韩愈在《师说》第二段中对“师”的概念有一句补充,即“彼童子之师,授之书而习其句读者,非吾所谓传其道解其惑者也。”这等于说“童子之师”非“师”。那么,韩愈把“童子之师”从“师”这个概念的外延排除出去,是否表明他轻视“童子之师”呢?这样的判断(“童子之师”非“师”)又合不合逻辑呢? 要回答上述问题,我们应当先探究一番韩愈的写作目的。韩愈写此文的目的是为了批判当时士大夫中耻于从师的不良风气。魏晋以来,世家大族掌握了政治、经济和文化特权。他们多数轻视从师,不学无术,但照样仕途畅达,宫运亨通。这些人对自己的子弟,也是不要求有真才实学,只要 In the second paragraph of the “Division”, Han Yu added a sentence to the concept of “division,” namely, “The teacher of the boy-boy, who gives the book and uses it to read the reader, is not the one to whom I pass it.” It is equivalent to saying that “the teacher of a boy is not a teacher.” Then, does Han Yu exclude the “boy teacher” from the concept of “teacher”, does it mean that he despise the “boy teacher”? This kind of judgment (“the boy teacher” is not “the teacher”) is also illogical. To answer these questions, we should first explore the purpose of Han Yu’s writing. Han Yu’s purpose in writing this article was to criticize the unfavorable spirit of shame from the teachers in the bursaries of the time. Since the Wei and Jin Dynasties, family and ethnic minorities have gained political, economic, and cultural privileges. Most of them despise their teachers, and they do not learn from them. These people do not require any real knowledge of their own children.