这两年我好谈说理,虽然认同者众,却也不乏质疑。最常见的质疑莫过于:假如对方压根儿不讲道理,你坚持说理能有什么意义,这不是对牛弹琴、以卵击石吗?或者换一种我喜欢的问法:遇到一个无理的环境,为什么还要坚持说理?这个问题绝非无的放矢。我们都该听过一句老话:秀才遇到兵,有理说不清。如果说,秀才代表知识人,可视为说理的一方,兵代表暴力 In the past two years, I have talked and talked aloud. Although there are many people who agree with me, I still have some questions. The most common question is: If the other party is unreasonable, you insist that the truth can have any significance, this is not to play the harpsichord, with an oval hit the stone? Or for another kind of I like to ask: Encounter an unreasonable environment, why should Adhere to reason? This issue is by no means arbitrary. We should all hear an old saying that scholar meets with soldiers and has no reason to tell. If we say that a scholar represents a person of knowledge, he can be regarded as a party to reason and a soldier represents violence