What should we pay attention to in academic communication?

I chatted with H the day before yesterday and talked about Z, Zhang Zhiyang and Liu Xiaofeng's disciples. He said that Z used to be argumentative, but now he is much more silent. I asked if I was afraid of arguing. Z has a deep understanding of what he said. Most people who want to argue with you, the more you ignore them, the lower your level will be. I said yes. I heard a great saying before: You should never argue with an idiot, he will drag you to the same level as him and then beat you with experience. Seeing an idiot talk big and ignoring him, knowing when to speak is also a high academic self-cultivation.

Is the truth getting clearer and clearer? Sometimes. Everyone has a good mentality, a simple purpose, a sincere attitude, a similar level and a greater understanding of the concept. The facts are getting clearer and clearer. There are some things that we can't figure out, so we can learn from each other, confirm each other, revise each other, extend each other and often inspire new ideas. Of course, sometimes the ideas are too close, and too much communication may aggravate some mistakes and prejudices of the other party, which is not without our eyes. Therefore, we should often communicate with people in different fields who don't even know their own positions, but it is absolutely necessary to get to the bottom of it, with similar sincerity and level.

I have tried to avoid those who are obsessed with debate since I went to college. Debate for the sake of debate is terrible for academic thought. If you accidentally catch it (it's easy, I've been infected several times), the chance of walking into a dead end is greater than the argument. Sometimes it's just a step away, and it's not easy to grasp it. And often the more argumentative, the smaller the mind's eye. If you accidentally win the argument, it is estimated that your face will turn over. My experience is that you can say whatever you want. Sometimes I just nod my head to show that I am bored.

There are too many examples of argumentation, and my experience is limited. The following is limited to academic exchanges, although some of them are ridiculous and have nothing to do with academics. The most common fear is to conquer the world behind logic, and it is also the most difficult to distinguish. It takes more time to find out whether a person has this tendency. There are many such examples in the academic history. For example, Carnap criticized Heidegger, saying that Heidegger played with vocabulary, and that "dasnichts selbstnichet" was nonsense; For example, logicians criticized Plato's works, saying that logic is too hard to hurt people. These are jokes in the eyes of classical scholars, and they are cold jokes. It is said that Popper once wanted to apply for a job at the University of Chicago, but Strauss and voegelin banned him on the grounds that his Open Society and Its Enemies had poor taste and his interpretation of Plato was outrageous on the surface. Such people are simply ignorant and ignorant. It is even more inevitable for the younger generation to make such jokes. Occasionally, everyone can understand that it is really used to cover up their lack of knowledge, which is a bit shameless. For example, when discussing some great writers such as Dostoevsky, I said: The best interpretation is to understand their works according to the author's own intentions, and don't classify them as existentialism casually, at least he doesn't flaunt it like this. So some people will say: you mean that everything I write has the final interpretation right? I added that it is limited to serious writers with profound thoughts, and casual writing does not count. He smiled and said that I made a logical mistake, because I said that native chicken is not a chicken, and only boiled chicken is a chicken. You can't be an author if you write casually? Sometimes I wonder if it is our fault if others don't understand what we are talking about. Sometimes I wonder if I have ever suffered. Didn't he say a lot of contradictory things? "Everything is born, and everything is born without it." "Five colors blind, five tones deaf." Why didn't anyone jump out and say, "Are all five colors blind? Then how can I still see things? "