Lao Hu, teacher Guo Songmin once said: We criticize Lao Hu, not for Lao Hu personally, but to criticize the kind of thought he represents, that is, concubinism. I agree with that.
Lao Hu. If you have to find a word to rule, it's to please. It's okay to be elegant and flattering. But I don't think that pleasing is a shortcoming, who says that pleasing is a shortcoming, it must be poisoned by books and an idealist. To please is not lacking in virtue. What lacks virtue is unprincipled, and all are flattering.
To please all is to agree with all. And all agree with it is the same as not agreeing. Agreeing to go forward and agreeing to go backward is basically the same as not leaving. What to do? How to get out of this quagmire of predicament, and make people look like they are striding with their heads held high? I have to erase two faces. Today we will righteously criticize the badness of this thing, and tomorrow we will praise the goodness of this thing with righteous words. Left and right fight each other. Forward and backward. seems to be a very generous and tragic punch and kick, but it has been watched a lot, and after watching it for a long time, that is, showing the horse's feet, as usual, I still agree with everything, and saying it is equivalent to not saying it.
The root of Lao Hu is to flatter, and the root of flattery is because everyone does not want to offend. The root of no one wanting to offend is self-interest, and the root of self-interest is cowardice.
Every time Lao Hu speaks, and there are usually new ones very quickly, I don't really want to read them, and I look at his speeches for no more than two purposes. One is to learn the skills of composition, and the other is to search for some material for my daily practice. Let's put it bluntly, in order to find a little laughing material for self-criticism. As for what it is, I don't care, I can guess it with my eyes closed.
It's nothing more than pleasing people, pleasing everyone, and everyone. There is no distinction between good and bad, no distinction between right and wrong. For example, he advocated the innocence of shareholders, not mentioning that anyone who speculates in stocks must come to seek wealth.
(Plagiarism is welcome, reprinting is welcome.) ）