Dear Professor Yu Fei, Thanks for mentioning my teacher Thich Nhat Hanh! I am one of his follower. He is great! I learn from him on the importance of listening skills, and that is why I take the time to view a few of your videos. I know you are trying to sell that your are a knowledge man, but so sorry to to say that I find only conflicting messages in your lectures, and lots of 抛書包 intention. I got only a Master's degree fm the States, and yes, in your eyes, I am only a kindergarten pupil.
"Professor" Yu Fei, Yes, I have not been a top top student at xxxxxxxx U, but my intention to learn is not to get something in return or treat it simply as an investment or trying to show off. I try to use what I learn to help people. Besides operating the Asia-Pacific sales operation of a US MNC, I am also an active volunteer in some org. to help the needy in HK/Asia. Welcome to join our work. Say hi to Mr. Siu for me.
You are right, 眾生平等 does not mean equality in everything, eg equality in wealth/appearance/opportunity etc. However 眾生平等 should mean equality of their rights, and I believe it is hard to argue that a living's soul/body is not his/its rights. In this case of the mouse, we are not talking about equality of wealth, equality of being the son of Lee Ka Sing, BUT the equality of basic right to live and the ownership of its body.
Ultimately its just a difference of opinion / value. You are an utilitarian. Some people are not, and hold equality of human lives/ownership of body as their main principle. Therefore it is pointless to say the other side is "wrong", and "unrealistic" (morality discussion doesn't/never has anything to do with reality)
"我考慮「功利主義」，但將我定性為道德思考上的「功利主義者」，絕不合理。" Yes i agree. I didn't watch all your previous videos nor do I know you in person, therefore I really shouldn't have said you are a 功利主義者. However, the points or arguments you present in this video are all from the viewpoint of a 功利主義者. Again im not saying that is wrong, but such reasoning only appeal to those who are 功利主義者 in the first place. However a lot of time, people that think 眾生平等 are not utilitarians.
You are using "certain" knowledge to generalize that all you are talking about is true. I will let the audience to judge you. I will not judge you la...^^ I know a lot of PhDs who know lots of theories & don't even know how to teach. This is quoted from Mr. Siu YY. And I am glad we met one here today too^^ You are trying to tell people that if people disagree with you, then they are religious-oriented^^ This single statement alone shows us what qualities you got. Thanks for your note^^
How can we poor beings who live in this very world know that we are right in our "theories" and bla bla bla "analysis"? If so, it would be like an ant, who live in a one-dimensional world, and would never understand how we human (who live in a 3-dimensional world) view/see things!!
You do not seem to know what is the genuine meaning of "眾生平等". Please go home and read more Buddhist materials before you make speeches here. FYI, Buddhist philosophy is not related to religion.
一行禪師講「聆聽」，真的非常重要。
我發覺許多人是否同意一個人，原來只是對方沒有用「你的觀點」去解釋一個問題，所以便「有問題」。
至於別人整套推論是如何？根據如何？層級如何？界定如何？前提如何？角度如何？這卻是不重要的。
你完全不是在講思考「實驗白老鼠」的問題理應如何，只是想說自己的東西，任何人不講你認為重要的問題，就不能同意。如此有趣？
(另外，也有朋友重提陳特的書，也許對於認識道德理論的發展，以前算是個好參考。
而有一本是 James Rachels 的著作，好處是多例子，但批判道德問題的理論太多太繁瑣(一大堆：文化相對主義、倫理主觀主義、心理利己論、倫理利己論、效益論、德行倫理學⋯⋯⋯)，學完可以暈了。
最後有甚麼基本的方向可以依循呢？ 我才建議個基本架構，至少不會亂，有方向，才細緻就內容分析。
這是我拋出道德分析一些法則的用意所在。)
一句答你：不相干的謬誤。^^
思方是你的靈丹妙藥。
理性的原則，超越一切導師的原則。
（道德）判斷。
既然是人類，就應該明白理性分析的重要，留意別人的重點，推論的過程，「前提與結論」的演繹如何。
不是說，人人都是「人」，所以呢？說不到，這是甚麼觀念呢？
無知才要不斷追尋，誰說會分析了「一些」問題，就等同於所有問題和宇宙的一切都掌握呢？這是你心中的狂妄，沒人會這樣去想。
講人類的道德問題，就是人類一般的經驗世界作為分析的「層級」，如果要「徹底」掌握所有真理，所有原理，「才可」分析，才可推論，這是那門子的道理呢？
所以，不必自己混亂了，不想談，就刻意關掉所有討論，講「極終」、講至高、甚至另一些人講「神靈」就完事了。
如果經常糾纏在終極的宇宙世界觀，以及微觀基因世界，則完全不會明白，分析白老鼠實驗的基礎在那裡，應該先讀讀基本的思考方法，以及道德問題上所謂「層級」的判斷。如果凡涉及道理判斷，就拋終極關懷，根本是萬能「key」，任用錯配。
我也很想知道，含糊地講「眾生平等」，他們應如何反對、拒斥一切科研實驗，牽涉借助動物的問題。不然好像說了一些觀點，但卻無任何總體推論可以分析。
對比起分析推理而言，無知還可以補救，不過建議你多學些分析推論的方法，便不會固守在自己的觀點思考問題。
現在基因、大腦研究，都強調「突現」理論(Emergence Theory)作為分析的基礎，為何層級有助我們理解問題？可以多認識一下。
不是。
Dear Professor Yu Fei,
Thanks for mentioning my teacher Thich Nhat Hanh! I am one of his follower. He is great! I learn from him on the importance of listening skills, and that is why I take the time to view a few of your videos.
I know you are trying to sell that your are a knowledge man, but so sorry to to say that I find only conflicting messages in your lectures, and lots of 抛書包 intention.
I got only a Master's degree fm the States, and yes, in your eyes, I am only a kindergarten pupil.
第三世界國家，風土人情味濃厚，生活節奏緩慢，無太過勞碌趕時，生活優悠，所以樂於助人，無太斤斤計較。
緊記，意氣無助你理解問題，認識更多的觀念，如果駐守在自己的一點看這個世界，便當作完結了問題，更惡劣的是拋些無關推論的背景資訊，含糊問題，也實在令人感嘆萬分。
說了這麼多，你還只是在自說自話的階段。
那你經過學習也只是這種求真精神、求學態度，實在枉費了教你的人的心血了。
你最大的問題，是當別人介紹許多觀點扣著「同一個問題時」，你就會扯去另一個層級。
如同有人講今晚吃海鮮好，還是吃素好呢？ 有人搭嘴道：沒所謂，因為在極極極極微觀的角度，量子力學的世界都是一樣，細胞上觀察也無分別，一樣是吃。
又在極極極極宏觀的角度，也是一樣，因為吃了最終還是要死。
你還要說學習嗎？ 你至少應該搞清楚自己學過的，為何沒有消化去分析問題，至少要懂得聆聽。你是教徒又好，不是教徒又好，xx 師是甚麼也好，你還是要依道理來說啊。
"Professor" Yu Fei,
Yes, I have not been a top top student at xxxxxxxx U, but my intention to learn is not to get something in return or treat it simply as an investment or trying to show off. I try to use what I learn to help people.
Besides operating the Asia-Pacific sales operation of a US MNC, I am also an active volunteer in some org. to help the needy in HK/Asia. Welcome to join our work.
Say hi to Mr. Siu for me.
植物同阿米巴變型蟲都有生命,齋戒只係一個形式
You are right, 眾生平等 does not mean equality in everything, eg equality in wealth/appearance/opportunity etc.
However 眾生平等 should mean equality of their rights, and I believe it is hard to argue that a living's soul/body is not his/its rights. In this case of the mouse, we are not talking about equality of wealth, equality of being the son of Lee Ka Sing, BUT the equality of basic right to live and the ownership of its body.
Ultimately its just a difference of opinion / value.
You are an utilitarian. Some people are not, and hold equality of human lives/ownership of body as their main principle.
Therefore it is pointless to say the other side is "wrong", and "unrealistic" (morality discussion doesn't/never has anything to do with reality)
這樣思考如何？： 相類近的動物分享相近的價值觀。即是我（人）通常不會和老鼠講仁義忠孝，和老母就會，但如果有一些好像Alvin and the Chipmunks的動物，說人話，識思考唱歌，我必然當佢是人來相處，更不會比佢做實驗。
如果有一日一個外星文明為左自己嘅生存發展，向人類實施必要之惡，唔知于老師你又點睇呢?其實用幾多道德包裝都掩飾唔倒呢四個字：弱肉強食
對唔住，係我搞錯！
更正：
我明白點解【香港】d人渣車，細路出大路，等極都冇人讓，原來大家都係人，大家都係平等，唔係老馮要讓你出。
【歐洲】就唔同，d人明白眾生不平等，大路經常讓細路d車出線。
原來眾生平唔平等，真係同日常生活習慣有關。
【如果發現再有錯謬，立即更改】
白老鼠表示毫無道德可言
"我考慮「功利主義」，但將我定性為道德思考上的「功利主義者」，絕不合理。"
Yes i agree. I didn't watch all your previous videos nor do I know you in person, therefore I really shouldn't have said you are a 功利主義者.
However, the points or arguments you present in this video are all from the viewpoint of a 功利主義者. Again im not saying that is wrong, but such reasoning only appeal to those who are 功利主義者 in the first place. However a lot of time, people that think 眾生平等 are not utilitarians.
You are using "certain" knowledge to generalize that all you are talking about is true. I will let the audience to judge you. I will not judge you la...^^
I know a lot of PhDs who know lots of theories & don't even know how to teach. This is quoted from Mr. Siu YY. And I am glad we met one here today too^^
You are trying to tell people that if people disagree with you, then they are religious-oriented^^ This single statement alone shows us what qualities you got. Thanks for your note^^
咁do得？？？
不好意思，我完全沒有將你的言論定位在「宗教」，而是層層拆開你的思維和價值的問題。
更意想不到的是，你跟一行禪師所學到的心性，卻是如此狹隘。不斷用似是而非，撇開焦點的說法，這是道理問題，經已不是甚麼宗教問題。
如果你扯去甚麼學佛，也實在太叫人汗顏了。
How can we poor beings who live in this very world know that we are right in our "theories" and bla bla bla "analysis"?
If so, it would be like an ant, who live in a one-dimensional world, and would never understand how we human (who live in a 3-dimensional world) view/see things!!
You do not seem to know what is the genuine meaning of "眾生平等".
Please go home and read more Buddhist materials before you make speeches here.
FYI, Buddhist philosophy is not related to religion.