Game

"You do not act (or live) up to the standard that you teach. Why do I have to follow your sayings ?" You would easily come to this conclusion after reading my blog yesterday.

Great. That's what I learn from Humphrey Appleby (in Yes, Prime Minister): we play the man, not the game. If there is a policy that (is good but) you do not want to materialise, go and find conduct problems of the man who makes such a proposal.

And this trick is not monopolised by English people. Wang Anshi (王安石) and Fan Zhongyan (范仲淹) of the Song (宋) empire fell for the same reason.

(Ironically, it was the old Chinese saying: do not abandon the words because of the man [勿因人廢言].)

You may think of course we should not give up a piece of good teaching simply because of the poor conduct of the teacher, but what about teachings on moral and ethics ?

Remind you: Linghu Chong (令狐沖) certainly did not give up the swordsman craft of Yue Buqan (岳不羣), but, more importantly, if Linghu gave up the humanistic character taught by his mentor, he would just be another Tian Boguang (田伯光).

We follow a teaching because we agree with it, not because of an adorable teacher.