Name: 你憑什麼這麼說！ (Who are you to say that?)
Uploaded: 2025-07-12T21:01:20.000Z
Duration: 4 min 9 s
Description: 你是否也常遇到這種狀況：明明說的是事實，卻被對方用一句「那只不過是你的看法罷了！」給堵了回來。究竟為什麼現代人會這麼固執又堅持己見呢？來看看 School of Life 如何解釋這個現象吧！ 1put forward0:01 put forward 的意思是「提出」。 Anyone can offer comments;...

Nowadays, anyone putting forward a valued judgment -

that is, anything other than a rock solid scientific fact,

程度副詞

is likely to come across the following complaint pretty soon after:

很可能很快就會得到這樣的反駁：

you try to argue that Shakespeare is probably a lot more interesting as a writer than the guy who wrote prose on the back of the cereal packet.

當你想要辯論：莎士比亞比在麥片盒背面上寫小散文的人有趣多了

Or if you say that Louis Kahn Salk Institute is for sure better looking than an average Holiday Inn.

或者你說，路易．康沙克生物研究中心看起來肯定比一般的渡假飯店好看多了

Or that Bach's Mass in B Minor is more technically accomplished than Abba's Super Trouper.

或者，巴哈的 B 小調彌撒曲造詣遠遠超出 ABBA 的主打歌

Or that The Economist is a better news source than the Daily Mirror.

或者，經濟學人比起每日鏡報可靠許多

anyone who doesn't agree is simply likely to shut things down

只要有人不同意你說的，他可能只是把話題就此打斷

by saying that no progress on these questions can ever be made,

並表示這個問題沒有甚麼好進一步討論的

that no one knows how to settle such disputes,

and that, therefore, anything goes and any further attempt to persuade is just bullying

亦或是，任何試圖說服你的只是一種變相的霸凌

or those electrifying and awkward words "elitist" and "snobbish".

或是那些令人悚然的尷尬字眼，像是「自視甚高」、「勢利眼」 

there might also quite quickly be a Twitter deluge coming your way.

你很有可能成為推特上的眾矢之的

To understand why such responses are so common,

若想要了解為何這樣的回覆層出不窮

and some pretty unfortunate developments which have led to a collective trauma

有一些非常不幸的歷史造成了眾人的集體創傷

we're intimidated by some pretty dodgy purveyors of half-baked valued judgments.

因為眾口鑠金的奸商，他們膚淺、半生不熟的評論，讓我們退卻了

Religions used to sell us all sorts of nonsense under the notion that God told us it was so.

宗教過去也曾以上帝之名向我們搬弄是非

Kings and dictators would justify their abuses by spurious notions of their inherent right to authority.

國王與獨裁者，以與生俱來的權力這種詐欺言論，把濫權正當化

like doctors and academics or just wealthy people,

例如，醫生、學者或是富有人士

would justify all manner of odd practices on the basis of their authority and fancy uniforms.

以他們的權力與華而不實的衣著，把陋習正當化

As societies have gradually become more democratic,

and people have learned to stand tall in the face of authority,

人們學習如何理直氣平地面對權勢

So too that patience for valued judgments has collapsed.

也因此，上位者不可動搖的地位也隨之崩潰

So much so that now anyone who lays forth an idea with any kind of confidence

所以，當有人以各種的信誓旦旦道出一個概念

or simply says anything about this or that being good or bad,

can swiftly re-evoke the worst of the traumatic old days

很快就會喚起人類過去不好的歷史

and will therefore stand to be shut down at once.

We'll accept an idea if it's a scientific truth.

只要一種概念是科學事實，我們就會接受

But anything else when we're in the area of relativity

那麼，你有什麼樣的立場說話呢？

Now, unfortunately, this is really problematic,

可惜的是，這因此帶來諸多問題

as there are some very important questions out there

that lie utterly outside the realm of science

and can't ever be settled with a formula or experiment.

For example, you're always going to struggle to mount a scientific argument when trying to make progress with these sorts of questions:

舉例來說，當你試圖討論這類問題時，你需要先和科學根據爭鬥：

我們該如何打造一座宜人的城市？

一座引人注意的建築，是怎樣的建築？

How should bosses behave towards workers?

these are essential questions to try to reach intelligent conclusions on.

這些都是要做出明智總結的重要問題

And yet, because by their very nature, these questions admit to doubt and disagreement,

不過，這些問題的本質上，都開放質疑與不同意的各種聲音

it can seem as if nothing solid can ever be said around them.

這些問題似乎無法得到單一的答案

That a question can't be answered definitively, with 100% accuracy,

一個無法確切回答，沒有百分之百確切性的問題

shouldn't be a reason not to try and address it.

並不代表我們就不能嘗試去解決這個問題，或不能去討論這個問題

There IS such a thing as a good and a bad argument outside of science.

科學領域之外，優劣兩種爭辯並齊

One can speak better and worse answers to big questions.

一個大問題，都會得到亦優亦劣的答案

No one's talking about trying to impose conclusions on anyone else in the way that the Pope or the emperor used to do.

人們可不是在說要像過去教宗或帝王所做的一樣，將結論加諸他人思想之上

It's all about trying to make sound arguments, proceed logically,

一切都只是為了和平地提出言論、有邏輯地進行討論、

and attempt to persuade others of your cause through reason and a bit of charm.

然後透過理性，加上一點點感化人心的力量，用你的論點去說服他人

Rational, democratic discourse depends on people engaging with one another,

理性、民主的交談取決於人們對彼此的投入

trying to figure out ideas and not running away from complex issues

試著要理出法子，而不是迴避複雜的議題

by dogmatically shutting everything down with the insidious and slippery retort,

獨斷地用這句奸詐狡猾的反駁終止所有言論：

字幕列表影片播放

你憑什麼這麼說！ (Who are you to say that?)

awkward

struggle

essential

engage