士欲宣其義，必先讀其書。面對犬儒，不宜動氣：
[T]he illusion is not on the side of knowledge, it is already on the side of reality itself, of what the people are doing. What they do not know is that their social reality itself, their activity, is guided by an illusion, by a fetishistic inversion. What they overlook, what they misrecognize, is not the reality but the illusion which is structuring their reality, their real social activity. They know very well how things really are, but still they are doing it as if they did not know. The illusion is therefore double: it consists in overlooking the illusion which is structuring our real, effective relationship to reality. And this overlooked, unconscious illusion is what may be called the ideological fantasy.
If our concept of ideology remains the classic one in which the illusion is located in knowledge, then today’s society must appear post-ideological: the prevailing ideology is that of cynicism; people no longer believe in ideological truth; they do not take ideological propositions seriously. The fundamental level of ideology, however, is not of an illusion masking the real state of things but that of an (unconscious) fantasy structuring our social reality itself. And at this level, we are of course far from being post-ideological society. Cynical distance is just one way — one of many ways — to blind ourselves to the structuring power of ideological fantasy: even if we do not take things seriously, even if we keep an ironical distance, we are still doing them.
It is from this standpoint that we can account for the formula of cynical reason proposed by Sloterdijk: ‘they know very well what they are doing, but still, they are doing it’. If the illusion were on the side of knowledge, then the cynical position would really be a post-ideological position, simply a position without illusions: ‘they know what they are doing, and they are doing it’. But if the place of the illusion is in the reality of doing itself, then this formula can be read in quite another way: ‘they know that, in their activity, they are following an illusion, but still, they are doing it’.
– Slavoj Žižek, “How Did Marx Invent the Symptom?”
批判犬儒，切勿忘記寬容。
冠名，從來都是文化政治之基礎關鍵。
冠名之重要，顯見於無名之苦。
凡事沒有名號，不能言語，不談不論，必然不倫不類，不合情、不合理、不合法，猶如黑幫暗號，永遠被排拒於社會常識之外，無法思辯、論證，不可定義、曲解，難以誇張、抹黑，不能讚揚、迷信，更遑論聲討、騎劫。
名稱不難深入民心，但其所指所意卻是權勢之爭。
相同稱號，可解出語意長短；冠以同一名稱，視乎語境變異，大可興仁揚義，當然亦可助紂為虐。
權貴習慣掏空語言，玩弄冠名如以謊圓謊，最容易言過其實。共犯者瞞心昧已，輕則自曝其短，重則自誤誤人，淪為惡俗 ── 此等有名無實的惡俗雖源自冠名，不受罪於無名之空乏，卻偏偏最教人勞累氣結，不堪言狀。