Chipa said: Save the cat or the painting, for fear of saving the inexplicable sense of superiority.

"The art gallery is on fire, which one do you save, the famous painting or the cat?" The new issue of "Qipa Shuo" is probably the peak battle since six seasons. The logical speculation and open-ended reaction between the tutor and the captain is so striking that the whole thought follows the debater.

02

Below, the author will disassemble the debaters' views in turn. (Those who have watched the program can skip to 03)

Starting from Zhan Qingyun, with the migration of cultural relics in the Forbidden City in War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, the act of saving paintings rose to the artistic inheritance.

Then Xu Jiru linked the cat with the vulnerable groups and asked the painter, which cat are you? It is undeniable that in such a high-density value output process, it is really easy to be moved by the eloquent statement of the debater. What if I were the cat?

Before he could react, Huang Zhizhong directly took advantage of this shake and knocked it down with a hammer. What if you are the painting? At that time, trapped by knowledge and speculative reaction, the author's values fluctuated with the debater. Now that I think about it, the meaning of saving the painting/cat is blurred by the pity of the weak, and I feel that I have been used.

Later, Huang Zhizhong mentioned that people's pattern determines his empathy. Taking Zhu Ziqing's article as an example, he said that children are laughing at men who pick oranges, while fat people are picking oranges. It is further pointed out that "my relatives will cry when they leave, and the life and death of the neighboring village is none of my business." There are also famous paintings by Badashan people.

This paper discusses the problems of empathy and mode level with examples. Although there is no direct output of paintings with higher moral character, the whole story is full of the fact that the pattern of rescuers is always superior.

At this point, the discussion about art and life in the scene is disassembled to the level of personal empathy/pattern. However, in the face of Xu Jiru's questioning about the value of life and art, the principal of the executive middle school avoided talking about it, only emphasizing that he was eager to achieve the pattern of appreciating art, and this answer, combined with the information secretly conveyed in the previous discussion, goes without saying that painting is more worthwhile.

With the blessing of heavy anger at that time, it is estimated that no one can escape such a situation.

Preserve the value of this painting This high-rise building has been built magnificently, and Li's birthday coincides with this time. It is not clear whether the counterpoint between them has been analyzed and speculated. In such a heavy atmosphere, the only one who can break the game is Li Dan, who seems to be fooling around and heartless.

As said after the interview, Qipa's talk show has a characteristic of constructing value, while the charm of talk show is deconstructing everything, and nothing in the world is worth it.

As soon as Li was born, he disassembled the value of art into "whoever has more stories has value." The more valuable art is, the richer it is. "The story of art = value = money, the deified art draws an equation between the three and then is pulled back to the ground.

The reason why it can be so effective may also be that the art market itself has been invaded by capital, and the truly pure art advocated by Zheng Fang is not pure.

Then, Li Birthday said that people's attention would be diverted quickly, destroying the value of saving the painting/cat. He believes that saving the painting can bring temporary honor and aura, and these honors will soon fade away. After the light is gone, it will be painful because of the loss of a life. It is not worth sacrificing yourself for justice.

By the end of Li's birthday, the debate on magnetic field had reached a climax. The audience's heart has reached a certain value, and it is difficult to construct greater value, and it is also difficult to hear.

Therefore, Luo pang turned to attack, no longer entangled in who to save, but told how to die to get the end he deserved.

Everyone has been taught since childhood that "people are inherently mortal, or they are heavier than Mount Tai or lighter than a feather." Living is real. How to save it is a choice when you are alive. People are more worried or selfish.

However, death seems far away. Everyone doesn't want to be timid and have the illusion of heroic sacrifice, and the criterion for judging the severity of death is future generations and society.

At this time, the criteria for judging how to draw and the value of cats have shifted from individuals to society, and the mainstream values of society are naturally based on macro meanings such as art.

Finally, Xue Zhaofeng takes Adam Smith's three discourses on human nature (selfishness, affection and distance) as an example. If the psychological distance is far away, people will be rational. If the psychological distance is near, the most instinctive sensibility will play a role. This proves that saving cats is the most instinctive choice for people here and now.

Teacher Cai Kangyong is really gentle when she speaks seriously, just like taking a bath in the spring breeze, but when this gentleness is used to explain what people seem to take for granted and indulge in, it is extremely powerful.

He revealed that people's love for pets is not so gentle, but extremely cruel, and attacked the self-emotion and sympathy of cat lovers. Finally, he used our favorite Jay Chou song to illustrate the influence of art on people. At this time, the value theory has been constructed again, and it is in an intuitive quantitative form.

This is the general situation of the debate. From the perspective of pure debate, the party who saves the painting is better at debating skills, and knows how to stir the listener's heart and cater to the listener's wishes. While the other side saved the cat, the brilliant performance of Li's birthday was actually killing one thousand enemies and losing eight hundred. Because he not only dispelled each other's value, but also injured Xu Jiru by mistake. His absurdity and humor also overshadowed Fu Hancheng, and everyone only remembered Li's birthday.

Finally, Xue Zhaofeng's economic point of view can actually prove that the winning or losing of the competition has already been decided, and people will be more rational if the fire is too far away from the scene of "Qiba Theory". Just as he thinks that it is instinct to save cats when they are near, it is natural to save paintings when they are far away.

03

This debate not only made the debaters vomit, but also caused a cat painting debate on the Internet after the program ended. At present, in order to defend their respective positions, netizens quote classics, quote classics, and tit for tat.

In this great value debate, we have seen the collision of views and rational dialogue, which can be described as a hundred schools of thought contend and a hundred flowers blossom. After several rounds of contests, the two sides are still deadlocked. At this time, some remarks have shown unusual signs: the mutual discussion of opinions has alienated into mutual depreciation and ridicule.

The one who saves the painting thinks that art is lofty, the eternal pursuit and desire of human beings, and its value to human beings is immeasurable, while the person who saves the cat doesn't know art, just to satisfy his selfish desires. Therefore, I have an inexplicable sense of superiority to the cat rescuer and scoff at the cat rescuer.

On the other hand, the cat-teaching side insists that people are selfish, honest and upright people are just heroes, and most people are just ordinary people. In this case, they won't really give their lives for justice. This is an irony that the other party pretends to cheat under the banner of art and disdains the other party's pretence of being profound and duplicitous.

A good debate turned into street abuse and rose to personal attacks, full of foul language.

04

In fact, in the debate, no matter which side holds the position, it is not a question about right or wrong, and there is no only standard answer. Some are dialogue and compromise, as long as it is reasonable.

When you choose to preserve paintings, you choose art and choose the inheritance of artistic value; But this doesn't mean that a cat's life is not as valuable as art. You may choose a cat because you can't resist loveliness and ignore the value of life. There can be no right or wrong in a debate, and life is not black and white. No matter which side netizens stand on, they are defending their values. You can disagree with the other party, but it doesn't mean that your point of view is superior to the other party, and it can't prove that your point of view is correct.

Postmodernism holds that there are infinite multi-level interpretation possibilities for a given text, representation and symbol. People act and make choices according to meaning, which is produced in the process of social communication. In the dialogue and communication with others, they can get more explanations and angles, which can bring surprises and surprises to themselves: they can understand it in this way, so that their ideas can be more diversified. Under the collision of many viewpoints, we can have more arguments to consolidate or repair our choices.

However, the collision of these viewpoints is based on rational communication. Habermas expounded a series of normative ideal conditions in dialogue theory. Rational communication obtains consent through rational persuasion rather than violence. When we disagree with others, we should improve or change our expression and persuade them to accept it for various reasons.

Any * * * knowledge must be based on mutual understanding and recognition among subjects. Without rational argument, the legitimacy of opinions cannot be obtained through language violence. If one side does not rely on rationality, but on rolling or slandering to end the argument, it is precisely the proof that its own point of view lacks rationality.

If you have to struggle with distinguishing right from wrong and divide it into high and low, I'm afraid you can only feel uncomfortable.