Since Einstein founded the special theory of relativity in 1905, the speed of light has been the only anomaly among the speeds of various objects. According to the principle of invariance of the speed of light, the speed of light in vacuum remains constant with respect to the inertial frame of reference, which moves at a uniform speed in a straight line with respect to each other, and its value is c. The speed of other objects, on the other hand, must be superimposed on the speed v of the frame of reference. Based on the above Perception, researcher Zexian Cao of the Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, in his “What is Relativity? in his lecture on “What is Relativity?”, he simply declared that the speed of light is not a speed; even if the speed of light is understood as a speed, it is not the speed you think it is.
I was struck by Mr. Cao’s characteristically straightforward statement, and it made me wonder if those who include “freedom” in their “core values” could follow suit and I’d like to say honestly that the “freedom” written on the wall is not freedom, and even if we interpret it as freedom, it is not the freedom you think it is.
Why do I think so? It is because after “freedom” was exquisitely incorporated into the “core socialist values,” China’s freedom has not only not increased, but also ranked among the bottom of the world.
Mr. Liu Daoyu, a former president of Wuhan University, is a respected independent thinker and bold practitioner who understands the current state of freedom in China. Not long ago, Liu wrote a very insightful article in which, after praising Mr. Hu Deping for “firing the cannon for freedom,” he discussed in detail the relationship between Education and freedom, emphasizing that freedom is the core concept of education. The most quoted sentence in Liu’s article is that freedom and education are very closely related, and the problems that exist in our education today are closely related to the lack of freedom in our education. Looking at the philosophy of universities in China, none of them has the word “freedom” in their motto.
A few days ago, I read an article in memory of Mr. Shen Changwen, a senior cultural figure, entitled “Reading is forbidden, the country should review”. The author, Mr. “vernacular”, quoted the words of Liu Lao and reasoned at the end of the article: “This reminds me that there are a lot of truths in the world that complement each other. Since there is no “freedom” in the university motto of a country, it is only natural, even “logical”, for the country to set up a restricted area for reading.
What Liu said is true, and the cause and effect relationship is clear. Due to the lack of freedom in education, the word “freedom” is not really in the motto of 3000 universities in mainland China. My alma mater, Beihang University, and the National People’s Congress have no motto. Moreover, I would venture to assert that the word “freedom” is not found in the school mottos (if there are any) of nearly 100,000 high schools and 170,000 elementary school in mainland China. Needless to say, the school mottos of my alma mater, Huili Elementary School, and Changshu City Middle School, certainly do not.
By association, Mr. “Baihua” took Liu’s statement that “no school has the word ‘freedom’ in its school motto” as a “cause” to reason. “I think the “result” he draws from his reasoning is perfectly valid when applied to mainland China. However, we need to be cautious if we want to extend it to other countries.
Logically speaking, no school has the word “freedom” in its motto, but it may well correspond to the lack of freedom in education in that country or region, but not necessarily so. Take Taiwan as an example. There are more than 170 universities in Taiwan, and most of them have set their mottos. However, none of them have the word “freedom” in their motto. For example, the motto of National Taiwan University (NTU) is: “To be of good character, to encourage learning, to love the country, and to love people. This motto was proposed by President Fu Si-nian in 1949 and formally established in 1950. It should be said that this fact corresponds to the lack of freedom in education in Taiwan during the authoritarian era before 1987. However, this fact does not mean that education in Taiwan still lacks freedom after the successful democratic transition in 1987 and up to the present Time; still less does it mean that Taiwan still naturally, or even “logically”, establishes a no-go zone for reading. I don’t know if Mr. “vernacular” thinks so.
There are many reasons why the word “freedom” is still absent from the motto of Taiwan’s universities. I speculate that there are two possible reasons for this: one is the lagging effect, people have not wanted to revise the motto to match the changing times; the other is that people think it is not necessary to change it, just give it a new meaning.
Logically, regarding the relationship between school motto and the lack of freedom in education, I think another possible scenario should not be ruled out, that is, even if some schools in a country have the word “freedom” in their school motto, the education still lacks freedom. Imagine if, after “freedom” was included in the “core socialist values” formed in 2012, a number of universities in mainland China were ordered to revise their school mottos to include the word “freedom”. “Does it mean that we should start to say goodbye to the lack of freedom in education? Would Chinese education be expected to “break the confines and establish the concept of liberal education” as Mr. Liu Daoyu hopes? Wouldn’t the teacher Tang Yun of Chongqing Normal University’s College of Arts be disqualified and demoted for “making inappropriate remarks”? ……
Not necessarily. Really may not.
The “freedom” that only hangs on the wall is soulless, dry, and even ridiculous.
Freedom is a good thing and should be the color of the nation’s soul, the color of Life.
I think it is because of this truth that Mr. Tang Yun of Chongqing, while promoting Tangmen wine, is calling for and searching for the soul of freedom – the soul of freedom that is naturally carried, survived by brainwashing, or returned by enlightenment.
I think it is because of this truth that Mr. Tang Yun heartily praised Writer Fang Fang as the glory of contemporary Chinese literature.
However, I don’t know if it is because several grains of dust of the times have fallen on Fang’s head one after another and she has actually carried them all, not being able to bury her hard or soft, so Mr. Tang Yun sighed that there would be no more Fang after Fang.
Perhaps I am optimistic by nature, I think, in this land of contemporary China, although many people regard it as a fearful way to see the virtuous, but there are still people who will rise up and do it. These people will not only admire Fang Fang in their hearts, but will also take up their pens with determination, as Fang Fang said in his acceptance speech: to pay attention to the ways of the world, to record and pity the innocent people caught in the tide of history, to pay attention to their compulsion and helplessness, to their pain and sorrow (Fang Fang Fang’s work “Soft Burial” was awarded the 2020 Emile Guimet Prize for Asian Literature a few days ago, at the end of the Gengzi year).
Therefore, I believe: there will be Fang after Fang.
Recent Comments