關於 absurdity meaning ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

腦闆開課囉，四月到六月12堂，給你滿滿的生命意義（不是

這個課程（順利的話應該）不會協助你找到生命意義，但是會讓你了解20世紀分析哲學家如何研究生命意義問題。

你可以把這系列課程當成高密度的生命意義哲學討論，同時滿足探究生命意義的好奇和哲學論辯的渴望。在這個課堂上你會遇到一群能從你的疑問中看出回答價值，並且提供好意見的同好。

每次上課都搭配至少一篇哲學論文（有時候會是書），腦闆會把內容報告準備好在課堂上跟大家說明，讓大家有討論基礎，但如果你有空也很推薦你事先閱讀，你準備得越好，會在課程上學到更多。

大致上你可以把這個理解成像是在上研究所的課，只是教授不會來，然後每次都是輪到腦闆報告。

報名網址：
https://yudian.backme.tw/checkout/1578/11898?locale=zh-TW

🍰

生命的意義是什麼？這個問題難回答，因為它其實是一連串問題：什麼是意義？生命是那種有可能有意義的東西嗎？如果是，意義從何而來？要做什麼才能感受到意義？...

這門課程無法完整回答生命意義的問題，也無法保證能讓你的餘生充實有意義。但在這十二週之間，我們將瀏覽20世紀分析哲學家回答生命意義問題的各種方式，希望能讓大家一邊體會有趣的哲學論證，一邊深挖自己對生命意義的看法。

這些課程不會預設學生讀過指定讀物，我都會從頭說明。但我強烈建議學生在上課之前嘗試閱讀，這可以讓你體驗親自挑戰哲學論述的樂趣，並且藉由練習來增加理解和反思能力。我在與點堂的課程會有很多討論時間，歡迎喜歡交流意見、傾聽和組織想法的人。

🍪

每次上課主題和推薦讀物（暫定）：

1. 生命意義是怎樣的問題？
Metz 2007 The Meaning of Life SEP

2. 意義有幾種？
Audi 2005 Intrinsic Value and Meaningful Life

3. 生命意義需要倚賴神和永生不滅的靈魂嗎？
Graig 1995 The Absurdity of Life without God

4. 還是說，永生反而會威脅生命意義？
Nussbaum 1989 Mortal Immortals: Lucretius on Death and the Voice of Nature.

5. 說到底，永恆的事物到底有什麼值得我們在乎的？
Nagel 1971 The Absurd

6. 自然主義的科學世界會摧毀生命意義嗎？
＊未定

7. 有沒有可能其實「只要我高興」就行？（提示：有可能！）
＊未定

8. 可是現代社會已經讓我們都變成追求財富的形狀了...
桑德爾 2021《成功的反思》

9. 或者，愛會是答案嗎？
Frankfurt 1988 The Importance of What We Care About

10. 一段生命有可能罪大惡極又充滿意義嗎？�Wolf 1997 Happiness and Meaning

11. 別管哲學家了，身為一般人我們可以怎麼辦？
Emily Smith《意義》、George Vaillant《哈佛教你幸福一輩子》

12. 期末論壇（這次上課，我計畫邀請大家分享你理解了上述東西之後，對生命意義的看法）

報名網址：
https://yudian.backme.tw/checkout/1578/11898?locale=zh-TW

腦闆開課囉，四月到六月12堂，給你滿滿的生命意義（不是

這個課程（順利的話應該）不會協助你找到生命意義，但是會讓你了解20世紀分析哲學家如何研究生命意義問題。

你可以把這系列課程當成高密度的生命意義哲學討論，同時滿足探究生命意義的好奇和哲學論辯的渴望。在這個課堂上你會遇到一群能從你的疑問中看出回答價值，並且提供好意見的同好。

每次上課都搭配至少一篇哲學論文（有時候會是書），腦闆會把內容報告準備好在課堂上跟大家說明，讓大家有討論基礎，但如果你有空也很推薦你事先閱讀，你準備得越好，會在課程上學到更多。

大致上你可以把這個理解成像是在上研究所的課，只是教授不會來，然後每次都是輪到腦闆報告。

報名網址：
https://yudian.backme.tw/checkout/1578/11898?locale=zh-TW

🍰

生命的意義是什麼？這個問題難回答，因為它其實是一連串問題：什麼是意義？生命是那種有可能有意義的東西嗎？如果是，意義從何而來？要做什麼才能感受到意義？...

這門課程無法完整回答生命意義的問題，也無法保證能讓你的餘生充實有意義。但在這十二週之間，我們將瀏覽20世紀分析哲學家回答生命意義問題的各種方式，希望能讓大家一邊體會有趣的哲學論證，一邊深挖自己對生命意義的看法。

這些課程不會預設學生讀過指定讀物，我都會從頭說明。但我強烈建議學生在上課之前嘗試閱讀，這可以讓你體驗親自挑戰哲學論述的樂趣，並且藉由練習來增加理解和反思能力。我在與點堂的課程會有很多討論時間，歡迎喜歡交流意見、傾聽和組織想法的人。

🍪

每次上課主題和推薦讀物（暫定）：

1. 生命意義是怎樣的問題？
Metz 2007 The Meaning of Life SEP

2. 意義有幾種？
Audi 2005 Intrinsic Value and Meaningful Life

3. 生命意義需要倚賴神和永生不滅的靈魂嗎？
Graig 1995 The Absurdity of Life without God

4. 還是說，永生反而會威脅生命意義？
Nussbaum 1989 Mortal Immortals: Lucretius on Death and the Voice of Nature.

5. 說到底，永恆的事物到底有什麼值得我們在乎的？
Nagel 1971 The Absurd

6. 自然主義的科學世界會摧毀生命意義嗎？
＊未定

7. 有沒有可能其實「只要我高興」就行？（提示：有可能！）
＊未定

8. 可是現代社會已經讓我們都變成追求財富的形狀了...
桑德爾 2021《成功的反思》

9. 或者，愛會是答案嗎？
Frankfurt 1988 The Importance of What We Care About

10. 一段生命有可能罪大惡極又充滿意義嗎？�Wolf 1997 Happiness and Meaning

11. 別管哲學家了，身為一般人我們可以怎麼辦？
Emily Smith《意義》、George Vaillant《哈佛教你幸福一輩子》

12. 期末論壇（這次上課，我計畫邀請大家分享你理解了上述東西之後，對生命意義的看法）

報名網址：
https://yudian.backme.tw/checkout/1578/11898?locale=zh-TW

我相信相信當年死於無情槍火與坦克下的學子
想見到的不是大家每年只有哭喪著臉的悼念而無理性深切的反思
若大家只哀悼他們的死亡，而忘記他們當初所抱持的信念，這樣實在是白費了他們的犧牲

紀念六四不應只是一種點蠟燭、喊口號的儀式
紀念六四應有的態度是以八九民運的勇士為榜樣：對公義和自由有一份應有的執著，對暴政強權有奮身反抗的勇氣，對自己的家園有願意付出的精神。
同時，我們必須緊記中共的邪惡，對於這個殘暴且無恥的政權，我們絕對不能妥協退讓；對於一切向其獻媚的奸佞之徒，我們也絕對不能容忍。

所謂「愛國」或「建設民主中國」，對於港人而言只是華而不實的煽情之談，對於香港的前途毫無禆益，反而令香港的民主進程裹足不前，在地抗爭、自立尋生才是港人的出路
當然，獨立自決不能一蹴而就，除了實際參與各種抗爭行動之外，大家還可以在改變議會、捍衛言論自由、對抗洗腦教育......等議題上盡一分力：做助選義工也好，傳揚民主思想也好，就政府各政策的諮詢去信表達意見也好......有很多事情是我們可以做、應該做的
就算未能像當年的勇士般置生死於度外，至少也要犧牲一點享樂的時間為香港做點事，讓自己對得起這片土地、對得起下一代
共勉之。

愛國盡頭乃殘民赤禍 痛悟前非當自立尋生
香港大學學生會六四宣言

廿七年前的春夏之交，中國翻起巨變，人人以為民主、自由即將降臨。可惜事與願違，一場波瀾壯闊的民主運動，最後以血腥鎮壓告終，無數市民學子魂斷於國家機器之下，遭秋後算帳而身陷囹圄、痛遭刑劫者亦不計其數。學生以愛國之名掀起學潮，豈料國家卻早已遭殘民以逞的共匪竊去。墨寫的謊話，掩不住血色真相。縱然身處相對自由的國度，本着良知與公義，港人一直未有遺忘八九年的這段歷史。可惜，在一河之隔的中國人民，卻似乎早為獨裁者的巧言令色矇蔽，沉醉於暴發戶式的中國夢當中，除極少數的維權份子以外，根本無人願意直視政權之非人暴行。廿七年後再回首，六四屠城無疑標誌着中共錯失最後一個自我完善的機會。六四以後，中國與民主正式話別，民權不彰而黨政威權當道，公權力無限膨脹，貪污腐敗無所制約，優良文化日漸消亡，社會自此走上一條不歸之路。

六四屠城不獨是中國的轉捩點，更是港人主體身份建立的一個分水嶺。一方面，它扼碎了港人對中國改革開放的幻想，催生香港本位主體意識；另一方面，卻又矛盾地將港中兩地人民的命運混為一談，扼殺主體意識。多年來，維園六四集會與愛國主義互相捆縛，已成不可割裂的雙胞胎。今日，我們提出重鑑六四屠城的歷史意義，無非是要告訴各位，在愛國的囈語以外，更重要是肯定人民對自由、民主的美好追尋。而談論自由、民主，最後必然會踏上建立主體的道路，亦即今日年輕人高喊的自主自決。尤其當我們認清「黨即是國，國即是黨」之本質後，就會發覺愛國與民主兩者之間存在根本抵觸，是以「建設民主中國」斷無理由成為香港之政治議程。以愛國情懷為基調的悼念方式，亦應劃上句號。一如世界各地，中國的民主理應由在地人民爭取，港人無理要承受這份強加的責任，更不應廉價地遙距「建設民主中國」以期自保。否定港人「建設民主中國」之責任，絕不等同主張兩地公民社會斷絕來往。正如港台兩地之公民互動，香港大可與中國治下受壓迫的人民交換經驗，惟動機非出於一份不存在的「責任」。

六四，絕不只是每年一次點起燭光、哭喪哀嚎。某些政黨、政客口口聲聲說要結束一黨專政，平日卻受制於「愛國緊箍咒」，對中共政權誠惶誠恐，奉若神明，甚至為見京官而扭盡六壬，絲毫不敢挑戰中共之主權合法性。香港的政治問題從來只有一個，就是關於代價的承受。第一次前途問題時，大部分港人以至政客皆未有汲取六四教訓，欠缺對香港主體性及主體的想像，欠缺當家作主的勇氣加上誤信中共「港人治港，高度自治」的糖衣毒藥，香港民主進程因而一再耽誤。可惜歷史沒有如果，只有教訓。往日不可諫，來日猶可追，我們絕不能重蹈覆轍！

從今以後每年六四，我們遙祭六四死難者之際，請同時為被出賣的香港默哀，更要矢志為2047前途自決鞠躬盡瘁。有人說，中共奉行帝國主義，中國因素無遠弗屆，香港難以偏安一隅。今日新世代主張港人自決，決非要掩耳盜鈴，而是知其不可為而為之。面對中共壓境，香港自決與獨立運動應運而生，我們比任何潑冷水的人都要清楚當中現實考量與限制，但我們更清楚：民主必須站着爭取，而非跪着乞求。民主，從來都是自我充權、自我實現的過程，是故我們必須將身份認同轉化成抗爭武器，對抗強權壓迫，為自己、下一代謀取更大政治權利。

短短數年光景，在部份人眼中曾是無稽之談的本土思潮，今日已進入主流政治議程。的確，無人能夠斷言，本土思潮必然會引領港人走向救贖，但在時代的分岔口之上，一邊通往汪洋大海，另一邊卻是通往赤紅的地獄。對此，我們作出一個明確的抉擇：即使航向未知的前方，亦不與魔鬼打交道。同時，我們更要高聲告訴獨裁者，服從絕非毫無條件之事。香港，我們必定會拚死守護。

Patriotism only ends in hardship and panic,
We repent to misdeeds to cling on to our lives
Declaration of the Hong Kong University Students’ Union on the Tian’anmen Massacre

Twenty-seven years ago, China underwent a change in the midst of spring and summer, looking forward to the emergence of democracy and freedom. In contrary, the striking democratic movement ended only in suppression and bloodshed. Countless citizens and students deceased under the state apparatus. Those who were latterly reprised and put in jail or tortured were also hard to number. Starting the student movement in the name of patriotism, students would have never imagined their country to have been taken over by communist evil who harmed people for their own doing. Lies written in black and white can never disguise the bloody truth. Even though Hongkongers live in a slightly freer place, we, with conscience and justice, have never forgotten this history of 1989. Unfortunately, on the opposite shore of the river, the Chinese seem to have long been blinded by the dictators’ fine words and actions, drowning in the nouveau-riche Chinese dream. There is no one who combats the regime’s atrocity, except very few rights defence protesters. In retrospect twenty-seven years later, the Tian’anmen Massacre marked the last chance for the Chinese Communist to improve itself, which it had missed. After the Massacre, China bid her final goodbye to democracy. Human rights was ruined amid the heyday of the party authoritarian. While the authority expanded infinitely, corruption and collusion were out of limit. As the respectable culture was undermined, society reached a point of no return.

The Tian’anmen Massacre is not only a turning point for China, but also a watershed in Hongkongers building of sense of identity. On one hand, it destroys our fantasy towards China’s Reform and Opening Up, sparking the Hongkonger’s subjective consciousness; on the other, it, paradoxically, muddles up the destiny of Hongkongers and Chinese, knocking the subjective consciousness back down. Over the years, the Victoria Park vigil and patriotism have been chained up to be an inseparable pair of twins. Today, revisiting the historical meaning of the Massacre is to tell everyone that it is more important to recognise the pursuit for freedom and democracy, than the absurdity in patriotism. As we debate over freedom and democracy, they must lead us to a new subjectivity, which is exactly the self-determination that youngsters are now chanting for. As we have realised the truth of China being nothing but a party state, ‘patriotism’ and pursuit of democracy and freedom actually contradict one another fundamentally. ‘Building a democratic China’ shall thus not be included in Hong Kong political agenda. Commemoration based on patriotism shall also be put to an end. Similar to anywhere in the world, Chinese democracy should be fought for by no other but their own people. Hongkongers have no reason to take up such forced duty, let alone ‘building a democratic China’ from afar at such a cost in order to protect ourselves. Denial of the responsibility of ‘Hongkongers building a democratic China’ never means an end to interaction between civil societies of the two nations. Just like the interaction between citizens of Hong Kong and Taiwan, of course Hong Kong can share our experience with Chinese suppressed by the Communist. But the aim of such action must not be based on a non-existent ‘duty’.

The fourth of June should never be only about wailing and whining amid candlelight once every year. While some political parties and politicians keep on proclaiming their ideal to end the one-party dictatorship, they are yet bounded by the ‘Patriotic incantation of Golden Hoop’ day in, day out. They fear and worship the Communist regime. They do whatever it takes to meet officials from Peking, never even challenging a bit of the Communist legitimacy on our sovereignty. Hong Kong is always bothered by only one political problem. It is the cost that we can take. In face of the first Future of Hong Kong discussion, most Hongkongers and even politicians had failed to learn the lesson from the Massacre, lacking the imagination towards Hong Kong subjectivity, let alone the courage to take charge of our homeland. Together with the sugar-coated poison of ‘Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong, High degree of autonomy’, Hong Kong democratisation was only delayed. Unfortunately, there is never ‘what if’ in history, but only lessons. We may not be able to alter our past, but we still have a say in our future. We shall never make the same mistake twice.

On every 4th June since today, while mourning the deceased in the Massacre from afar, we pay our silent tribute to Hong Kong, a place which has long been betrayed, pledging our strong will for self-determination towards the future after 2047. Some may argue that the Chinese Imperialism shall only make Chinese factors ubiquitous and Hong Kong can never remain uninfluenced at this small piece of land. The new generation upholding Hongkongers’ self-determination is never an attempt to deceive, but to do something that is known to be unlikely to succeed. As a result of the Communist encroachment, revolt in self-determination and independence movement in Hong Kong begin. We are more than well-informed of the realistic considerations and limitation than anyone who only douses us with cold water. Yet, it is more than clear that: for democracy, we must stand and fight, but never kneel and beg. Democracy is always a process of self-empowerment and self-realisation. We therefore must turn our sense of identity into our weapon in protests. We must struggle against the regime and seek for the most political rights for ourselves, and our next generation.

Only a few years may have gone by, but the localist ideology which was once a farce in most people’s mind has already entered the major political agenda. Indeed no one can be sure that such localist ideology can usher Hongkongers into salvation. But at this fork of our age, one way is towards the deep blue sea, and the other is towards the bloody red hell. For this we make a clear decision: we may navigate to the uncharted, but we never mix with the evils. In the meantime, we must shout at the dictators that they must pay the cost if they wish for our compliance. Hong Kong, we must protect it with our lives.