◆洛之秋◇虫子的冬天◆

中国历来缺乏演说的传统，这恐怕是因为专制传统对于公共生活的扼杀所造成的。民主国家生产演说家，时兴修辞术。雅典的诡辩家们就是在伯利克里斯时代出现的，而罗马共和国时期的西塞罗和凯撒都是演讲的能手。

我不能同意陆兴华的这样一种说法，即中国更缺的是专栏作家，而不是李敖这样的做秀者。每当我看到中国大陆领导人死气沉沉的演讲，对比外国领导人的妙语连珠，我就觉得不安。是汉语不美吗？是我们舌头打卷吗？不是，是我们缺乏真正的公民生活，辩论式的公民生活。

上个世纪三十年代美国经历了史无前例的大萧条，是罗斯福总统的炉边谈话给了绝望中的美国人以力量。罗斯福通过电波，向守候在收音机前的听众许诺，政府会竭尽所能让他们的储蓄能从银行里取出来。二战的时候，丘吉尔在议院发表演说，说英国人会在天上、地下、海边和德国人作战。珍珠港事件后，罗斯福总统对国会发表演说，号召美国对日宣战。

这些经典的声音依然还保存在我们的记忆里，而那个时候的社论，大概已经没有一篇值得回忆了吧？这就是演说之于写作的巨大优势：演说是一种更强势的语言表达。当李敖高举证据，历数政府对广场群众开枪罪证的时候，当他说所有政府在那个时候都是王八蛋的时候，他胜过了所有回忆录和议论文。音量、手势、眼神、寂静的观众、抽搐的闵书记…所有的所有都是文本所无法表达的。

而我还清楚的记得，当美国轰炸了中国在南联盟的大使馆后，江核心避不见人，支出来胡锦涛发表全国演说。而胡核心那木然的poker-face，和僵化的动作，让我长久的唏嘘。如果是克林顿来发表这篇演讲，那一定是不亚于肯尼迪在古巴导弹危机时的演说的。

我不否认台湾的民主很坏，但是我喜欢他们那种自由的公民生活和演说艺术。陈水扁本人就是一流的演说家。连战也不赖。马英九是更胜一筹。李敖不是最好的演说家，但他肯定是最勇敢的演说家，最不识时务的演说家。

有人嘲笑李敖的演讲将自由主义简单化，信息量太小，学术水平就更不用说了。还有人嘲笑喜欢李敖的人竟然对那么简单的道理（如言论自由的重要性）做恍然大悟状。还有人说李敖不过是过客，不属于我们这个社会，不了解我们这个社会。而我要说，李敖的演讲有血性，有智慧。同样是常识，但是经过他的嘴里说出来却份外深刻，发人深省。对于常识（如自由的先验性），对于一种在中国遭到迫害的价值观（如就是要争取言论自由），我们蒙受的启蒙不是太多，而是太少。

而更重要的是，如果你大致翻过李敖的《传统下的独白》那本书，大致了解他和专制政府斗争的代价，你就会知道他有足够的资格（无论是从智力上还是从道德上）来站在讲台上给北大的衮衮诸公上一课。

如果你不相信我的眼睛和评价，你至少要相信曾经厚爱过李敖的胡适、钱穆、殷海光。

原发一见如故,一篇旧文,重发这里做个备份.

In my opinion, the interdisciplinary research, or to some extent, the
inter-marriage of different disciplines, is no less than the cross-pollination,
as it were. In spite of the predominant tendency of specialization in science
and arts, it is of little benefit, on the part of a specialized practitioner, to
take a disparaging position and flout the outsiders who endeavor to borrow, or
transplant, the alien expertise / know-how, and whose findings in such an alien
field are likely to be ridiculed as “unscrupulous and shallow clichés”. As
KGB has argued, it is due to the outsider’s ignorance of the certain domain
he/she invades recklessly.

However, merely few one can be encyclopedic. The smaller the academic clique is,
the easier he/she rises to an unchallengeable opinion-leader. It’s an
inevitable by-product of over-specialization of labor at present. The so-called
insiders are thus apt to build up an exclusive castle and sneer from the top of
tower, overlooking the aggressors of other castles. Such an elitism / monopoly
in knowledge, either consciously or unconsciously, will be no good to God or
men. Looking back into the distant past of ancient Greece or China, you will
find a galaxy of saints who freewheeled between science and arts, giving no
sight to the so-called “boundary” of knowledge. In contrast, nowadays, the
higher you move on the academic ladder of your own subject, the more ignorant
you are of other majors. It’s extremely true in China, because the higher
education here is far more specialized than its Western counterparts. Just
taking a look at the websites of American schools, you’ll be startled by the
bizarrely diversified majors in the undergraduate programs of China. So, no
wonder that the President of Tsinghua, a distinguished scholar strong in his
discipline, made himself a sucked fool when he mispronounced some ancient
Chinese characters in public.

Therefore, the discrimination against disciplinary research is literally
groundless. An economist passing comments on Confucianism might be a standing
laughingstock in the eyes of a Ph.D. student whose major is ancient Chinese
literature / culture / philosophy. But the meditation on Confucianism from the
perspective of an economist, cliché as it is for those scholars in the
Department of Chinese, will probably be provocative and inspiring for his peers
in economics.