有朋友告訴我沈旭暉早兩天在 Facebook 好像無緣無故地貼了一段梁燕城的文字，其實應該是衝著我的批評而來的。我過去一看，果然是貼了梁燕城文章的節錄，那是他當年為回應李天命辛辣的批評而寫的。梁的這幾段文字當然不堪入目，是他東施效顰，模仿李天命的語理分析，不斷問李所用的詞語的意義，一連串的「何謂」，讀之令人不勝其煩。
我不想妄自猜度沈旭暉貼文的用意，但他的一個 Facebook friend 問得好：「都是二十多年前的笑話，沈生又為何重提？」另一個則言之有理：「沈博士似乎別有所指。」他貼文的時間也實在太巧合了：我的文章在美國西岸時間1月26日零晨發表，他在香港時間1月27日早上貼上梁文。假設沈旭暉這樣做真的是為了回應我的批評，那麼，他的意思大概是：閣下這種三腳貓的語理分析，還不是粱燕城的那種貨色？本人連直接回應也懶得了。
如果沈旭暉認為語理分析是雕蟲小技，那麼我絕對贊成。李天命把所謂語理分析弄得煞有介事，令人覺得那是高深的學問，其實，他鼓吹提倡的，不過是一些思考、辯論、和寫作時應遵守的基本原則，不難明白。然而，雖小道，必有可觀者焉，就算簡單如雞蛋炒飯亦不是人人炒得好，語理分析當然有高手和低手之分。我不敢自認高手，但給人比作粱燕城，實在難免感到是侮辱。
我本來就沒有預計沈旭暉會看到我的文章，就算相信他會看到，亦不期望他會回應。假如他貼梁文的確是為了回應我的批評，那可算是含沙射影了。要麼就不理會我，要麼就反駁我的論點，那不是君子得多嗎？
（順便一提，今天《明報》有一篇李敏剛君寫的〈自由的理念——與沈旭暉博士商榷〉，指出「沈旭暉對概念的誤用曲解不在唐司長之下」，比我那篇只是斟酌文字的批評充實得多。）
>但給人比作粱燕城，實在難免感到是侮辱。
回覆刪除哈哈！
我對有關時論文章無興趣，但經你一講，有空倒要比較一下，看看究竟誰是誰非。
CYC,
回覆刪除//我對有關時論文章無興趣，但經你一講，有空倒要比較一下，看看究竟誰是誰非。//
- 誰是誰非，不難判斷。
版主唔使勞氣，沈旭暉的東西，最中意故弄玄虛亂拋jargons，實際上不學無術，專門嚇唬那些 無讀過太多書又有偶像崇拜饑渴症的後生仔和媒體，然後佢就掛著Roundtable個名周圍招搖求名求利。香港學界都知道他的底細，早就唔當佢係一回事。ignore他好了。
回覆刪除謝謝。其實我不算動氣，主要還是想說所謂語理分析我根本不當一回事。
回覆刪除Wong,
回覆刪除那段東西(http://www.facebook.com/notes/simon-shen/liang-yan-cheng-de-si-kao-yi-shu/501198836960) 不見了。
我不相做老屎忽，但有時反抗不了。我想，沈是年經了點，要受些磨練。太早成名是累了他。
如果沈的動作真是針對閣下，也未免小家了點
回覆刪除不過疑點利益歸於被告這前題下，還是不要計較為佳
題外話~
回覆刪除請問教授在哪裡教書??
除了在此Blog聊天外,有否其他聯絡方法?(如email或facebook~)
很想跟教授閒聊一下~
王兄，你覺得香港學界水準如何？是不是有很多學棍？
回覆刪除可怒也，一於重演李梁大戰，王Sir戳穿沈一泡！（煽風點火.....哈哈.....）
回覆刪除港大一位老師說過，沈的文章如果給他改，最多給C-。
回覆刪除Yan,
回覆刪除//那段東西(http://www.facebook.com/notes/simon-shen/liang-yan-cheng-de-si-kao-yi-shu/501198836960) 不見了。//
- 不，仍在呀。
//我不相做老屎忽，但有時反抗不了。//
- 同意。
我想，沈是年經了點，要受些磨練。太早成名是累了他。//
- 也同意。
William,
回覆刪除//如果沈的動作真是針對閣下，也未免小家了點
不過疑點利益歸於被告這前題下，還是不要計較為佳//
- 其實也不怎麼計較，寫文章過過癮而已。
Chicken Wing,
回覆刪除//請問教授在哪裡教書??
除了在此Blog聊天外,有否其他聯絡方法?(如email或facebook~)
很想跟教授閒聊一下~//
- 我在加州一間公立大學教書，要找有關詳細資料，google幾下便成了。聯絡我可用：waihung26@gmail.com
LYING MACHINE,
回覆刪除//王兄，你覺得香港學界水準如何？是不是有很多學棍？//
- 不敢一兩句就評論香港整個學界，但我所知的學棍的確不少。
Meshi,
回覆刪除//可怒也，一於重演李梁大戰，王Sir戳穿沈一泡！（煽風點火.....哈哈.....）//
- 這只是星星之火，煽不起的。
匿名,
回覆刪除//港大一位老師說過，沈的文章如果給他改，最多給C-。//
- 內容我會給B-，文字則F。
Wow I didn't realise that this whole thing was going on at all (never had the inclination to check Shen's FB account to see what he's posting)! So unfortunately I missed the link to 梁燕城's essay (as the link no longer works now). I have also heard a lot of people mentioned 李天命語理分析, maybe one of these days I need to pick up their works just to know what the fuss was about!
回覆刪除And thanks very much Wong for linking 李敏剛's piece as well. It's interesting that Lee's critique is a lot more scholarly than Shen's, even though the former is still a Masters' student whilst the latter is meant to have earnt his Phd and is already a lecturer. In fact, earlier I was able to find a piece by a secondary school teacher in Hong Kong who critiqued Henry Tang's speech, which is objectively much better than Shen's in both style and substance.
Anyway, if Shen was trying to make the point that 三腳貓的語理分析 as beneath his essay, then it's simply showing him up as not being even worthy of a serious discussion. Elsewhere, I have also made the point that the problem with Shen's essay is not that it is "too academic", as per common misconception, but rather than it is too sloppily written even by basic academic standards. (http://notesbooks.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/%E5%AF%AB%E7%9A%84%EF%BC%8E%E8%AE%80%E7%9A%84/#comment-3041)
"要麼就不理會我，要麼就反駁我的論點，那不是君子得多嗎？" x 2
Not only is Shen not particularly acquitting himself well from a scholarly perspective, but more importantly, it is making a mockery of his role in public discourse if he couldn't even engage positively with well-meaning critique.
Snowdrops,
回覆刪除The link still works; I've just tried it.
Wong, no, unfortunately it doesn't work for me. I've just tried it as well but it just comes up as "This content is currently not available" :( Perhaps there is another source (I tried just googling Leung's name but there's too much stuff and I don't know which piece is being referred to, maybe if you could kindly provide me with a title as well?) Sorry for bothering you with this.
回覆刪除羅渣插口：
回覆刪除Wong Sir，網上公開自己郵址，小心個信箱第二日俾人質爆呀！切記切記！細佬就係以前勇得滯，有幾個郵址報銷了！
又，沈某為文，確有些嚇唬他人威力的，尤其是讀得書少者如我，當初一見其 terms 如雲，思考角度極之「飄忽」，不似常見之廢up，我也被嚇至面青，骨頭輕了三兩（懷疑自己一向讀屎片，不懂那些大道理）。幸而，英雄慣見亦常人，更何況不是英雄那些！如今好在見慣不怪了，最受不了那些不是「人話」的文字，為了「保腦」（是「保全」，不是「補」），索性不看，並祝福那些「fan屎」們繼續快快樂樂追讀下去。
又又，看來有人唔知頭唔知路，竟然一腳踢著鋼板了，呢 D 紙老虎，唔駛赦！
李天命出道得早，如果他九十年代才畢業，他應該沒有這麼意氣風發。中學時代我看過他的書，確實獲得一些啟發。不過多看一些書後，發現李天命來來去去都是那三幅被。
回覆刪除粱燕城就更等而下之。粱燕城在信報有專欄，從他的文字，我感到他的陰暗。
沈旭暉履歷鑲金，年少氣盛，不足為奇。
Snowdrops,
回覆刪除//Wong, no, unfortunately it doesn't work for me. I've just tried it as well but it just comes up as "This content is currently not available" //
- That's strange. If you have a facebook account, you can search for "Simon Shen" and see his stuff on facebook.
Roger,
回覆刪除//Wong Sir，網上公開自己郵址，小心個信箱第二日俾人質爆呀！切記切記！細佬就係以前勇得滯，有幾個郵址報銷了！//
- 多謝提醒，但我不是第一次這樣做了，也沒甚麼惡果。其實要查我電郵地址非常容易。
Matt,
回覆刪除//李天命出道得早，如果他九十年代才畢業，他應該沒有這麼意氣風發。中學時代我看過他的書，確實獲得一些啟發。不過多看一些書後，發現李天命來來去去都是那三幅被。
粱燕城就更等而下之。粱燕城在信報有專欄，從他的文字，我感到他的陰暗。
沈旭暉履歷鑲金，年少氣盛，不足為奇。//
- 完全同意你對三人的評論。
於明白了，那條link是要你有facebook account而且logged on才通的。
回覆刪除Wong, sorry, just tried searching for Simon Shen on FB (I was also logged into FB when I clicked on your link which didn't come up), but only got his profile page so apparently I will have to "friend" him to see his stuff? That may indeed be a bridge too far for me despite my thirst for learning...
回覆刪除Anyway, it is interesting to see from his profile page that his favourite quote is (direct copy and paste):
"Water Which is Too Pure Has No Fish (水至清則無魚)"
Which makes me think that perhaps it is another not-so-subtle dig at this blog??? (Now of course he might have had that up for ages, I wouldn't know at all). Anyway, it's making him even less of a person I would choose to "friend" on FB even if I were the kind of person who "friend" strangers on FB anyway...
Snowdrops,
回覆刪除//Wong, sorry, just tried searching for Simon Shen on FB (I was also logged into FB when I clicked on your link which didn't come up), but only got his profile page so apparently I will have to "friend" him to see his stuff? //
- I am not Shen's facebook friend but can still see his stuff. I guess this is because we have mutual friends.
Ah, that explains it then. Anyway, according to your and Matt's view of Leung's work, perhaps it is no great big loss if I didn't get to read his stuff.
回覆刪除Snowdrops,
回覆刪除You meant Shen, not Leung, right?
讀沈既文章，我經常都有個puzzle，到底係沈能力低下還是故意如此？我一直傾向係後者，即係佢有意將自己包裝成咁樣，先至可以等D後生仔同媒體捧佢。「水至清則無魚」可以咁解。因此你可以話，沈係極工心計之人，計到盡。但慢慢讀多了，我就開始懷疑，可能係我錯了，沈既能力可能真係有D問題，否則照理唔會寫出那些錯得離曬大譜兼不忍卒讀既文字。好似昨日明報篇文咁講，沈係亂吹一通。最可悲既係，咁樣既亂吹都有咁多人捧，以為佢係什麼年青學者，當佢係寶。
回覆刪除David
//最可悲既係，咁樣既亂吹都有咁多人捧，以為佢係什麼年青學者，當佢係寶。//
回覆刪除- 亦可能因為有人捧，令他變本加厲，此謂惡性循環也。
@Wong, perhaps both actually :P
回覆刪除呢個世界真係有相當嘅人，寫的就是沈體文。我大學時的論文指導，寫出來的和講出來的就是類似風格（比沈應該嚴重百倍）。我每次都很怕讀他的東西，現在也盡量避開和他談他的研究。一轉入了那個mode，就成個人都唔同哂，旁人洞若觀火，本人就係混然不覺。唔一定係性格問題，用王仔嘅話，有可能係“擺脫不了學術文字的束縛”。不是特指誰不好，但在中國人堆裡，好似王仔之類用大白話講得出東西來的，真係好少數。
回覆刪除很久以前在這裡提過一篇周國平的文章。其實有很多人都和那篇文章主角差唔多款，只是他們比常人（有機會）讀多幾本（爛）書，或者（有機會）多拿些學術上光環。
講左啲無關嘅嘢……
CYC,
回覆刪除也非無關。「大白話」一詞有意思，不過容易跟「白大話」混淆。
咁我就唔知囉~
回覆刪除//David:
回覆刪除讀沈既文章，我經常都有個puzzle，到底係沈能力低下還是故意如此？我一直傾向係後者，即係佢有意將自己包裝成咁樣，先至可以等D後生仔同媒體捧佢。//
我曾經讀過沈旭暉的第一本書，那是講述他在耶魯的日子。書本出版的時候，他還沒有名氣，牛津的博士學位還未到手。他寫文章的風格一路如是，沒有太大的改變。
沈旭暉說他追求"學術上的小無相功"，追求的是『整全概念』，即以自己的一套，應用在不同處境之中。(詳情請 google "美式學術頑童 沈旭暉")
成功了? 還是走火入魔?
不過，他用三年時間在耶魯取得學士和碩士學位，並以學院的最高榮譽畢業，確實厲害。
Matt,
回覆刪除原來他練的是小無相功，怪不得，那是鳩摩智魚目混珠的騙人技倆：以小無相功打出只有其形的少林寺七十二項絕技，用來嚇唬人。
我在剛寫的一篇博文裡連結了你這篇文章，幸勿見怪
回覆刪除講錯了，其實我是連結了你上一篇向沈旭輝進一言
回覆刪除William,
回覆刪除沒所謂，歡迎連結。
近來才接觸王教授的博客，讀到此文。
回覆刪除讀政治學本科時，常在明報上讀到還在牛津唸博士的沈旭暉評論國際時政的文章，當時同學間對沈文的評價已是「唔識就嚇死、識就笑死」。那時沈已喜歡用最時髦誇張偉大的政治學理論外衣，包裝最尋常不過的論點，巍巍然的「分析」當時最新最快但多只屬尋常不過的新聞事件。那時候的沈，大概是在磨劍吧…
同意王教授在另外一處說，沈有時候認真寫的文章還是可以一讀的。但可惜此君大概太不甘寂寞，沉悶嚴謹的學術路，實在也太辛苦了他。
沈近來已甚少寫本行以外的東西，也少了拋書包。
刪除