论文部分内容阅读
去年初,《博览群书》组织有关舒芜现象的讨论。我曾发言,把这个争论归结为知识分子伦理底线问题。我当时认为,不同的时代,不同的环境,伦理底线有不同的内容,不同的要求。舒芜先生1957年被打成右派,受了很多苦,80年代以来写了不少好文章,但绝大多数胡风案的受难者仍不原谅他,其中必有原因。需要弄清的是,是这么多受难者偏执,还是舒芜越过了底线?当时的知识界,只有吕荧这样极个别的人敢于公开表示不同意见。历史已经证明吕荧了不起,令人敬重。绝大多数知识分子都参加了批判声讨,在这个问题上,他们不是丑陋的,怯懦的,起码也是胡涂的,盲从的。在吕荧和大家之间,划一条线很必要,否则没有美丑的区分,没有人格的引向。受难者可以原谅参与过批判的多数人,包括当时公开写文章的许多文化名人,但是不原谅舒芜,这是因为还有一条线,就是做人的底线。如果把政治运动比喻为一场洪水,吕荧那样的是砥柱中流,大多数是随波逐流。但还有一种人的作用是推波助澜。推波助澜和随波逐流的区别也不能不讲。共产党方面对胡风的不满可以追溯到40年代的理论之争,但把胡风打成反革命集团头子,是让事态升了级。舒芜主动将胡风给他的私人信件引入批判文章,客观上是为这场大灾难提供了导火线。这个行为就越过了做人的底线。
Early last year, “Book Fair group” discussion of Shuwu phenomenon. I once spoke and attributed this argument to the ethical bottom line of intellectuals. At that time, I thought that in different times and different environments, the ethical bottom line has different contents and different requirements. Mr. Shu Wu was labeled a rightist in 1957 and suffered so much. He wrote a lot of good articles since the 1980s, but most of the victims of the Hu Feng case still do not forgive him for any reason. What needs to be clarified is that so many paranoid victims or Shu Wu crossed the bottom line? At that time, only a few individuals such as Lu Ying dared to publicly express their disagreement. History has proved that Lu Ying was remarkable and respectable. Most of the intellectuals participated in the criticism and criticism. On this issue, they are not ugly, cowardly, at least absurd and blind. Lu Ying and everyone in between, it is necessary to draw a line, otherwise there is no distinction between beauty and ugliness, no personality lead. The victims can forgive most of the critics, including many of the cultural celebrities who publicly wrote the article at the time, but do not forgive Shu Wu because there is another line that is the bottom line. If the political movement compared to a flood, Lu Ying that is the main stream, most of them drift. But there is another kind of person’s role is to fuel the flames. Do not tell the difference between fueled and drifting. The communist party’s dissatisfaction with Hu Feng can be traced back to the theoretical controversy in the 1940s. However, to turn Hu Feng into the head of the counter-revolutionary group is to raise the status quo. Shu Wu took the initiative to introduce his personal letters to the critical articles by Hu Feng, which objectively provided the guiding principle for this catastrophe. This behavior crossed the bottom line of life.