What kind of person can be regarded as a learned person?
We often hear people say that some people are learned and some people are not. The word "learning" is scary. It can knock people down or it can be knocked down. But what is learning? People have different opinions. Call me an uneducated person, and I am often wrestled by revolutionary youths with keen eyes. However, I have never eaten pork or seen a pig run away. Since I put two locust trees in the well, after all, I have dealt with many learned people, large and small, so I can't help but have some personal opinions on the word "learning". I will teach them here. If a person wants to be "learned", he must first "know a lot". That is to say, you know more and hear more. Some intellectuals know very little. They can't even change the light bulb. They haven't even heard of Teresa Teng. They can't tell leeks from celery. They are not ashamed. They call themselves "scholars" and think that well-informed people are "doing nothing". According to this logic, idiots are the most "idle", and the more knowledge they have, the more reactionary they are. This is really the degradation of learning and the sorrow of civilization. The phrase "learn more and listen more" here can be "know things in many fields". Confucius, for example, knows everything from sacrificial rites to driving and archery, and he knows everything about military affairs and "political economy". This is called "extensive". Nowadays, many people think that someone is a professor in the department of mathematics, which is the ignorance of modern people. When I was in college, my friends in the department of mathematics studied Sartre and Freud all day, and didn't delay him from getting his doctorate. This is the advantage of a comprehensive university. Without a certain degree of "knowledge", you can learn nothing. In addition, knowing more and hearing more can also mean "knowing more than others in a certain field", which is called "expertise". For example, we all have some medical knowledge, but the doctor knows more than the average person, so he is "learned" in the medical field than us. Even if he had a medical accident, he was still more knowledgeable than us amateurs. Don't bark when you find a great writer's typo, belittle his personality and feel that others are not as good as yourself. There are too many such superficial young people now. Another example is Liu's Dream of Red Mansions. Many people call him wild fox Zen and say that he is ignorant. In fact, Liu's research may be weaker than those of senior redologists, and the way may be incorrect. After all, he is a writer, but Mr. Liu is better than ordinary Chinese students, right? I think he is more familiar with A Dream of Red Mansions than many classical literature teachers. Liu is at least an expert in A Dream of Red Mansions. It should be noted that breadth and depth are not antagonistic. Some people can be very proficient in many fields, as the ancients often did, and there are many modern people. Therefore, we must never think that the sofa made by blacksmith is inferior to that made by carpenter. Masters like Foucault and Barthes, can we say which major they are? A person who specializes in a certain field must also know more about the adjacent fields. For example, a college student majoring in literature, history and philosophy should have a doctorate or at least a master's degree in literature, language, history, philosophy, religion, art, psychology, society, politics and economy. Therefore, we primary school students who have made some achievements have no reason to be proud. We are still far from the real master. If a physics undergraduate takes it for granted to teach a chemistry professor casually on physical problems, it is unreasonable "frivolity". Secondly, knowing more and hearing more can be counted as "learning". But just knowing a lot of things can't be regarded as "learning". Taxi drivers in Beijing know a lot, from Zhongnanhai to Babaoshan. Some drivers are more knowledgeable than directors and professors from other provinces, but most of them are not "learned". Why? Because we must digest what we know into systematic "knowledge", we can call it "learning" In the words of ordinary people, it is to "say one thing and do another." Some people are nicknamed "Zhang Daxue" and "Li Daxue" because they speak in an orderly way and the information they have is integrated into a system. Now that the Internet is developed, you can find a lot of information and browse many articles. This seems to be a good thing on the surface, but it is also very harmful in fact. Many teenagers who don't practice basic skills swallow some information fast food at random, thinking that they are very knowledgeable and always "suddenly enlightened", and then strut to teach others. They may not like to say that they are uneducated, but they can't tell "information" from "knowledge". Reading Zhang Ailing today and Zhang Henshui tomorrow does not mean that you know "modern literature". Reading some water margin today and reading some Jin Yong tomorrow does not mean mastering "martial arts literature". Information must be processed before it can be transformed into "knowledge", otherwise, why spend money on school? Can't you "get information" by reading at home? The main purpose of university is not to learn "knowledge", but to learn "methods of acquiring knowledge". When I was about to enter the university, my father was very confused: "You have read both A Dream of Red Mansions and Das Kapital. Are there any words in the world that you don't know? " The old man thinks that college students only know five or six hundred more words than middle school students. Why is it difficult for modern people to become "learned" without going to college? Just because there is too much information now, I don't know how to "learn" without professional training. So it doesn't matter what major you study in a university. People who have undergone strict academic training can learn anything. Those who think that those who graduated from the education department can't engage in journalism and those who graduated from the economics department can't engage in politics are generally cute idiots in the school. Ordinary people are still right. There is no need to find a tutor in the math department to help children with math. As long as you do well in math in the college entrance examination, the history department will do. Friends who didn't go to college don't have to feel inferior. As long as you practice according to academic procedures, you can become a great scholar. Liang Shuming and Li Zehou are role models. Many friends who failed in the college entrance examination wrote to me, and I replied in this way. Thirdly, with systematic knowledge, it can only be regarded as "knowledge in the stomach". Those knowledge must be applied flexibly and concretely in order to be truly mastered. Memorizing 5000 mathematical formulas but not solving 50 problems, what is learning? Mathematics won the Olympic gold medal, but can't calculate the electricity bill. What is the knowledge? You can't beat Kong Dong Qing by reciting 30,000 Go formulas. What is a master? A computer's 80,000 g hard disk is full of "correct and rigorous knowledge", but the configuration of 286 cannot be adjusted. As soon as you hit the keyboard, it will crash, and that knowledge will become dead knowledge. Many scholars nowadays belong to such "knowledgeable" people. Reading is like a book, writing is like a ghost. After studying for fifty years, I can't even speak some common sense. I have written one academic book after another. Apart from commenting on titles and filling out forms, even the responsible editor is considered as a reader. Of course, it is good to have knowledge in your stomach. Even if we can't solve practical problems, we can finally "be jiaozi in the teapot-understand" and generally don't persecute good people too much. This is not entirely their fault, but their educational background. Learn more, learn more, learn more, be systematic, and be able to use it flexibly. This is called "having both ability and learning", which can already be said to be "learned". The only difference is whether the knowledge is large or small. But for those who really pursue higher-level knowledge, it is not enough to have talent and knowledge, but more importantly, to have knowledge. That is, there is "knowledge", invention and innovation. You have learned so much knowledge, but you can't add some new ideas and things to the world. You said what others said, you quoted what others dug up, and you performed the master's program. That's a little sorry for your life. However, few people can persist honestly. For example, many scholars in the Department of Philosophy are self-aware and do not call themselves "philosophers". They are just people who study philosophy. Knowing when Hegel was born and what works Kant wrote in his later years is certainly not a philosopher. Who can be called a philosopher? Is it necessary to graduate from the philosophy department? Let's think for ourselves. Neither Lu Xun nor Guo Moruo was born in the Chinese Department or the History Department. What needs special attention here is that "knowledge" should be based on "learning" and "talent". Without knowledge and talent, but eager for quick success, we must pursue "knowledge", which can only be self-deception. Nowadays, many cool critics and men, old and young, who take swearing as their heroes are eager to show their "erudition" psychology. Scold Qian Zhongshu today, scold Liang Yong tomorrow, and don't want to eat a few bowls of rice, just like flies hovering in people's rice bowls. Such "knowledge" often exposes one's ignorance and incompetence. According to the plot of Confucius reading Tang poetry in one of my absurd works, some scholars once cursed that "Kong Dongqing doesn't even understand basic historical knowledge, which is a shame of Peking University". I only have a wry smile: it's a shame of Peking University. Many people envy the profound insight of Lu Xun's essays and think that he can write essays by "daring to fight and dare to rush". I didn't know that Lu Xun had accumulated talent and knowledge for decades, and his essays were so unprecedented. Be brave and sharp. Can today's revolutionary teenagers surpass the level of the cultural revolution posters? Why did the poster come up so soon? No talent to learn to do the basics. Therefore, a complete knowledge should include talent, knowledge and knowledge. In order to acquire talents, knowledge and knowledge, we need several personal qualities such as morality, righteousness and courage, which is another problem. -Philosophical Essay: Learning is a weed. Jiang Sheng's learning is a flash of the light of life, a bit of truth, from which generate makes a magnificent chapter, and learning is a weed. In the desolate wilderness, if you occasionally see one or two weeds, you may be surprised that their vitality is too disproportionate to the barren wilderness. But it was unexpectedly born there, swaying there, and it had the opportunity to be born and grow there. If you transplant it into fertile soil, it may be stronger, more prosperous and wither. If you sow its seeds, you may gain a lot or nothing. You will also understand the meaning of Laozi's "Tao and nature". Learning, let nature take its course, but not let nature take its course. We should seize it and keep asking (even if the final result is qualitative, we can settle a problem); If you find something, you will make unremitting efforts to get to the bottom of it. There is no denying the role of organized scientific exploration in the progress of civilization. It is the establishment of scientific organizations and institutions that has played an important role in promoting the development of modern civilization. However, what really brought academic progress was the unexpected and fleeting inspiration behind it and the seeds buried in the fertile fields, which brought the flowers of learning to bloom. In the original sense, the germination of academic creativity is a natural expression of wanting nothing. In colleges with excellent experts and equipment, knowledge grows on the edge of academic fields like weeds: a wild rice growing on the wasteland of Hainan has become a magical grass to fill countless famines through extraordinary scientific improvement in Yuan Longping; An abandoned penicillin vaccine in a glass bottle was caught by Fleming's eyes in an instant and became a panacea to save thousands of lives; An accidental fluorescence flicker led to the discovery of X-rays, which opened many unknown natural exploration fields and contributed to a profound revolution in the history of science. In some eccentric Einstein-style characters, we can see the exploration motivation from special personality. No one knows why they are so obsessed with learning, but learning has gained strange vitality in the middle ... they are "weeds" in themselves. Learning is an "ecological" product. The origin of a certain academic ecology can be seen from the random activities of scholars and the exploration activities led by inexplicable whimsy. Perhaps painstaking efforts will also achieve something, but this success also needs to be triggered in an instant; It is it that dominates the fate of scholars. Qian Zhongshu said: "Generally speaking, learning is something that two or three innocent people discuss and practice in an old house in the middle of nowhere. If you show your knowledge in the market, you will become a popular knowledge. " The key to cultivating learning is to coordinate its internal environment and cultivate the root of learning life in an academic ecology that conforms to its own nature. True learning is like weeds, magical and meaningful.