When it comes to reading, I really have a phobia of dense sentences.

  Photo courtesy of vision china

  "Golden Sentence" is not the product of the author’s feeding, but the reader’s participation.

  — — — — — — — — — —

  Some children often tell me that books are classics, and they are often disappointed after reading them. After reading them for most of the day, they can’t read the "golden sentences" worth underlining and extracting. Or read a "golden sentence" and be attracted by a book, but after reading it, I found that there are too few golden sentences like this in the book, and I feel fooled. I know that many people love this "golden sentence-driven" reading. What I want to say is that this utilitarian reading is not a good way to absorb knowledge and nutrition. Searching for chapters and extracting sentences, swallowing the fragmented golden sentences alive, is not immersed in the overall content, and the efficiency is actually very low, which wastes time and good books and reading.

  "Golden Sentence" is often a "leap generalization" after a long period of material preparation and solid demonstration. For example, Adorno said: In a mass society that follows the crowd, idolatry is often manipulated in a "pseudo-personalized" way, which hides the standardization and identity of the cultural industry itself. Is this sentence "golden sentence" enough? However, it is not isolated. Only by carefully reading the previous foreshadowing and argumentation can this conclusion be logical and theoretically active. After this process, "Golden Sentence" can enter your knowledge system and become an active thought, which allows you to call freely when writing and support your output. Otherwise, the source is separated, only this sentence is extracted as a golden sentence, and the illusion of memory is formed in the notebook, which will soon become a forgotten "dead dogma."

  Professor Liu Qing also said: Our traditional academic education emphasizes that knowledge should be systematic, have complete structure and logical connection, etc., while young people prefer rich and fragmented knowledge and feelings, so they like "golden sentences". In my opinion, a more flashing sentence, which appears after the overall discussion, has a context.

  Without understanding a sentence in the knowledge system and overall outlook, that kind of "golden sentence" can’t "know". Sociologist Andrew Abbott distinguishes between "knowledge" and "knowing". "Knowledge" is a result of "knowing", and the important thing is the process of "knowing". Abbott commented: most of the students I teach think that knowing something is knowing a website. The main mode of their knowledge is to "find". For them, "reading Adam Smith" means looking for five or six sentences that are really important in each chapter. They don’t understand that the rest of Adam Smith’s sentences contain arguments and arguments, which he used to produce and defend the key parts of these students. For students, reading is just browsing outside the internet. It is an exercise to filter out the unimportant idle parts and find out the really important things. They don’t actually believe in ideas, they believe in fragmented content. For them, Smith’s theory is not an argument, but a fixed content.

  Abbott actually criticized this kind of "golden sentence-driven" reading. A book just wants to sum up a few "central ideas", "paragraphs" and "key conclusions", which can spare me the pain of "reading those idle contents". This kind of filtering and screening, as long as those "fragments of golden sentences" have not actually read or understood a book at all, the golden sentences naturally have not entered the knowledge storage that one can call freely. On the surface, I read a lot of books, but my brain is empty!

  I have always felt that "golden sentence" is not only the result of the author’s hard argument, but also a kind of reading reward for readers to immerse themselves in a book and suddenly become enlightened after tossing and turning. In other words, "golden sentence" is not the product of the author’s feeding, but the reader’s participation. Enter the author’s theoretical framework, immerse yourself in his logic, read through, read through, read the author’s deep meaning, read the logical connection, read the thought corresponding to reality, and understand a long-standing puzzle, and the "golden sentence" comes out. A "golden sentence" truly deposited in one’s own knowledge system must contain one’s own thoughts in the dialogue. I read Weber’s exposition on tool rationality and value rationality, but I didn’t read it before. But during that time, there were many events in the news that "people were regarded as tools" and "formalism bureaucracy only looked at procedures regardless of human life", and I realized that tools crushed value and realized the golden sentence connotation that "because there is a long chain between their actions and results, their moral consciousness will be blurred, which will lead to moral blindness".

  Reading is a kind of dialogue and generation, which needs to be immersed. "Golden Sentence" is an ideological reward for immersed reading, not a "essence" that can be extracted separately. That kind of extracted essence, mindless "value", is often just a marketing strategy. A famous scholar talked about the "three laws of bestsellers": first, tell what you already know in a way you don’t know; Second, repeat the statement just now and give some examples; Third, repeat the summary and you will succeed. Those golden sentences about a book, such as chicken soup and sales promotion, are mostly tailored for people who don’t study. They are just "telling what you already know in a way you don’t know", just a truth that you agree with, that you are familiar with and understand, and that’s all.

  When I study, I have a phobia of golden sentences. It’s all golden sentences. How can I stand it? The golden sentence is a "leap generalization" after a long argument, and it is a wonderful pen to make the finishing point. It’s all golden sentences, which shows that there is no argument and reason at all, and it’s all chicken soup-like, catering to you and clever conclusions. Just like the flashy PPT, it is full of "beautiful words that are nice but vague". It’s more like some fake comments. It sounds like a lot of words, and it seems that there are many golden sentences, and there is nothing but empty parallelism and superficial rhyme. The public opinion field is full of such swindlers. When they encounter something they don’t understand, they can fool them by saying a bunch of "beautiful words", so they are mystifying and euphemistic.

  I don’t like that kind of "looking for standard answers" reading either. If the contents of the book are regarded as "answers that can be copied", it is still exam-oriented thinking and there is no nutrition. A good book can arouse thinking, and it is the thought agitation brought by that argumentation process that challenges some common sense, inspires some new ideas and brings some wisdom. What is wisdom? If intelligence points to a standard answer, intellectual knowledge is a kind of ability to "turn the answer into a question", which is a kind of advanced literacy, which can push thinking to a higher conceptual level and move towards transparent wisdom in new questions.

  Yes, the better the book, the more you can’t get the "standard answer" from it, but it can produce many problems, which can help you get rid of the "uncertainty of ignorance", challenge most of the "taken for granted" and "self-evident" hidden in your thinking, and move towards the realm of critical thinking after experiencing "multiple chaos".

  Mr. He Zhaowu said in "A Record of Going to School": "Reading doesn’t have to have a purpose, and it’s better to have no purpose. Reading is an end in itself. Reading brings inner satisfaction, just like a spiritual roaming. In the eyes of others, it is of no value to travel for a day, but for me, the process itself is the greatest value. " Well, reading is by no means utilitarian, quick-paced, lively and immediate, but I also feel that reading will never fail you, enjoy the process, precipitate thinking, and will always nourish you at some time and somewhere.

  Ling Cao