近日翻看几本手边的美术刊物,感到好文章确实有,选材精审、语音清晰,立论明确而有见地。但也有个少文章读起来累人:一是争论双方往往没有认真看清楚(或者是有意扭曲和夸张)对方观点就慷慨陈辞,例如:甲方说:“张三因为鼻子挺,所以显得好看”,乙方就反驳:“过分注重鼻子的观点是狭隘的局部主义。”令人哭笑不得。二是有些文章用了许多看来很学术很思辨的词汇,但文句之间的逻辑严密性却与学术与思辩的应有要求尚远。我不懂外文,看不了原著,但从好的译本来看,,那些西方哲学名家的论述虽然读起来绕口,但语法逻辑却仍然经得起细致分析。这固然有赖于翻译的中文水平好,但原著的逻 Recently read several art publications at hand, feel good articles really, material selection trial, clear voice, the argument clear and insightful. However, there are also a few articles that are tiring to read: First, both parties often do not conscientiously see (or intentionally distort and exaggerate) each other’s views on generous remarks. For example, Party A said: “Zhang San is quite good because of his nose. Party B retorted: ”Over-emphasis on the nose is a parochial partialism." It is dumbfounding. Second, some articles use many seemingly academic speculations, but the logical rigor of the texts is far from the academic and speculative requirements. I do not understand foreign languages ​​and can not see the original works. However, judging from the good translations, the expositions of those famous Western philosophers, though they are all about to be read, can still be meticulously analyzed. This depends, of course, on the good Chinese translation, but the logic of the original