到解釋，起碼從歷史上我們可以發現基督教能夠適應於主張「男尊女卑」及「男女平等」的不同時代。


我只是按理路思考共識的問題，沒有所謂「怕」與「不怕」，只是想指出其盲點。



如果我深信虐待兒童、強姦等等是不道德，我與人家辯論的時候，我的關注點不是到底這些問題有沒有共識，乃是虐待兒童、強姦這些practice本身是否不道德，及我能否以有力的論證去說服人家。我並不是關注虐待兒童、強姦等等有沒有共識，是否大眾認為虐待兒童、強姦等等是對，否則反方所能舉的理由也只是﹕「你看，上個月有47%的人認為虐待兒童、強姦無問題，今個月有59%的人認為虐待兒童、強姦無問題，共識越來越大了，所以如果今天投票的話，虐待兒童、強姦就無問題了！」所以，「要解決問題，達致共識就夠了」這個說法是甚有問題的。更何況，有些時候，做人要守住原則，就不能依賴有多少共識。



怎樣實際分開真理與共識，這個問題的relevancy是當我們跳出作為participant，從外往內觀照討論或辯論過程才需要發問，共識本身不能作為參與者內部的justification的理由，否則的話，就會有以上所指出關於投票的問題。


（當然，有些discourse共識是重要，如政治的discourse，但這並不是我要談的。）

關於「男尊女卑」，也許我沒有說清楚，我主要是指三妻四妾，要女人纏足，虐打女性等等，相信閣下也不認同吧。聖經有三妻四妾的例子，但是我已經說過，事實並不等於應該，希望閣下也同意。


好，真的要修筆了，以後再談吧。

[clement]

我也明白共識有不足的地方，但其他進路同樣也有所謂盲點，未知你如何回應我以上提出過的問題，例如「誰的真理？」。所謂「怕」與「不怕」，我只是修辭上說說笑，請別見怪。

我想我們的問題是在於道德判斷是基於甚麼－－是共識還是真理，或者別的甚麼。而我的著重點是社群的標準，而處境是社群的討論。

關於虐待兒童、強姦，我認為在絕大多數情況下，都不可能有贊同的共識，因此，不論是根據「道德真理」，還是根據社群共識，虐待兒童、強姦等等總是社會上的不道德行為。一個行為道德不道德，無須（我並沒有排除道德判斷的認知意義），涉及「道德真理」（我這裏理解的「道德真理」是指任何理性的人都必定會接納為真的道德判斷 ）。

我並沒有說，「共識」是判斷道德不道德的唯一標準。其他標準可以是訴諸「權威」，訴諸「權力」，使得群體內的每個個體無論同意不同意都得接受，未必自願。

更加重要的是，構成「共識」的條件是甚麼。對於這些，我並沒有予以忽略，反而相當重視。「共識」受到歷史文化因素的影響，受到個體或群體現實利益考慮的影響。因此，從經驗現實來看，「共識」正如美醜的標準一樣，可變，但並非總是任意的。而「共識」的達致，未必是通過公開的理性討論或者意見總和而成就的。

關於「意見調查」，這跟「共識」無關，只不過是達致共識過程中的一些參考資料罷了。「意見調查」並不等於「共識」。你的例子，已經假定了虐待兒童、強姦的「支持率」實際上能夠減得那麼低，如果根據你的假定，到時的確可能虐待兒童、強姦皆不是非道德的。如果到時真的有這些「支持率」，的確可能合法，但我堅信現實上不太可能，儘管邏輯上仍然可能。原因可以是人的自私，人的自我保護；未必要涉及「強姦是否道德」的討論。

道德總是相對於一個社群而言的（當然，在地球大家庭的今天，我們從整個人類這個普世大群體的角度出發來看問題 ）。

話說來，你到底怎樣理解「共識」？你是否意味「大多數意見」就等於「共識」？否則你何以提出：「共識本身不能作為參與者內部的justification的理由，否則的話，就會有以上所指出關於投票的問題。」


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus
Consensus... is a general agreement among the members of a given group or community. The process of achieving consensus involves serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion. Once a decision is made it is important to trust in members' discretion in follow-up action. In the ideal case, those who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus.... A close equivalent phrase might be the "collective opinion" of a group, keeping in mind that a high degree of variation is still possible among individuals, and certainly if there must be individual commitment to follow up the decision with action, this variation remains important....

「共識」並不排斥個體守住原則，但個體在群體中，要因為群體的「共識」而對自己的行為有所約束。「共識」涉及個體的承諾（commitment ）同參與，使得個體受到約束。

P.S.
我女朋友問過我，「如果」（好一個假設性問題，通常目的不是要得到一個答案，而是有別的關注 :) ）我在過去，會否仍然認為應該一夫一妻，會否有妻有妾。我婉轉而老實地回答說「不知道」，為甚麼？因為「如果」我活在過去（其實香港1970年代之前也可以立妾，也不是一個遙遠的遠古），我也會受到過去價值觀念的影響，或許會，或許不會，而「有妻有妾」是否道德這個問題，可能根本不會出現在台前（foreground），不會進入我的問題意識中。

關於「事實並不等於應該」，但事實也不等於不應該，如何是好？（在討論上，我們未必要決定性地提出贊同三妻四妾的主張，只須提到相反意見並不充分便可）但如果有人根據聖經認為三妻四妾「無不可」，我們該怎樣反駁好呢？這也是我所說的一個例子，指出聖經有無案例（實然），也未必有決定性。




關於「男尊女卑」，也許我沒有說清楚，我主要是指三妻四妾，要女人纏足，虐打女性等等，相信閣下也不認同吧 。聖經有三妻四妾的例子，但是我已經說過，事實並不等於應該，希望閣下也同意。