Some people say that opening the book is beneficial, and some people say that opening the book may n

Live reading, live reading! Just don't read bad books! If only people who read books know what is good and what is bad, and can think, study and innovate in the case of opening the book and reading a wide range of books, and use it as an ideal and strive for the nation, it will be beneficial, and on the contrary, it will be useless and harmful!

Open books are not necessarily beneficial is a general term that refers to a variety of books and articles. There are all sorts of useful good books and harmful, useless books. Reading good books is naturally beneficial, but reading the wrong book is not only not beneficial, but will poison your physical and mental health.

So, opening the book is not necessarily beneficial o( -o

Explanation]: Open book: open a book, refers to reading; Benefits: Benefits. There are always benefits to reading.

From]: Jin Tao Qian's "Waiting for the Son": "When you open the book, you will happily forget to eat." ”

Syntax]: subject-predicate; as an object, a definite, a clause; It means that reading books is always beneficial.

"Open books are beneficial" is an old saying. Because it's an old saying, it's suspicious.

Why is it necessarily beneficial to open the book? The logical premise is probably nothing more than that books are a good thing. Since it's a good thing, it's always good to touch it.

This is just as plausible. But if something is good, it must be touched, or will it be good if it is touched? Ginseng is a good thing, but there are also bad things to eat, right?

Not to mention the book is not ginseng. Ginseng is a tonic, but books may not be, maybe a laxative. There are good books and bad books in the world, there are those that make people gain insight after reading, there are those that make people confused, and there are those that make people do bad things, but they are not necessarily good things, how can it be said that it is beneficial as soon as the book is opened?

Even if it's a good book, what are the benefits? Of course, it is nothing more than intellectual, inspirational, increasing knowledge, and improving self-cultivation, that is, playing the role of knowledge education, moral education, and aesthetic education. I do not deny that reading books has such a function.

The problem is that reading is more than that, and we don't necessarily have to. For example, you can also surf the Internet, and even playing mahjong can also improve your brain, or how to say that mahjong is "plane tai chi"? If this is the case, what is the difference between "opening the book is beneficial" and "rubbing hemp is beneficial"?

As for the "inspirational" function that the most moralists value, it also can't stand scrutiny, and the "ambition" of a scholar may have to be "raised" by reading, but others may not, such as Liu Bang Xiang Yu is not, "Liu Xiang didn't read at all"! Liang Bin's ** has a subcouplet: "Work with people with liver and gallbladder, and read without words."

What kind of ambition is this? But it has nothing to do with reading. In fact, "everyone has their own ambitions", how can they all rely on reading to "motivate"?

What's more, if a person's "ambition" still relies on reading books and other methods to "encourage", then the "ambition" itself is very suspicious.

Besides, is reading necessarily inspiring? I'm afraid it's hard to tell. Mr. Zhou Guoping has clouds, "playthings can also raise aspirations".

In the same way, reading books can be discouraged. There are books in the world that inspire the will, and there are books that kill the will. There are also many ways to kill the will:

There are those who are quiet, and there are those who drink as a stick, and if you don't get it, you will be given a "discouragement".

Why do you say that "open books are beneficial" when it is not necessarily beneficial, and few people doubt it? But in my opinion, there are a thousand reasons to read a book, but you can't use "beneficial" as a reason. If a person has a utilitarian purpose in advance, the book will definitely not be read, or even impossible to read.

The reason is simple: if you read only because it is beneficial, then what if it is not? Don't read it?

Love cannot be forced, nor can it be extinguished. Therefore, love is the only "legitimate" and "solid" reason for reading. In this case, why should opening the book be beneficial, and why should it be beneficial? It's better to say "open the book is fun"!

Reading is a rewarding experience..

The origin of the benefit of opening the book is that Song Taizu said: "As long as you read, there will always be benefits.""。Since then, it has become an idiom that the opening of the book is beneficial.

You may be wondering, why do you talk about this? It's simple, it's key"Total"Word.. This is saying that there will always be good, not only good.

Does the so-called bad book have some benefit of its own? As far as the benefits of reading are concerned, it is powerful enough to make people fully enlightened, change their past mistakes, and go to the bright road to success; Xiao can learn a few writing methods, a few words, and even recognize a few words. These are the benefits of reading, and there is no denying it.

Therefore, a few points can be made to argue that bad books also have some benefits:

First, as long as it is called a bad book, it will certainly affect people's character and lead them to the wrong path. But think about it, if those bad books can't resonate with readers and make people go deep into them, then what will happen like this? If the structure and layout of the book, the way of expression, the idea and description, the language and the wording, etc., are mediocre, or even average"Journal"It's not as good as a similar composition, so how can it resonate with readers? Therefore, no matter how bad it is, at least some writing methods can be learned in the so-called bad books, and no matter how bad it is, you can learn a few words. Can this be said to be unhelpful?

Second, whether it is a bad book or a good book, it is judged by whether the good of the book outweighs the harm or the harm outweighs the good. In other words, bad books are also beneficial.

Third, Lao Tzu in ancient China had a point of view: everything has its own two sides, and since bad books are harmful, then they must have their benefits.

Fourth, maybe you want to say:"Suppose there is a bad book, the content is unsightly, the article layout is completely wrong, and the article is full of sick sentences and wrong words"Until there are no merits to be found. But have you ever thought that even if such a book exists, can anyone read it?

Will you go to see it? Since I won't go to see it, then even"Uncoiled"With this premise gone, how to talk about whether opening the book is beneficial or harmful?

Fifth, although you can cite a bunch of examples of depravity, madness, and breaking the law because of reading. So what does this mean? It can only show that the person who reads the book himself is not in the right state of mind.

That's a matter of mentality, and can't be blamed on books. Can someone take a knife to cut and kill someone, can they blame the knife for being bad?

Therefore, as long as you read, it will be beneficial, whether it is big or small. So it can be pushed"Reading is a rewarding experience.. "It must be true.