Don't vote | The misunderstanding in Paris

Olander's speech was on TV, and I casually asked, "Are you going to vote?" He said he had never voted. Young people in Taiwan dare not speak out without voting, right? He didn't notice my surprised expression, and said in a flat tone, "Whether the left or the right is elected, it doesn't matter to us, why should I vote!"

This sentence irritated me, and even though I didn't do anything for me, I kept asking: "Don't you think it's strange that you (you) don't like to vote, but you like to resist so much?" Of course, I didn't expect to get a reasonable answer. , after all, the other party is a French who has been baptized by philosophy education and has passed the four-hour high school exam in philosophy!

Self-confessing that any Frenchman who has successfully completed his high school diploma is too lazy to discuss this topic (that is, has no knowledge), the next news jumps to the summary of the game of the Saint-Germain team the night before. If there is a dispute, perhaps he will talk about the meaning and benefits of resistance... It may also refer to the relationship between the government in politics, economy and society. For him, the long-established political system has no meaning for individual people. To be honest Said that I probably have similar negative thoughts, but because of my professionalism , I dare not say "voting is useless".

Perhaps it is also cowardly not to express your true thoughts?

Later, I got the answer from Balzac's novels. When I was a child, I only read it as a story. I couldn't understand the domineering capitalism, the helplessness of the working class, or the aristocracy. That's just one character in a story to me, good and bad, rich and poor - but to kids it seems like the rich are always the bad? It is also evident that the poor are being oppressed by the rich, as is the case in The Enemy of Monte Cristo.

In the 1830s, someone said that "all values can be measured by money", that a seat of a congressman can be obtained by buying and selling, and that newspaper articles can change a person's evaluation. In the past century, they have written more and more literature. With discussion as the main axis, how can you believe that any reform is meaningful when you are accustomed to facing the cruelty of reality?

Speaking of this, I have to mention that Kundera, who developed a writing career in France, once criticized French literature for focusing too much on "philosophy" and lacking storytelling. We can also use the standard set by Balzac to illustrate the development of this phenomenon-he obviously does not want his works to be only stories that win by plot and entertain people. In another article, he said, "The academician of the French Academy said that this person should not engage in literature." That is probably because he wrote too well in comments, and it was later confirmed that he was not only able to write comments.

The successful writer Great Danes in "The Princess's Secret" can be said to be the incarnation of Balzac himself. It is mentioned in the book that "Great Danes believed that a person could not excel unless he was well versed in metaphysics. Sadly, he became a profound philosopher first, and then wrote comedy, ideas and facts, the world of books and the world of life, he studied.”

In the final analysis, it is difficult for us to say what a person who has no knowledge or is unwilling to study can get from life alone. vice versa.

Balzac himself is a person who has studied in all fields of knowledge. He has studied philosophy, social sciences and natural sciences. He has a wide range of knowledge and accomplishments, and also has a strong interest in abstract theory and metaphysics. Another point is that his interest did not come from the background of the aristocracy, but the emerging bourgeoisie, just as his novel narrated, but the cruelty in the story is that no one can get rich or rich because of reading. Success often comes through sloppy, hypocrite wandering among the aristocracy and bourgeoisie.

Also, in this article, I mentioned that Balzac himself was also writing reviews in newspapers. Could it be that he was also doing those "word sales" activities? In any case, he dared to expose the ugliness in his life is a kind of courage, as long as twenty or thirty francs can change a person's evaluation, literature is also a commodity that is bought at a low price and sold at a high price. Without a "sincere" political commentary, newspaper reporters can change their stance as long as they have a high price. When I was working at the newspaper, there was also a Taipei mayoral candidate who asked his staff about the price of the article. Our newspaper did not accept this business, but it is very Obviously the other party didn't think it was a shameful thing to dare to speak.

Two centuries ago, the essence of society was so corrupted that readers read the dark reality in literature and wondered if the society in which they lived was more progressive, or had these become bad habits? I also understand the mentality of readers who may be reluctant to vote.

Kundera felt that the philosophical color in French literature was too strong, and French literary critics said: "A writer who does not publish philosophical issues is just an art craftsman." The key is not to publish philosophical issues individually, but in literary creation. Having been able to discern the thoughts and opinions of writers, I assume that their indifference to politics comes from literature.

In addition, to expose a "misunderstanding", although French middle school students want to read philosophy, many people have not really read a philosophical work completely, maybe it's just optional reading and so on. So if I really have to debate, I won't necessarily lose him.