說別人「扮高深」，那是一種批評，可是，怎樣才算是扮高深呢？
「扮」，應該就是假扮的意思吧；那麼，「扮高深」即是其人並非真的高深，卻裝作一副高深的模樣來。甚麼是真的高深？這也不容易說，大概就是對世界或人生（某些方面）有高層次和深入的了解。
不是真正高深的，如何裝作高深呢？最常見的不外乎是拋出一些一般人聽不懂的學術用語，嵌入比平時說話複雜的語句中，煞有介事地提出高見。假如你聽到某人滿口「後現代」、「解構」、「存有論」、「物自身」、「量子力學」、「語理分析」等等，說了大半天也說不清楚他想表達的，那麼此人十居其九是在扮高深。
其實，有些人不是故意扮的。他們以為自己真的高深，於是乎身體力行，開口海德格，閉口維根斯坦；明明講的是老生常談，卻偏偏要迂迴曲折、用自己也不太明白的學術語言去講。（舉個例：如果說「一個人一出生，就已經是在一個特定的文化、社會、和時代中，沒有選擇的餘地」，大家都會完全明白，完全同意，但說成「我們的此在（Dasein）是被拋擲到（being thrown into）一個早已存在的世界中。」（註），聽起來便高深得多了。）這些人的問題不在裝出虛假形象，而在缺乏自知之明。
還有一種，不知算不算是扮高深，那就是在不適當的時候講高深的道理。講的人是真正明白他所講的，而且講的也正確，卻選擇錯了時間和場合。假如你的老友眉飛色舞向你描述他如何如何被一個貌美如花的女同事吸引，你卻對他大談一個人的外貌如何如何的不重要，並援引帕拉圖、弗洛姆等，他會不會罵你扮高深呢？
（註）我不是在批評海德格的這些概念。
agree, if you really undestand what you are talking about, you should be able to explain it in a comprehensible way
回覆刪除我想請問一下：
回覆刪除我之前在博主的其他文章(編書的苦樂、你喜歡我開心)留了言，但都沒有顯示出來，是否遭博主刪掉呢？還是blogpost的問題呢？
如果這個留言沒有出來的話，我就明白了。
如果無端端被人刪掉留言，真的令人很不開心。
沒有呀！你留言我開心還來不及，怎會刪掉呢？讓我查查出了甚麼問題。
回覆刪除你可否將留了卻沒出現的再留一次？謝謝！
回覆刪除謝謝博主解答我的疑惑。
回覆刪除因為我是在不同時間留的，起初以為博主實施了留言管制，所以沒有為意……算了，總之不是人手問題。
我在〈編書的苦樂〉的留言是：
「我現在已不看學術書了，還編書？咪搞。」
另一篇的留言則忘了。
Just stumbled upon your interesting blog, am learning quite a lot from your blogposts :)
回覆刪除I'm especially happy to discover that Dasein is translated as "此在". One of the problems that I have reading Chinese translations (both academic and literary, the latter such as Haruki Murakami and a number of contemporary Taiwanese authors) is that there are often references to Western philosophical thought, but I could only guess at their meanings as I've never known the correct Chinese terminologies, even though I'm familiar with the broad outlines of Western philosophies.
Anyway, I think that references to philosophical ideas come naturally not only within academic circles (even if their fields of expertise are not philosophy per se) but also amongst members of the so-called literati class, and so perhaps the intent is not to 扮高深 per se but out of a genuine wish to throw ideas out there for discussion? I mean, for instance, one of the things I love best about BBC cultural programmes such as Newsnight is precisely the fact that commentators can draw upon a wide variety of intellectual sources in discussing a contemporary topic, and whilst I may not get each and every reference as an audience member, listening to these unashamedly learned discussions helps to broaden my intellectual horizons for which I'm always grateful.
And perhaps a lot of times such philosophical references are simply too-ingrained in some of these people's mindsets that it's probably just an occupational hazard for intellectuals to tend to talk in jargons, especially if they feel that there is a certain level of pre-existing knowledge about the topic amongst the audience. That said, it is also academics' jobs to communicate ideas in comprehensible ways and so I also agree with you that people who are being deliberately obtuse are not serving others nor indeed themselves, as what could have been an opportunity for a genuine intellectual exchange would be lost.