mfeous

the quote is too complicated to me. could you explain it in your own language?
.

Post by capitalist;2202573
Milton Friedman在Capitalism and freedom里对这个说法有不同的见解.

In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.” Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic “what your country can do for you” implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man’s belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, “what you can do for your ‘country” implies the government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary.
The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather “What can I and my compatriots do through government” to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom?
To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive.

capitalist

Post by mfeous;2202598
the quote is too complicated to me. could you explain it in your own language?
.

you are kidding, how can i explain it better than Friedman?
may God bless you, amen.

mfeous

Post by capitalist;2202623
you are kidding, how can i explain it better than Friedman?
may God bless you, amen.

we are not playing cache cache here.

it is a pity that you quoted someone and you don't understand it. furthermore, what is the connection?

what do you mean "may God bless you, amen." which god are you refering to?

capitalist

Post by mfeous;2202649
we are not playing cache cache here.

it is a pity that you quoted someone and you don't understand it. furthermore, what is the connection?

what do you mean "may God bless you, amen." which god are you refering to?

may my god and your god and everybody else's god all bless you, and may all goddess bless you.

xiaodoudou

Post by capitalist;2202573
Milton Friedman在Capitalism and freedom里对这个说法有不同的见解.

In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.” Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic “what your country can do for you” implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man’s belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, “what you can do for your ‘country” implies the government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary.
The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather “What can I and my compatriots do through government” to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom?
To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive.

Very Interesting! I like it. Thanks!

xiaodoudou

Post by mfeous;2202504
what a speech!!!! well done.

your have my support for most of your reasonings, but a few things need further clarifications:

i guess we have different history books in hand: if i recall quebec history correctly that it is only indians who lived in this land until first french jacques cartier arrived in 1534. as per your way of logic, legitimately,we shall all speak offical indians language as they are the real owners of this land.

it is not true when you said :|"Quebec has achieved QUIETLY what all other nations are trying to achieve, withOUT wars and bloody revolutions". first, there were rebellions against british rule in early 1837 and 1838, then not long ago bombs, riots and kidnap in 60s. there are so many setbacks and backwards in the long history of their unrealistic struggling.

i do not have problems to learn french and their cultures, but i do have difficuties to understand their arrogance and conceited attitude. forget about how chinese think, it is a common attitude among anlophones, even some qecbecoies think it is in everybodys interests to drop sovereignism and move on. i am sure a new qebec will rise by then.

thanks for you sharing and i do beleive: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

It will be too long to talk about the Indians. I am not separatist neither. I am talking about the righteousness of a certain group to fight for their rights. Their fights are not noise, referring to your previous comment about the Quiet Revolution. Saying that no blood is shed, it is a degree comparison, those kidnaps & rebellions, etc.etc. comparing to all those bloody ones and wars, we can call it QUIET.

The Quebecois I know here, either in life or my work are very nice, humorous & empathic. We all should not generalize. Actually, I do think that how people treat us is more or less the reflection of ourselves. I can turn almost everyone into my friend( in general sense ), including Arabs, to turn Quebecois into my friends is the easiest of all. They are simple, trustworthy and tres gentils.

I am shy to give you a suggestion: just try another way when you look at the Quebecois. When you include them, there is NO BIG reason that they will exclude you! Trust me. Kindness responds to kindness, inclusiveness is the key.

Take care!

xiaodoudou

Post by capitalist;2202385
1.are "shut up" bad words? we good kids are not supposed to say them, at least in public?

2.PROSPECTFUL, a very interesting word, i guess it means respectful, prosperous and having prospect.  

3.i am always doubtful when somebody telling me his or her way is the only way, it sounds like God,

Shup-up, it depends on how it is said. Here I do not mean bad, I mean be quiet, close the lips, learn more before saying or making any pre-mature judgement.

There is no such word as Prospectful, what I wanted and meant to say is: Prosperous, sorry.

I say the only way, because it is the only, not from my mouth, but rather from one of the people who see the truth. It can be from any of us. Maybe God is the one who has been keeping telling us the truth, but many people have been turning a deaf ear, no? God is you, God is me, God is everyone who sees and absorbs the knowledge and wisdom. You can be as doubtful as you like, but the truth will never change. Anyway, it has nothing to do directly with the subject. Never mind it.

Thank you for correction and have a nice day, you!;)

xiaodoudou

I don't see Mr.Mfeous' writings any more...? Just to let you know that I have enjoyed our discussions and your writings have been profitable to me.

Thanks!

yelenia

就讓我默默地转贴一个东西，為討論做结束吧。钱穆先生的。錢穆是誰，聽說過嗎？！

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
钱穆《国史大纲》前言，引论

凡读本书请先具下列诸信念：
　　一、当信任何一国之国民，尤其是自称知识在水平线以上之国民，对其本国已往历史，应该略有所知。否则最多只算一有知识的人，不能算一有知识的国民。
　　二、所谓对其本国已往历史略有所知者，尤必附随一种对其本国已往历史之温情与敬意。否则只算知道了一些外国史，不得云对本国史有知识。
　　三、所谓对其本国已往历史有一种温情与敬意者，至少不会对其本国历史抱一种偏激的虚无主义，(即视本国已往历史为无一点有价值，亦无一处足以使彼满意。亦至少不会感到现在我们是站在已往历史最高之顶点，此乃一种浅薄狂妄的进化观。而将我们当身种种罪恶与弱点，一切诿卸于古人。此乃一种似是而非之文化自谴。
　　四、当信每一国家必待其国民具备上列诸条件者比较渐多，其国家乃再有向前发展之希望。否则其所改进，等于一个被征服国或次殖民地之改进，对其自身国家不发生关系。换言之，此种改进，无异是一种变相的文化征服，乃其文化自身之萎缩与消灭，并非其文化自身之转变与发皇。

引论
一  

中国为世界上历史最完备之国家，举其特点有三。一者“悠久”。从黄帝传说以来约得4600余年。从《古竹书纪年》载夏以来，约得3700余年。夏472，殷496，周武王至幽王257，自此以下至民国纪元2681。二者“无间断”。自周共和行政以下，明白有年可稽。史记十二诸侯年表从此始，下至民国纪元2752。自鲁隐公元年以下，明白有月日可详。春秋编年从此始，下至民国纪元2633。鲁哀公卒，左传终，中间65年史文稍残缺。自周威烈王23年资治通鉴托始，至民国纪元凡2314年。三者“详密”。此指史书体裁言。要别有三：一曰编年，此本春秋。二曰纪传，此称正史，本史记。三曰纪事本末，此本尚书。其他不胜备举。可看四库书目史部分类。又中国史所包地域最广大，所含民族分子最复杂，因此益形成其繁富。若一民族文化之评价，与其历史之悠久博大成正比，则我华夏文化，于并世固当首屈一指。  

然中国最近，乃为其国民最缺乏国史智识之国家。何言之？“历史智识”与“历史材料”不同。我民族国家已往全部之活动，是为历史。其经记载流传以迄今者，只可谓是历史的材料，而非吾辈今日所需历史的智识。材料累积而愈多，智识则与时以俱新。历史智识，随时变迁，应与当身现代种种问题，有亲切之联络。历史智识，贵能鉴古而知今。至于历史材料，则为前人所记录，前人不知后事，故其所记，未必一一有当于后人之所欲知。然后人欲求历史智识，必从前人所传史料中觅取。若蔑弃前人史料而空谈史识，则所谓“史”者非史，而所谓“识”者无识，生乎今而臆古，无当于“鉴于古而知今”之任也。  

今人率言“革新”，然革新固当知旧。不识病象，何施刀药？仅为一种凭空抽象之理想，蛮干强为，求其实现，鲁莽灭裂，于现状有破坏无改进。凡对于已往历史抱一种革命的蔑视者，此皆一切真正进步之劲敌也。惟藉过去乃可认识现在，亦惟对现在有真实之认识，乃能对现在有真实之改进。故所贵于历史智识者，又不仅于鉴古而知今，乃将未来精神尽其一部分孕育与向导之责也。  

且人类常情，必先“认识”乃生“感情”。人最亲者父母，其次兄弟、夫妇乃至朋友。凡其所爱，必其所知。人惟为其所爱而奋战牺牲。人亦惟爱其所崇重，人亦惟崇重其所认识与了知。求人之敬事上帝，必先使知有上帝之存在，不啻当面观体焉，又必使熟知上帝之所以为上帝者，而后其敬事上帝之心油然而生。人之于国家民族亦然。惟人事上帝本乎信仰，爱国家民族则由乎知识，此其异耳。人之父母，不必为世界最崇高之人物；人之所爱，不必为世界最美之典型，而无害其为父母，为所爱者。惟知之深，故爱之切。若一民族对其已往历史无所了知，此必为无文化之民族。此民族中之分子，对其民族，必无甚深之爱，必不能为其民族真奋战而牺牲，此民族终将无争存于并世之力量。今国人方蔑弃其本国已往之历史，以为无足重视；既已对其民族已往文化，懵无所知，而犹空呼爱国。此其为爱，仅当于一种商业之爱，如农人之爱其牛。彼仅知彼之身家地位有所赖于是，彼岂复于其国家有逾此以往之深爱乎！凡今之断头决胸而不顾，以效死于前敌者，彼则尚于其国家民族已往历史，有其一段真诚之深爱；彼固以为我神州华裔之生存食息于天壤之间，实自有其不可侮者在也。故欲其国民对国家有深厚之爱情，必先使其国民对国家已往历史有深厚的认识。欲其国民对国家当前有真实之改进，必先使其国民对国家已往历史有真实了解。我人今日所需之历史智识，其要在此。       

二  

略论中国近世史学，可分三派述之。一曰传统派，亦可谓“记诵派”。二曰革新派，亦可谓“宣传派”。三曰科学派，亦可谓“考订派”。“传统派”主于记诵，熟谙典章制度，多识前言往行，亦间为校勘辑补。此派乃承前清中叶以来西洋势力未入中国时之旧规模者也。其次曰“革新派”，则起于清之季世，为有志功业、急于革新之士所提倡。最后曰“科学派”，乃承“以科学方法整理国故”之潮流而起。此派与传统派，同偏于历史材料方面，路径较近；博洽有所不逮，而精密时或过之。二派之治史，同于缺乏系统，无意义，乃纯为一种书本文字之学，与当身现实无预。无宁以“记诵”一派，犹因熟谙典章制度，多识前言往行，博洽史实，稍近人事；纵若无补于世，亦将有益于己。至“考订派”则震于“科学方法”之美名，往往割裂史实，为局部窄狭之追究。以活的人事，换为死的材料。治史譬如治岩矿，治电力，既无以见前人整段之活动，亦于先民文化精神，漠然无所用其情。彼惟尚实证，号客观，既无意于成体之全史，亦不论自己民族国家之文化成绩也。  

惟“革新”一派，其治史为其有意义，能具系统，能努力使史学与当前现身相绾合，能求把握全史，能时时注意及于自己民族国家已往文化成绩之评价。故革新派之治史，其言论意见，多能不胫而走，风靡全国。今国人对于国史稍有观感，皆出数十年中此派史学之赐。虽然，“革新派”之于史也，急于求智识，而怠于问材料。其甚者，对于二、三千年来积存之历史材料，亦以革新现实之态度对付之，几若谓此汗牛充栋者，曾无一顾盼之价值矣。因此其于史，既不能如“记诵派”所知之广，亦不能如“考订派”所获之精。彼于史实，往往一无所知。彼之所谓系统，不啻为空中之楼阁。彼治史之意义，转成无意义。彼之把握全史，特把握其胸中所臆测之全史。彼对于国家民族已往文化之评价，特激发于其一时之热情，而非有外在之根据。其绾合历史于现实也，特借历史口号为其宣传改革现实之工具。彼非能真切沉浸于已往之历史智识中，而透露出改革现实之方案。彼等乃急于事功而伪造智识者，智识既不真，事功亦有限。今我国人乃惟乞灵于此派史学之口吻，以获得对于国史之认识，故今日国人对于国史，乃最为无识也。  


三  

　　所谓“革新派”之史学，亦随时变迁。约言之，亦可分为三期。其先当前清末叶。当时，有志功业之士所渴欲改革者，厥在“政体”。故彼辈论史，则曰：“中国自秦以来二千年，皆专制黑暗政体之历史也。”彼辈谓：“二十四史乃帝王之家谱。”彼辈于一切史实，皆以“专制黑暗”一语抹杀。彼辈对当前病症，一切归罪于二千年来之专制。然自专制政体一旦推翻，则此等议论，亦功成身退，为明日之黄花矣。继“政治革命”而起者，有“文化革命”。彼辈之目光，渐从“政治”转移而及“学术思想”，于是其对国史之论锋，亦转集于“学术思想”之一途。故彼辈论史，则曰：“中国自秦以来二千年，思想停滞无进步，而一切事态因亦相随停滞不进。”彼辈或则谓：“二千年来思想，皆为孔学所掩盖。”或则谓：“二千年来思想，皆为老学所麻醉。”故或者以当前病态归罪孔子，或者归罪于老子。或谓：“二千年来思想界，莫不与专制政体相协应。”或则谓：“此二千年来之思想，相当于欧洲史之所谓‘中古时期’。要之如一丘之貉，非现代之所需。”或则谓：“思想限制于文字，欲一扫中国自秦以来二千年思想之沉痼积病，莫如并废文字，创为罗马拼音，庶乎有谬。”然待此等宣传成功，则此等见识，亦将为良弓之藏。继“文化革命”而起者，有“经济革命”。彼辈谓：“无论‘政治’与‘学术’，其后面为‘社会形态’所规定。故欲切实革新政治机构、学术内容，其先应从事于‘社会经济形态’之改造。”彼辈对于当前事态之意见，影响及于论史，则曰：“中国自秦以来二千年，皆一‘封建时期’也。二千年来之政治，二千年来之学术，莫不与此二千年来之社会经济形态，所谓‘封建时期’者相协应。”正惟经济改革未有成功，故此辈议论，犹足以动国人之视听。有治史者旁睨而嘘曰：“国史浩如烟海，我知就我力之所及，为博洽谛当之记诵而已，为精细绵密之考订而已，何事此放言高论为！”虽然，国人之所求于国史略有知，乃非此枝节烦琐之考订，亦非此繁重庞杂之记诵，特欲于国家民族已往历史文化有大体之了解，以相应于其当身现实之所需知也。有告之者曰：“中国自秦以来二千年，皆专制黑暗政体之历史也。”则彼固已为共和政体下之自由民矣，无怪其掉头而不肯顾。或告之曰：“中国自秦以来二千年，皆孔子、老子中古时期思想所支配下之历史也。”则彼固已呼吸于二十世纪新空气之仙囿，于孔、老之为人与其所言，固久已鄙薄而弗睹，喑而无知，何愿更为陈死人辨此宿案，亦无怪其奋步而不肯留。或告之曰：“我中国自秦以来二千年，皆封建社会之历史耳，虽至今犹然，一切病痛尽在是矣。”于是有志于当身现实之革新，而求知国史已往之大体者，莫不动色称道，虽牵鼻而从，有勿悔矣。然竟使此派论者有踌躇满志之一日，则我国史仍将束高阁、覆酱瓶，而我国人仍将为无国史知识之民族也.

capitalist

Post by xiaodoudou;2203702
Shup-up, it depends on how it is said. Here I do not mean bad, I mean be quiet, close the lips, learn more before saying or making any pre-mature judgement.

then, who defines premature? this "premature judgment" sounds a lot like heresy, in the middle age, a person being accused of heresy, (a lot of times found guilty) was persecuted and punished severely.