There is nothing stimulating in the conference, but coming to the end of the conference, I had a word of fight with another keynot speaker. He was a professor of finance, and he commented on me, 'Religion is too timid. It shoud have confidence and courage to criticize the fault of economists. Don't see your contribution as fragments (this is the word I use). It is too timid.' My immediate response is:
I welcome your encouragement, but I am surprised that the economists do not have any self-critical spirit and just wait for the help from religions. How can it be possible that an academic is just waiting the salvation from religion? Religion can't save one who does not consider self-critical important.'
What is his response to me? Well, he simply annoyed me. Perhaps, he never expected that he would be challenged openly and unreservedly.
他認為你所表達的宗教太膽怯，太破碎，不過如果他沒有表示過經濟學裡沒有自我批判的話，你的回應其實有點老屈的味道。好像你先假定了他邀請或期望宗教能對經濟提出批判，就是等如認為經濟學本身不用自我批判，只期望由宗教提供這個批判，這個假設可是你加給他的吧？(從你的描述，我得出這個印象。可能因為我自己常常遇到這類的老屈，所以特別敏感。)
回覆刪除其實他為甚麼認為你提出的宗教是過份膽怯呢，是他不明白你所提出的觀點，還是他是明白，卻不接受？你能分辨出嗎？(好奇而己)
Perhaps, you are not in the conference, and you may not fully understand his attitude. In fact, my feeling is not only me, for after the conference, many of the participants have shared my feeling.
回覆刪除相信是這樣，我也知道你不是那種戰鬥格的人。文字亦難以完全描寫出當時的情況。祝忙裡偷閒。
回覆刪除