作者：陈西
尊敬的共和国公民：
2026年6月10日第二个“文明对话国际日”即将来临，这个由中国政府提出，得到世界上80多个国家支持的“国际日”来临，作为共和国公民，我们当然得站出来，给政府点赞的同时，并支持政府本国“文明对话国际日”项目的建设！
继首届“文明对话国际日”后，今年我们推出的主题是：促进我国公务员财务公开话题。
为什么是我国，而不是外国？
我们发现国际社会绝大多数（156个）国家都早实行公务员财务公开制度了；而作为负责任大国，有5000年文明史的本国远远落后了！中国人大至今还没有通过“国家公务员财务公开法”。
据有关资料报道，我国早有有识之士在人大会议上提出，并讨论过了，该法案至今仍冰冻在人大，是什么原因呢？
当我们期盼“公务员财务公开”法尚未盼来，却等到了5月1日开始施行的《最高人民法院 最高人民检察院关于办理贪污贿赂刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释（二）》（法释〔2026〕6号）“准贪证”的到来。
怎么良法未到，恶法却先到来呢？！
是什么原因阻止了良法的通过？！
人大在立法过程中遇到了什么难点，堵点？！
有什么卡脖子的事情，迟迟不能通过该法呢？！
良法立法受阻，恶法立法反而得到通过，这说明，单靠上层单方面立法已经成问题，我们不妨在“文明对话国际日”来讨论这些“卡脖子”的问题，全社会动员起来与上层有识之士多方互动，共同推动良法——“公务员财务公开”法案尽快落地。
故，继首届“公民对话联盟”平台活动，我们这次对话平台呼吁全社会都来对话，共同参与解决良法提案被“卡脖子”的事！ 第二届“公民对话联盟”平台发起人：
贵州贵阳公民_陈西-手机号：18198281954 （社交软件同号）
浙江杭州公民-陈树庆微信号：wxid-wmhnbocidh4k22
湖南怀化公民-唐浩铭手机：13212390018，13974518171（社交软件同号）
江西赣州公民-刘少明手机：18802016201（社交软件同号）
贵州贵阳公民-徐国庆手机：13984086628（社交软件同号）
湖北潜江公民-姚立法（13339728964）（社交软件同号）
山东德州公民-陈立勇手机：18005449982（社交软件同号）
四川成都公民-陈云飞：电话16718106764微信号：cyf1989-06-04 欢迎广大共和国公民参加第二届“公民对话联盟”活动：
从公告发出之日起，凡自愿公开留下电话号码，或微信号联系方式，或转发此信息的为“公民对话联盟”发起人，“志愿服务者”；以承担起当地“文明对话国际日”服务的工作。签名按参加先后顺序自动排名。 2026年5月20日 附陈西议论文：对话——教育的目的 笔者定义：教育是使受教育者热爱和掌握对话能力。对话是人基本的生活方式，人的各种品德和能力唯经由对话而习得而显现而巩固。对话式教育始于苏格拉底，他称自己是文明思想品德的助产士，他以对话来开拓对话者的智力；他的学生柏拉图是这种对话教育的果实，也是老师事业的继承者；所以，他的几十篇名作都以《对话》体流传下来。
造物主造万物是有限，悖论的造；或者说，万物都不可能完善，都有缺陷，是一半一半的存在；造物主规定存在者得找回对立的另一半，以弥补自己的缺陷，克服自己孤独无援无继无未来的状态。
那么，以什么为媒介？
维特根斯坦说：“语言即世界”，人类认识世界只能通过语言为媒介来掌握，人类的能力和有限性都受到语言限制。语言成为人类唯一打开自己世界天窗的钥匙；如此而来，语言会反噬人类。如何克服语言的反噬，克服被语言的禁锢、受限、孤独、贫困且自大，人天然的缺陷？
人类借助对话，或对话平台来克服不足。
哲学的本义是“爱智慧。过往最优秀的哲学家、思想家、教育家都以《对话》方式来开拓那个时代人的智性；所以，人文教育主要是经过《对话》方式来解放人的心智和培养人性。有基督教传统的国家最早扫盲启蒙教育就从读《圣经》释经的对话开始，他们的教堂区别于中土的学堂传统导致：他们没有语文课，只有对话沟通的阅读课。神学家马丁•布伯把对话看成是人克服孤独存在和原子化状态的必要条件。在他影响广泛的《我与你》一书中。他提出：对话的目的不是为了得到某种结论性东西，或表达一个人自己的观点或看法，而是在人与人之间和人与神之间建立起真正有意义生活的先决条件。
如果要定义现代民主法治国家，哈贝马斯是这样定义的：民主不是投票，而是对话讨论；法治不是讲武力，而是讲道理，人类区别于动物世界最明显的能力是讲道理。选举投票是结果，民主看重过程中的对话讨论；法治不是亮剑，法治是培养人在对话中讲道理的能力，这样就好理解法庭上“控、抗、辩”对话裁决的模式了。
但是，家文化学堂的特色认为：教育的目的不是对话，而是听话。是把受教育者驯化成听话的巨婴，懂得服从才是金。就有金句：“沉默才是金”。所以，世界给中国人一个“哑裔”的称号。
教堂与学堂的区别：一个培养人在上帝面前人人平等的对话，一个培养“君君、臣臣、父父、子子”的等级秩序。前者，在上帝面前人得认罪，承认自己的不足；方有释经、祷告、对话、交流沟通重要的过程；后者，是接受唯一正确答案，接受等级秩序的规训，顺从天命，和父母官的安排，做个“哑裔”，就不必有对话重要的过程。
学堂的传统起源于孔子。早在春秋末期，他就提出了:“以尊者为忌讳”的教育理念。他擅长祖宗崇拜，专业称为儒者，是搞祭奠业的，他十分看重社会秩序的建立。比如，在《论语》中，他也有对话，但是，他的对话是给出正确结论。他以顺从为教育目的，妄以家文化秩序的教育来解决在社会上遇到的一切问题。如，异性之间的匹配和需求都由父母官来批准配给就是一例。
他在鲁国曾是该国父母官阶层之一，其父母官思维定式认为：“秩序”是最高的社会价值。“稳定压倒一切”，社会秩序的稳定是唯一，结果，其他价值观都微不足道。而对话的教育观认为，秩序是次要，当下活着人的价值才是至高无上的，所谓秩序当是人理性对话建立起来的“自生自发秩序”。
他没有注意到：建立在“尊者”，威权家文化的秩序是一种恶性惯性的秩序。人活在这种惯性秩序中，即活在历史决定论中；人被历史决定论压迫成为了奴隶，人必然失去主体的位格；于是，导致当下活着的人失去了主角意识，只有配角意识；更无奈的意识是，它培植了人活在堕性，惯性、路径依赖中而不能自拔；最终，人因受制于惯性秩序的反噬，只能在凄凉中灭亡。
中国几千年王朝更替史是证据，当下公务员塌方式贪腐，特权者30多年都未通过“公务员财务公开”法案，并把可入罪标准提高到300万更是证据！这些证据足以证明，特权阶层已经在重蹈覆辙，陷入到历史恶性循环中，陷入到旧秩序的反噬中，等待着其自取灭亡！
大儒曾国藩就发现在“官本位”家文化下的无力感。因为，在家文化秩序下，似乎对话、讲道理、培养理性，独立思考能力都是有讳家长意志的；严重点说，都是在犯不敬不尊不孝，十恶不赦之罪。
对于巨婴来说，把一切都交给父母官搞定，有那点不好。这样，他们可省心地吃喝玩乐去旅游，可以不关心政治了!
选择题来了！
在以对话或听话为教育目的理念之间，你选择前者，还是后者？
选择前者：爱智慧、爱开放包容共和制的国家；
选择后者：爱愚蠢、爱封闭吸取性特权制国家。 2026年5月20日
编辑：Gloria Wang 校对：周敏 翻译：沈美花
Announcement No.1:International Day of Civilizational Dialogue
Author: Chen Xi
Dear Citizens of the Republic:
The second “International Day of Civilizational Dialogue” is fast approaching on June 10, 2026. As citizens of the Republic, we must certainly stand up to applaud the government and support the development of the government’s domestic “International Day of Civilizational Dialogue” initiative, which was proposed by the Chinese government and has received support from more than 80 countries around the world!
Following the inaugural “International Day of Civilizational Dialogue” this year’s theme is: Promoting Financial Transparency for Civil Servants in Our Country.
Why our country, and not foreign nations?
We have found that the vast majority (156) of countries in the international community have long implemented systems for financial transparency among civil servants; yet, as a responsible major power with a 5,000-year history of civilization, our country lags far behind! To date, the National People’s Congress has not passed the “National Civil Servant Financial Transparency Act.”
According to relevant reports, enlightened individuals in our country have long raised this issue at NPC sessions and discussed it, yet the bill remains frozen in the NPC. What is the reason for this?
While we were still waiting for the “Civil Servant Financial Disclosure Law,” we instead saw the arrival of the “Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Embezzlement and Bribery” (Fa Shi [2026] No. 6), which took effect on May 1—a document effectively serving as a “license to embezzle.”
How is it that a good law has not arrived, yet a bad law has come first?!
What is preventing the passage of this good law?!
What difficulties and bottlenecks has the NPC encountered in the legislative process?!
What is holding things up, preventing the passage of this law?!
The fact that the enactment of sound legislation is being obstructed while harmful legislation is being passed indicates that relying solely on unilateral legislation by the higher authorities has become problematic. Let us take this “International Day of Civilizational Dialogue” as an opportunity to discuss these “bottleneck” issues, mobilize the entire society to engage in multi-faceted interactions with enlightened figures in the higher echelons, and jointly push for the swift implementation of sound legislation—the “Public Servant Financial Disclosure” bill.
Therefore, following the inaugural “Citizen Dialogue Alliance” platform event, this dialogue platform calls on the entire society to engage in dialogue and jointly address the bottlenecks hindering the passage of sound legislative proposals! Initiators of the Second “Citizen Dialogue Alliance” Platform:
Citizen Chen Xi from Guiyang, Guizhou – Mobile: 18198281954 (Same number on social media)
Citizen from Hangzhou, Zhejiang – Chen Shuqing WeChat ID: wxid-wmhnbocidh4k22
Citizen from Huaihua, Hunan – Tang Haoming Mobile: 13212390018, 13974518171 (Same number on social media)
Citizen from Ganzhou, Jiangxi – Liu Shaoming Mobile: 18802016201 (Same number on social media)
Citizen from Guiyang, Guizhou – Xu Guoqing Mobile: 13984086628 (Same number on social media)
Citizen from Qianjiang, Hubei – Yao Lifu (13339728964) (Same number on social media)
Citizen from Dezhou, Shandong – Chen Liyong Mobile: 18005449982 (Same number on social media)
Citizen from Chengdu, Sichuan – Chen Yunfei: Phone 16718106764, WeChat ID: cyf1989-06-04 We welcome all citizens of the Republic to participate in the Second “Citizen Dialogue Alliance” event:
From the date of this announcement, anyone who voluntarily and publicly provides their phone number, WeChat ID, or shares this message is considered an initiator of the “Citizen Dialogue Alliance” and a “volunteer”; to undertake service duties for the local “International Day of Civilized Dialogue.
” Signatures will be automatically ranked in the order of participation. May 20, 2026 Attached: Chen Xi’s Essay: Dialogue—The Purpose of Education The author defines education as fostering in learners a love for and mastery of the art of dialogue. Dialogue is a fundamental way of life for humans; all human virtues and abilities are acquired, manifested, and consolidated solely through dialogue. Dialogue-based education began with Socrates, who called himself a midwife of civilized thought and virtue; he used dialogue to expand the intellect of his interlocutors. His student Plato was the fruit of this dialogue-based education and the heir to his teacher’s legacy; thus, his dozens of masterpieces have been passed down in the form of “Dialogues.”
The Creator fashioned all things in a finite, paradoxical manner; or, to put it another way, nothing can be perfect—everything has flaws and exists as a half. The Creator decreed that beings must seek out their opposite half to compensate for their own imperfections and overcome their state of loneliness, helplessness, and lack of continuity or future.
So, what serves as the medium?
Wittgenstein said, “Language is the world.” Human understanding of the world can only be grasped through language as a medium; human capabilities and limitations are both constrained by language. Language becomes the sole key for humanity to open the skylight of its own world; consequently, language may turn against humanity. How can we overcome this backlash of language—the confinement, limitations, loneliness, poverty, and arrogance that are inherent human flaws?
Humans rely on dialogue, or platforms for dialogue, to overcome these shortcomings.
The original meaning of philosophy is “love of wisdom.” The greatest philosophers, thinkers, and educators of the past all used the method of “dialogue” to expand the intellectual horizons of their contemporaries; therefore, humanities education primarily employs the method of “dialogue” to liberate the human mind and cultivate humanity. In countries with a Christian tradition, early literacy and enlightenment education began with dialogues centered on reading and interpreting the Bible. Their churches, distinct from the traditional schools of China, led to a system where there were no language classes, only reading classes focused on dialogue and communication. Theologian Martin Buber viewed dialogue as a necessary condition for humans to overcome solitary existence and atomization. In his widely influential book *I and Thou*, he argued that the purpose of dialogue is not to arrive at some conclusive outcome or to express one’s own views, but rather to establish the prerequisites for a truly meaningful life between people and between people and God.
If one were to define a modern democratic state governed by the rule of law, Habermas would define it as follows: democracy is not about voting, but about dialogue and discussion; the rule of law is not about force, but about reason—and the most distinctive ability that distinguishes humans from the animal world is the capacity for reason. Voting is the result; democracy values the process of dialogue and discussion. The rule of law is not about brandishing swords; it is about cultivating people’s ability to reason through dialogue. This explains the courtroom model of “prosecution, defense, and argument” leading to a verdict.
However, the distinctive philosophy of the “Family Culture Academy” holds that the purpose of education is not dialogue, but obedience. It is about taming the educated into obedient “giant babies,” where the true value lies in knowing how to obey. Hence the adage: “Silence is golden.” This is why the world has bestowed upon the Chinese the label of “the silent race.”
The distinction between the church and the school: one fosters dialogue based on the principle that all are equal before God, while the other cultivates a hierarchical order of “rulers ruling, subjects serving, fathers fathering, and sons sonning.
” In the former, people must confess their sins before God and acknowledge their shortcomings; only then can the vital processes of biblical interpretation, prayer, dialogue, and communication take place; the latter involves accepting a single correct answer, submitting to the discipline of a hierarchical order, conforming to the will of Heaven and the arrangements of local officials—becoming a “silent people”—thus eliminating the need for these vital processes of dialogue.
The tradition of the school originated with Confucius. As early as the late Spring and Autumn Period, he proposed the educational philosophy of “treating those of higher status with reverence and respect.” He was skilled in ancestor worship; professionally known as a Confucian scholar, he was engaged in the ritual industry and placed great emphasis on establishing social order. For instance, while there are dialogues in the *Analects*, his dialogues serve to arrive at the correct conclusion. He made obedience the goal of education, mistakenly attempting to resolve all societal problems through the educational framework of family-based cultural order. For example, the matching and needs of opposite-sex couples were approved and allocated by local officials.
While in the state of Lu, he was part of the ruling class, whose mindset held that “order” was the highest social value. “Stability trumps all else”; the stability of social order was the sole priority, rendering all other values insignificant. In contrast, the dialogical view of education holds that order is secondary, while the value of the living in the present is supreme; so-called order should be a “spontaneous order” established through rational human dialogue.
He failed to recognize that an order built upon a culture of “superiors” and authoritarianism is a vicious, inertial order. People living within this inertial order live under historical determinism; oppressed by this determinism, they become slaves and inevitably lose their status as autonomous agents; consequently, those living in the present lose their sense of being protagonists and are reduced to mere supporting roles; even more tragically, this fosters a mindset where people are trapped in a state of decline, inertia, and path dependence, unable to extricate themselves; ultimately, constrained by the backlash of this inertial order, they can only perish in desolation.
China’s millennia-long history of dynastic succession serves as evidence; the current widespread corruption among civil servants, the failure of the privileged class to pass a “civil servant financial disclosure” bill for over 30 years, and the raising of the criminal threshold to 3 million yuan are further proof! This evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that the privileged class is repeating past mistakes, trapped in a vicious historical cycle and the backlash of the old order, awaiting its self-inflicted demise!
The great Confucian scholar Zeng Guofan recognized the sense of powerlessness inherent in a “official-centered” family culture. For within this family-based order, dialogue, reasoned discourse, the cultivation of rationality, and independent thinking all seem to run counter to the will of the patriarch; to put it bluntly, they are acts of disrespect, disobedience, and disloyalty—crimes so heinous they are unforgivable.
For “giant babies,” what’s wrong with leaving everything to be handled by their “parental officials”? That way, they can live carefree lives of eating, drinking, partying, and traveling—without having to worry about politics!
Here comes the multiple-choice question!
Between educational philosophies that prioritize dialogue and those that prioritize obedience, which do you choose?
Choose the former: a nation that values wisdom, openness, and a republican system;
Choose the latter: a nation that values ignorance, isolation, and a system of privilege. May 20, 2026
Editor: Gloria Wang Proofreader: Zhou Min Translator: Shen Meihua
