Synthesized answer
The statement that "the truth contained in illusory appearance is even greater than in true appearance" in practical matters implies that scholars and politicians should not solely rely on pure theory or objective reality when studying and interacting with social phenomena [1]. Instead, they must consider the "illusory appearance," or the impressions that phenomena create, as these have a more significant impact on people's perceptions and actions than strict, objective facts [1, 2]. This means that understanding how people perceive things, even if those perceptions are not entirely accurate, is crucial for effective engagement.
Therefore, scholars and politicians should focus on how social phenomena are presented and perceived, rather than just their absolute truth. They need to understand that people's thinking is often driven by these appearances and that influencing them requires engaging with these "illusory appearances" [2]. While scholars must consider both theoretical and practical value [1], politicians, in particular, are advised to leverage the power of imagination and perception, as these are the primary sources of their influence and the driving force behind…
Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.
From the book
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。…
謂重要部分。大抵爲外表、而非眞相。且虛僞之效用尤比眞實者爲優。比比然也。 夫羣衆之思慮。祇能及於假相。故欲其銘心不忘。亦必藉夫假相。故時而誘之。時而動之。時而恐怖之者。莫非爲假相而已。 今夫演劇之場。固以歷歷可覩之假相。表現於羣衆之前者也。其感化之力絕强。往往觸目興懷之下。悲歡喜怒。咸感發於不知不覺之中。古時羅馬人以麵包與戲劇爲人生唯一之幸福。以外均非所措意。此類理想。按之古今人相去亦不甚遠。故曰世間事物之能影響一般人之想像者。殆無逾於觀劇之一事也。當此之時。滿座千百人同時抱同一之情感。其所以不至因情感而演爲事實者。則以雖有極無意識之觀客。莫不自知斯時己身乃爲幻想所驅使。其所笑啼者。乃幻想中之事實耳。惟當情感極烈之際。則或有由情感而演成行爲之傾向。曾憶某悲劇中之一幕。其假裝奸徒之伶人。形容逼肖。劇場主人至懼以此賈禍。下場之後。卽以多人護之使歸。觀此。則羣衆之心理狀態。及其易於感受暗示。不已瞭然可覩耶。且假者之感人尤較眞者爲大。此無他。以人羣之心理。固有不能辨別眞假之傾向故也。 大抵一國能力之所寄。與夫力征經營之所憑。皆惟人羣之想像力是賴。彼引導人羣者之唯一祕訣。亦在於利用想像力之一端。試縱覽古今歷史。若佛耶回教之崛起。若宗教之改革。若法蘭西之大革命。若近時社會主義之大昌。殆無一焉而非人羣之想像力上所受印象之結果也。…
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。…
也。試以羣衆與往古傳說中之斯芬克斯相較。其形態殆逼肖。斯芬克斯者。希臘神話中之怪物。高踞路旁。標示謎語。以難旅客。有不得其解者。則絞而殺之。今羣衆之心理。已揭櫫爲問題。則其勢不可不爲之解決。苟非然者。彼民衆者甘人肉骨。吾輩惟有徒膏其饞吻而已。 第一節 假相 言辭 成句 编辑 夫羣衆之思想。常易爲事物假相所生之印象所乘。此類假相。雖非日常縈繞於吾人之左右。然不難以巧妙之言辭。與適宜之成句以誘起之。苟能神化而妙用之。則爲力實不可思議。與善演魔術者無二致。是故言辭成句之中於羣意也。能變無爲有。變有爲無。忽起忽滅。極波譎雲詭之奇觀。嗟夫、古今民衆之以言辭與成句而犧牲其軀命者。何啻如恆河沙數。苟能集其纍纍之白骨。以作巨塔。直將較埃及之大金字塔而尤高。可斷言也。 言辭與其所誘起之假相。往往混爲一體。至其本來之眞意義。則又別爲一物。凡言辭含義之最廣泛者。其勢力轉最强。如所謂民主主義也。社會主義也。自由也。平等也。其意義之窅渺浩茫。雖積萬卷鉅册而言之不能盡者。乃卽此三數名詞。實附有不可思議魔力。世之論者每爲其說苟一旦實行。直不難將世上所有之問題而悉爲解決之。嗚呼、是殆無意識之信仰與期望二者綜合。而蔽其明耳。…
想之勢力果何如乎。無論爲往昔宗教上之迷想。抑爲現代哲學上社會上之迷想。莫不具有絕大之權威。而爲大地文明之先河。職是之故。上古之神社。中世紀之教堂。遂巍然出現於世。而距今一世紀前。遂演成震撼歐陸之大變亂。故曰、吾人之政治社會藝術上之思想與觀念。均不能脫離迷想之支配也。雖然、世固有經絕大之變亂。而迷想得暫時爲所摧毀。顧不久又回復其舊。一若有不能不恢復之勢者。此何故哉。蓋人類無迷想。則不能脫棄其原始野蠻之舊習。卽脫棄矣。亦祗能旋離復合而已。故迷想之爲物。雖無形聲可指。然古今萬國之民族。其所由以放藝術之光輝。而樹文明之偉績者。究不能不歸功於是也。 今有人焉。昂然闖入博物院圖書館教堂之中。而取其關係於宗教之圖籍著述。與夫美術之紀念品。悉舉而摧毀之。棄擲之。則人世之所貽留者。復有幾何。然則希望與迷想。乃爲吾人生存所不可少之要素。而所謂神明也、英雄也、詩人也。固能以希望與迷想給人。而神明英雄詩人之所以存在於世也。晚近五十年來。科學昌明。駸駸有代迷想而興之勢。無如科學之爲物。誠確而非虛誕。在彼好奇多思之人心中。欲與迷想爭衡。蓋戛戛乎其難矣。 吾人之若祖若宗。生活於宗教政治社會上種種迷想之中者。不知其幾千百年矣。而十八世紀之哲學家。乃不惜絞腦汁嘔心血以破除之。不知迷想一經破除。吾人希望與安慰之源泉。亦因之而涸。欲於此外求一感動羣衆之道。亦幾爲之束手矣。…
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?
- 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?
- Considering the author's views on the profound influence of unobservable, unconscious forces and inherited "ancient echoes" on human behavior, what specific challenges does this perspective pose for conducting purely scientific research into crowd phenomena, and how does he propose overcoming them?