中学议论文写作套路背后：我们失去的逻辑思维能力

现在刚开学，我们来聊聊教育相关的话题。这两天看到一篇文章，讨论高中议论文写作的问题。作为经历过中考高考的人，我们都知道，应对考试最好的方法就是掌握一些解题套路。考试题目不过是这些套路的排列组合而已，尤其是语文作文题，中考、高考一般都要求写议论文。

我们中学的那位语文老师颇有名气，是有职称的特级教师。他给我们总结了议论文的写作方式和套路，只要按照他的套路来写，每次都能够有话可说，分数也不会太低。其实说穿了也很简单，就是三段论：第一段提出观点；第二段举例说明这些观点；第三段总结升华或者结合实际。关键在于第二部分的举例说明，这就需要平时扩大阅读量，掌握一些名人轶事、名人名言之类的素材。

然而，这样的论证方式其实是不符合逻辑的。要知道，类似举例论证的方式无法真正证明一个观点的正确性。因为你能举出正面的例子，别人也能举出反面的例子。即使别人举不出反面的例子，你也要把所有可能的情况都列举出来，才能证明观点的正确性，这就是所谓的穷举法。

除了举例论证之外，写议论文时类比论证也是常用的手段。如果能够想出一个绝妙的比喻，那绝对是加分点。但是这种方法严格来说也不符合理性和逻辑。

举个例子，在古代经典中记载了这样一件事：孟子和另一个学派的学者辩论"人性本善还是人性本恶"。结果双方都使用了类比的方式。孟子的对手说，人性是没有善恶的，因为人性就像水一样，东边有缺口，它就往东流，西边有缺口，它就往西流。孟子反驳道："确实，水可以往东南西北各个方向流，但是它的流向虽然不分东西，难道就不分上下吗？众所周知，水往低处流。"在这场辩论中，孟子用水总是从高往低流来类比人性总是向善，让对手哑口无言。

但其实，论证水总是从高往低处流和人性总是向善，并没有直接的关系。水和人性也许有一些相似之处，但毕竟是完全不同的事物。流水具有某种特性，并不能推断出人性一定也具有类似的特性。这种类比式的论证在中国古典经典中非常常见。比如在《道德经》中就有大量类似的论证，如"天地之间，其犹橐龠乎？"这里的橐龠指的是烧火做饭用的风箱，虽然里面是空的，但却能不断地吹出气来，把火吹旺。《道德经》并不是一部逻辑严密的著作，而且按照道家的理解，"道"是超出人类理性范围的存在，所以也无法用严密的逻辑推导来证明，只能用各种类比让人体会和领悟。

但是语文作文中的议论文是完全不同的。提出观点当然要用可信的逻辑来证明自己的观点是正确的。而我们所使用的方法，如举例说明、类比等，实际上都是不符合严格逻辑的方法。这样就造成了一个严重的问题：经过中国式语文教育的人的思维是非逻辑化的，这导致了现在互联网上盛产"杠精"、无法好好辩论的风气，也导致这些人虽然受过一定程度的教育，但始终没有掌握逻辑思考的能力。

那篇文章还谈到了为什么会出现这种现象的历史原因。其实在改革开放之后，在80年代的某一段时期，当时的语文课本上是有关于逻辑的部分的，虽然篇幅不长。而且那时的教学参考书上也明确写着论证观点的方法，主要是归纳论证和演绎论证，完全没有所谓的举例论证和类比论证。但是，大约在1988年左右，教育部门以降低课本难度、让学生更好地打好基础为理由，拿掉了和逻辑相关的部分。

有经验的人都知道，政府做一件事情，表面的理由总是冠冕堂皇的。但真实原因让人很难不联想到《韩非子》、《商君书》中告诉统治者要"弱民"、“愚民”的说法。

---

It's early in the school year. Let's talk about education. I read an article these days, discussing the problem of argumentative writing in high school. As people who have experienced the high school entrance examination, we all know that the best way to deal with the exam is to master some problem-solving routines. Exam questions are just a combination of these routines, especially Chinese composition questions, high school entrance examination, college entrance examination generally require to write argumentative essays.

The Chinese teacher in our middle school is quite famous and has a special title. He summed up the writing methods and routines of argumentative essays for us, as long as we wrote according to his routines, we could have something to say every time, and the score would not be too low. In fact, it is very simple to put it bluntly, it is a syllogism: the first paragraph puts forward opinions; The second paragraph illustrates these points; The third paragraph summarizes sublimation or combination of reality. The key is the example of the second part, which needs to expand the amount of reading, master some celebrity anecdotes, famous quotes and other materials.

However, such an argument is not logical. It is important to know that such an example argument does not really prove the validity of a point. Because you can give a positive example, others can give a negative example. Even if others can't give negative examples, you have to list all the possible cases to prove the correctness of the idea, which is the so-called exhaustive method.

In addition to examples, analogical arguments are also commonly used in argumentative writing. If you can come up with a great metaphor, that's definitely a plus. But this approach is also not strictly rational and logical.

For example, in the ancient scriptures, there is a recorded incident in which Mencius and a scholar of another school debated "whether human nature is inherently good or inherently evil." As a result, both sides use analogies. Mencius' opponents said that there is no good or evil in human nature, because human nature is like water: when there is a gap in the east, it flows east; when there is a gap in the west, it flows west. Mencius retorted: "It is true that water can flow in all directions, east, south, north and west, but does it flow in the same direction, though it does not differentiate between east and west? As we all know, water flows downwards." In this debate, Mencius left his opponent speechless by comparing human nature to always being good by always flowing water from high to low.

But in fact, the argument that water always flows from high to low is not directly related to human nature always being good. Water and human nature may have some similarities, but they are completely different things. Water has certain characteristics, and it cannot be inferred that human nature must have similar characteristics. Such analogical arguments are common in the Chinese classics. For example, in the Tao Te Ching, there are a lot of similar arguments, such as "Between heaven and earth, how much 龠?" The ligularia here refers to the bellows used for cooking fire. Although the inside is empty, it can constantly blow out air and blow the fire vigorously. Tao Te Ching is not a logical work, and according to the understanding of Taoism, "Tao" is beyond the scope of human reason, so it cannot be proved by strict logical deduction, and people can only use various analogies to experience and understand.

But argumentative writing in Chinese composition is completely different. Of course, you have to use credible logic to prove that your point of view is correct. And the methods we use, such as illustration, analogy, etc., are actually not strictly logical methods. This has created a serious problem: the thinking of people who have been educated in the Chinese language is illogical, which has led to the current culture of "bar" on the Internet and the inability to debate properly, and it has also led to the fact that these people have received a certain degree of education, but they have never mastered the ability to think logically.

The article also talked about the historical reasons why this phenomenon occurred. In fact, after the reform and opening up, during a certain period in the 1980s, there was a section on logic in the Chinese textbooks at that time, although the space was not long. And the teaching reference books at that time also clearly wrote the method of argumentation, mainly inductive argument and deductive argument, there is no so-called example argument and analogy argument. However, around 1988, the Department of Education removed the logic section in the name of making textbooks easier and giving students a better grounding.

Experienced people know that when the government does something, the superficial reasons are always high-sounding. But the real reason makes it hard not to think of Han Feizi and Shang Junshu, which tell the rulers to "weak people" and "foolish people".