Re: 我沒有補充了 -- SFXC forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Re: 我沒有補充了

Author:
蔡進步

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 04:59:21 05/12/03 Mon
In reply to: 蔡進步 's message, "Re: 我沒有補充了" on 04:39:01 05/12/03 Mon

不可一詞是能力上的不可,而不是為與不為的不可
因為佢講係道既本質既描述
是一個問"道是什麼?"的答案道解作道理故可,但是睇晒既話只解道做道理就有點把儒家尚的道同道家講既道,客觀既,不存善惡,近於"規律"一詞的道混淆了
哲理深微的一句"道可道,非常道;明可明非常明"在公仔佬師口中竟變成如此簡單的推論...
公仔佬教了學生用平仄等黎做分開句子的indicator之一,學生大大受惠,文學手段高明歸文學手段
故,學生重申解法是
恆常規律/手段/背後道理不可以講出黎因為一講出黎就係只係道理的一部份,只能解釋某一個situation,不能稱為 "常"

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]