Read Flaubert's "Dictionary of Common Senses" (Part 1): an "encyclopedia of human stupidity", a signpost to modernism

Don't be put off by its title, this is a very special and interesting little book, with over a hundred pages in total, full of entries, but it's fairly easy to read, not tiring at all, and many of which make you laugh. So if you have time, I suggest that you go through this book and feel it before reading this article.

After reading this book, most people usually have two feelings: the first feeling is, is this really a dictionary? The second feeling is that it seems that I can write such a dictionary. Both of these feelings are not only normal and common, but they are two of the most important topics we want to discuss on this show.

Let's first take a look at the author of this little book, as well as the twists and turns of this little book. Then let's talk about why we are reading this little book, or "little dictionary", what's so special about it? Why does it feel so accessible? How does it relate to our lives?

✍🏼｜By Flaubert｜✍🏼

The author of the small book "Dictionary of Common Senses" is the French writer Flaubert in the 19th century. Flaubert is a "somewhat strange" writer. Although he is considered a "big name" in the world literary world, his masterpiece "Madame Bovary" can be described as "a household name" - at least the title is a household name. Flaubert's 200th birthday had just been celebrated online earlier this month. But I don't know how many of you have read his work from cover to cover, and how many of you actually liked or disliked the author -- in other words, how many of you would have any emotional reaction to the name at all Woolen cloth? I guess the answer probably won't come with too many surprises.

In the eyes of ordinary people, compared to Hugo, Balzac, Dumas and other superstars of French literature, as well as countless idols on the way of youth growth, Flaubert is certainly not so popular. The novels of the previous writers, full of dramatic tension and amazing passion, are very suitable for a young heart, and can even affect a young man's career and emotions throughout his life. But Flaubert's novels, even his masterpiece, "Madame Bovary", his most dramatic novel, does not have a touching heroic hero, and there are not many external dramatic conflicts, and a large number of dramatic conflicts are basically It happens in the hearts of the characters, there is no turbulent era, no legendary and thrilling plots, no heart-pounding love, just life itself, just the truth: it is what it is.

Madame Bovary was too difficult to excite, if not boring, to us as teenagers. At least for me when I was younger. Encountering every writer and work is the same as encountering a person, not only with a similar character, but also with the best timing. It's like different crops should have different planting and harvesting times. The best time to meet Flaubert was obviously not in his teenage years. But if we read Flaubert again after we have grown up, especially after our experience has grown and our personalities have matured, we will feel much more interesting and insightful. Because we finally discovered that what we felt at that time was boring, but it was real; what we felt vulgar at that time was just everyday.

Let us briefly say a few words about Flaubert's life.

Flaubert's life is actually quite simple and ordinary, and it can even be said to be too ordinary, but it is very different from ordinary people.

He was born in Rouen in 1821 to a family of doctors. Under his father's arrangement, he originally went to Paris to study law, but he didn't finish it, and his health was not good, so he gave up his studies and returned to his parents' house in Rouen. After his father's death, he inherited a considerable amount of inheritance. Since then, he has never engaged in any social occupation. He accompanies his mother to live in his ancestral house and concentrates on literary creation. In 1880, he passed away unexpectedly at the age of 60 due to a sudden stroke. He rarely left his hometown of Rouen in his life, and occasionally went to Paris or traveled abroad, mostly to collect writing materials. He was unemployed all his life and devoted himself to literary creation. Although he had several mistresses, he was never married and had no children.

Obviously, his life is different from those of the star writers we mentioned earlier. He is active in the Paris literary circle, interacts with others, and often needs to write to make a living. His lifestyle is completely different from the French Salon writers, Cafe writers, all are different. And Flaubert's life experience of "being alone with heaven and earth" has left a deep imprint in his works.

If we don't understand the way of life of non-production and writing in rural areas throughout his life, we can't understand why he is the master of language and grammatical rhetoric in world literature, and he is so innovative in various styles and languages. fanaticism, to the point of not letting the same word appear twice on the same page; and can't understand why he is so fond of revealing folly and vulgarity, from Madame Bovary to our "Dictionary of the Commons" today, novels Most of the characters in it are some stupid, ignorant and indifferent little characters, but they have a rare moral force in the world, and they are serious to the level of paranoia and inhumanity.

In short, his way of life has caused him to be "strange", or "out of tune" with the world. He has a small world of his own, a set of his own thinking, behavior and aesthetic norms, which is completely different from the popular concepts of the outside world and cannot be expressed in the popular words of the time. In many ways, his work was ahead of his time and connected to our 20th and 21st century human psyche.

Having said that, I would like to say a few more words. We said in the previous "Reading the Sun" program that reading should understand the world, because reading is not reading words, but reading people. We can't look at literary works as financial statements, we have to look at the person behind the book to understand his personality, preferences, family, what historical era he lived in, what his living environment was like, and the people around him. What kind of person, what does he do for a living, how much time does he devote to writing, how he writes, how he sees his own and other people's work, etc., so that the book can be read through.

In addition to this, it is also important that we grasp the most decisive aspects of the many life experiences and personalities of writers and thinkers, what can most shape the personality and soul of writers and thinkers . Because only these can really help us understand their works, and will not be reduced to the capture of the details of the writer's life, gossip and gossip, and will not become the mechanical causal theory of literary theory. In Flaubert, for example, his life style of living alone in the country and writing professionally is what determines the most important personal characteristics of his writing.

Anyway, let's talk again. Although among ordinary people, Flaubert is not a popular star known to women and children, but in the literary circle, Flaubert is definitely widely respected and has many heavy fans. Turgenev and Zola were his close friends, Maupassant was his lover, George Sand was his best friend, his works and letters were Gide's bedside books for many years, and Nietzsche also read and Study Flaubert. Mr. Mu Xin, who we are all familiar with, was deeply influenced by Flaubert in his artistic outlook and way of life. When he was young, he wrote Flaubert's words on his wall: Art is so vast that it can occupy one person. In any version of literary history, Flaubert is also a key figure who cannot be missed no matter what. especially

For future generations living in the 20th and 21st centuries, he represents a historic shift in the paradigm of literary discourse, from fiction and literature in the traditional sense, to the modernism and postmodernism that marked our time. and milestones of literary transformation.

The "milestone" here is by no means a cliché in the history books, but when we look back at this history, you can definitely see that he is one of the few road signs that are visible to the naked eye.

📕｜About "Yongjian Dictionary"｜📕

So what kind of book is the "Yongjian Dictionary"?

The Book of Common Views is a bit special. It is both an independent book and not an independent book. What does that mean? The Dictionary of Common Views was completed as early as the 1850s. It was actually about the same time as Madame Bovary. It was Flaubert's earlier work, but it was never published until after his death. . Flaubert had intended to include this little book as part of his posthumous work, the novel Bouvard and Pécuchet, in the publication plans found at the same time in the posthumous manuscript.

So, what kind of work is this novel? It was conceived in 1872 and was not finalized due to Flaubert's sudden death in May 1880. The novel, named after the two male protagonists, Announced Val and Pécuchet, tells the story of these two friends: they were both scribes who had been unhappy in Paris, and then Pécuchet received a large inheritance. The two quit their jobs, retired to the countryside, and began to use the money to teach themselves various knowledge and try different careers, involving a wide range of disciplines, including agriculture, gardening, anatomy, archaeology, history, literature, spiritualism, hydrotherapy, gymnastics , pedagogy, veterinary medicine, philosophy and religion, etc. However, all their efforts ended in failure, and finally they resumed the business of copying.

The plot of the book is very simple, because it can be said that there is no plot. Each chapter is similar. At the beginning, the two suddenly became fascinated by a certain science. They read, researched, and understood various theories like crazy at home. They did experiments at home or in the village, and then they failed one after another. , and then they lose interest in the science. But soon, they became interested in another science, which led to the next chapter. In this cycle, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, archaeology... almost all modern disciplines have been toured. As you can imagine, this is an unattractive novel to read .

Although it may not be very interesting to read as a novel, we said earlier that "Madame Bovary" is almost boring to many young people, and this novel is probably even more "boring" in terms of degree; but this is actually Flaubert The most ambitious work in his life, he personally formulated a subtitle for this novel, called

" The Encyclopedia of Human Stupidity ".

To write this novel, Flaubert read 1,500 books during his 10-year writing period: every experiment and statement made by the two protagonists on physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, archaeology, the author Carefully consult relevant books and record the vocabulary involved in order to achieve the greatest degree of "accuracy". It can be said that it is indeed a concise encyclopedia of knowledge of all the disciplines of the time, just in the form of a novel.

Flaubert's ambition to complete a novel as an "encyclopedia" is evident in the second part he added to the work, the so-called "documentary part". Have you ever seen a novel with references at the back? no. I do not have either. Flaubert's novel is the first to do so. After the main text of the novel, the "Documentation Section" is seriously placed.

Not only did he put the "documentation part", but this part was huge and no less important than the main text. The "Dictionary of Common Sense" we are talking about here is the first work he intends to put into this "documentary section". Catalogue (L'Album de la Marquise) and Le Catalogue des idées chics (Le Catalogue des idées chics). From the title alone, we can see that although these works are different in form from "Yongjian Dictionary", the content is probably similar.

According to Flaubert's arrangement, if the whole work can be completed, the second part, the "documentary part", will surpass the first part, the novel part, and become the climax and focus of the whole book, because the first part of the novel shows Bouvard The process of studying and researching, collecting materials, and actively practicing with Pecuchet in many ways, and the compilation of dictionaries and documents in the literature part is the result of this process, and it is also the peak of their stupidity. Therefore, Flaubert himself said that the novel "Boire and Pécuchet" should actually be regarded as the preface to the "Dictionary of Common Views" .

At this point, you may have a little doubt: If this novel does not have much literary interest and readability, or is not known for its "literary", why should we read it ? Is it just because of the ambition the author pours into it?

Neither is it. We chose not to read Flaubert's more famous masterpiece "Madame Bovary", but chose to read "Dictionary of Common Sense", in addition to the latter being in line with our tradition of "reading Li Ri" and talking about small books, mainly because, although it It is the least known of Flaubert's writings, but it brings us closer to Flaubert's unique personality and thought than any of his works. Writings are more "literary" - as to why, we will discuss in detail later. Not to mention, the little book itself has the richest elements of transcendental modernity, and is a great guide for all of us who want to really understand what has really happened in the world of literature and art since modernism. No-compromise shortcut.

🙋‍♀️｜What is "Yongjian"? ｜🙋🏻

The title of the book is "Dictionary of Common Views", so the first question we have to answer is: What is Common View? In fact, the question is, what is this "dictionary" about? For example, we have Latin dictionaries, modern English dictionaries, modern French dictionaries, colloquialism dictionaries, idiom dictionaries, computer-specific terminology dictionaries, etc. We can see what content is in it by looking at the title. So what exactly is recorded in the "Yongjian Dictionary"? What even is commonplace? what is not? Before discussing what Flaubert said about the "common view", we might as well ask ourselves in our hearts: When it comes to common sense, what is the first thing that pops into your mind?

I think this question is not difficult to answer. There are too many examples in real life. For example, worshiping money is commonplace, literary and artistic accents are commonplace, philistine thinking is commonplace, values that follow others’ opinions are commonplace, fitness fanaticism is commonplace, high scores and low energy are commonplace, only 985 It’s common to see 985. It’s common to urge marriage to give birth. It’s common to despise women. It’s common to show off wealth. It’s common to hate wealth. When the microphone goes off, I estimate that everyone can talk for several hours, especially the "angry" young people. It is not necessarily that they can talk for three days and three nights in a row.

indeed so. In the Internet age we live in, in the circle of friends, in social media, in news newspapers, in movies and TV... everywhere, it is not an exaggeration to say that we have to live in a sea of commonplace every day. That's why, when we first introduced this book, many of us had this feeling: I can write such a book, because there are so many materials. Here's why.

So what was Flaubert trying to record? The literal meaning of the title is idées reçues (received ideas), which are widely accepted ideas, in other words, can be understood as popular (universal) ideas, clichés, boring opinions, etc. As we said earlier, what Flaubert wanted to record in this work was the stupidity of human beings, so the "common view" here generally refers to the stupidity of the public.

So what kinds of common sense does Flaubert speak of? There are mainly the following:

First, clichés that can be used for social events. for example,

weather . Eternal topic. Common causes of various diseases. Always complain about it.

police . always wrong.

Pantheism . To lash out at it, ridiculous.

family . Always talk about it with respect.

melancholy . A mark of spiritual refinement and spiritual nobility.

Machiavelli . Haven't read his writings, but think he's a great villain.

Second, collective imaginations that are widely accepted by the public are often unreliable, generalized, and well-known. for example,

Japan . Everything there is made of porcelain.

hotel . There are good ones only in Switzerland.

Indian monastery dancers : All oriental women perform dances in monasteries.

Ducks : All from Rouen.

Third, clichés in the literary world.

kiss . To say "hug", it's more appropriate. Wonderful steal. The kiss fell on the girl's forehead, on the mother's cheek, on the hand of a beautiful woman, on the neck of a child, on the lips of a mistress.

woods . The woods are fascinating. suitable for poetry. When taking a walk in autumn, you should say: "The forest is full of fallen leaves" and so on.

Body maid . Prettier than their mistresses. Knows all the secrets of the hostess and leaks them. Always raped by the young master.

Book Simplified . A style for women.

governess . Always come from a good family with bad luck. Dangerous to the Master's Family - Seduce the Husband.

Fourth, it is a relatively pure language game.

chiaroscuro; dim light . Not sure what it refers to.

Congratulations . Always heartfelt, warm, sincere, etc.

Suppose . Often dangerous, always bold.

Fifth, (direct) irony.

Horrible, disgusting, disgusting things. When it comes to obscenity, I have to say: disgusting! Can be done but not said. The story takes place in the middle of a terrifying night.

genius . It is useless to admire it, it is "a kind of neurosis"!

rough . Ancient and rough.

Etiquette, pomp . Bring prestige. stimulate the imagination of the people. "If you want to talk about pomp, you must talk about it!"

We know that no matter what kind of common sense, in the end it points to irony . But if we stop here, we lose our best chance of understanding Flaubert. Is the "sarcasm" here just as simple as we always understand it? Is the irony used by Flaubert here in any way different from the irony of Voltaire, Balzac, Dickens, etc., in his previous literary satires?

The so-called "sarcasm", naturally there are those who are sarcastic and satirized. For example, Voltaire's novels satirize the church and the aristocracy, and Balzac and Dickens' novels satirize the meanness, hypocrisy and ruthlessness of the bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie and intellectuals, and so on. Whatever the object and character of being satirized, there is a clear line between the satirist and the satirized, and this line has always been unquestioned. That is to say, the writers and thinkers at that time, like the church and aristocracy in the past, took the side of the satirist to examine and laugh at the person being satirized. Or the reader. No one has questioned this hierarchy of power, no one has questioned whether it is self-evident.

Flaubert was the first writer to question this. And "Yongjian Dictionary" is the work that he concentrated on raising this kind of questioning. We see that this dictionary is supposed to have been compiled by two stupid and ignorant copyists, Bouir and Pécuchet. At the same time, their identities and positions as petty bourgeois and petty intellectuals just show that they are the typical users of these terms, the typical representatives of the so-called "popular" at that time. In other words, they are both the creators and users of these mediocrities and the people who try to criticize and satirize them. And what about Flaubert, the author who manipulates everything behind the two protagonists? He is not like the previous writers and thinkers, who enjoys the "immunity of common sense". He can satirize foolishness without contaminating the slightest foolishness. He can be free from the object of being satirized and be a pure critic and satirist. . No, Flaubert was not such a godlike writer.

Look at Flaubert's own confession in his letter: "Bouir and Peguchet gradually invaded my spirit, so that I became them! Their stupidity became mine, which exhausted me."

What does that mean? Flaubert believes that he is no longer the creator and judge who is high above, he is as stupid and ignorant as the characters in the novel, and has no direction. He is not above them, nor any man.

This is not as difficult to understand as it seems. When we read this dictionary entry by entry and feel amused, do we have a flash of fear in our hearts: we ourselves have actually said, thought, and done the things that are being satirized in it? Whether out of frustration or initiative, are we or were we users or contributors to these ideas? There are some things we have said ourselves, some things we have done ourselves, and some thoughts we have thought ourselves.

This is like we may all criticize and laugh at the so-called "Versailles style", but it does not prevent many people from quietly buying or borrowing a few "Red Wine Dictionary", "Luxury Dictionary", "Social French Dictionary", Flip through, look at, and learn a little new vocabulary, terminology, whether it's for social conversation or online life. Everyone is complaining about the pain of society, about the fake and tiring social occasions, hating and laughing at the stereotypes in those occasions, but when we get there, we still have to say and say. We may make fun of people who exercise and clock in every day, but it does not prevent us from still going to fitness, running, posting pictures, and posting steps. We make fun of people who let the camera eat first, but when we post our own pictures, we can’t help but design and post pictures carefully. Not to mention, "buzzwords" or "popular concepts" that pop up all over the Internet every once in a while, such as "involution", "workers", "Ye Qinghui", etc., regardless of the concept It's not vulgar or appropriate in itself, but many of us use it while ridiculing.

c'est la vie . None of us are gods, each of us is wrapped in the web of this life, no one is detached from the world, no one has the innate power to judge others with confidence.

Therefore, Flaubert's refusal to be a godlike writer like his predecessors and contemporaries not only distinguishes him from his predecessors, but is also a break in the literary paradigm from which literature has gradually become more and more The previous literature and art gradually differentiated from the previous art in the same way .

After Flaubert, literature and artists since the 20th century have become more and more aware of the dubiousness of this power relationship, so more and more self-deprecating works have appeared. In recent years, such works in popular culture have also become Abound. There are too many examples, let’s just take a typical one. I wonder if you have seen an American drama called Portlandia . This is a comedy written and acted by two white people who made fun of the lifestyle of the white middle class. It combines the popular beliefs of the middle class, Interests, language habits, social clichés, literary accents, etc. are caricatured, and they are ridiculed and ridiculed mercilessly. Needless to say, the two writers, directors and starring actors themselves are members of this middle-class army, and no matter how introspective they are, they are truly a part of it. This whole drama can be said to be a radical and TV version of "Dictionary of Common Sense". You can go and see it when you have time, it's very funny, and it's also very sharp.

But can self-examination and self-deprecation help us dissolve common sense and clear the relationship between ourselves and common sense? cannot. From Flaubert's "Dictionary of the Common Sense", to today's high-scoring dramas like Portlandia , which are self-deprecating, no one can do it. In a sense, we could even say that self-deprecating is just a preemptive act to avoid being laughed at, if we don’t pursue the intellectual superiority implicit in this self-deprecation. Not only the content of self-deprecating, but even the act of self-deprecating itself is just a "common opinion" that everyone holds together. It is no exaggeration to say that common sense is not a stupid, vulgar, ignorant personality unique to some people, but the daily necessities of human beings, the daily life of human beings in order to live in groups and societies. Required. In other words, we are all its creators, contributors, users, and communicators, as well as its critics, mockers, and ironists, and we live in the common sense every minute, just as we every Live in the air every second.

So we can't find the antonym of "common view". There is nothing contrary to common sense. This is like in order to attack the "money worshippers", we deliberately avoid money, and even go so far as to say nothing about money in the story of "Shi Shuo Xin Yu", but only talk about "things", but what is the result? It is to avoid gold, to avoid profit, but to fall into fame. The same is the pursuit of profit, but one is called name, the other is called money, and they have the same goal.

It's like a card with different front and back images. We turned heads and looked at tails and yes, it was a new image, but they were still nothing more than the same card. And, over a period of time, the negatives will become positives again, the old ones - what we call "common views" here. Culture is like this, it's just flipping over and over; the same is true of common sense, the left hand is turned to the right.

Although "Yongjian Dictionary" is mocking "stupid" in name, it does not mean that it is a mockery of wise people to fools. Compared with stupidity, Flaubert actually hates "witty" people more, and he laughs at people's boring and hypocritical "witness". We can see that none of the "common opinions" in the dictionary are funny because of low intelligence, stupidity, on the contrary, they are all words full of social wit, wit and human ingenuity. On the other hand, it satirizes the "mass" in name, but in fact it is aimed at everyone, including himself. It can be seen that the "stupidity" that Flaubert is targeting here does not refer to the innate lack of intelligence of some people at all, but the inferiority that all human beings cannot avoid. In this sense there is no difference between human beings and all are equally stupid. No one can be alone. When writing "Madame Bovary", Flaubert exclaimed more than once: "I am Mme. Bovary...", and when writing "Bouir and Pécouchet", he shouted again and again, The stupidity of both of them is my stupidity.

Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching talks about wisdom and stupidity in this way - "Da Qiao is clumsy, and great debate is ignorant". What does this famous saying mean? That is to say, simplicity and ignorance are actually the real great wisdom, the Tao; and the ingenuity, wit, and creation of human beings are the real stupidity. This kind of ingenuity and wit, as small as people's cleverness, cunning, mutual calculation, deception and struggle, as large as the invention and use of all systems, ideas, laws, morals and ethics in human society, are all believed by Laozi and Taoism. Really stupid. These seemingly smart and constantly "progressing" systems are just small, fake, inferior wisdom, even if they enjoy temporary honor in the world, they are regarded as the classics of human history, and they are stoned and gilded. , erecting a monument, and spreading it forever, it can't change between the universe and the natural road, they are all just stupid opinions and "common opinions". Because they all destroy the highest "Tao", that is, the principle of the natural operation of heaven, earth and all things that Taoism most respects. The real Tao is simplicity, stupidity, dullness, and inaction. This "Tao" has been gradually lost in the world as early as ancient times, and very few people can obtain the true meaning. All people, everywhere, live in the human society after the collapse of the Dao. This kind of human society that seems to be full of intelligence and culture is actually full of ignorance and common sense.

Flaubert's "Dictionary of Common Views", the "encyclopedia of human stupidity", confronts the "stupidity" and predicament of human beings, which is actually consistent with the descriptions of Laozi and Taoism. No matter whether the Daoism advocated by Taoism exists or not - even in the extremely distant ancient times, but one thing cannot be changed. Each of us lives in this human society that seems to be wise and stupid, and we are still constantly changing. Use our "smart" triumphantly to speed up the folly of the world. Common sense is the air in which we live. Unless we really run into the deep woods to be in the company of birds and beasts,

This inherent "stupidity" and inherent inferiority in human nature, each of us must take its share; because as human beings, we have no choice, we must take our own share of human nature.

It was here that Flaubert took a different path than all the writers before him. Before him, irony was a self-evident power, and writers and philosophers were always the subject of criticism and irony, with God-like immunity. This "moral privilege" has been with humanist thought since the Age of Enlightenment and even the Renaissance, and it was gradually transferred from the hands of gods and nobles to the hands of intellectuals and bourgeois. That is to say, they are simply filling in the empty space of the "capital god" that has just been brought down with "capital man". From god to man, the master who occupies this position has changed, but the level and power level between this position and the position of the public have not changed at all. Writing is regarded as a great undertaking of enlightenment, a top-down educational undertaking, an undertaking that eradicates "common views" and leads people upward, whether the enlightener is a god or a man.

Flaubert was the first to come out and say, no, I'm no better than Madame Bovary, I'm no better than Bois and Pécuchet, we are the same, the same stupidity, the same breath of ordinary air. Writers, like critics, and readers, are all human beings, and they all bear the same responsibility for human nature, and they must bear the same inferiority of human beings - common sense. Those who criticize the vulgar bear the same vulgarity, those who criticize the hypocrisy bear the same hypocrisy, and those who criticize the stupid bear the same stupidity.

In any sense, this was a revolution that was beyond the times and extremely violent at the time, a huge turn in the meaning and role of the entire literature. After the 20th century, literature and art followed this new path. Beginning with Flaubert, this has also created a struggle between the old and the new paradigm of literary power, a pain and dilemma common to modern writers since the 20th century, especially the very best among them .

[Take Lu Xun as an example]

Mr. Lu Xun is a good example. From 1918 to the early 1920s, when he was pioneering the "New Youth" and the literary revolution, that is, when he wrote most of the novels in "The Scream", Mr. Lu Xun still believed very much in the criticism and criticism of the society and the public by literati and doctors. educational status. He believes that as an intellectual class of society, we can "save children", enlighten the younger generation, and bring people in the dark into the light, and this is exactly the mission of the intellectual class. So he clearly adopts the tone of an enlightener who criticizes and educates from the top down.

But by the time he wrote most of the novels in Wandering, in the second half of the 1920s, we could clearly see the struggles and shifts in his beliefs, attitudes, and self-knowledge. We should all remember that in the novel "Blessings", he had a evasive and evasive attitude towards Mrs. Xianglin, because he suddenly discovered that his real self was not in line with Mrs. Xianglin's expectations for him, unlike what she had expected of Mrs. Xianglin. Expected to be high above, omniscient and able to help her. No, although he was obviously much more educated and had a much higher social status than Mrs. Xianglin, he couldn't help her, even more incompetent and cowardly than her.

In another article, "In the Restaurant", he discovered that his old friend, who was more enthusiastic about literature and political revolution than himself many years ago, has become no different from the mediocre people who were fiercely criticized in his middle age. Although he felt disgusted and lost, But I understand better that I may not be much better than the old friend, in fact, it is the same decadence, the same cowardice. There is also the famous and only Mr. Lu Xun's love novel "Sad Death", which is discussed in the tragic love story of Juansheng and Zijun, and it is still such a struggle. The young intellectuals at that time were full of enthusiasm and devoted themselves to the revolution, but after entering the society, in the face of the cruel and cold reality, they all fell into the ranks of the mediocrity they had criticized, and they could not extricate themselves, except for remorse, self-blame, and songs. Crying, I can't do anything, I can't change the reality, I can't change my lover, I can't change myself, let alone transform the mediocrity and the entire nation as I once thought. The self who used to be so proud was just an ordinary member of the crowd.

The sense of superiority of the intellectuals who take the safety of the world as their own responsibility, and the higher social status that leads the public due to the possession of knowledge, are quickly shattered in the gradually deepening real life, and become illusions and burdens. , forming a huge crisis in the spiritual world. This crisis is exactly the crisis that Flaubert felt when he shouted "I am Madame Bovary!" The originally very clear line between the intellectuals and the public, the enlightened and the enlightened became very blurred. Lu Xun, like Flaubert, realized that he was just a member of the human being, that he was just like the characters in his writings, and The readers of the novel are the same, the same good, the same evil, the same stupidity, the same hypocrisy, the same cowardice. Common sense is no longer the exclusive product of the public, and it is no longer an undoubted object of criticism, but the inferiority of human beings that permeates all around us and that each of us has to bear.

If it is said that the intellectual class has any superiority in this issue, then it is the very few outstanding among them—I mean Flaubert and Lu Xun here—who can face their own life experience and face themselves. the fragility and incompetence of oneself, admit it, reveal it, reflect on it, make it visible, and do whatever it takes to overcome it consistently (even if not completely). The greatness of such intellectuals is by no means dependent on establishing their own authority—whether this authority is intellectual or moral—on the contrary, the source of their greatness lies in their daring to admit their "nothingness", their daring to admit The equal status and responsibilities of oneself and everyone, the courage to admit that one is frail and useless, and the one who dares to admit that one is a part of the criticized and exposed world rather than its superior God, its educator, and its reformer.

Speaking of this, we may feel a little strange, this seems to be very different from the image of "intellectuals" in our usual minds? Moreover, not only does the traditional intellectual class look like an unattainable educator and enlightener, but today there are many enlighteners, leading readers, experts and scholars, and life mentors in various media. Who does not show beautiful self-confidence, elegance, erudition, high-level, in short, a picture of ancient and modern, and strategizing? So in the future, we should always ask ourselves: what kind of sound are they making? Why do they make such noises? How did they make their voices? How do they talk about others and how do they talk about themselves? Are their words worthwhile? Is this value earned by their own knowledge and personal strength, or given to him under the guise of various authorities—whether it be academic qualifications, professor or expert titles, educational and media platforms, capital, or even politics? Did they do what they themselves preached loudly everywhere? Can they do it, and really want to do it?

Because the really great intellectuals and the really great critics of society never stand on the altar to speak. Like everyone, they explore in the dark life day after day, hoping to put in a little light, they will never Tiredly doubting and criticizing oneself, far more than doubting and criticizing other people, they are fellow travelers who are walking side by side with us, who are like us who solve real dilemmas bit by bit, rather than just talking about something.” Mediocre, "people", "mass", "popular", "intellectuals", "elite", "great tradition", "enlightenment and salvation", "political philosophy", "ideological history", "eastern and western civilization" Such people are not the "great standard-bearers" who occupied the flag and the "great orators" who occupied the camera and microphone.

Returning to our question, in a word, it is not feasible to use the so-called "insight" of the intellectuals to criticize the "foolish opinions" of the public, because they are in a certain sense mediocrity, and we cannot use mediocrity to criticize mediocrity, Just like we can never beat back insults with back insults. New paths must be found. So the focus of the question has changed,

It is no longer what we say , but in what way .

This is not a simple transformation, it is a transformation of the entire power structure, the discourse of power. We talked about the concept of discourse in Nietzsche's episode. It is the complicity of knowledge and power, and it is the all-encompassing discourse of power that defines various social systems, organizations, laws, and morals. Here, it is discourse that defines the unequal language and power structure of critics and critics.

Tomorrow, "Reading Ritual" will bring you the middle part of "Reading Flaubert's Dictionary of Common Views". Talking about "common view", next time we must talk about "dictionary".

Happy Readependence Day!