Synthesized answer
The perspective that human behavior is profoundly influenced by unobservable, unconscious forces and inherited "ancient echoes" poses challenges for purely scientific research into crowd phenomena because what is observable and audible is limited, while the unobservable and inaudible are vast and difficult to study [1]. Crowd phenomena are often rooted in profound, immeasurable influences that are beyond our ability to research and analyze [1]. This is likened to observing the surface waves of the ocean without understanding the deep currents below that cause them [1]. Furthermore, the author notes that in modern times, it is only recently that rationality has been considered a human attribute, and the development of laws to understand unconscious behavior is still incomplete [1].
The author proposes overcoming these challenges by acknowledging the limitations of purely logical or rational approaches when dealing with the complexities of social phenomena and crowd behavior [1, 4]. While advocating for scientific research [2], the author suggests that the immediate phenomena that are observable through the senses are what can be studied [1]. However, even these observable…
Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.
From the book
必極審愼。決不徒恃論理學之方式以爲論斷矣。 此外又有一原因。足令論者知所審愼。蓋以社會中之事物。如是其複雜。苟欲洞悉靡遺。全體了然。勢已有所不能。若欲於其相互之結果。洞燭機先。則益無其事矣。無他。蓋吾人可見可聞之事物。至有限量。而吾人之所不見不聞。或無由見無由聞者。眞不啻恒河沙數。且社會現象而爲吾人所可見者。皆原因於淵深浩漫不可捉摸之作用而來。而爲吾人所無由硏究分析者也。譬猶汪洋巨浸。吾人但見其表面之波濤洶洶而已。至其波濤之所以洶洶。實由其千尋海底洪流往復之故。而爲吾人所無由見無由知者。以羣衆行爲之大部分而論。其心意程度之低下。誠不待論。顧於其他之行爲。又常有不可思議之勢力導之而趨。此實爲先人所定吾人之運命。而爲古代遺音之所寄者。吾人雖不能識其存在。然亦不容忽視也。譬如語文。其尤爲複雜巧妙之一例乎。除於不知不覺中習用以外。有能知其所從來者乎。縱有積學之士。文法名家。除記述語文上之規律而外。亦不能有所創造。卽以偉人哲士之思想而論。謂之全然出諸其人之腦力可乎。雖其思想之創造。不能不謂由於其人之潛思默識。然使無羣衆之精神。以爲其憑藉。譬猶植物而無恆河沙數之泥沙。以助其潛滋暗長。其能有所成就者乎。…
羣衆心理原序 编辑 此書乃專述羣衆特徵之書也。夫一民族之中。人人同承其先代之所遺傳。則必有其共同之特徵。此卽民族之眞精神也。今有若干人集而成羣。而有所作爲。則於其民族之特徵以外。尚有其心理上之新特徵發現。而與其民族之特徵有時竟大相逕庭者。苟澄心觀察之。則必灼然可見也。 今日組成之羣衆。影響及於人民之生活。殊爲重要。殆爲前此所未嘗有者。何則。蓋個人有意識之行動。往往以羣衆無意識之行動代之。實爲今日重要特徵之一也。 今吾將關於羣衆之難題。而以純粹科學的見地硏究之。夫純粹科學的見地云者。乃以一定之方式硏究之。脫然乎歷來意見上理想上主義上之感化之謂也。吾信如此硏究。殆爲格物致知之唯一方法。而於聚訟紛紜之羣衆難問題中。尤適用之。且夫科學家對於宇宙間之現象。而欲有所闡明。以立之證。則於一己之利害關係。亦必不能有所顧慮。大思想家達爾維拉氏(M.
羣衆心理之於事實。適用甚廣。凡吾人於歷史上經濟上所見爲不可解之現象。苟於此類學識解之。恆有左右逢源之趣。否則亦惟有終於不可解而已。台恩氏(Taine)者。近世之歷史大家也。顧其對於法蘭西大革命之事實。有時猶不免言之失眞。何則。因其從未知羣衆之精神當攷慮故也。且其硏究此複雜奧衍之時代。恆以博物學之紀述方法行之。不知博物學者所硏究之現象。並無道義之關係在其中。而古今歷史所以構成之樞機。則固舍道義之關係外。無他道矣。 由此觀之。則知羣衆心理之硏究。無論基於實際上之攷察。抑本於單純之好奇心。皆爲有價值有興味之一事。蓋尋究人類行爲之動機。其趣味之深長。與硏究鑛物植物之性質無異。惟茲編所述。不過其硏究所得之大凡。以語其詳。固當俟諸來者。讀是書者。聊視爲是學之嚆矢可矣。
Goblet d'Alviela)於其近作中。嘗謂鄙人於當世學派。一無所屬。故於一切學派之持論。往往有所異議。此書旣成。吾亦冀有此同等之稱譽也。若夫門戶之學。見解多偏。苟墨守一家。則必以先入之說爲主。其失之隘。固其所也。 抑更有進者。讀吾書者。恆以余硏究所得之結論。類於矛盾。如對於各種羣衆之理解力。旣稱之爲劣等矣。且以此例諸議會。而末復力言干涉羣衆組織之爲危舉是也。雖然。余自有說。余嘗徵諸歷史上之往事。而知社會上各種組織之爲有機體。較諸一切生物。尤爲複雜。故欲其猝然之間。發生急激之大變化。決非人力能任。或以自然之趨勢。有時發生極端之方策。然決非能符吾儕之所期望。嘗見有人民爲狂熱所驅。毅然施行鉅大之改革。其說雖於學理上如何良善。然其結果。往往成爲禍國之媒。職是故耳。蓋大改革之業。必適值民族精神可以與爲變化之時。然後方能行之有功。否則亦惟一任歲月之推移而已。且夫芸芸之衆所思所爲。思想感情風俗習尚所支配。所謂吾人生活之要素。亦在乎是。而一切法律制度。則僅爲吾人性格表面之表識。亦卽爲吾人需要之現於外者。質而言之。則法律制度者。乃吾人性格之結果。而決不能變更性格者也。 社會上之諸種現象。皆附麗於民衆而起。故硏究社會現狀與硏究民衆。二者常不可分離。自哲學上之見地觀之。硏究社會現象。雖有絕對的價值。然自實際上觀之。則僅有相對的價值而已。…
意。或苦思熟慮之辯論。轉無效力。蓋此類之演說者。常依其自己思想之線路而行。而不顧聽者之心理。以爲取舍。僅此一端。其言之無效。可斷言已。 嘗見富於理論頭腦之人。連續推理。已成習慣。雖在羣衆之前。亦不免用其故智。卒之誨者諄諄。聽者藐藐。彼自顧之下。當亦訝其術之不靈也。論理學者嘗謂三段論法。必爲眞理。換言之。卽相類物之連絡是也。是說也。本爲確論。然惜乎羣衆之不能領會。正與無機物體之團集相等。果有人焉。以推理之方法。施之於野人蠻族。或無知識之稚子。則其效果之如何薄弱。不煩言而可知矣。 苟以推理與感情爭衡。則推理之效力。幾等於消失。欲明此理。正不必下稽諸原始之人物。吾人試觀宗教之迷信。衡諸最膚淺之理論。無一可通。而反能歷數千百年之久。牢不可拔者。此何故耶。茫茫二千年來。其間最傑出之人物 亦莫不俯首聽命。莫敢或違。洎乎文化進步。入於近世。始稍稍有非難之者。而在中世紀及文藝復興之時代。人才之盛。振古所希。固無一人焉能由推理而悟其迷信之謬者。亦無一人對於惡魔之非行。巫術之惑人。而昌言以救正之者也。…
More questions about this book
- The text introduces a distinction between a "national spirit" and "new psychological characteristics" that emerge in a crowd. How does the author explain the mechanism by which individuals' psychology transforms within a crowd, and why does he consider this distinction "critical" for understanding modern society?
- The author claims that "laws and institutions are merely superficial expressions of our character" and cannot change it, while also emphasizing the prevalence of "unconscious actions." How do these two ideas together explain the author's skepticism regarding the efficacy of rapid, top-down social reforms?
- Using the analogy of geometric shapes appearing differently when perceived, the text states that "the truth contained in illusory appearance is even greater than in true appearance" in practical matters. What does this profound statement imply about the most effective way for scholars and politicians to study and interact with social phenomena?
- The author asserts that "crowds are unconscious" and derive great power from this, yet simultaneously limits their capacity to "nothing other than destruction." How does the text reconcile this duality of powerful unconsciousness with an inherently destructive nature, and what does it suggest about the role of crowds in societal evolution?