怎樣才算視某人為偶像？我認為單是非常欣賞和佩服他（或她）是不夠的，要崇拜他才算。當然，「偶像」和「崇拜」在這裏都是比喻，不是真的指將人當神拜（雖然有些情況亦庶乎近矣）；雖是比喻，崇拜人和崇拜神確是有共通之處的，以下我就舉出特別重要的一點。
崇拜神，要俯伏在神前，以神的旨意為依歸，以神的說話為真理；崇拜某人，則會在他面前甘心樂意地覺得自己矮了一大截，他叫你做甚麼你也會去做，他的意見你會視為至理名言。簡言之，兩者的共通點就是在崇拜的對象面前放棄了獨立自主。舉兩個簡單例子：獨立自主的亞伯拉罕是不會認為親手殺子是恰當的行為，但當上帝要他殺子獻祭時，他不問情由、眉頭也不皺一下便去做了（幸而上帝不是來真的）；獨立自主的某沈旭暉迷是不會一竹篙打盡五十後的，但當沈君大講「五十後超穩定認知結構」，沈迷想也不想便認同五十後大都有「時代缺憾」。
一個人為甚麼要崇拜另一個人，涉及很多個人及社會因素，不容易解釋，我亦不會嘗試在這裏解釋。有人或許會認為受過嚴格思考訓練的人是不會盲目崇拜偶像的，其實不然，John Cook 就向我提過一個很好的例子：他在 University of Nebraska 當研究生時，O. K. Bouwsma 是那裏的教授；Bouwsma 當時頗有名氣，曾當過 American Philosophical Association 的 President。這樣的一個哲學家，不應該是沒受過嚴格思考訓練吧，但他非常崇拜 Wittgenstein，親口對 Cook 說他認為 Wittgenstein 在哲學上是永不會錯的！Cook 跟我開玩笑說，對 Bouwsma 而言，以下是一個可靠的推論形式： Wittgenstein says p, therefore p。
Wittgenstein有個學生(我一時忘了他的名字)當老師神咁拜。W 有個怪癖，自己教哲學，有時頂討厭哲學，要拋棄一切去做一個下級工人。該學生聽了他勸告，不再讀書去了做工人，後來早死。
回覆刪除那學生來自富裕家庭，父母對兒子有厚望，認為W 毀了他的一生，恨之入骨。
「偶像崇拜」是於非理性的行為，人們認為自己的偶像是完美的，不容別人批評。
回覆刪除wong says p, therefore p.
回覆刪除甘⋯⋯好多老公都當老婆系偶像！
回覆刪除willsin says p, therefore ~p
回覆刪除XD
Zarathustra says p, there ~p
回覆刪除Chris,
回覆刪除我也記得那故事，應該是在Ray Monk寫的維根斯坦傳記看到的。
Barry,
回覆刪除//「偶像崇拜」是於非理性的行為，人們認為自己的偶像是完美的，不容別人批評。//
- 正是如此。
willsin,
回覆刪除原來你崇拜我，唔好呀！
英雄美人公主娘,
回覆刪除//甘⋯⋯好多老公都當老婆系偶像！//
- 當係皇后多啲。
Meshi,
回覆刪除不會的，應該是 willsin says p, therefore Pr(~p)>0.5。
Yan,
回覆刪除//Zarathustra says p, there ~p//
- For Zarathustra, it doesn't matter whether it's p or ~p, or, it can be both p and ~p.
此句有走棧的： " ... 在哲學上 ..."
回覆刪除Wittgenstein says p, p is not philosophical, therefore we don't know p or ~p.
Sisyphus,
回覆刪除//此句有走棧的： " ... 在哲學上 ..."
Wittgenstein says p, p is not philosophical, therefore we don't know p or ~p.//
- Bouwsma 那麼崇拜 Wittgenstein，這「哲學上」拿走了他也可能接受。
I can't help but feel that this is getting a little silly now...
回覆刪除It would be interesting to see if Simon Shen has the same gumption to admit his mistakes in a similar manner to Leung Man-Tao when confronted with errors in his writing by others. That would be the test of him yet.
Snowdrops,
回覆刪除I did not mean to talk about Shen any further; I just used him as an example in this piece. Anyway, I think Shen may respond to 李敏剛's article, and it probably won't be anything like Leung's responses to his critics.
Wong,
回覆刪除再細想，這個比較確切：
wong says p, therefore willsin says ~p
又或：
willsin says ~p, therefore wong says p
Meshi,
回覆刪除似乎你先係同我包頂頸喎！
"Wittgenstein says p, therefore p" I thought this is call Mom Philosophy
回覆刪除EY,
回覆刪除There is a difference though: Mom's logic is imposed, not adopted.
//似乎你先係同我包頂頸喎！
回覆刪除我中意。
Yan,
回覆刪除其實你都係包頂頸！
Wong,
回覆刪除我女友成日咁話我咖。
Wong says p, therefore ~p must be ridiculously nonsense.
回覆刪除Willsin says p, therefore Wong will tell you that p is dubious.
Meshi says ~p iff Wong says p.
Finally,
GOD says p, therefore Wong rejects p.
Yan,
回覆刪除頂女友頸危險過頂我頸，小心！
CYC,
回覆刪除p, therefore Wong says p.
p is provocative, therefore Willsin says p.
God says nothing because God does not exist.
Wong,
回覆刪除所以通常到最後我會比佢鬧到好勁，連維根斯坦都頂唔到。惟一的出路，就是認錯道歉。
好彩最後佢都會「原諒」我。
@Meshi
回覆刪除//再細想，這個比較確切：
wong says p, therefore willsin says ~p
又或：
willsin says ~p, therefore wong says p//
Maybe p and ~p are simply the head and tail of the same elephant, and both Wong and Willsin (as are indeed every single one of us) are equally blind men who kept harping on about the others' ignorance without first examining our own. We may be relatively less blind about certain parts of this same elephant than others, but that's not to say that p and ~p could not be equally true.
Okay, I will get my coat...
Snowdrops,
回覆刪除//but that's not to say that p and ~p could not be equally true.//
- p and ~p can't both be true, that's logic. The most you can say is that p (or ~p) is not the whole truth.
Wong,
回覆刪除I knew you were going to say that :) But let's take God's existence as an example. God may not exist in any logical sphere, but that's the whole point of having *faith*.
After all, we cannot dispute what is Yingyeesheung with what is Yingyeeha, right?
Oh, and just on the point of p and ~p again. They could both be true in fuzzy logic. The difference is in degree (and degree here refers not to "different levels on the same measure", but different types of the same thing).
回覆刪除Snowdrops,
回覆刪除Either God exists or God doesn't exist. It's impossible that God both exists and doesn't exist.
Snowdrops,
回覆刪除//just on the point of p and ~p again. They could both be true in fuzzy logic. //
- In fuzzy logic, p and ~p can both have a truth-value of 0.5, but that's not the same as saying that they are both true.
Just to make it even clearer for you Wong (and apropos of our previous conversation about morality):
回覆刪除"God may not exist in any logical sphere, but that's the whole point of having *faith*."
So the concept of "Good" may not exist in any logical sphere (i.e. doing the Right thing may actually often times be detriment to my and even my group's class interest, and many people would indeed "logically" prefer to not do it and would laugh at those who choose to do good as complete and utter idiots),
but that's whole point in having *faith* in the "goodness" of people to not act only out of their own self- or class- interest.
(And just to be clear I do NOT at all see religion as being the only, and very far from the best, moral frameworks out there).
And apologies in advance as per usual I've said too much, and I really don't mean to rehash an old debate on your blog.
"Either God exists or God doesn't exist. It's impossible that God both exists and doesn't exist."
回覆刪除How is it impossible? We are not "God", after all? On matters metaphysic, I find it best not to apply dichotomous logic.
Snowdrops,
回覆刪除I am going to let you have the last word.
- In fuzzy logic, p and ~p can both have a truth-value of 0.5, but that's not the same as saying that they are both true.
回覆刪除They are both true within their own logical contexts, and thus could have the same truth-value even if the interpretation of that value may be vastly different and even contradictory.
Oh wow, thank you Wong, I am extremely flattered even though I know you were simply being kind :) (And sincere apologies again for rehashing an old debate on your blog.)
回覆刪除Snowdrops,
回覆刪除//They are both true within their own logical contexts, and thus could have the same truth-value even if the interpretation of that value may be vastly different and even contradictory.//
- I am not sure I understand this, but it probably is hard to clarify all the logical concepts involved.
Snowdrops,
回覆刪除You'd better use something like paraconsistent logic rather than fuzzy logic above,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/
Wong,
回覆刪除I see fuzzy logic as a way to finally -- formally and logically -- grapple with the so-called "Rashomon" conundrum.
CYC,
回覆刪除Thanks for that reference, I have only understood different truth-value interpretations within the context of fuzzy logic, I will look up the reference you cited, thanks again.
英雄美人公主娘，
回覆刪除//英雄美人公主娘 提到...
//甘⋯⋯好多老公都當老婆系偶像！
好多老婆都當老公係偶像！口裏埋怨老公，與其言談間經常不問自奉來句他怎樣怎樣想。其語氣跟頻密度說明一切。
Wong,
//- 當係皇后多啲。
係播！被你這一說，舉目皆是。
民女覺得最完美是老公既當自己是公主，也是皇后。夢也。若然，日久從公主換成皇后，仍屬幸事。
W. Wong,
回覆刪除>p, therefore Wong says p.
見你成日講p講得咁斬釘截鐵，想窒你幾句啫！
shiren,
回覆刪除//民女覺得最完美是老公既當自己是公主，也是皇后。夢也。若然，日久從公主換成皇后，仍屬幸事。//
- 不過，千祈唔好有公主病。聽下呢位仁兄點講：http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geuqYUVerQ0&feature=player_embedded
CYC,
回覆刪除//見你成日講p講得咁斬釘截鐵，想窒你幾句啫！//
- 窒我者無好下場。
Wong says
回覆刪除"窒我者無好下場。"
But surely you appreciate the value of being taken down a peg or two now and again? :)
And of course I didn't just mean Wong yourself but anyone of us :) (And apologies, I've got to head out now, thanks Wong again for kindly accommodating this little debate on your blog).
回覆刪除Wong,
回覆刪除我發夢都想患上公主病然後遇上M （S&M裏的M)。來生吧，此生只能當觀眾了。
Snowdrops,
回覆刪除I was joking when I said "窒我者無好下場".
Your comments are always welcome.
shiren,
回覆刪除S&M?
Sadist and Masochist.
回覆刪除對於those who act like they have所謂公主病的人，我佩服得很！差點可當「偶像」了。（我沒有離題太遠）
shiren,
回覆刪除I see.