愛墾APP:魯迅對寓言故事的評價～～是複雜而多層次的。他既肯定寓言作為文學形式的社會批判功能，又對其局限性有所質疑和批評。

以下是魯迅對寓言故事的一些主要觀點：

肯定寓言的批判功能

魯迅認為寓言是一種能夠藉由隱喻與象徵對現實社會進行批判的文學形式，尤其在言論受限制的時代中具有特殊價值。他自己在《野草》、《故事新編》等作品中也運用了大量寓言元素來諷刺現實。例如，《故事新編》中的〈非攻〉、〈奔月〉、〈出關〉等故事，都改寫古代神話或歷史故事來影射當時社會現象。

他曾說：「譏刺和寓言是言論受限制時的一種表現方式。」

這說明他理解寓言作為批判現實的一種策略，是文學在壓抑環境中發聲的重要方式。

批評傳統寓言的保守性與妥協性

儘管魯迅認同寓言的潛在批判力量，但他也批評一些傳統寓言（如《伊索寓言》、《中國古代寓言》）往往淪為教化與維穩的工具，內容常常服從於「教訓」與「道德」的目的，而非真正揭示社會矛盾。

他指出，這類寓言往往讓弱者順從強者、接受命運，例如《農夫與蛇》、《狼和小羊》這類故事，其實在潛意識中鞏固了壓迫秩序，而非質疑它。

轉化與創新：寓言現代化

魯迅在創作中對寓言進行現代化改寫，賦予它新的意義。他不滿足於傳統寓言的道德說教，而是透過反諷、荒誕等手法將寓言變為尖銳的社會批評工具。他的作品往往帶有深刻的反思與現代主義風格，突破了寓言原本的簡單框架。

小結：魯迅對寓言的態度可以總結為：

工具性肯定：寓言在特定環境中有批判與啟蒙的功能；

內容批判：對傳統寓言中妥協、消極的道德教訓保持警惕；

形式革新：主張改造與再創造，使寓言成為更有力的思想武器。

陳明發·寫作的遊覽

寫作是最好的旅遊。每天一張開眼就想到，會有令人驚奇的新事物在等待自己，怎不興致勃勃？

（新世紀第一個25年札記選 1.9.2002)

Writing as Journey by Dr.Tan Beng Huat

Writing is the best kind of travel.
Each morning, eyes open—
some new wonder waits,
a surprise unfolding in words.
How could I not feel
alive with it?

(From 「Notes of the First 25 Years of the New Century」 Sept.1, 2002)

A good system should suggest new areas of the search space to explore, i.e. find artefacts which we had notthought of generating before. If we accept this analogy, then Popper's criteria for evaluating theories sheds light on criteria for evaluating creative programs.

Popper sets out two criteria for a satisfactory theory (in addition to it logically entailing what it explains). Firstly it must not be ad hoc. That is, the theory (explicans) can not itself be evidence for the phenomena to be explained (explicandum), or vice versa.

For example if the explican dum is this rat is dead', then it is not enough to suggest that this rat ate poison' if the evidence for it having done so is it being now dead. There must be independent evi dence, such as the rat's stomach contains rat poison'.

The opposite of an ad hoc explanation is therefore one which is independently testable. Secondly, a theory must be rich in content. For example, a theory which explains phenomena other than the specific phenomenait was designed to explain has a much richer content, and therefore has greater value than one which is less general (the principle of universality).

Applying these criteria to creative programs, if we see a programP asthetheoryandtheset ofartefactsA we wish to generate as the phenomena to be explained, then we are in terested in the independent testability of P and the richness of its content.

A program which has been carefully tailored in order to produce very specific artefacts cannot be claimed to be a good program on the grounds that it produces those artefacts. There must be independent grounds for its value, such as also generating other valuable artefacts.

Within the programming analogy, this is clearly connected to the rich ness of content criterion; the more valuable artefacts outside of A and fewer worthless artefacts a program generates, the better that program is. It is important to note that Popper's criteria are general for all scientific theories, applying to single statement explana tions as well as all-encompassing theories.

They therefore apply to any program(including subsets of larger programs) able to generate artefacts in A. The conclusion of the anal ogy is that we should aim to make our programs as general as possible. That is, any creative program which re-invents already known artefacts should also generate a reasonable number of new, valuable, artefacts.

From:The Effect of Input Knowledge on Creativity by Simon Colton, Alison Pease, Graeme Ritchie fr. Informatics Research Report EDI-INF-RR-0055. DIVISION of INFORMATICS, Centre for Intelligent Systems and their Applications, Institute for Communicating and Collaborative Systems November 2001， Appears in Proceedings of ICCBR-2001.