文章标题：香港的核心价值有待深思
文章作者：霍韬晦
发表日期：2012年3月15日
发表媒体：《联合早报•言论》
香港正在进行特首选举，参选人几乎都毫无例外地说要守护香港的核心价值，并且指出香港的核心价值就是自由、民主、法治、人权、平等、公正、多元、包容等。从历史上看这些其实都是从西方移植过来的价值，也是现代社会所公认的价值，并不能算是香港所特有或对香港发展发挥过重要作用的价值。而且，上述的这些价值有许多已在蜕变中，甚至转为负面，要将之奉为核心，必须深思。
例如自由，这的确是人类社会最珍贵的价值，人人向往，人人争取。既然人人都向往，这显示了自由的普遍性，为什么还要争取呢？洛克认为自由是天赋人权，卢梭认为人是生而自由的，但现实上却是“无时不在枷锁之中”。在长久的人类历史中，自由为什么会失去？归结就是政府体制和法律的不公正，它所保护的是统治阶层的利益，所以这才爆发民主革命（如法国大革命）。
民主作为新的价值观念登场，它以人权作基石，重新保护人的自由。自由就是人权的核心内容，在资本主义之下，人有权争取自己利益之最大化。资本主义经济能够飞跃发展，所凭借的正是这种自由。不过，时至今日，资本主义的发展已到濒危阶段，制造出极尖锐的社会矛盾：贫富悬殊，1% Vs 99%。原来号称公平的自由主义社会变成极不公平的利益对立，可见这种“自由”有其偏差，亦有其不足。
为什么？就是因为这种“自由”只是人人有权膨胀其物质欲望、财富欲望的自由。正如亚当•史密斯所说：“人人都关心他自己的利益”，视之为理所当然；在民主社会，更视为一种权利，没有什么不对。写《正义论》的罗尔斯（J. Rawls）大声疾呼“个人权利优先于善”，意思就是不能因社会的共同利益（善）而牺牲个人的选择，但这公平吗？当社会整体受损害，个人的自由能继续下去吗？政府要采取行动吗？要制订政策吗？
忠实的自由主义者诺锡克（R. Nozick）认为个人权利绝不可以牺牲，所以政府的功能必须加以限制。资本主义虽然造成贫富悬殊，但只要合符市场交易原则，便是正义，政府无权从中置喙，更不应干扰。至于什么是市场的交易原则？便是买卖双方洽商同意，你情我愿。俗语说：“一个愿打、一个愿挨”，旁人管不了。
自由的堕落
在这种市场观念下，社会出现许多怪现象。只要有钱赚，什么模式都可以允许。不要说性交易、娼妓可以合法化，少女援交、短期夫妇、伴游女郎、卖精、代孕……还有许多一般人想不出的花招都会陆续登场。
造成这种现象的另一个原因是人的自然欲望，即所谓现实人性。在物质诱惑下、在社会环境影响下、在教育失职下，人的贪婪和自我求满足的心理都像洪水般决堤而出。人权和自由的核心价值对此不但没有丝毫阻截作用，反而推波助澜，成为帮凶。至于商业上的犯罪、欺骗、隐瞒、造假、中饱私囊，政治上的造谣、抹黑、恶意攻击、制造绯闻、煽动群众情绪，以人权法掩护言论自由，就更普遍了。
这就是自由的堕落。法治虽然能起一种防卫作用，但这作用毕竟是消极性的。它最先的提出，就是为了防止个人自由的无止境的泛滥。海耶克（Hayek）说，必须有限制性的原则来防止个人自由的最大化，这是“必要的强制”（海耶克著《自由宪章》第一章））。但这样，作为执法机构的政府就要介入，目的就是维持正义与公平。时至今日，政府的手愈伸愈长，几乎什么都管。结果不只是管治成本大增，官员疲于奔命，更严重的是政府在两面夹击之下，根本难有作为。所谓法治，亦因为追不上现实需要，必须不断立法立例以堵塞漏洞，结果一定造成法律条文的繁琐化和诉讼费用的沉重负担。沿此趋势发展下去，不只小政府的理念无法实现，更大的问题是资源的消耗和内耗。
香港的核心价值与中国文化有关
通过上述简单的分析，可见香港社会的核心价值其实是现代社会的核心价值的反映：从自由起，一环扣一环，成为结构性的系列。我们不是要反对它；事实上它们的问题已经摆在那里，而且牵动着社会。问题是：香港人要不要认识香港？知道香港的优点；通过香港的历史，明白香港成功的因素，以继承香港的特殊价值。试想香港人在过去一百五十年，没有政府与外力的资助，竟然能够兴盛起来；香港的文化（如电影、音乐、文学、学术，都出现过不少大师）一直影响着东南亚、台湾和全球华人地区，其中所依赖的不是香港的核心价值是什么？因此，我们不能简单地把香港归属于西方现代社会，作为他们其中的一个城市（当然也不能简单地归属于现代中国）。至少香港的成功，是多年来，除了英国的统治模式外，还有中国人勤奋、守法、任劳任怨、自我要求、自我磨练、自我创造、决不把希望寄托于别人，包括政府身上。从某一意义上论，这也就是所谓狮子山下的精神，其实是中国文化的精神，能处逆境、能处忧患，有韧力，有生命力，痛苦不吭，乐观、宽恕、仁爱、永远向前、积极进取……这些，难道不是香港的核心价值吗？香港赖以有今天，究竟是谁的功劳？
自由不只是自我权利的充分使用，还要看到此权利的限制与对别人、对社会、对整体的影响与伤害。讲法律守护不如讲人的修养，珍惜自己的人格，胸襟与气度。这是做人的核心价值，难道香港人要丢掉它吗？
当代社会的核心价值有些的确有普遍性，但既然说香港，那么就要有香港性，不能抽离香港的时空，更不能抽掉香港一百多年来深藏于香港人血脉中的中国文化因素。若放弃这价值，香港人赖以建立、赖以奋斗的精神力量就会失去，香港的凝聚力也会化为乌有。你看今天正在进行中的特首选战，双方所使用的手段不是太可怕吗？全无原则的砍杀，结果只有全输。为了赢，什么核心价值都没有了！如果说，这就是民主，那么香港作了很恶劣的示范。
作者为新加坡东亚人文研究所所长，香港东方人文学院院长
Friday, March 16, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
维持善政需要理想主义的土壤
文章标题：维持善政需要理想主义的土壤
文章作者：颜国伟
发表日期：2012年1月19日
发表媒体：《联合早报•言论》
重新检讨政治职务薪酬的报告不但吸引国人的眼球，国际人士对这个课题也深表关注，议论纷纷。
这只“圣牛”有机会获得屠宰，缘于去年大选出现的政治新常态。长期执政的人民行动党，有如一个向来很健康的人一样，突然之间心脏病爆发，活下来之后，面对充满挑战的未来，可以选择相信病痛已经远离，行事作风一切照旧；也可以选择按下“重新启动”键，以避免心脏病有机会二度爆发而错失抢救良机。
修改制定政治职务薪金的方程式，是执政党从善如流，自我调整的重要一步。但我们要问的是，这一步骤要解决的是什么问题？
“政治领袖领高薪”无可争议是个政治层面的议题。但是，由非政治人物所组成的检讨委员会所能修订的，只能够是技术面的理据。因此，这个政治课题不会因为这份报告而消失；事实也显示，即使报告建议的薪金减幅颇大，有些人还是不满意，正是因为提案与问题所属的层次不同。
争议为何不断？
新加坡过去的成功，确实是靠高素质的政治领导力取得的。然而，无论现实上取得如何辉煌的成就，深具忧患意识的政治领袖一直努力不懈的，是如何在制度层面上确保高素质领导力的出现，是必然而非偶然的事件。
因此，新加坡人18岁参加的“A”水准考试，全国的莘莘学子就一刀被区分成“未来精英”和普通人；取得政府奖学金者，尤其是总统奖学金，绝大多数都成为日后的行政精英或政治精英。我们也设计了独一无二的集选区制度，确保被看好的“精英”可以在最后一分钟，空降到由强棒领导人率领的选区而稳操胜券，成为日后的接班栋梁。高薪才能揽才，很自然就成为整套思考逻辑的一部分。
诚然，追求效率的心态笼罩着整个思考。我们将之诠释成新加坡小国寡民，没有条件浪费时间，也没有那么多人才可供选择。很多人都质问，考试精英等于将来的行政以及政治精英吗？老子《道德经》第十八章曰“大道废，有仁义；智慧出，有大伪”，道出人性功利的一面。既然晋升成为社会顶端的游戏规则如此，怕输的新加坡人，能不尽量优化自己的机会，以期在这场游戏竞赛中胜出吗？这样会不会弄巧反拙，反而造成真正的人才浪费呢？
其次，发生在这个土壤的历史事实是：第一代政治领袖都被公认为卓越的人才，是他们令新加坡成功，但他们都没有领高薪。基于这个事实，主张“国家的繁荣昌盛需要杰出的政治领导力”，以及“唯有高薪才能揽才”是两个不同观点，需要区分开来的看法，大有人在。当这两个论点被绑在一起，成为“唯有高薪，才能揽才，国家才能保持繁荣昌盛”的论调，并且成为最基本的假设的时候，能不招来质疑吗？
替“高薪揽才以维护国家继续繁荣”辩护的一个主张是，“现在不能够像以前那样要求政治领袖牺牲了，人要面对现实”，因而把焦点转移到技术面的议论上——怎样算才合理，才能保证有最好的人才来守住过往善政的果实。议论背后的价值意识，是经济学的机会成本。参政是个人利弊的一项选择，可以估算每个选择背后的机会成本，包括从政而不从商的机会成本，以及国家如果用人不当的时候所涉及的机会成本等。如此处理，分歧永远因政治立场的不同而存在，而这个议题的政治效应也永远存在。
无可否认，社会确实变得越来越功利了，而一些政策，在制定上无意间影响民心，趋向现实。
当一个孩子18岁的考试直接影响到他将来是否能够成为国家精英的时候，作为爱子女，希望子女将来生活得更美好的父母，能不为刚出娘胎的孩子备战吗？最后胜出的一小撮人，享有比一般人多和快的晋升机会。经年累月之后，社会形成一种对官方说辞的“精英”情意结，爱用放大镜来看这些人的表现。所以近年一有奖学金得主行为不当、甚至触犯法律的事故，全都成为热门话题，惹来诸多非议。
当一个人一天24小时的生活空间，都和钱扯上关系的时候，多少人潜意识里能够不在乎自己财务上的得与失？在新加坡，什么时候搭德士、在哪里搭德士，以及什么时候在哪条设有电子收费的公路上驾驶，都和自己荷包最终将省下多少钱有关。
美国明尼苏达大学的心理学家凯瑟琳•沃斯教授（Kathleen Vohs）针对金钱所产生的社会心理，做了深入的研究。她发现人如果时时受到金钱的提示，会变得更加自我关注，不愿意帮助他人，比较好胜，也比较吝于捐助慈善。我们的日常行为，似乎印证沃斯教授的结论。
一直以来，坊间就有把PAP谑称为“付钱再付钱”（Pay And Pay）的说法；民间也常听到这样的言论——“政府什么都跟我们算，我们为什么不能跟政府算清楚！”这又是一个解不开的情意结。
对政治职务薪酬依据的辩护，恰恰碰触到以上两种情意结，因此无法展开平情而理性的辩论。
将来的政治，如果真的如强势舆论认为的那样，因为没有优渥的薪金而吸引不到人才，和我们生活的土壤变得过于现实有关。
善政最需要什么来维持？
回顾我们的历史，如果没有深具理想主义情怀的开国元勋，就不会有新加坡的奇迹。遗憾的是，很多人并没有牢牢把握住这个令我们成功的根本要素，把它和其他现实条件在本与末上区分清楚，尽全力确保这个原本具有理想主义的土壤不会变质。新加坡的核心精神，从历史事实来看就是“创造奇迹”，如果没有深具理想主义情怀的人，奇迹将如何继续创造？
去年三一一的日本大地震，日本人面临死亡的威胁，透过电子媒体让全世界看到人的典范——原来普普通通的人做得到舍身救人，做得到临危不乱和守望相助。更早之前，即2008年年底，当印度泰姬陵皇宫酒店（Taj Mahal Palace Hotel）遭受恐怖袭击的时候，各国媒体也竞相报道过有关酒店员工不顾自身安危，奋勇保护旅客安全的感人事迹。
前者是一个先进国家，后者属于发展中国家的一家企业，两起事件证明理想主义的精神，与经济条件，族群与文化没有必然的关系，是可以建设的。事实上，很多人对理想主义都不抱积极乐观的看法。我想，这和深埋我们心中，因为自己生存空间小，资源匮乏而生起的生存焦虑有关。适当的忧患意识让人励精图治；然而，过度的焦虑会令人不自觉地为自己制造出问题，把自己捆住，以为出路只有一条，有如“瓶中鹅”的禅宗公案一样。公案中的陆大夫自己想出一个难题，说有一只刚出世的鹅被放在瓶子里饲养，鹅越来越大，无法从瓶里出来，他请教南泉禅师，如何才能既不伤害鹅，也不损坏瓶子，让鹅能够出来。禅师大喝陆大夫一声，然后告诉他说鹅已经出来了。
政治薪金的议题，是“新加坡如何继续享有善政”的思考，在制度层面上的一项建设努力，历时几十年。然而，稳定如果求之不得其法，可能变成负累。实际上，我们已经迈进了一个“蚂蚁可以撼大树”的年代。2010年年底，一个非常普通，年仅26岁的突尼斯青年人默罕默德•布瓦吉吉（Mohamed Bouazizi）的自焚，导致当时的突尼斯政府倒台，一股反体制的风暴席卷阿拉伯世界，结果埃及前总统穆巴拉克下台，也让利比亚强人卡达菲的政权提前崩溃。由布瓦吉吉而产生的蝴蝶效应，显示我们即使有一支强大高素质的治国团队，也不能排除将来不会因为一桩小事而带来巨大的蝴蝶效应，最后甚至动摇到执政的机会。
比较高明的维稳之道，我认为在于建设一个具有强大活力的公民社会，让多元的、具理想主义精神的人，来分担各个领域的领导重任，包括政界、商界（尤其是中小型企业），以及非营利性的组织等。真正的人才，因领域不同，能够让他受到感召的理想，性质也不一样，金钱不是人才动力因的讨论焦点。各领域之间也不一定存在直接的人才竞争，因为人人志向不同。反过来说，如果所有的人才都被执政的政党吸纳去了，以维持善政，形成“强政党、弱社会”的情形，反而削弱社会该有的强大、自组的能力。一个“无所不能，无所不包”的品牌形象，到底是利多还是弊多？作为千手观音，所以大小事都找你。当你把事情做好的时候，大家都认为这是应该的；一旦出现任何差错，你必须扛下所有的责难，并为此付出代价。
柏拉图说过：“如果拒绝参与国家的治理，你的惩罚将会是被素质比你差的人所统治。”没有人希望出现这种情况，而比较根本的对应之道涉及：教育要重视提升学生对理想主义的认识与追求，以减少自我关注；社会要多表扬勇于实践理想的人；政策的制定要深刻考虑对社会心理产生的长远影响，不应该单向追求绩效；而传媒不应止于热衷报道每年富翁身价的排名。多管齐下，让各方的力量一起深耕善政所需要的理想主义土壤。
最后，政治的竞争难度已经提升。过去只要把经济建设做好，就是好的治国人才，就是善政。现在，在人心分化的时代，善政更需要凝聚人心。如此艰难的任务，没有强大理想主义的精神底蕴，再高的薪酬也是枉然。
作者是企业人力开发集团经理
文章作者：颜国伟
发表日期：2012年1月19日
发表媒体：《联合早报•言论》
重新检讨政治职务薪酬的报告不但吸引国人的眼球，国际人士对这个课题也深表关注，议论纷纷。
这只“圣牛”有机会获得屠宰，缘于去年大选出现的政治新常态。长期执政的人民行动党，有如一个向来很健康的人一样，突然之间心脏病爆发，活下来之后，面对充满挑战的未来，可以选择相信病痛已经远离，行事作风一切照旧；也可以选择按下“重新启动”键，以避免心脏病有机会二度爆发而错失抢救良机。
修改制定政治职务薪金的方程式，是执政党从善如流，自我调整的重要一步。但我们要问的是，这一步骤要解决的是什么问题？
“政治领袖领高薪”无可争议是个政治层面的议题。但是，由非政治人物所组成的检讨委员会所能修订的，只能够是技术面的理据。因此，这个政治课题不会因为这份报告而消失；事实也显示，即使报告建议的薪金减幅颇大，有些人还是不满意，正是因为提案与问题所属的层次不同。
争议为何不断？
新加坡过去的成功，确实是靠高素质的政治领导力取得的。然而，无论现实上取得如何辉煌的成就，深具忧患意识的政治领袖一直努力不懈的，是如何在制度层面上确保高素质领导力的出现，是必然而非偶然的事件。
因此，新加坡人18岁参加的“A”水准考试，全国的莘莘学子就一刀被区分成“未来精英”和普通人；取得政府奖学金者，尤其是总统奖学金，绝大多数都成为日后的行政精英或政治精英。我们也设计了独一无二的集选区制度，确保被看好的“精英”可以在最后一分钟，空降到由强棒领导人率领的选区而稳操胜券，成为日后的接班栋梁。高薪才能揽才，很自然就成为整套思考逻辑的一部分。
诚然，追求效率的心态笼罩着整个思考。我们将之诠释成新加坡小国寡民，没有条件浪费时间，也没有那么多人才可供选择。很多人都质问，考试精英等于将来的行政以及政治精英吗？老子《道德经》第十八章曰“大道废，有仁义；智慧出，有大伪”，道出人性功利的一面。既然晋升成为社会顶端的游戏规则如此，怕输的新加坡人，能不尽量优化自己的机会，以期在这场游戏竞赛中胜出吗？这样会不会弄巧反拙，反而造成真正的人才浪费呢？
其次，发生在这个土壤的历史事实是：第一代政治领袖都被公认为卓越的人才，是他们令新加坡成功，但他们都没有领高薪。基于这个事实，主张“国家的繁荣昌盛需要杰出的政治领导力”，以及“唯有高薪才能揽才”是两个不同观点，需要区分开来的看法，大有人在。当这两个论点被绑在一起，成为“唯有高薪，才能揽才，国家才能保持繁荣昌盛”的论调，并且成为最基本的假设的时候，能不招来质疑吗？
替“高薪揽才以维护国家继续繁荣”辩护的一个主张是，“现在不能够像以前那样要求政治领袖牺牲了，人要面对现实”，因而把焦点转移到技术面的议论上——怎样算才合理，才能保证有最好的人才来守住过往善政的果实。议论背后的价值意识，是经济学的机会成本。参政是个人利弊的一项选择，可以估算每个选择背后的机会成本，包括从政而不从商的机会成本，以及国家如果用人不当的时候所涉及的机会成本等。如此处理，分歧永远因政治立场的不同而存在，而这个议题的政治效应也永远存在。
无可否认，社会确实变得越来越功利了，而一些政策，在制定上无意间影响民心，趋向现实。
当一个孩子18岁的考试直接影响到他将来是否能够成为国家精英的时候，作为爱子女，希望子女将来生活得更美好的父母，能不为刚出娘胎的孩子备战吗？最后胜出的一小撮人，享有比一般人多和快的晋升机会。经年累月之后，社会形成一种对官方说辞的“精英”情意结，爱用放大镜来看这些人的表现。所以近年一有奖学金得主行为不当、甚至触犯法律的事故，全都成为热门话题，惹来诸多非议。
当一个人一天24小时的生活空间，都和钱扯上关系的时候，多少人潜意识里能够不在乎自己财务上的得与失？在新加坡，什么时候搭德士、在哪里搭德士，以及什么时候在哪条设有电子收费的公路上驾驶，都和自己荷包最终将省下多少钱有关。
美国明尼苏达大学的心理学家凯瑟琳•沃斯教授（Kathleen Vohs）针对金钱所产生的社会心理，做了深入的研究。她发现人如果时时受到金钱的提示，会变得更加自我关注，不愿意帮助他人，比较好胜，也比较吝于捐助慈善。我们的日常行为，似乎印证沃斯教授的结论。
一直以来，坊间就有把PAP谑称为“付钱再付钱”（Pay And Pay）的说法；民间也常听到这样的言论——“政府什么都跟我们算，我们为什么不能跟政府算清楚！”这又是一个解不开的情意结。
对政治职务薪酬依据的辩护，恰恰碰触到以上两种情意结，因此无法展开平情而理性的辩论。
将来的政治，如果真的如强势舆论认为的那样，因为没有优渥的薪金而吸引不到人才，和我们生活的土壤变得过于现实有关。
善政最需要什么来维持？
回顾我们的历史，如果没有深具理想主义情怀的开国元勋，就不会有新加坡的奇迹。遗憾的是，很多人并没有牢牢把握住这个令我们成功的根本要素，把它和其他现实条件在本与末上区分清楚，尽全力确保这个原本具有理想主义的土壤不会变质。新加坡的核心精神，从历史事实来看就是“创造奇迹”，如果没有深具理想主义情怀的人，奇迹将如何继续创造？
去年三一一的日本大地震，日本人面临死亡的威胁，透过电子媒体让全世界看到人的典范——原来普普通通的人做得到舍身救人，做得到临危不乱和守望相助。更早之前，即2008年年底，当印度泰姬陵皇宫酒店（Taj Mahal Palace Hotel）遭受恐怖袭击的时候，各国媒体也竞相报道过有关酒店员工不顾自身安危，奋勇保护旅客安全的感人事迹。
前者是一个先进国家，后者属于发展中国家的一家企业，两起事件证明理想主义的精神，与经济条件，族群与文化没有必然的关系，是可以建设的。事实上，很多人对理想主义都不抱积极乐观的看法。我想，这和深埋我们心中，因为自己生存空间小，资源匮乏而生起的生存焦虑有关。适当的忧患意识让人励精图治；然而，过度的焦虑会令人不自觉地为自己制造出问题，把自己捆住，以为出路只有一条，有如“瓶中鹅”的禅宗公案一样。公案中的陆大夫自己想出一个难题，说有一只刚出世的鹅被放在瓶子里饲养，鹅越来越大，无法从瓶里出来，他请教南泉禅师，如何才能既不伤害鹅，也不损坏瓶子，让鹅能够出来。禅师大喝陆大夫一声，然后告诉他说鹅已经出来了。
政治薪金的议题，是“新加坡如何继续享有善政”的思考，在制度层面上的一项建设努力，历时几十年。然而，稳定如果求之不得其法，可能变成负累。实际上，我们已经迈进了一个“蚂蚁可以撼大树”的年代。2010年年底，一个非常普通，年仅26岁的突尼斯青年人默罕默德•布瓦吉吉（Mohamed Bouazizi）的自焚，导致当时的突尼斯政府倒台，一股反体制的风暴席卷阿拉伯世界，结果埃及前总统穆巴拉克下台，也让利比亚强人卡达菲的政权提前崩溃。由布瓦吉吉而产生的蝴蝶效应，显示我们即使有一支强大高素质的治国团队，也不能排除将来不会因为一桩小事而带来巨大的蝴蝶效应，最后甚至动摇到执政的机会。
比较高明的维稳之道，我认为在于建设一个具有强大活力的公民社会，让多元的、具理想主义精神的人，来分担各个领域的领导重任，包括政界、商界（尤其是中小型企业），以及非营利性的组织等。真正的人才，因领域不同，能够让他受到感召的理想，性质也不一样，金钱不是人才动力因的讨论焦点。各领域之间也不一定存在直接的人才竞争，因为人人志向不同。反过来说，如果所有的人才都被执政的政党吸纳去了，以维持善政，形成“强政党、弱社会”的情形，反而削弱社会该有的强大、自组的能力。一个“无所不能，无所不包”的品牌形象，到底是利多还是弊多？作为千手观音，所以大小事都找你。当你把事情做好的时候，大家都认为这是应该的；一旦出现任何差错，你必须扛下所有的责难，并为此付出代价。
柏拉图说过：“如果拒绝参与国家的治理，你的惩罚将会是被素质比你差的人所统治。”没有人希望出现这种情况，而比较根本的对应之道涉及：教育要重视提升学生对理想主义的认识与追求，以减少自我关注；社会要多表扬勇于实践理想的人；政策的制定要深刻考虑对社会心理产生的长远影响，不应该单向追求绩效；而传媒不应止于热衷报道每年富翁身价的排名。多管齐下，让各方的力量一起深耕善政所需要的理想主义土壤。
最后，政治的竞争难度已经提升。过去只要把经济建设做好，就是好的治国人才，就是善政。现在，在人心分化的时代，善政更需要凝聚人心。如此艰难的任务，没有强大理想主义的精神底蕴，再高的薪酬也是枉然。
作者是企业人力开发集团经理
Monday, January 16, 2012
解救资本主义
文章标题：解救资本主义
文章作者：霍韬晦
发表日期：2012年1月16日
发表媒体：《联合早报•言论》
时代需要新精神，时代需要新思维，这是我最近两个月来的呼吁。
现代社会危机四伏
为什么？因为危机已四伏。首先是生态危机：去年3月，日本发生九级大地震，造成日本核电厂爆炸及引起核泄漏，海水、土壤、农产品、人畜都受到污染，经济损失数千亿美元。但真正的损失不是经济，而是敲起使用核能的警钟；更进一步，则是资本主义的核心价值──功利主义的警钟。因为核电的使用，显性成本较低，为了保证生产巨轮的运转，只有冒险选择，结果损失更大。整个日本东北，可能从此放弃（日本前首相菅直人语）。
以此一例，说明现代人生存环境的凶险：核灾难之外，还有气候暖化、空气污染、冰山溶解、陆地下沉、森林消失、水源枯竭、地球资源急剧减少、大批珍贵动植物死亡……大家都在呼吁“低碳”，但害势已成，谁也停不下脚步。
为什么没有成果？因为现代人所走的路，是资本主义之路。资本主义能够改善我们的物质生活，说起来没有甚么不对。但资本主义的吸引力，其实是通过发动经济引擎，为自己增加财富。早期的办法，是依赖技术突破和密集劳动，来提升生产力，其间工业革命扮演了重要角色。但更重要的，是配备一套市场竞争规则──法律，使经营者所得的利润不受侵害，也就是承认私有财产的合法地位。这才是诱因，使生产者可以累积资本（后期的公司法，更有利于资本市场的运作，使财富扩大），但动力因最初毕竟在追逐自己利益的一念，得陇望蜀，做大做强。所以资本主义愈发展，在法律的保护下，人人都有机会参与这个追逐财富的游戏；有了财富，他的身份、社会地位，即可向上提升，于是产生一大批中产阶级。
市场变成杀戮战场
然而，资本主义发展到今日，却变成了社会不安的重要原因。由于资本主义的核心价值：人人有权谋取自己的最大利益，说得好是自由；只要不违反法律条文，一切工具、手段都可以使用，于是殚心竭虑进行竞争，市场变成杀戮战场。由于着眼于获胜，虽无硝烟，但其残酷处较之军事杀人不遑多让。这就是贸易战、金融战、资源战、经济战，不断升级，最后祸延全球。全球化就是全球都在资本主义的令旗下进行经济战争。
胜者为王。但这个王者若只是社会人口结构中的1%，大家都是输家，这个社会还会安全吗？曾经涌现的中产阶级，现在已大幅萎缩。“占领华尔街”、“反资本主义”，这些口号的出现非常自然，反映出全球正遭遇经济危机。
欧债问题，美国衰退问题、中国经济转型问题，都不是一日之寒，背后原因千丝万缕。但归结起来只有一点：就是资本主义的蜜月期已过，现在是苦果自尝。
现在宣称资本主义死亡尚为期过早，但不能讳言它充满危机。简单来说，就是资本主义从它一开始就未能正视人性贪婪的危害，反而给予合理化，赋予“自由”与“人权”之名，使它变成了双刃剑，成也萧何，败也萧何。三百年来的经济繁荣与“幸福”生活，不只以消耗和伤害地球资源为代价，更以人的堕落、制造出太多的分配不公平为代价。到这个时候，政府能不管吗？当年法国大革命是怎样产生的？中国革命是怎样连续不断的？世界反殖民主义与民族独立运动是怎样蔓延的？还不是为了反抗现实上的不公平、不公义的社会吗？
从经济危机到政治危机
经济危机势必延伸到政治，于是政府出手。市场原教旨主义者认为：政府最好不要对市场太多手，应该让业者自由竞争，优胜劣败，消费者得益。但市场其实是一大群谋取私利的人在杀戮，种种手段，包括与政府对抗、欺骗消费者，或以承担社会责任来“忽悠”政府，乃至政府官员贪污渎职，官商勾结，怎么办？受损害的还不是人民？
政府也可能两面不讨好：一方面与企业角力，保护市民和消费者，一方面又要创造企业投资机会，发展经济。弄不好，两面都埋怨。香港目前的处境就是如此。不过比起欧洲和美国，当地的政客更头痛。身处多事与多变之秋，从政的风险非常大，精明的人都不愿意蹚此浑水。世无领袖，从政者除非真有使命，否则都是一丘之貉。
这就是政治危机。当大家都把希望寄托给政府的时候，政府却令人失望。一来事情太复杂，许多问题都是冰封三尺，绝非几度板斧就可以理顺；二来民主国家的政府任期都很短，四年或五年，就要有成绩，否则得不到选票，难以连任，所以政策都很短视；急功近利，谈不上长远，社会沉疴怎能去除？三来现代社会讲究透明度，政府不能只手遮天，许多政策和运作过程都要公开、公平、公正，受到公众和传媒监视，就不能不小心；四来在民主国家中，政府一般都没有威信，不管如何努力，都会有许多反对声音，领袖亦很容易被轰下台（看日本在10年来换了七任首相就知道）。
一个社会安定很依赖政府带领，但在今天的文化之下，政府的功能已被削弱和扭曲。人民需要强势政府，但心里又不想有强势政府：一方面想安全，但又怕失去自由，民意自身亦有许多矛盾。难道这就是民主社会的现象？历史走到这一步，很容易在争吵中迷失。
这就是文化危机，资本主义带来的文化危机。我们活在其中，束手无策。要走出这个历史的怪圈，也许要回到它的起点，重新审视“自由”和“人权”。不弄清这两个概念，资本主义就如脱缰之马。我认为必须重解和确解这两个概念，时代才有新精神。
2012年已登上舞台，且看人们有无觉醒？
作者为新加坡东亚人文研究所所长，香港东方人文学院院长
文章作者：霍韬晦
发表日期：2012年1月16日
发表媒体：《联合早报•言论》
时代需要新精神，时代需要新思维，这是我最近两个月来的呼吁。
现代社会危机四伏
为什么？因为危机已四伏。首先是生态危机：去年3月，日本发生九级大地震，造成日本核电厂爆炸及引起核泄漏，海水、土壤、农产品、人畜都受到污染，经济损失数千亿美元。但真正的损失不是经济，而是敲起使用核能的警钟；更进一步，则是资本主义的核心价值──功利主义的警钟。因为核电的使用，显性成本较低，为了保证生产巨轮的运转，只有冒险选择，结果损失更大。整个日本东北，可能从此放弃（日本前首相菅直人语）。
以此一例，说明现代人生存环境的凶险：核灾难之外，还有气候暖化、空气污染、冰山溶解、陆地下沉、森林消失、水源枯竭、地球资源急剧减少、大批珍贵动植物死亡……大家都在呼吁“低碳”，但害势已成，谁也停不下脚步。
为什么没有成果？因为现代人所走的路，是资本主义之路。资本主义能够改善我们的物质生活，说起来没有甚么不对。但资本主义的吸引力，其实是通过发动经济引擎，为自己增加财富。早期的办法，是依赖技术突破和密集劳动，来提升生产力，其间工业革命扮演了重要角色。但更重要的，是配备一套市场竞争规则──法律，使经营者所得的利润不受侵害，也就是承认私有财产的合法地位。这才是诱因，使生产者可以累积资本（后期的公司法，更有利于资本市场的运作，使财富扩大），但动力因最初毕竟在追逐自己利益的一念，得陇望蜀，做大做强。所以资本主义愈发展，在法律的保护下，人人都有机会参与这个追逐财富的游戏；有了财富，他的身份、社会地位，即可向上提升，于是产生一大批中产阶级。
市场变成杀戮战场
然而，资本主义发展到今日，却变成了社会不安的重要原因。由于资本主义的核心价值：人人有权谋取自己的最大利益，说得好是自由；只要不违反法律条文，一切工具、手段都可以使用，于是殚心竭虑进行竞争，市场变成杀戮战场。由于着眼于获胜，虽无硝烟，但其残酷处较之军事杀人不遑多让。这就是贸易战、金融战、资源战、经济战，不断升级，最后祸延全球。全球化就是全球都在资本主义的令旗下进行经济战争。
胜者为王。但这个王者若只是社会人口结构中的1%，大家都是输家，这个社会还会安全吗？曾经涌现的中产阶级，现在已大幅萎缩。“占领华尔街”、“反资本主义”，这些口号的出现非常自然，反映出全球正遭遇经济危机。
欧债问题，美国衰退问题、中国经济转型问题，都不是一日之寒，背后原因千丝万缕。但归结起来只有一点：就是资本主义的蜜月期已过，现在是苦果自尝。
现在宣称资本主义死亡尚为期过早，但不能讳言它充满危机。简单来说，就是资本主义从它一开始就未能正视人性贪婪的危害，反而给予合理化，赋予“自由”与“人权”之名，使它变成了双刃剑，成也萧何，败也萧何。三百年来的经济繁荣与“幸福”生活，不只以消耗和伤害地球资源为代价，更以人的堕落、制造出太多的分配不公平为代价。到这个时候，政府能不管吗？当年法国大革命是怎样产生的？中国革命是怎样连续不断的？世界反殖民主义与民族独立运动是怎样蔓延的？还不是为了反抗现实上的不公平、不公义的社会吗？
从经济危机到政治危机
经济危机势必延伸到政治，于是政府出手。市场原教旨主义者认为：政府最好不要对市场太多手，应该让业者自由竞争，优胜劣败，消费者得益。但市场其实是一大群谋取私利的人在杀戮，种种手段，包括与政府对抗、欺骗消费者，或以承担社会责任来“忽悠”政府，乃至政府官员贪污渎职，官商勾结，怎么办？受损害的还不是人民？
政府也可能两面不讨好：一方面与企业角力，保护市民和消费者，一方面又要创造企业投资机会，发展经济。弄不好，两面都埋怨。香港目前的处境就是如此。不过比起欧洲和美国，当地的政客更头痛。身处多事与多变之秋，从政的风险非常大，精明的人都不愿意蹚此浑水。世无领袖，从政者除非真有使命，否则都是一丘之貉。
这就是政治危机。当大家都把希望寄托给政府的时候，政府却令人失望。一来事情太复杂，许多问题都是冰封三尺，绝非几度板斧就可以理顺；二来民主国家的政府任期都很短，四年或五年，就要有成绩，否则得不到选票，难以连任，所以政策都很短视；急功近利，谈不上长远，社会沉疴怎能去除？三来现代社会讲究透明度，政府不能只手遮天，许多政策和运作过程都要公开、公平、公正，受到公众和传媒监视，就不能不小心；四来在民主国家中，政府一般都没有威信，不管如何努力，都会有许多反对声音，领袖亦很容易被轰下台（看日本在10年来换了七任首相就知道）。
一个社会安定很依赖政府带领，但在今天的文化之下，政府的功能已被削弱和扭曲。人民需要强势政府，但心里又不想有强势政府：一方面想安全，但又怕失去自由，民意自身亦有许多矛盾。难道这就是民主社会的现象？历史走到这一步，很容易在争吵中迷失。
这就是文化危机，资本主义带来的文化危机。我们活在其中，束手无策。要走出这个历史的怪圈，也许要回到它的起点，重新审视“自由”和“人权”。不弄清这两个概念，资本主义就如脱缰之马。我认为必须重解和确解这两个概念，时代才有新精神。
2012年已登上舞台，且看人们有无觉醒？
作者为新加坡东亚人文研究所所长，香港东方人文学院院长
Monday, November 14, 2011
时代需要新思想
文章标题：时代需要新思想
文章作者：霍韬晦
发表日期：2011年11月14日
发表媒体：《联合早报•言论》
最近一个月，大家都在谈论美国普罗群众“占领华尔街”（Occupy Wall Street）的示威活动。这个活动已经延续一个多月，最盛大的一天是在10月15日，全球共有80多个国家丶951个城市响应，香港也有数百人参与“占领中环”，发出的声音不容忽视。
首先，这个活动没有组织者、领导者，群众都是通过互联网自发参加，但却很有秩序，各种设备不缺。例如在示威广场除了架设帐幕、铺设床褥之外，还有食物站、通讯中心、图书中心、药房……似乎准备长期作战。当然，在金融区，也有一些激动的群众冲击银行，但并未演化为大规模的暴力，尚算理性。
这说明什么？说明示威者颇有共识，虽然参加者来自各阶层、各行业，甚至家庭主妇、嬉皮士，但都是心怀愤懑，深受委屈，把矛头直指向华尔街，似乎华尔街的金融巨鳄就是罪魁祸首。有了共同指控，大家就很容易团结，而且互相劝勉，不要让示威行动变质。
金融巨鳄只是少数，为甚么会成为社会大众的共同敌人？表面看，是因为金融银行经营不善（实际原因是掌权大鳄为了利益，设计种种金融产品愚弄客户，巧取豪夺），炒卖失败却要政府动用纳税人的钱来挽救它们。纳税人的钱早已用光，但大鳄们却如常收取巨额花红，这种不公平令人愤怒。据统计，美国最富有的400人去年所拥有的财产总值近1.5300万亿美元，但全国却有15%的美国人生活于贫穷线下，即4600多万人。金融海啸之后，美国失业人数大增，许多大学生毕业后都找不到工作。贫富悬殊，生活水准下降，前景不明，令人忧虑。现实上的不公，政府未有处理，反而对金融机构丶金融大鳄提供保护，所谓“大至不能倒”（too big to fail），群众不愤怒才怪！
华尔街控制全球经济命脉
这是资本主义吗？整个社会好像由掌握资本的人控制，连政府也受其支配，则资本主义所允诺的人的自由在哪里？人原来被蒙骗，前台与后台两副面孔。历史资料证明：金融集团一直在政治上兴风作浪，甚至与历年的国际战争都脱不了关系。如当年（1924-1931）华尔街的财阀不是向德国提供了1380亿马克的贷款的话，德国不可能在第一次世界大战战败后，以惊人的速度复兴，并装备出欧洲最强大的军事力量来（资料见宋鸿兵著《货币战争》第五章），结果爆发第二次世界大战。美国财阀为什么要这样做？就是为了发战争财吗？
中国辛亥革命初，革命军成立南京临时政府，孙中山就任大总统，立即面临财政问题，急需资金，于是向英、日等国财团洽商借贷。另一方面，袁世凯代表清廷末日皇朝宣称立宪政制，亦向外国借款。各国财团择肥而噬，开出种种条件，如要求抵押盐务、轮船招商局等，孙中山甚至考虑答应租让满洲给日本。袁世凯窃国后，更大举向日本借贷，其后继人段祺瑞更准备答应苛刻的“二十一条”，终于引起学生反抗，酿成“五四运动”。外国财团借债权人身份以控制别国命脉，这种历史事实太多。这是金钱殖民，尽管现在已是全球化时代，但金融巨鳄的这一思维并未改变。可悲的是：这种金钱至上的价值观念终于使奉行资本主义多年的本国人民也成为受害者。拿破仑说：“金钱没有祖国，银行家不知道何为爱国及高尚，他们唯一的目的就是获利。”今天再一次得到了证明。
资本主义最可贵的地方就是人可以凭藉其天赋与努力自由创造，人人都可以有机会。政府必须保护这一平等机制，但现在这个机会没有了，自由已经倾侧在金融巨鳄这一边。所以有意改变全球化的操作方式的诺贝尔经济学奖得主（2001年度）斯蒂格利茨（Joseph E. Stiglitz）批评说：这种方式（财阀与政府联手）并非资本主义，而且违反了经济学的最基本原则：公平。这样下去只有形成资本帝国，贫者愈贫，富者愈富，结果就是99% vs. 1%，那99%的人如何生活呢？这种全球化的掠夺根本就是伪善（hypocrisy of globalism），而并非使落后国家脱贫。斯蒂格利茨的话无疑就是此次“占领华尔街”行动的号角。
有人认为斯氏是资本主义中的左派，接近社会主义。亦有人认为：政府向金融机构注资包底是社会主义，为了政治因素而使他们免责，好像中国大陆的贪官，以后大家更没有风险意识，风险由全民承担了。
还有人认为：占领华尔街的人是“暴徒”，好像要发动“阶级战争”，利用群众来影响国策。这些话，真是南辕北辙，不只资本主义失去方向，美国社会也在分裂。
出现贫富两极、99% vs. 1%，究竟是资本主义、自由市场的自然发展，还是政府政策受金融机构捆缚有以致之？当面对群情汹涌、要求公平的时候，政府继续奉行市场原教旨主义还是要立例劫富济贫（占领华尔街的群众提出要征收罗宾汉税），让所有人都能过较好的生活？出于经济的考虑或许会赞成前者，但若出于政治的考虑便不能不询问99％的人怎么看。
历史证明，纯粹走社会主义的路只有贫困，但纯粹走资本主义的路也不见得公平。关键也许不在制度的严密，而在现实人性：人的自私基因若不能减弱，或不能被一个更高的价值理念化解，始终出问题。所谓上有政策，下有对策，在资本主义则化贪婪为动力，创造出丰富的物质文明，如今全球受害；社会主义要跃过贪婪而侈谈平等，亦是缘木求鱼，结果生产停滞。什么时候，人类才能明白问题原来在自己身上，只有正确面对贪婪，培养出高尚的人生观与价值观，才不致使自己落入那讨厌的1%！资本主义和社会主义的外向思维都已经穷途末路，时代需要新思想！一味通过制度或政策来管治社会，都不能免除毛病，距离公平愈来愈远。我认为只有把问题回到人自身上来审视，才能找到新的价值观念。
作者为新加坡东亚人文研究所所长，香港东方人文学院院长
文章作者：霍韬晦
发表日期：2011年11月14日
发表媒体：《联合早报•言论》
最近一个月，大家都在谈论美国普罗群众“占领华尔街”（Occupy Wall Street）的示威活动。这个活动已经延续一个多月，最盛大的一天是在10月15日，全球共有80多个国家丶951个城市响应，香港也有数百人参与“占领中环”，发出的声音不容忽视。
首先，这个活动没有组织者、领导者，群众都是通过互联网自发参加，但却很有秩序，各种设备不缺。例如在示威广场除了架设帐幕、铺设床褥之外，还有食物站、通讯中心、图书中心、药房……似乎准备长期作战。当然，在金融区，也有一些激动的群众冲击银行，但并未演化为大规模的暴力，尚算理性。
这说明什么？说明示威者颇有共识，虽然参加者来自各阶层、各行业，甚至家庭主妇、嬉皮士，但都是心怀愤懑，深受委屈，把矛头直指向华尔街，似乎华尔街的金融巨鳄就是罪魁祸首。有了共同指控，大家就很容易团结，而且互相劝勉，不要让示威行动变质。
金融巨鳄只是少数，为甚么会成为社会大众的共同敌人？表面看，是因为金融银行经营不善（实际原因是掌权大鳄为了利益，设计种种金融产品愚弄客户，巧取豪夺），炒卖失败却要政府动用纳税人的钱来挽救它们。纳税人的钱早已用光，但大鳄们却如常收取巨额花红，这种不公平令人愤怒。据统计，美国最富有的400人去年所拥有的财产总值近1.5300万亿美元，但全国却有15%的美国人生活于贫穷线下，即4600多万人。金融海啸之后，美国失业人数大增，许多大学生毕业后都找不到工作。贫富悬殊，生活水准下降，前景不明，令人忧虑。现实上的不公，政府未有处理，反而对金融机构丶金融大鳄提供保护，所谓“大至不能倒”（too big to fail），群众不愤怒才怪！
华尔街控制全球经济命脉
这是资本主义吗？整个社会好像由掌握资本的人控制，连政府也受其支配，则资本主义所允诺的人的自由在哪里？人原来被蒙骗，前台与后台两副面孔。历史资料证明：金融集团一直在政治上兴风作浪，甚至与历年的国际战争都脱不了关系。如当年（1924-1931）华尔街的财阀不是向德国提供了1380亿马克的贷款的话，德国不可能在第一次世界大战战败后，以惊人的速度复兴，并装备出欧洲最强大的军事力量来（资料见宋鸿兵著《货币战争》第五章），结果爆发第二次世界大战。美国财阀为什么要这样做？就是为了发战争财吗？
中国辛亥革命初，革命军成立南京临时政府，孙中山就任大总统，立即面临财政问题，急需资金，于是向英、日等国财团洽商借贷。另一方面，袁世凯代表清廷末日皇朝宣称立宪政制，亦向外国借款。各国财团择肥而噬，开出种种条件，如要求抵押盐务、轮船招商局等，孙中山甚至考虑答应租让满洲给日本。袁世凯窃国后，更大举向日本借贷，其后继人段祺瑞更准备答应苛刻的“二十一条”，终于引起学生反抗，酿成“五四运动”。外国财团借债权人身份以控制别国命脉，这种历史事实太多。这是金钱殖民，尽管现在已是全球化时代，但金融巨鳄的这一思维并未改变。可悲的是：这种金钱至上的价值观念终于使奉行资本主义多年的本国人民也成为受害者。拿破仑说：“金钱没有祖国，银行家不知道何为爱国及高尚，他们唯一的目的就是获利。”今天再一次得到了证明。
资本主义最可贵的地方就是人可以凭藉其天赋与努力自由创造，人人都可以有机会。政府必须保护这一平等机制，但现在这个机会没有了，自由已经倾侧在金融巨鳄这一边。所以有意改变全球化的操作方式的诺贝尔经济学奖得主（2001年度）斯蒂格利茨（Joseph E. Stiglitz）批评说：这种方式（财阀与政府联手）并非资本主义，而且违反了经济学的最基本原则：公平。这样下去只有形成资本帝国，贫者愈贫，富者愈富，结果就是99% vs. 1%，那99%的人如何生活呢？这种全球化的掠夺根本就是伪善（hypocrisy of globalism），而并非使落后国家脱贫。斯蒂格利茨的话无疑就是此次“占领华尔街”行动的号角。
有人认为斯氏是资本主义中的左派，接近社会主义。亦有人认为：政府向金融机构注资包底是社会主义，为了政治因素而使他们免责，好像中国大陆的贪官，以后大家更没有风险意识，风险由全民承担了。
还有人认为：占领华尔街的人是“暴徒”，好像要发动“阶级战争”，利用群众来影响国策。这些话，真是南辕北辙，不只资本主义失去方向，美国社会也在分裂。
出现贫富两极、99% vs. 1%，究竟是资本主义、自由市场的自然发展，还是政府政策受金融机构捆缚有以致之？当面对群情汹涌、要求公平的时候，政府继续奉行市场原教旨主义还是要立例劫富济贫（占领华尔街的群众提出要征收罗宾汉税），让所有人都能过较好的生活？出于经济的考虑或许会赞成前者，但若出于政治的考虑便不能不询问99％的人怎么看。
历史证明，纯粹走社会主义的路只有贫困，但纯粹走资本主义的路也不见得公平。关键也许不在制度的严密，而在现实人性：人的自私基因若不能减弱，或不能被一个更高的价值理念化解，始终出问题。所谓上有政策，下有对策，在资本主义则化贪婪为动力，创造出丰富的物质文明，如今全球受害；社会主义要跃过贪婪而侈谈平等，亦是缘木求鱼，结果生产停滞。什么时候，人类才能明白问题原来在自己身上，只有正确面对贪婪，培养出高尚的人生观与价值观，才不致使自己落入那讨厌的1%！资本主义和社会主义的外向思维都已经穷途末路，时代需要新思想！一味通过制度或政策来管治社会，都不能免除毛病，距离公平愈来愈远。我认为只有把问题回到人自身上来审视，才能找到新的价值观念。
作者为新加坡东亚人文研究所所长，香港东方人文学院院长
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Stanford University Commencement Speech 2005
文章标题：Stanford University Commencement Speech 2005
文章作者：Steve Jobs
发表日期：2005年6月12日
发表媒体：Stanford University News
I am honored to be with you today at your commencement from one of the finest universities in the world. I never graduated from college. Truth be told, this is the closest I've ever gotten to a college graduation. Today I want to tell you three stories from my life. That's it. No big deal. Just three stories.
The first story is about connecting the dots.
I dropped out of Reed College after the first 6 months, but then stayed around as a drop-in for another 18 months or so before I really quit. So why did I drop out?
It started before I was born. My biological mother was a young, unwed college graduate student, and she decided to put me up for adoption. She felt very strongly that I should be adopted by college graduates, so everything was all set for me to be adopted at birth by a lawyer and his wife. Except that when I popped out they decided at the last minute that they really wanted a girl. So my parents, who were on a waiting list, got a call in the middle of the night asking: "We have an unexpected baby boy; do you want him?" They said: "Of course." My biological mother later found out that my mother had never graduated from college and that my father had never graduated from high school. She refused to sign the final adoption papers. She only relented a few months later when my parents promised that I would someday go to college.
And 17 years later I did go to college. But I naively chose a college that was almost as expensive as Stanford, and all of my working-class parents' savings were being spent on my college tuition. After six months, I couldn't see the value in it. I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life and no idea how college was going to help me figure it out. And here I was spending all of the money my parents had saved their entire life. So I decided to drop out and trust that it would all work out OK. It was pretty scary at the time, but looking back it was one of the best decisions I ever made. The minute I dropped out I could stop taking the required classes that didn't interest me, and begin dropping in on the ones that looked interesting.
It wasn't all romantic. I didn't have a dorm room, so I slept on the floor in friends' rooms, I returned coke bottles for the 5¢ deposits to buy food with, and I would walk the 7 miles across town every Sunday night to get one good meal a week at the Hare Krishna temple. I loved it. And much of what I stumbled into by following my curiosity and intuition turned out to be priceless later on. Let me give you one example:
Reed College at that time offered perhaps the best calligraphy instruction in the country. Throughout the campus every poster, every label on every drawer, was beautifully hand calligraphed. Because I had dropped out and didn't have to take the normal classes, I decided to take a calligraphy class to learn how to do this. I learned about serif and san serif typefaces, about varying the amount of space between different letter combinations, about what makes great typography great. It was beautiful, historical, artistically subtle in a way that science can't capture, and I found it fascinating.
None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But ten years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography. If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts. And since Windows just copied the Mac, it's likely that no personal computer would have them. If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do. Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college. But it was very, very clear looking backwards ten years later.
Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.
My second story is about love and loss.
I was lucky — I found what I loved to do early in life. Woz and I started Apple in my parents garage when I was 20. We worked hard, and in 10 years Apple had grown from just the two of us in a garage into a $2 billion company with over 4000 employees. We had just released our finest creation — the Macintosh — a year earlier, and I had just turned 30. And then I got fired. How can you get fired from a company you started? Well, as Apple grew we hired someone who I thought was very talented to run the company with me, and for the first year or so things went well. But then our visions of the future began to diverge and eventually we had a falling out. When we did, our Board of Directors sided with him. So at 30 I was out. And very publicly out. What had been the focus of my entire adult life was gone, and it was devastating.
I really didn't know what to do for a few months. I felt that I had let the previous generation of entrepreneurs down - that I had dropped the baton as it was being passed to me. I met with David Packard and Bob Noyce and tried to apologize for screwing up so badly. I was a very public failure, and I even thought about running away from the valley. But something slowly began to dawn on me — I still loved what I did. The turn of events at Apple had not changed that one bit. I had been rejected, but I was still in love. And so I decided to start over.
I didn't see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life.
During the next five years, I started a company named NeXT, another company named Pixar, and fell in love with an amazing woman who would become my wife. Pixar went on to create the worlds first computer animated feature film, Toy Story, and is now the most successful animation studio in the world. In a remarkable turn of events, Apple bought NeXT, I returned to Apple, and the technology we developed at NeXT is at the heart of Apple's current renaissance. And Laurene and I have a wonderful family together.
I'm pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn't been fired from Apple. It was awful tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it. Sometimes life hits you in the head with a brick. Don't lose faith. I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You've got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle. As with all matters of the heart, you'll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don't settle.
My third story is about death.
When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: "If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you'll most certainly be right." It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" And whenever the answer has been "No" for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.
Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything — all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure - these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.
About a year ago I was diagnosed with cancer. I had a scan at 7:30 in the morning, and it clearly showed a tumor on my pancreas. I didn't even know what a pancreas was. The doctors told me this was almost certainly a type of cancer that is incurable, and that I should expect to live no longer than three to six months. My doctor advised me to go home and get my affairs in order, which is doctor's code for prepare to die. It means to try to tell your kids everything you thought you'd have the next 10 years to tell them in just a few months. It means to make sure everything is buttoned up so that it will be as easy as possible for your family. It means to say your goodbyes.
I lived with that diagnosis all day. Later that evening I had a biopsy, where they stuck an endoscope down my throat, through my stomach and into my intestines, put a needle into my pancreas and got a few cells from the tumor. I was sedated, but my wife, who was there, told me that when they viewed the cells under a microscope the doctors started crying because it turned out to be a very rare form of pancreatic cancer that is curable with surgery. I had the surgery and I'm fine now.
This was the closest I've been to facing death, and I hope it's the closest I get for a few more decades. Having lived through it, I can now say this to you with a bit more certainty than when death was a useful but purely intellectual concept:
No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.
Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.
When I was young, there was an amazing publication called The Whole Earth Catalog, which was one of the bibles of my generation. It was created by a fellow named Stewart Brand not far from here in Menlo Park, and he brought it to life with his poetic touch. This was in the late 1960's, before personal computers and desktop publishing, so it was all made with typewriters, scissors, and polaroid cameras. It was sort of like Google in paperback form, 35 years before Google came along: it was idealistic, and overflowing with neat tools and great notions.
Stewart and his team put out several issues of The Whole Earth Catalog, and then when it had run its course, they put out a final issue. It was the mid-1970s, and I was your age. On the back cover of their final issue was a photograph of an early morning country road, the kind you might find yourself hitchhiking on if you were so adventurous. Beneath it were the words: "Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish." It was their farewell message as they signed off. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish. And I have always wished that for myself. And now, as you graduate to begin anew, I wish that for you.
Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.
Thank you all very much.
文章作者：Steve Jobs
发表日期：2005年6月12日
发表媒体：Stanford University News
I am honored to be with you today at your commencement from one of the finest universities in the world. I never graduated from college. Truth be told, this is the closest I've ever gotten to a college graduation. Today I want to tell you three stories from my life. That's it. No big deal. Just three stories.
The first story is about connecting the dots.
I dropped out of Reed College after the first 6 months, but then stayed around as a drop-in for another 18 months or so before I really quit. So why did I drop out?
It started before I was born. My biological mother was a young, unwed college graduate student, and she decided to put me up for adoption. She felt very strongly that I should be adopted by college graduates, so everything was all set for me to be adopted at birth by a lawyer and his wife. Except that when I popped out they decided at the last minute that they really wanted a girl. So my parents, who were on a waiting list, got a call in the middle of the night asking: "We have an unexpected baby boy; do you want him?" They said: "Of course." My biological mother later found out that my mother had never graduated from college and that my father had never graduated from high school. She refused to sign the final adoption papers. She only relented a few months later when my parents promised that I would someday go to college.
And 17 years later I did go to college. But I naively chose a college that was almost as expensive as Stanford, and all of my working-class parents' savings were being spent on my college tuition. After six months, I couldn't see the value in it. I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life and no idea how college was going to help me figure it out. And here I was spending all of the money my parents had saved their entire life. So I decided to drop out and trust that it would all work out OK. It was pretty scary at the time, but looking back it was one of the best decisions I ever made. The minute I dropped out I could stop taking the required classes that didn't interest me, and begin dropping in on the ones that looked interesting.
It wasn't all romantic. I didn't have a dorm room, so I slept on the floor in friends' rooms, I returned coke bottles for the 5¢ deposits to buy food with, and I would walk the 7 miles across town every Sunday night to get one good meal a week at the Hare Krishna temple. I loved it. And much of what I stumbled into by following my curiosity and intuition turned out to be priceless later on. Let me give you one example:
Reed College at that time offered perhaps the best calligraphy instruction in the country. Throughout the campus every poster, every label on every drawer, was beautifully hand calligraphed. Because I had dropped out and didn't have to take the normal classes, I decided to take a calligraphy class to learn how to do this. I learned about serif and san serif typefaces, about varying the amount of space between different letter combinations, about what makes great typography great. It was beautiful, historical, artistically subtle in a way that science can't capture, and I found it fascinating.
None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But ten years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography. If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts. And since Windows just copied the Mac, it's likely that no personal computer would have them. If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do. Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college. But it was very, very clear looking backwards ten years later.
Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.
My second story is about love and loss.
I was lucky — I found what I loved to do early in life. Woz and I started Apple in my parents garage when I was 20. We worked hard, and in 10 years Apple had grown from just the two of us in a garage into a $2 billion company with over 4000 employees. We had just released our finest creation — the Macintosh — a year earlier, and I had just turned 30. And then I got fired. How can you get fired from a company you started? Well, as Apple grew we hired someone who I thought was very talented to run the company with me, and for the first year or so things went well. But then our visions of the future began to diverge and eventually we had a falling out. When we did, our Board of Directors sided with him. So at 30 I was out. And very publicly out. What had been the focus of my entire adult life was gone, and it was devastating.
I really didn't know what to do for a few months. I felt that I had let the previous generation of entrepreneurs down - that I had dropped the baton as it was being passed to me. I met with David Packard and Bob Noyce and tried to apologize for screwing up so badly. I was a very public failure, and I even thought about running away from the valley. But something slowly began to dawn on me — I still loved what I did. The turn of events at Apple had not changed that one bit. I had been rejected, but I was still in love. And so I decided to start over.
I didn't see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life.
During the next five years, I started a company named NeXT, another company named Pixar, and fell in love with an amazing woman who would become my wife. Pixar went on to create the worlds first computer animated feature film, Toy Story, and is now the most successful animation studio in the world. In a remarkable turn of events, Apple bought NeXT, I returned to Apple, and the technology we developed at NeXT is at the heart of Apple's current renaissance. And Laurene and I have a wonderful family together.
I'm pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn't been fired from Apple. It was awful tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it. Sometimes life hits you in the head with a brick. Don't lose faith. I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You've got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle. As with all matters of the heart, you'll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don't settle.
My third story is about death.
When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: "If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you'll most certainly be right." It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" And whenever the answer has been "No" for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.
Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything — all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure - these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.
About a year ago I was diagnosed with cancer. I had a scan at 7:30 in the morning, and it clearly showed a tumor on my pancreas. I didn't even know what a pancreas was. The doctors told me this was almost certainly a type of cancer that is incurable, and that I should expect to live no longer than three to six months. My doctor advised me to go home and get my affairs in order, which is doctor's code for prepare to die. It means to try to tell your kids everything you thought you'd have the next 10 years to tell them in just a few months. It means to make sure everything is buttoned up so that it will be as easy as possible for your family. It means to say your goodbyes.
I lived with that diagnosis all day. Later that evening I had a biopsy, where they stuck an endoscope down my throat, through my stomach and into my intestines, put a needle into my pancreas and got a few cells from the tumor. I was sedated, but my wife, who was there, told me that when they viewed the cells under a microscope the doctors started crying because it turned out to be a very rare form of pancreatic cancer that is curable with surgery. I had the surgery and I'm fine now.
This was the closest I've been to facing death, and I hope it's the closest I get for a few more decades. Having lived through it, I can now say this to you with a bit more certainty than when death was a useful but purely intellectual concept:
No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.
Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.
When I was young, there was an amazing publication called The Whole Earth Catalog, which was one of the bibles of my generation. It was created by a fellow named Stewart Brand not far from here in Menlo Park, and he brought it to life with his poetic touch. This was in the late 1960's, before personal computers and desktop publishing, so it was all made with typewriters, scissors, and polaroid cameras. It was sort of like Google in paperback form, 35 years before Google came along: it was idealistic, and overflowing with neat tools and great notions.
Stewart and his team put out several issues of The Whole Earth Catalog, and then when it had run its course, they put out a final issue. It was the mid-1970s, and I was your age. On the back cover of their final issue was a photograph of an early morning country road, the kind you might find yourself hitchhiking on if you were so adventurous. Beneath it were the words: "Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish." It was their farewell message as they signed off. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish. And I have always wished that for myself. And now, as you graduate to begin anew, I wish that for you.
Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.
Thank you all very much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)