论文部分内容阅读
最近,笔者听了一场名曰“成功学”的报告。主讲者在谈古论今之后,得出一个结论:古代凡成才(材?)的人,都是科举考试的成功者。乍一听时,颇感惊愕。古来失意科场而彪炳史册的人不胜枚举,这样的事实难道会视而不见?继而又想,不知主讲者说的是“成才”还是“成材”?若是后者,倒真能反映出某些人的观念。古今确有许多人把取得功名(今天则是考上名牌大学)看作是成了“材”,而真正的“才”反而成了次要的标准。譬如贾政:贾宝玉给大观园题匾额时表现得才华横溢,未得到他片言只语的嘉许;而宝玉不愿参加八股科考,则被他视为“不成材”,非遭一顿痛打不可。
Recently, I heard a report entitled “Success Learning.” After talking about the ancient thesis and the present, the presenter came to the conclusion that all the ancient people who had become talents were all successful in the examinations. At first glance, quite shocked. It is impossible to ignore the fact that there are so many people in the world that history of frustrated science flies in the past. And then, I wonder whether the speaker is “successful” or “accomplished.” If the latter is true, Concept. There are indeed many people in ancient and modern times who regard acquiring fame (and today being admitted to a prestigious university) as a “material”, but genuine “talent” has instead become a secondary criterion. For example, Jia Zheng: Jia Baoyu to Grand View Garden plaque was talented, did not get his parole only commendable; and Baoyu unwilling to participate in the essay expedition, then he regarded as “no material”, not beaten.