I asked, “Then what would it take?” She replied, “Mainly, they don’t meet my standards.”
“What standards?”
“My ideal partner must be at least 1.75 meters tall.”
“What about 1.70 meters?”
“Unacceptable.”
“1.80 meters is okay, but a bit too tall.”
“So when you date, do you carry a tape measure to check?”
She said, “No need to worry about that—I’m so experienced, my eyes can gauge height down to nanometer precision.”
I replied, “That’s truly remarkable.”
Then I pressed her, “Will your standards ever change?”
“I’ve held firm all these years—no compromise.”
See what this is? It’s turning science into scientism, projecting that mindset onto matters of the heart. By extension, we must distinguish science from scientism—scientism is pseudoscience, treating science as dogma. That’s harmful.
Wang Guowei and Cai Yuanpei advocated replacing religion with aesthetic education. Similarly, we should replace scientism with aesthetic education. Science and art, science and beauty—both are human cultural achievements, yet the gap between them remains vast.
I will discuss the aesthetics of the I Ching and the aesthetics of calligraphy with you. I must convey this point—at the very least, share my perspective: once we turn to scientism, life loses its meaning. Because life and science are indeed distinct. Karl Popper, the philosopher of falsificationism (also known as a philosopher of science), offered a profound definition of science.
发表回复
要发表评论，您必须先登录。