《苏菲的世界》——Sophie's World中英对照 完结_派派后花园

用户中心 游戏论坛 社区服务
发帖 回复
阅读:9657 回复:37

[Novel] 《苏菲的世界》——Sophie's World中英对照 完结

刷新数据 楼层直达
暮辞朝

ZxID:15103679


等级: 内阁元老
配偶: 清风雅乐
这一段开心的日子请你勿忘
举报 只看楼主 使用道具 楼主   发表于: 2013-10-25 0

  本书以小说的形式,通过一名哲学导师向一个叫苏菲的女孩传授哲学知识的经过,揭示了西方哲学发展的历程。由前苏格拉底时代到萨特,以及亚里士多德、笛卡尔、黑格尔等人的思想都通过作者生动的笔触跃然纸上,并配以当时的历史背景加以解释,引人入胜。评论家认为,对于那些从未读过哲学课程的人而言,此书是最为合适的入门书,而对于那些以往读过一些哲学而已忘得一干二净的人士,也可起到温故知新的作用。
  14岁的少女苏菲某天放学回家,收到了神秘的一封信——“你是谁?世界从哪里来?”
  从这一天开始,苏菲不断接到一些极不寻常的来信,世界像谜团一般在她眼底展开。
  在一位神秘导师的指引下,苏菲开始思索从古希腊到康德,从祁克果到弗洛伊德等各位大师所思考的根本问题。
  她运用少女天生的悟性与后天知识,企图解开这些谜团。然而,魔镜、少校的小屋、黎巴嫩寄来给席德明信片、会说话的汉密士、叫她席德的艾伯特、写着生日祝福的香蕉皮、现实出现的梦中的金十字架、捡到的10元硬币……接迥而至的奇闻怪事让苏菲一步步走下去。事实真相远比她所想的更怪异、 更离奇……
  《苏菲的世界》,即是智慧的世界,也是梦的世界。它将会唤醒每个人内心深处对生命的赞叹与对人生终极意义的关怀和好奇。



[ 此帖被喻然末年在2013-10-28 16:55重新编辑 ]
本帖最近评分记录: 5 条评分 派派币 +40
暮辞朝

ZxID:15103679


等级: 内阁元老
配偶: 清风雅乐
这一段开心的日子请你勿忘
举报 只看该作者 沙发   发表于: 2013-10-25 0
英文原文
THE GARDEN OF EDEN

at some point something must have come from nothing

Sophie Amundsen was on her way home from school. She had walked the first part of the way with Joanna. They had been discussing robots. Joanna thought the human brain was like an advanced computer. Sophie was not certain she agreed. Surely a person was more than a piece of hardware?

When they got to the supermarket they went their separate ways. Sophie lived on the outskirts of a sprawling suburb and had almost twice as far to school as Joanna. There were no other houses beyond her garden, which made it seem as if her house lay at the end of the world. This was where the woods began.

She turned the corner into Clover Close. At the end of the road there was a sharp bend, known as Captain's Bend. People seldom went that way except on the weekend.

It was early May. In some of the gardens the fruit trees were encircled with dense clusters of daffodils. The birches were already in pale green leaf.

It was extraordinary how everything burst forth at this time of year! What made this great mass of green vegetation come welling up from the dead earth as soon as it got warm and the last traces of snow disappeared?

As Sophie opened her garden gate, she looked in the mailbox. There was usually a lot of junk mail and a few big envelopes for her mother, a pile to dump on the kitchen table before she went up to her room to start her homework.

From time to time there would be a few letters from the bank for her father, but then he was not a normal father. Sophie's father was the captain of a big oil tanker, and was away for most of the year. During the few weeks at a time when he was at home, he would shuffle around the house making it nice and cozy for Sophie and her mother. But when he was at sea he could seem very distant.

There was only one letter in the mailbox--and it was for Sophie. The white envelope read: "Sophie Amundsen, 3 Clover Close." That was all; it did not say who it was from. There was no stamp on it either.

As soon as Sophie had closed the gate behind her she opened the envelope. It contained only a slip of paper no bigger than the envelope. It read: Who are you?

Nothing else, only the three words, written by hand, and followed by a large question mark.

She looked at the envelope again. The letter was definitely for her. Who could have dropped it in the mailbox?

Sophie let herself quickly into the red house. As always, her cat Sherekan managed to slink out of the bushes, jump onto the front step, and slip in through the door before she closed it behind her.

Whenever Sophie's mother was in a bad mood, she would call the house they lived in a menagerie. A menagerie was a collection of animals. Sophie certainly had one and was quite happy with it. It had begun with the three goldfish, Goldtop, Red Ridinghood, and Black Jack. Next she got two budgerigars called Smitt and Smule, then Govinda the tortoise, and finally the marmalade cat Sherekan. They had all been given to her to make up for the fact that her mother never got home from work until late in the afternoon and her father was away so much, sailing all over the world.

Sophie slung her schoolbag on the floor and put a bowl of cat food out for Sherekan. Then she sat down on a kitchen stool with the mysterious letter in her hand.

Who are you?

She had no idea. She was Sophie Amundsen, of course, but who was that? She had not really figured that out--yet.

What if she had been given a different name? Anne Knutsen, for instance. Would she then have been someone else?

She suddenly remembered that Dad had originally wanted her to be called Lillemor. Sophie tried to imagine herself shaking hands and introducing herself as Lillemor Amundsen, but it seemed all wrong. It was someone else who kept introducing herself.

She jumped up and went into the bathroom with the strange letter in her hand. She stood in front of the mirror and stared into her own eyes.

"I am Sophie Amundsen," she said.

The girl in the mirror did not react with as much as a twitch. Whatever Sophie did, she did exactly the same. Sophie tried to beat her reflection to it with a lightning movement but the other girl was just as fast.

"Who are you?" Sophie asked.

She received no response to this either, but felt a momentary confusion as to whether it was she or her reflection who had asked the question.

Sophie pressed her index finger to the nose in the mirror and said, "You are me."

As she got no answer to this, she turned the sentence around and said, "I am you."

Sophie Amundsen was often dissatisfied with her appearance. She was frequently told that she had beautiful almond-shaped eyes, but that was probably just something people said because her nose was too small and her mouth was a bit too big. And her ears were much too close to her eyes. Worst of all was her straight hair, which it was impossible to do anything with. Sometimes her father would stroke her hair and call her "the girl with the flaxen hair," after a piece of music by Claude Debussy. It was all right for him, he was not condemned to living with this straight dark hair. Neither mousse nor styling gel had the slightest effect on Sophie's hair. Sometimes she thought she was so ugly that she wondered if she was malformed at birth. Her mother always went on about her difficult labor. But was that really what determined how you looked?

Wasn't it odd that she didn't know who she was? And wasn't it unreasonable that she hadn't been allowed to have any say in what she would look like? Her looks had just been dumped on her. She could choose her own friends, but she certainly hadn't chosen herself. She had not even chosen to be a human being.

What was a human being?

Sophie looked up at the girl in the mirror again.

"I think I'll go upstairs and do my biology homework," she said, almost apologetically. Once she was out in the hall, she thought, No, I'd rather go out in the garden.

"Kitty, kitty, kitty!"

Sophie chased the cat out onto the doorstep and closed the front door behind her.

As she stood outside on the gravel path with the mysterious letter in her hand, the strangest feeling came over her. She felt like a doll that had suddenly been brought to life by the wave of a magic wand.

Wasn't it extraordinary to be in the world right now, wandering around in a wonderful adventure!

Sherekan sprang lightly across the gravel and slid into a dense clump of red-currant bushes. A live cat, vibrant with energy from its white whiskers to the twitching tail at the end of its sleek body. It was here in the garden too, but hardly aware of it in the same way as Sophie.

As Sophie started to think about being alive, she began to realize that she would not be alive forever. I am in the world now, she thought, but one day I shall be gone.

Was there a life after death? This was another question the cat was blissfully unaware of.

It was not long since Sophie's grandmother had died. For more than six months Sophie had missed her every single day. How unfair that life had to end!

Sophie stood on the gravel path, thinking. She tried to think extra hard about being alive so as to forget that she would not be alive forever. But it was impossible. As soon as she concentrated on being alive now, the thought of dying also came into her mind. The same thing happened the other way around: only by conjuring up an intense feeling of one day being dead could she appreciate how terribly good it was to be alive. It was like two sides of a coin that she kept turning over and over. And the bigger and clearer one side of the coin became, the bigger and clearer the other side became too.

You can't experience being alive without realizing that you have to die, she thought. But it's just as impossible to realize you have to die without thinking how incredibly amazing it is to be alive.

Sophie remembered Granny saying something like that the day the doctor told her she was ill. "I never realized how rich life was until now," she said.

How tragic that most people had to get ill before they understood what a gift it was to be alive. Or else they had to find a mysterious letter in the mailbox!

Perhaps she should go and see if any more letters had arrived. Sophie hurried to the gate and looked inside the green mailbox. She was startled to find that it contained another white envelope, exactly like the first. But the mailbox had definitely been empty when she took the first envelope! This envelope had her name on it as well. She tore it open and fished out a note the same size as the first one.

Where does the world come from? it said.

I don't know, Sophie thought. Surely nobody really knows. And yet--Sophie thought it was a fair question. For the first time in her life she felt it wasn't right to live in the world without at least inquiring where it came from.

The mysterious letters had made Sophie's head spin. She decided to go and sit in the den.

The den was Sophie's top secret hiding place. It was where she went when she was terribly angry, terribly miserable, or terribly happy. Today she was simply confused.

***

The red house was surrounded by a large garden with lots of flowerbeds, fruit bushes, fruit trees of different kinds, a spacious lawn with a glider and a little gazebo that Granddad had built for Granny when she lost their first child a few weeks after it was born. The child's name was Marie. On her gravestone were the words: "Little Marie to us came, greeted us, and left again."

Down in a corner of the garden behind all the raspberry bushes was a dense thicket where neither flowers nor berries would grow. Actually, it was an old hedge that had once marked the boundary to the woods, but because nobody had trimmed it for the last twenty years it had grown into a tangled and impenetrable mass. Granny used to say the hedge made it harder for the foxes to take the chickens during the war, when the chickens had free range of the garden.

To everyone but Sophie, the old hedge was just as useless as the rabbit hutches at the other end of the garden. But that was only because they hadn't discovered Sophie's secret.

Sophie had known about the little hole in the hedge for as long as she could remember. When she crawled through it she came into a large cavity between the bushes. It was like a little house. She knew nobody would find her there.

Clutching the two envelopes in her hand, Sophie ran through the garden, crouched down on all fours, and wormed her way through the hedge. The den was almost high enough for her to stand upright, but today she sat down on a clump of gnarled roots. From there she could look out through tiny peepholes between the twigs and leaves. Although none of the holes was bigger than a small coin, she had a good view of the whole garden. When she was little she used to think it was fun to watch her mother and father searching for her among the trees.

Sophie had always thought the garden was a world of its own. Each time she heard about the Garden of Eden in the Bible it reminded her of sitting here in the den, surveying her own little paradise.

Where does the world come from?

She hadn't the faintest idea. Sophie knew that the world was only a small planet in space. But where did space come from?

It was possible that space had always existed, in which case she would not also need to figure out where it came from. But could anything have always existed? Something deep down inside her protested at the idea. Surely everything that exists must have had a beginning? So space must sometime have been created out of something else.

But if space had come from something else, then that something else must also have come from something. Sophie felt she was only deferring the problem. At some point, something must have come from nothing. But was that possible? Wasn't that just as impossible as the idea that the world had always existed?

They had learned at school that God created the world. Sophie tried to console herself with the thought that this was probably the best solution to the whole problem. But then she started to think again. She could accept that God had created space, but what about God himself? Had he created himself out of nothing? Again there was something deep down inside her that protested. Even though God could create all kinds of things, he could hardly create himself before he had a "self" to create with. So there was only one possibility left: God had always existed. But she had already rejected that possibility! Everything that existed had to have a beginning.

Oh, drat!

She opened the two envelopes again.

Who are you?

Where does the world come from?

What annoying questions! And anyway where did the letters come from? That was just as mysterious, almost.

Who had jolted Sophie out of her everyday existence and suddenly brought her face to face with the great riddles of the universe?

For the third time Sophie went to the mailbox. The mailman had just delivered the day's mail. Sophie fished out a bulky pile of junk mail, periodicals, and a couple of letters for her mother. There was also a postcard of a tropical beach. She turned the card over. It had a Nor-wegian stamp on it and was postmarked "UN Battalion." Could it be from Dad? But wasn't he in a completely different place? It wasn't his handwriting either.

Sophie felt her pulse quicken a little as she saw who the postcard was addressed to: "Hilde Moller Knag, c/o Sophie Amundsen, 3 Clover Close ..." The rest of the address was correct. The card read:

Dear Hilde, Happy 15th birthday! As I'm sure you'll understand, I want to give you a present that will help you grow. Forgive me for sending the card c/o Sophie. It was the easiest way. Love from Dad.

Sophie raced back to the house and into the kitchen. Her mind was in a turmoil. Who was this "Hilde," whose fifteenth birthday was just a month before her own?

Sophie got out the telephone book. There were a lot of people called Moller, and quite a few called Knag. But there was nobody in the entire directory called Moller Knag.

She examined the mysterious card again. It certainly seemed genuine enough; it had a stamp and a postmark.

Why would a father send a birthday card to Sophie's address when it was quite obviously intended to go somewhere else? What kind of father would cheat his own daughter of a birthday card by purposely sending it astray? How could it be "the easiest way"? And above all, how was she supposed to trace this Hilde person?

So now Sophie had another problem to worry about. She tried to get her thoughts in order:

This afternoon, in the space of two short hours, she had been presented with three problems. The first problem was who had put the two white envelopes in her mailbox. The second was the difficult questions these letters contained. The third problem was who Hilde Moller Knag could be, and why Sophie had been sent her birthday card. She was sure that the three problems were interconnected in some way. They had to be, because until today she had lived a perfectly ordinary life.






中文翻译
伊甸园
   苏菲放学回家了。有一段路她和乔安同行,她们谈着有关机器人的问题。乔安认为人的脑子就像一部很先进的电脑,这点苏菲并不太赞同。她想:人应该不只是一台机器吧.她们走到超市那儿就分手了。苏菲住在市郊,那一带面积辽阔,花木扶疏。苏菲家位于外围,走到学校的距离是乔安家的一倍,附近除了她家的园子之外,没有其他住家,因此看起来她们仿佛住在世界尽头似的。再过去,就是森林了。
   苏菲转了个弯,走到苜蓿巷路上。路尽头有一个急转弯,人们称之为“船长弯”。除了周六、周日的时候,人们很少打这儿经过。
   正是五月初的时节。有些人家的园子里,水仙花已经一丛丛开满了果树的四周,赤杨树也已经长出了嫩绿的叶子。
   每年到这个时节,万物总是充满了生机。这岂不是一件奇妙的事吗?当天气变暖,积雪融尽时,千千万万的花草树木便陡地自荒枯的大地上生长起来了。这是什么力量造成的呢?苏菲打开花园的门时,看了看信箱。里面通常有许多垃圾邮件和一些写给她妈妈的大信封。她总是把它们堆在厨房的桌子上,然后走上楼到房间做功课。
   偶尔,也会有一些银行寄给她爸爸的信。不过,苏菲的爸爸跟别人不太一样。他是一艘大油轮的船长,几乎一年到头都在外面。
   难得有几个星期在家时,他会上上下下细心打点,为苏菲母女俩把房子整理得漂亮舒适。不过,当他出海后却显得理他们遥远无比。
   今天,信箱里却只有一封信,而且是写给苏菲的。信封上写着:“苜蓿路三号,苏菲收”。只此而已,没有写寄信人的名字,也没贴邮票。
   苏菲随手把门带上后,便拆开了信封。里面只有一小张约莫跟信封一样大小的纸,上面写着:你是谁?除此之外,什么也没有。没有问候的话,也没有回信地址,只有这三个手写的字,后面是一个大大的问号。
   苏菲再看看信封。没错,信是写给她的。但又是谁把它放在信箱里的呢?苏菲快步走进她家那栋漆成红色的房子里。当她正要把房门带上时,她的猫咪雪儿一如往常般悄悄自树丛中走出,跳到门前的台阶上,一溜烟就钻了进来。
   “猫咪,猫咪,猫咪!”你是谁苏菲的妈妈心情不好时,总是把他们家称为“动物园”。事实上,苏菲也的确养了许多心爱的动物。一开始时是三只金鱼:金冠、小红帽和黑水手。然后她又养了两只鹦哥,名叫史密特和史穆尔,然后是名叫葛文的乌龟,最后则是猫咪雪儿。这些都是爸妈买给她作伴的。因为妈妈总是很晚才下班回家,而爸爸又常航行四海,很伊旬田苏菲把书包丢在地板上,为雪儿盛了一碗猫食。然后她便坐在厨房的高脚椅上,手中仍拿着那封神秘的信。
   你是谁?她怎么会知道?不用说,她的名字叫苏菲,但那个叫做苏菲的人又是谁呢?她还没有想出来。
   如果她取了另外一个名字呢?比方说,如果她叫做安妮的话,她会不会变成别人?这使她想起爸爸原本要将她取名为莉莉。她试着想象自己与别人握手,并且介绍自己名叫莉莉的情景,但却觉得好像很不对劲,像是别人在自我介绍一般。
   她跳起来,走进浴室,手里拿着那封奇怪的信。她站在镜子前面,凝视着自己,的眼睛。“我的名字叫莉莉。”她说。
   镜中的女孩却连眼睛也不眨一下。无论苏菲做什么,她都依样画葫芦。苏菲飞快地做了一个动作,想使镜中的影像追赶不及,但那个女孩却和她一般的敏捷。
   “你是谁?”苏菲问。
   镜中人也不回答。有一刹那,她觉得迷惑,弄不清刚才问问题的到底是她,还是镜中的影像。
   苏菲用食指点着镜中的鼻子,说:“你是我。”对方依旧没有反应。于是她将句子颠倒过来,说:“我是你。”苏菲对自己的长相常常不太满意。时常有人对她说她那一双杏眼很漂亮,但这可能只是因为她的鼻子太小,嘴巴有点太大的缘故。还有,她的耳朵也太靠近眼睛了。最糟糕的是她有一头直发,简直没办法打扮。有时她的爸爸在听完一首德彪西的曲子之后会摸摸她的头发,叫她:“亚麻色头发的女孩。”(编按:为德彪西钢琴“前奏曲”之曲名)对他来说,这当然没有什么不好,因为这头直板板的深色头发不是长在他的头上,他毋需忍受那种感觉。不管泡沫胶或造型发胶都无济于事。有时她觉得自己好丑,一定是出生时变了形的缘故。以前妈妈总是念叨她当年生苏菲时难产的情况,不过,难道这样就可以决定一个人的长相吗?她居然不知道自己是谁,这不是太奇怪了吗?她也没有一点权利选择自己的长相,这不是太不合理了吗?这些事情都是她不得不接受的。也许她可以选择交什么朋友,但却不能选择自己要成为什么人。她甚至不曾选择要做人。
   人是什么?她再度抬起头,看看镜中的女孩。
   “我要上楼去做生物课的作业了。”她说,语气中几乎有些歉意。她很快走到了走廊。一到这儿,她想:“不,我还是到花园去好了。”“猫咪!猫咪!猫咪!”苏菲追猫追到门阶上,并且随手关上了前门。•当她拿着那封神秘的信,站在花园中的石子路上时,那种奇怪的感觉又浮现了。她觉得自己好像一个在仙子的魔棒挥舞之下,突然被赋予了生命的玩具娃娃。她现在能够在这个世界上四处漫游,从事奇妙的探险,这不是一件很不寻常的事吗?雪儿轻巧地跳过石子路,滑进了浓密的红醋栗树丛中。它是一只活泼的猫,毛色光滑,全身上下从白色的胡须到左右摇动的尾巴都充满了蓬勃的生气。它此刻也在这园子中,但却未像苏菲一样意识到这件事实。
   当苏菲开始思考有关活着这件事时,她也开始意识到她不会永远活着。
   她想:“我现在是活在这世上,但有一天我会死去。”人死之后还会有生命吗?这个问题猫咪也不会去想。这倒是它的福气。
   苏菲的祖母不久前才去世。有六个多月的时间,苏菲天天都想念她。生命为何要结束呢?这是多么不公平呀!苏菲站在石子路上想着。她努力思考活着的意义,好让自己忘掉她不会永远活着这件事。然而,这实在不太可能。现在,只要她一专心思索活着这件事,脑海中便会马上浮现死亡的念头。反过来说也是如此:唯有清晰地意识到有一天她终将死去,她才能够体会活在世上是多么美好。这两件事就像钱币的正反两面,被她不断翻来转去,当一面变得更大、更清晰时,另外一面也随之变得大而清晰。生与死正是一枚钱币的正反两面。
   “如果你没有意识到人终将死去,就不能体会活着的滋味。”她想。然而,同样的,如果你不认为活着是多么奇妙而不可思议的事时,你也无法体认你必须要死去的事实。
   苏菲记得那天医生说告诉祖母她生病了时,祖母说过同样的话。她说:“现在我才体认到生命是何等可贵。”大多数人总是要等到生病后才了解,能够活着是何等的福气。
   这是多么悲哀的事!或许他们也应该在信箱里发现一封神秘的来信吧!也许她应该去看看是否有别的信。
   苏菲匆匆忙忙走到花园门口,查看了一下那绿色的信箱,她很惊讶的发现里面居然有另外一封信,与第一封一模一样。她拿走第一封信时,里面明明是空的呀!这封信上面也写着她的名字。她将它拆开,拿出一张与第一封信一样大小的便条纸。
   纸上写着:世界从何而来?苏菲想:“我不知道。”不用说,没有人真正知道。不过苏菲认为这个问题的确是应该问的。她生平第一次觉得生在这世界上却连“世界从何而来”这样的问题也不问一问,实在是很不恭敬。
   这两封神秘的信把苏菲弄得脑袋发昏。她决定到她的老地方去坐下来。这个老地方是苏菲最秘密的藏身之处。当她非常愤怒、悲伤或快乐时,她总会来到这儿。而今天,苏菲来此的理由却是因为她感到困惑。
   苏菲的困惑这栋红房子坐落在一个很大的园子中。园里有很多花圃、各式各样的果树,以及一片广阔的草坪,上面有一架沙发式的秋千与一座小小的凉亭。这凉亭是奶奶的第一个孩子在出生几周便夭折后,爷爷为奶奶兴建的。孩子的名字叫做玛莉。她的墓碑上写着:“小小玛莉来到人间,惊鸿一瞥魂归高天”。
   在花园的一角,那些术莓树丛后面有一片花草果树不生的浓密灌木林。事实上,那儿原本是一行生长多年的树篱,一度是森林的分界线。然而由于过去二十年来未经修剪,如今已经长成一大片,枝叶纠结,难以穿越。奶奶以前常说战争期间这道树篱使得那些在园中放养的鸡比较不容易被狐狸捉去。
   如今,除了苏菲以外,大家都认为这行老树篱就像园子另一边那个兔笼子一般,没有什么用处。但这全是因为他们浑然不知苏菲的秘密的缘故。
   自从解事以来,苏菲就知道树篱中有个小洞。她爬过那个小洞,就置身于灌木丛中的一个大洞穴中。这个洞穴就像一座小小的房子。她知道当她在那儿时,没有人可以找到•她。
   手里紧紧握着那两封信,苏菲跑过花园,而后整个人趴下来,钻进树篱中。里面的高度差不多勉强可以让她站起来,但她今天只是坐在一堆纠结的树根上。她可以从这里透过枝桠与树叶之间的隙缝向外张望。虽然没有一个隙缝比一枚小钱币大,但她仍然可以清楚地看见整座花园。当她还小时,常躲在这儿,看着爸妈在树丛间找她,觉得很好玩。
   苏菲一直认为这个花园自成一个世界。每一次她听到圣经上有关伊甸园的事时,她就觉得自己好像坐在她的小天地,观察属于她的小小乐园一般。
   世界从何而来?她一点也不知道。她知道这个世界只不过是太空中一个小小的星球。然而,太空又是打哪儿来的呢?很可能太空是早就存在的。如果这样,她就不需要去想它是从哪里来了。但一个东西有可能原来就存在吗?她内心深处并不赞成这样的看法。现存的每一件事物必然都曾经有个开始吧?因此,太空一定是在某个时刻由另外一样东西造成的。
   不过,如果太空是由某样东西变成的,那么,那样东西必然也是由另外一样东西变成的。苏菲觉得自己只不过是把问题向后拖延罢了。在某一时刻,事物必然曾经从无到有。然而,这可能吗?这不就像世界一直存在的看法一样不可思议吗?他们在学校曾经读到世界是由上帝创造的。现在苏菲试图安慰自己,心想这也许是整件事最好的答案吧。不过,她又再度开始思索。她可以接受上帝创造太空的说法,不过上帝又是谁创造的呢?是它自己从无中生有,创造出它自己吗?苏菲内心深处并不以为然。即使上帝创造了万物,它也无法创造出它自己,因为那时它自己并不存在呀。因此,只剩下一个可能性了:上帝是一直都存在的。然而苏菲已经否认这种可能性了,已经存在的万事万物必然有个开端的。
   哦!这个问题真是烦死人了她再度拆开那两封信。
   你是谁?世界从何而来?什么烂问题嘛!再说,这些信又是打哪儿来的呢?这件事几乎和这两个问题一样,是个谜。
   是谁给苏菲这样一记当头棒喝,使她突然脱离了日常生活,面对这样一个宇宙的大谜题7.苏菲再度走到信箱前。这已经是第三次了。邮差刚刚送完今天的信。苏菲拿出了一大堆垃圾邮件、期刊以及两三封写给妈妈的信。除此之外,还有一张风景明信片,上面印着热带海滩的景象。她把卡片翻过来,上面贴着挪威的邮票,并盖着“联合国部队”的邮戳。会是爸爸寄来的吗?可是爸爸不在这个地方呀1况且笔迹也当她看到收信人的名字时,不觉心跳微微加速。上面写着:“请苜蓿巷三号苏菲转交席德……”剩下的地址倒是正确的。卡片上写着:亲爱的席德:你满十五岁了,生日快乐!我想你会明白,我希望给你一样能帮助你成长的生日礼物。原谅我请苏菲代转运张卡片,因为这样最方便。’爱你的老爸苏菲快步走回屋子,进入厨房。此刻她的思绪一团混乱。
   这个席德是谁?她的十五岁生日居然只比苏菲早了一个月。
   她去客厅拿了电话簿来查。有许多人姓袭,也有不少人姓习,但就是没有人姓席。
   她再度审视这张神秘的卡片。上面有邮票也有邮戳,因此毫无疑问,这不是一封伪造的信。
   怎么会有父亲把生日卡寄到苏菲家?这明明不是给她的呀!什么样的父亲会故意把信寄到别人家,让女儿收不到生日卡呢?为什么他说这是“最方便”的呢?更何况,苏菲要怎样才能找到这个名叫席德的人?现在,苏菲又有问题要烦恼了。她试着将思绪做一番整理:今天下午,在短短的两个小时之内,她面临了三个问题。第一个是谁把那两个白色的信封放在她的信箱内,第二个是那两封信提出的难题,第三个则是这个席德是谁。她的生日卡为何会寄到苏菲家?苏菲相信这三个问题之间必然有所关联。一定是这样没错,因为直到今天以前,她的生活都跟平常人没有两样。





[ 此帖被喻然末年在2013-10-25 13:29重新编辑 ]
暮辞朝

ZxID:15103679


等级: 内阁元老
配偶: 清风雅乐
这一段开心的日子请你勿忘
举报 只看该作者 板凳   发表于: 2013-10-25 0
英文原文
The Top Hat

 the only thing we require to be good philosophers is the faculty of wonder...

Sophie was sure she would hear from the anonymous letter writer again. She decided not to tell anyone about the letters for the time being.

At school she had trouble concentrating on what the teachers said. They seemed to talk only about unimportant things. Why couldn't they talk about what a human being is--or about what the world is and how it came into being?

For the first time she began to feel that at school as well as everywhere else people were only concerned with trivialities. There were major problems that needed to be solved.

Did anybody have answers to these questions? Sophie felt that thinking about them was more important than memorizing irregular verbs.

When the bell rang after the last class, she left the school so fast that Joanna had to run to catch up with her.

After a while Joanna said, "Do you want to play cards this evening?"

Sophie shrugged her shoulders.

"I'm not that interested in card games any more."

Joanna looked surprised.

"You're not? Let's play badminton then."

Sophie stared down at the pavement--then up at her friend.

"I don't think I'm that interested in badminton either."

"You're kidding!"

Sophie noticed the touch of bitterness in Joanna's tone.

"Do you mind telling me what's suddenly so important?"

Sophie just shook her head. "It's ... it's a secret."

"Yuck! You're probably in love!"

The two girls walked on for a while without saying anything. When they got to the soccer field Joanna said, "I'm going across the field."

Across the field! It was the quickest way for Joanna, but she only went that way when she had to hurry home in time for visitors or a dental appointment.

Sophie regretted having been mean to her. But what else could she have said? That she had suddenly become so engrossed in who she was and where the world came from that she had no time to play badminton? Would Joanna have understood?

Why was it so difficult to be absorbed in the most vital and, in a way, the most natural of all questions?

She felt her heart beating faster as she opened the mailbox. At first she found only a letter from the bank and some big brown envelopes for her mother. Darn! Sophie had been looking forward to getting another letter from the unknown sender.

As she closed the gate behind her she noticed her own name on one of the big envelopes. Turning it over, she saw written on the back: "Course in Philosophy. Handle with care."

Sophie ran up the gravel path and flung her schoolbag onto the step. Stuffing the other letters under the doormat, she ran around into the back garden and sought refuge in the den. This was the only place to open the big letter.

Sherekan came jumping after her but Sophie had to put up with that. She knew the cat would not give her away.

Inside the envelope there were three typewritten pages held together with a paper clip. Sophie began to read.

WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?

Dear Sophie,

Lots of people have hobbies. Some people collect old coins or foreign stamps, some do needlework, others spend most of their spare time on a particular sport.

A lot of people enjoy reading. But reading tastes differ widely. Some people only read newspapers or comics, some like reading novels, while others prefer books on astronomy, wildlife, or technological discoveries.

If I happen to be interested in horses or precious stones, I cannot expect everyone else to share my enthusiasm. If I watch all the sports programs on TV with great pleasure, I must put up with the fact that other people find sports boring.

Is there nothing that interests us all? Is there nothing that concerns everyone--no matter who they are or where they live in the world? Yes, dear Sophie, there are questions that certainly should interest everyone. They are precisely the questions this course is about.

What is the most important thing in life? If we ask someone living on the edge of starvation, the answer is food. If we ask someone dying of cold, the answer is warmth. If we put the same question to someone who feels lonely and isolated, the answer will probably be the company of other people.

But when these basic needs have been satisfied--will there still be something that everybody needs? Philosophers think so. They believe that man cannot live by bread alone. Of course everyone needs food. And everyone needs love and care. But there is something else--apart from that--which everyone needs, and that is to figure out who we are and why we are here.

Being interested in why we are here is not a "casual" interest like collecting stamps. People who ask such questions are taking part in a debate that has gone on as long as man has lived on this planet. How the universe, the earth, and life came into being is a bigger and more important question than who won the most gold medals in the last Olympics.

The best way of approaching philosophy is to ask a few philosophical questions:

How was the world created? Is there any will or meaning behind what happens? Is there a life after death? How can we answer these questions? And most important, how ought we to live? People have been asking these questions throughout the ages. We know of no culture which has not concerned itself with what man is and where the world came from.

Basically there are not many philosophical questions to ask. We have already asked some of the most important ones. But history presents us with many different answers to each question. So it is easier to ask philosophical questions than to answer them.

Today as well each individual has to discover his own answer to these same questions. You cannot find out whether there is a God or whether there is life after death by looking in an encyclopedia. Nor does the encyclopedia tell us how we ought to live. However, reading what other people have believed can help us formulate our own view of life.

Philosophers' search for the truth resembles a detective story. Some think Andersen was the murderer, others think it was Nielsen or Jensen. The police are sometimes able to solve a real crime. But it is equally possible that they never get to the bottom of it, although there is a solution somewhere. So even if it is difficult to answer a question, there may be one--and only one--right answer. Either there is a kind of existence after death--or there is not.

A lot of age-old enigmas have now been explained by science. What the dark side of the moon looks like was once shrouded in mystery. It was not the kind of thing that could be solved by discussion, it was left to the imagination of the individual. But today we know exactly what the dark side of the moon looks like, and no one can "believe" any longer in the Man in the Moon, or that the moon is made of green cheese.

A Greek philosopher who lived more than two thousand years ago believed that philosophy had its origin in man's sense of wonder. Man thought it was so astonishing to be alive that philosophical questions arose of their own accord.

It is like watching a magic trick. We cannot understand how it is done. So we ask: how can the magician change a couple of white silk scarves into a live rabbit?

A lot of people experience the world with the same incredulity as when a magician suddenly pulls a rabbit out of a hat which has just been shown to them empty.

In the case of the rabbit, we know the magician has tricked us. What we would like to know is just how he did it. But when it comes to the world it's somewhat different. We know that the world is not all sleight of hand and deception because here we are in it, we are part of it. Actually, we are the white rabbit being pulled out of the hat. The only difference between us and the white rabbit is that the rabbit does not realize it is taking part in a magic trick. Unlike us. We feel we are part of something mysterious and we would like to know how it all works.

P.S. As far as the white rabbit is concerned, it might be better to compare it with the whole universe. We who live here are microscopic insects existing deep down in the rabbit's fur. But philosophers are always trying to climb up the fine hairs of the fur in order to stare right into the magician's eyes.

Are you still there, Sophie? To be continued . . .

Sophie was completely exhausted. Still there? She could not even remember if she had taken the time to breathe while she read.

Who had brought this letter? It couldn't be the same person who had sent the birthday card to Hilde Moller Knag because that card had both a stamp and a postmark. The brown envelope had been delivered by hand to the mailbox exactly like the two white ones.

Sophie looked at her watch. It was a quarter to three. Her mother would not be home from work for over two hours.

Sophie crawled out into the garden again and ran to the mailbox. Perhaps there was another letter.

She found one more brown envelope with her name on it. This time she looked all around but there was nobody in sight. Sophie ran to the edge of the woods and looked down the path.

No one was there. Suddenly she thought she heard a twig snap deep in the woods. But she was not completely sure, and anyway it would be pointless to chase after someone who was determined to get away.

Sophie let herself into the house. She ran upstairs to her room and took out a big cookie tin full of pretty stones. She emptied the stones onto the floor and put both large envelopes into the tin. Then she hurried out into the garden again, holding the tin securely with both hands. Before she went she put some food out for Sherekan.

"Kitty, kitty, kitty!"

Once back in the den she opened the second brown envelope and drew out the new typewritten pages. She began to read.

A STRANGE CREATURE

Hello again! As you see, this short course in philosophy will come in handy-sized portions. Here are a few more introductory remarks:

Did I say that the only thing we require to be good philosophers is the faculty of wonder? If I did not, I say it now: THE ONLY THING WE REQUIRE TO BE GOOD PHILOSOPHERS IS THE FACULTY OF WONDER.

Babies have this faculty. That is not surprising. After a few short months in the womb they slip out into a brand-new reality. But as they grow up the faculty of wonder seems to diminish. Why is this? Do you know?

If a newborn baby could talk, it would probably say something about what an extraordinary world it had come into. We see how it looks around and reaches out in curiosity to everything it sees.

As words are gradually acquired, the child looks up and says "Bow-wow" every time it sees a dog. It jumps up and down in its stroller, waving its arms: "Bow-wow! Bow-wow!" We who are older and wiser may feel somewhat exhausted by the child's enthusiasm. "All right, all right, it's a bow-wow," we say, unimpressed. "Please sit still." We are not enthralled. We have seen a dog before.

This rapturous performance may repeat itself hundreds of times before the child learns to pass a dog without going crazy. Or an elephant, or a hippopotamus. But long before the child learns to talk properly--and Ion before it learns to think philosophically--the world we have become a habit.

A pity, if you ask me.

My concern is that you do not grow up to be one of those people who take the world for granted, Sophie dear. So just to make sure, we are going to do a couple of experiments in thought before we begin on the course itself.

Imagine that one day you are out for a walk in the woods. Suddenly you see a small spaceship on the path in front of you. A tiny Martian climbs out of the spaceship and stands on the ground looking up at you . . .

What would you think? Never mind, it's not important. But have you ever given any thought to the fact that you are a Martian yourself?

It is obviously unlikely that you will ever stumble upon a creature from another planet. We do not even know that there is life on other planets. But you might stumble upon yourself one day. You might suddenly stop short and see yourself in a completely new light. On just such a walk in the woods.
I am an extraordinary being, you think. I am a mysterious creature.

You feel as if you are waking from an enchanted slumber. Who am I? you ask. You know that you are stumbling around on a planet in the universe. But what is the universe?

If you discover yourself in this manner you will have discovered something as mysterious as the Martian we just mentioned. You will not only have seen a being from outer space. You will feel deep down that you are yourself an extraordinary being.

Do you follow me, Sophie? Let's do another experiment in thought:

One morning, Mom, Dad, and little Thomas, aged two or three, are having breakfast in the kitchen. After a while Mom gets up and goes over to the kitchen sink, and Dad--yes, Dad--flies up and floats around under the ceiling while Thomas sits watching. What do you think Thomas says? Perhaps he points up at his father and says: "Daddy's flying!" Thomas will certainly be astonished, but then he very often is. Dad does so many strange things that this business of a little flight over the breakfast table makes no difference to him. Every day Dad shaves with a funny machine, sometimes he climbs onto the roof and turns the TV aerial--or else he sticks his head under the hood of the car and comes up black in the face.

Now it's Mom's turn. She hears what Thomas says and turns around abruptly. How do you think she reacts to the sight of Dad floating nonchalantly over the kitchen table?

She drops the jam jar on the floor and screams with fright. She may even need medical attention once Dad has returned respectably to his chair. (He should have learned better table manners by now!) Why do you think Thomas and his mother react so differently?

It all has to do with habit. (Note this!) Mom has learned that people cannot fly. Thomas has not. He still isn't certain what you can and cannot do in this world.

But what about the world itself, Sophie? Do you think it can do what it does? The world is also floating in space.

Sadly it is not only the force of gravity we get used to as we grow up. The world itself becomes a habit in no time at all. It seems as if in the process of growing up we lose the ability to wonder about the world. And in doing so, we lose something central--something philosophers try to restore. For somewhere inside ourselves, something tells us that life is a huge mystery. This is something we once experienced, long before we learned to think the thought.

To be more precise: Although philosophical questions concern us all, we do not all become philosophers. For various reasons most people get so caught up in everyday affairs that their astonishment at the world gets pushed into the background. (They crawl deep into the rabbit's fur, snuggle down comfortably, and stay there for the rest of their lives.)

To children, the world and everything in it is new, something that gives rise to astonishment. It is not like that for adults. Most adults accept the world as a matter of course.

This is precisely where philosophers are a notable exception. A philosopher never gets quite used to the world. To him or her, the world continues to seem a bit unreasonable--bewildering, even enigmatic. Philosophers and small children thus have an important faculty in common. You might say that throughout his life a philosopher remains as thin-skinned as a child.

So now you must choose, Sophie. Are you a child who has not yet become world-weary? Or are you a philosopher who will vow never to become so?

If you just shake your head, not recognizing yourself as either a child or a philosopher, then you have gotten so used to the world that it no longer astonishes you. Watch out! You are on thin ice. And this is why you are receiving this course in philosophy, just in case. I will not allow you, of all people, to join the ranks of the apathetic and the indifferent. I want you to have an inquiring mind.

The whole course is free of charge, so you get no money back if you do not complete it. If you choose to break off the course you are free to do so. In that case you must leave a message for me in the mailbox. A live frog would be eminently suitable. Something green, at least, otherwise the mailman might get scared.

To summarize briefly: A white rabbit is pulled out of a top hat. Because it is an extremely large rabbit, the trick takes many billions of years. All mortals are born at the very tip of the rabbit's fine hairs, where they are in a position to wonder at the impossibility of the trick. But as they grow older they work themselves ever deeper into the fur. And there they stay. They become so comfortable they never risk crawling back up the fragile hairs again. Only philosophers embark on this perilous expedition to the outermost reaches of language and existence. Some of them fall off, but others cling on desperately and yell at the people nestling deep in the snug softness, stuffing themselves with delicious food and drink.

"Ladies and gentlemen," they yell, "we are floating in space!" But none of the people down there care.

"What a bunch of troublemakers!" they say. And they keep on chatting: Would you pass the butter, please? How much have our stocks risen today? What is the price of tomatoes? Have you heard that Princess Di is expecting again?

When Sophie's mother got home later that afternoon, Sophie was practically in shock. The tin containing the letters from the mysterious philosopher was safely hidden in the den. Sophie had tried to start her homework but could only sit thinking about what she had read.

She had never thought so hard before! She was no longer a child--but she wasn't really grown up either. Sophie realized that she had already begun to crawl down into the cozy rabbit's fur, the very same rabbit that had been pulled from the top hat of the universe. But the philosopher had stopped her. He--or was it a she?--had grabbed her by the back of the neck and pulled her up again to the tip of the fur where she had played as a child. And there, on the outermost tips of the fine hairs, she was once again seeing the world as if for the very first time.

The philosopher had rescued her. No doubt about it. The unknown letter writer had saved her from the triviality of everyday existence.

When Mom got home at five o'clock, Sophie dragged her into the living room and pushed her into an armchair.

"Mom--don't you think it's astonishing to be alive?" she began.

Her mother was so surprised that she didn't answer at first. Sophie was usually doing her homework when she got home.

"I suppose I do--sometimes," she said.

"Sometimes? Yes, but--don't you think it's astonishing that the world exists at all?"

"Now look, Sophie. Stop talking like that."

"Why? Perhaps you think the world is quite normal?"

"Well, isn't it? More or less, anyway."

Sophie saw that the philosopher was right. Grownups took the world for granted. They had let themselves be lulled into the enchanted sleep of their humdrum existence once and for all.

"You've just grown so used to the world that nothing surprises you any more."

"What on earth are you talking about?"

"I'm talking about you getting so used to everything. Totally dim, in other words."

"I will not be spoken to like that, Sophie!"

"All right, I'll put it another way. You've made yourself comfortable deep down in the fur of a white rabbit that is being pulled out of the universe's top hat right now. And in a minute you'll put the potatoes on. Then you'll read the paper and after half an hour's nap you'll watch the news on TV!"

An anxious expression came over her mother's face. She did indeed go into the kitchen and put the potatoes on. After a while she came back into the living room, and this time it was she who pushed Sophie into an armchair.

"There's something I must talk to you about," she began. Sophie could tell by her voice that it was something serious.

"You haven't gotten yourself mixed up with drugs, have you, dear?"

Sophie was just about to laugh, but she understood why the question was being brought up now.

"Are you nuts?" she said. "That only makes you duller'."

No more was said that evening about either drugs or white rabbits.







中文翻译
魔术师的礼帽
   只有一个条件:要有好奇心……
   苏菲很肯定那位写匿名信的人会再度来信。她决定暂时不要将这件事告诉任何人。
   如今,在学校上课时,她变得很难专心听课。他们所说的仿佛都是一些芝麻绿豆的事。他们为何不能谈一些诸如:“人是什么?”或“世界是什么,又何以会存在?”这类的事呢?她生平第一次开始觉得无论在学校或其他地方,人们关心的都只是一些芝麻琐事罢了。世上还有更重要的事有待解答,这些事比学校所上的任何科目都更重要。
   世上有人可以解答这些问题吗?无论如何,苏菲觉得思索这些问题要比去死背那些不规则动词更加要紧。
   最后一堂课的下课铃响起时,她飞快走出学校,快得乔安必须要跑步才能追上她。
   过了一会儿,乔安说:“今天傍晚我们来玩牌好吗?”苏菲耸了耸肩:“我不像从前那么爱玩牌了。”乔安听了仿佛被雷击中一般。
   “是吗?那我们来玩羽毛球好了。”苏菲垂下眼睛,看着人行道,而后抬起头看着乔安。
   “我对羽毛球也不是很有兴趣了。”“你不是说真的吗?”苏菲察觉到乔安语气中的不满。
   “你可不可以告诉我是什么事情突然变得那么重要?”苏菲摇摇头:“嗯……这是一个秘密。”“噢!你大概是谈恋爱了吧她们两个又走了一会儿,谁都没有说话。当她们走到足球场时,乔安说:“我要从斜坡这里走过去。”从斜坡走过去!没错,这是乔安回家最近的一条路,但她通常只有在家里有客人或必须赶到牙医那儿去的时候才从这儿走。
   苏菲开始后悔她刚才对乔安的态度不佳。不过她又能对她说些什么呢?说她是因为突然忙着解答自己是谁以及世界从何而来等问题,所以才没有时间玩羽毛球吗?乔安会了解吗?。
   这些都是世间最重要,也可以说是最自然的问题。但为何一心想着这些问题会如此累人?苏菲打开信箱时,感觉自己心跳加快。起先她只看到一封银行寄来的信以及几个写着妈妈名字的棕色大信封。该死!她居然开始疯狂地期待那个不知名的人再度来信。
   当她关上园门时,发现有一个大信封上写着她的名字。她把它翻过来要拆信时,看到信封背面写着:“哲学课程。请小心轻放。”苏菲飞奔过石子路,将书包甩在台阶上,并将其他信塞在门前的脚垫下,然后跑进后面的园子里,躲进她的密洞。唯有在这里,她才能拆阅这个大信封。
   雪儿也跟着跳进来。苏菲无可奈何,因为她知道雪儿是赶也赶不走的。
   信封内有三张打好字的纸,用一个纸夹夹住。苏菲开始读信。
   哲学是什么?亲爱的苏菲:人的嗜好各有不同。有些人搜集古钱或外国邮票刺绣,有些人则利用大部分的空间时间从事某种运动另外许多人以阅读为乐,但阅读的品位人各不同。有些人只看报纸或漫画,有些人喜欢看小说,有些人则偏好某些特殊题材的书籍,如天文学、自然生物或科技新知等。
   如果我自己对马或宝石有兴趣,我也不能期望别人都和我一样。如果我看电视体育节目看得津津有味,就必须忍受有些人认为体育节目很无聊的事实。
   可是,天底下是不是没有一件事是我们大家都感兴趣的呢?是不是没有一件事是每一个人都关切的--无论他们是谁或住在何处?是的,亲爱的苏菲,天底下当然有一些问题是每个人都有兴趣的。而这门课程正与这些问题有关。
   生命中最重要的事情是什么?如果我们问某一个正生活在饥饿边缘的人,他的答案一定是“食物”。如果我们问一个快要冻死的人,答案一定是“温暖”。如果我们拿同样的问题问一个寂寞孤独的人,那答案可能是“他人的陪伴”了。
   然而,当这些基本需求都获得满足后,是否还有些东西是每一个人都需要的呢?哲学家认为,答案是肯定的。他们相信人不能只靠面包过日子。当然,每一个人都需要食物,每一个人都需要爱与关怀。不过除了这些以外,还有一些东西是人人需要的,那就是:明白我们是谁、为何会在这里。
   想知道我们为何会在这儿,并不像集邮一样是一种休闲式的兴趣。
   那些对这类问题有兴趣的人所要探讨的,乃是自地球有人类以来,人们就辩论不休的问题:宇宙、地球与生命是如何产生的?这个问题比去年奥运会谁得到最多的金牌要更大,也更重要。
   探讨哲学最好的方式就是问一些哲学性的问题,如:这世界是如何创造出来的?其背后是否有某种意志或意义?人死后还有生命吗?我们如何能够解答这些问题呢?最重要的是,我们应该如何生活?千百年来,人们不断提出这些问题。据我们所知,没有一种文化不关心“人是谁”、“世界从何而来”这样的问题。
   基本上,我们要问的哲学问题并不多。我们刚才已经提出了其中最重要的问题。然而,在历史上,人们对每一个问题提出了不同的答案。因此,提出哲学问题要比回答这些问题更容易。
   即使是在今天,每个人仍然必须各自寻求他对这些问题的答案。你无法在百科全书查到有关“上帝是否存在?”与“人死后是否还有生命?”这些问题的答案。百科全书也不会告诉我们应该如何生活。不过,读一读别人的意见倒可以帮助我们建立自己对生命的看法。
   哲学家追寻真理的过程很像是一部侦探小说。有人认为安单森是凶手,有人则认为尼尔森或詹生才是。遇到犯罪案件,警方有时可以侦破,但也很可能永远无法查出真相(虽然在某个地方一定有一个破案的办法)。因此,即使要回答一个问题很不容易,但无论如何总会有一个(且仅此一个)正确答案的。人死后要不就是透过某种形式存在,要不就是根本不再存在。
   过去许多千百年的谜题如今都有了科学的解释。从前,月亮黑暗的那一面可说是神秘莫测。由于这不是那种可以借讨论来解决的问题,因此当时月亮的真实面目如何全凭个人想象。然而今天我们已经确知月亮黑暗的那一面是何模样。没有人会再“相信”嫦娥的存在或月亮是由绿色的乳酪做成等等说法了。
   两千多年前,一位古希腊哲学家认为,哲学之所以产生是因为人有好奇心的缘故。他相信,人对于活着这件事非常惊讶,因此自然而然就提出了一些哲学性的问题。
   这就像我们看人家变魔术一样。由于我们不明白其中的奥妙,于是便问道:“魔术师如何能将两三条白色的丝巾变成一只活生生的兔子呢?”许多人对于这世界的种种也同样有不可置信的感觉,就像我们看到魔术师突然从一顶原本空空如也的帽子里拉出一只兔子一般。
   关于突然变出兔子的事,我们知道这不过是魔术师耍的把戏罢了。我们只是想知道他如何办到而已。然而,谈到有关世界的事时,情况便有些不同了。我们知道这世界不全然是魔术师妙手一挥、掩人耳目的把戏,因为我们就生活在其中,我们是它的一部分。
   事实上,我们就是那只被人从帽子里拉出来的小白兔。我们与小白兔之间唯一的不同是:小白兔并不明白它本身参与了一场魔术表演。我们则相反。我们觉得自己是某种神秘事物的一部分,我们想了解其中的奥秘。
   P.S;关于小白兔,最好将它比做整个宇宙,而我们人类则是寄居在兔子毛皮深处的微生虫。不过哲学家总是试图沿着兔子的细毛往上爬,以便将魔术师看个清楚。
   苏菲,你还在看吗?未完待续……苏菲真是累极了。“还在看吗?”她甚至不记得她在看信时是否曾停下来喘口气呢!是谁捎来这封信?当然不可能是那位寄生日卡给席德的人,因为卡片上不但有邮票,还有邮戳。但这个棕色的信封却像那两封白色的信一样,是由某人亲自投进信箱的。
   苏菲看了看手表,时间是两点四十五分。妈妈还有两个多小时才下班。
   苏菲爬出来,回到园子里,跑到信箱旁。也许还有另一封信呢!她发现另一个写着她名字的棕色信封。这回她四下看了看,但却没有见到任何人影。她又跑到树林边,往路的那一头张望。
   那边也没有人。
   突然间她好像听到树林深处某根枝条“啪!”一声折断的声音。
   不过她并不是百分之百确定。何况,如果一个人决心要逃跑,再怎么追他也没有用。
   苏菲进入屋里,把书包和给妈妈的信放在厨房的桌子上,然后便跑上楼梯,进入她的房间,拿出一个装满美丽石子的饼干盒。她把那些石头倒在地板上,把两个大信封装进盒子里。然后又匆忙走到花园里,双手紧紧拿着饼干盒。临走时,她拿出一些食物给雪儿吃。
   “猫咪!猫咪!猫眯!”回到密洞中后,她打开了第二封棕色的信,取出几页才刚打好字的信纸。她开始看信。
   奇怪的生物嗨!苏菲,我们又见面了。诚如你所看见的,这门简短的哲学课程将会以一小段、一小段的形式出现。以下仍然是序言部分:我是否曾经说过,成为一个优秀哲学家的唯一条件是要有好奇心?如果我未曾说过,那么我现在要说:成为一个优秀哲学家的唯一条件是要有好奇心。
   婴儿有好奇心,这并不令人意外。在娘胎里短短几个月后,他们便掉进一个崭新的世界。不过当他们慢慢成长时,这种好奇心似乎也逐渐减少。为什么?你知道答案吗,苏菲?苏衣的世界让我们假设,如果一个初生的婴儿会说话,他可能会说他来到的世界是多么奇特。因为,尽管他不能说话,我们可以看到他如何左顾右盼并好奇地伸手想碰触他身边的每一样东西。
   小孩子逐渐学会说话后,每一次看见狗,便会抬起头说:“汪!汪!”他会在学步车里跳上跳下,挥舞着双手说:“汪!汪!汪!汪!”我们这些年纪比较大、比较见多识广的人可能会觉得小孩子这种兴奋之情洋溢的样子很累人。我们会无动于衷地说:“对,对,这是汪汪。好了,坐着不要动尸看到狗,我们可不像小孩子那样着迷,因为我们早就看过了。
   小孩子这种行为会一再重复,可能要经过数百次之后,他才会在看到狗时不再兴奋异常。在他看到大象或河马时,也会发生同样的情况。远在孩童学会如何讲话得体、如何从事哲学性的思考前,他就早已经习惯这个世界了。
   这是很可惜的一件事,如果你问我的看法的话。
   亲爱的苏菲,我不希望你长大之后也会成为一个把这世界视为理所当然的人。为了确定起见,在这课程开始之前,我们将做两三个有关思想的测验。
   请你想象,有一天你去树林里散步。突然间你看到前面的路上有一艘小小的太空船,有一个很小的火星人从船舱里爬出来,站在路上抬头看着你……你会怎么想?算了,这并不重要。但你是否曾经想过你自己也是个火星人?很明显的,你不太可能突然撞见一个来自其他星球的生物。我们甚至不知道其他星球是否也有生物存在。不过有一天你可能会突然发现自己。你可能会突然停下来,以一种完全不同的眼光来看自己,就在你在树林里散步的时候。
   你会想:“我是一个不同凡响的存在。我是一个神秘的生物。”你觉得自己好像刚从一个梦幻中醒来。我是谁?你问道。你知道自己正行走在宇宙的一个星球上。但宇宙又是什么?如果你像这样,突然意识到自己的存在,你会发现自己正像我们刚才提到的火星人那样神秘。你不仅看到一个从外太空来的生命,同时也会打内心深处觉得自己的存在是如此不凡响。.如果你不介意的话,苏菲,现在就让我们来做另一个思想上的测验。
   有一天早上,爸、妈和小同正在厨房里吃早餐。过了一会儿,妈妈站起身来,走到水槽边。这时,爸爸飞了起来,在天花板下面飘浮。小同坐在那儿看着。你想小同会说什么?也许他会指着父亲说:“爸爸在飞。”小同当然会觉得吃惊,但是他经常有这样的经验。
   爸爸所做的奇妙的事太多了,因此这回他飞到早餐桌上方这件事对小同并没有什么特别,每天爸爸都用一个很滑稽的机器刮胡子,有时他会爬到屋顶上调整电视的天线。或者,他偶尔也会把头伸进汽车的引擎盖里,出来时脸都是黑的。好了,现在轮到妈妈了。她听到小同说的话,转身一瞧。你想她看到爸爸像没事人一般飘浮在餐桌的上方会有什么反应?她吓得把果酱罐子掉在地上,然后开始尖叫。等到爸爸好整以暇地回到座位上时,她可能已经需要急救了。(从现在起,爸爸可真是该注意一下自己的餐桌礼仪了!)为何小同和妈妈有如此不同的反应?你认为呢?这完全与习惯有关。(注意㈠妈妈已经知道人是不能飞的,小周则不然。他仍然不确定在这个世界上人能做些什么或不能做些什么。
   然而,苏菲,这世界又是怎么回事呢?它也一样飘浮在太空中呀。你认为这可能吗?遗憾的是,当我们成长时,不仅习惯了有地心引力这回事,同时也很快地习惯了世上的一切。我们在成长的过程当中,似乎失去了对这世界的好奇心。也正因此,我们丧失了某种极为重要的能力(这也是一种哲学家们想要使人们恢复的能力)。因为,在我们内心的某处,有某个声音告诉我们:生命是一种很庞大的、神秘的存在。
   这是我们在学会从事这样的思考前都曾经有过的体验。
   更明白地说:尽管我们都想过哲学性的问题,却并不一定每个人都会成为哲学家。由于种种理由,大多数人都忙于日常生活的琐事,因此他们对于这世界的好奇心都受到压抑。(就像那些微生虫一般,爬进兔子的毛皮深处,在那儿怡然自得地待上一辈予,从此不再出来。)对于孩子们而言,世上的种种都是新鲜而令人惊奇的。对于大人们则不然。大多数成人都把这世界当成一种理所当然的存在。
   这正是哲学家们之所以与众不同的地方。哲学家从来不会过分习惯这个世界。对于他或她而言,这个世界一直都有一些不合理,甚至有些复杂难解、神秘莫测。这是哲学家与小孩子共同具有的一种重要能力。你可以说,哲学家终其一生都像个孩子一般敏感。
   所以,苏菲,你现在必须做个选择。你是个还没有被世界磨掉好奇心的孩子?还是一个永远不会如此的哲学家?如果你只是摇摇头,不知道自己究竟是个孩子还是哲学家,那么你已经太过习惯这个世界,以至于不再对它感到惊讶了。果真如此,你得小心,因为你正处于一个危险的阶段,这也是为何你要上这门哲学课的原因。因为我们要以防万一。我不会听任你变得像其他人一样没有感觉、无动于衷。我希望你有一个好奇、充满求知欲的心灵。
   这门课程是不收费的,因此即使你没有上完也不能退费。如果你中途不想上了,也没关系,只要在信箱里放个东西做信号就可以了。最好是一只活青蛙,或至少是某种绿色的东西,以免让邮差吓一大跳。
   综合我上面所说的话,简而言之,这世界就像魔术师从他的帽子里拉出的一只白兔。只是这白兔的体积极其庞大,因此这场戏法要数十亿年才变得出来。所有的生物都出生于这只兔予的细毛顶端,他们刚开始对于这场令人不可置信的戏法都感到惊奇。然而当他们年纪愈长,也就愈深入兔子的毛皮,并且待了下来。他们在那儿觉得非常安适,因此不愿再冒险爬回脆弱的兔毛顶端。唯有哲学家才会踏上此一危险的旅程,迈向语言与存在所能达到的顶峰。其中有些人掉了下来,但也有些人死命攀住兔毛不放,并对那些窝在舒适柔软的兔毛的深处、尽情吃喝的人们大声吼叫。
   他们喊:“各位先生女士们,我们正飘浮在太空中呢!”但下面的人可不管这些哲学家们在嚷些什么。
   这些人只会说:“哇!真是一群捣蛋鬼尸然后又继续他们原先的谈话:请你把奶油递过来好吗?我们今天的股价涨了多少?番茄现在是什么价钱?你有没有听说黛安娜王妃又怀孕了?那天下午,苏菲的妈妈回家时,苏菲仍处于震惊状态中。她把那个装着神秘哲学家来信的铁盒子很稳妥地藏在密洞中。然后她试着开始做功课,但是当她坐在那儿时,满脑子想的都是她刚才读的信。
   她过去从未这样努力思考过。她已经不再是个孩子了,但也还没有真正长大。苏菲意识到她已经开始朝着兔子(就是从宇宙的帽子中被拉出来的那只)温暖舒适的毛皮深处向下爬,却被这位哲学家中途拦住。他(或者说不定是她)一把抓住她的后脑勺,将她拉回毛尖(她孩提时代戏耍的地方)。就在那儿,在兔毛的最顶端,她再度以仿佛乍见的眼光打量这个世界。
   毫无疑问,这位哲学家救了她。写信给她的无名氏将她从琐碎的日常生活拯救出来了。
   下午五点,妈妈到家时,苏菲把她拉进起居室,将她推在一张安乐椅上坐下。
   一日她开始问:“妈,我们居然有生命,你不觉得这很令人惊讶吗?”她妈妈真是丈二金刚摸不着头脑,不知道该怎么回答。平常她回家时,苏菲多半在做功课。
   “我想是吧!有时候。”她说。
   “有时候?没错,可是--你不觉得这个世界居然存在是很令人惊讶的事吗?”“听着,苏菲,不要再说这些话。”“为什么?难道你认为这个世界平凡无奇吗?”“不是吗?多少总有一些吧?”苏菲终于明白哲学家说得没错。大人们总是将这个世界视为理所当然的存在,并且就此任自己陷入柴米油盐的生活中而浑然不觉。
   “你太习惯这个世界了,才会对任何事情都不感到惊奇。”“你到底在说些什么?”“我是说你对每一件事都太习惯了。换句话说,已经变得非常迟钝了。”“不要这样对我讲话,苏菲!”“好吧,我换一种方式说好了。你已经在这只被拉出宇宙的帽子的白兔毛皮深处待得太舒服了。再过一会儿你就会把马铃薯拿出来,然后就开始看报纸,之后打半个小时的盹,然后看电视新闻。”妈妈的脸上掠过一抹忧虑的神色。她走进厨房把马铃薯拿出来。过了一会儿,她便走回起居室,这次轮到她把苏菲推到安乐椅上坐下了。
   “我有事情要跟你谈。”她说。从她的声音听起来,苏菲可以猜到事情一定很严重。
   “你没有跑去跟人家喝什么药吧?宝贝!”苏菲差一点笑出来。但她了解妈妈为什么会问她这个问题。
   “我又不是神经病,”她说,“那样只会让人变得更钝呀!”那天晚上,谁也没有再提起任何有关喝药或白兔的事情。





暮辞朝

ZxID:15103679


等级: 内阁元老
配偶: 清风雅乐
这一段开心的日子请你勿忘
举报 只看该作者 地板   发表于: 2013-10-25 0
等编辑
英文原文
The Myths

... a precarious balance between the forces of good and evil 

There was no letter for Sophie the next morning. All through the interminable day at school she was bored stiff. She took care to be extra nice to Joanna during the breaks. On the way home they talked about going camping as soon as the woods were dry enough.

After what seemed an eternity she was once again at the mailbox. First she opened a letter postmarked in Mexico. It was from her father. He wrote about how much he was longing for home and how for the first time he had managed to beat the Chief Officer at chess. Apart from that he had almost finished the pile of books he had brought aboard with him after his winter leave.

And then, there it was--a brown envelope with her name on it! Leaving her schoolbag and the rest of the mail in the house, Sophie ran to the den. She pulled out the new typewritten pages and began to read:

THE MYTHOLOGICAL WORLD PICTURE

Hello there, Sophie! We have a lot to do, so we'll get started without delay.

By philosophy we mean the completely new way of thinking that evolved in Greece about six hundred years before the birth of Christ. Until that time people had found answers to all their questions in various religions. These religious explanations were handed down from generation to generation in the form of myths. A myth is a story about the gods which sets out to explain why life is as it is.

Over the millennia a wild profusion of mythological explanations of philosophical questions spread across the world. The Greek philosophers attempted to prove that these explanations were not to be trusted.

In order to understand how the early philosophers thought, we have to understand what it was like to have a mythological picture of the world. We can take some Nordic myths as examples. (There is no need to carry coals to Newcastle.)

You have probably heard of Thor and his hammer. Before Christianity came to Norway, people believed that Thor rode across the sky in a chariot drawn by two goats. When he swung his hammer it made thunder and lightning. The word "thunder" in Norwegian--"Thor-d0n"--means Thor's roar. In Swedish, the word for thunder is "aska," originally "as-aka," which means "god's journey" over the heavens.

When there is thunder and lightning there is also rain, which was vital to the Viking farmers. So Thor was worshipped as the god of fertility.

The mythological explanation for rain was therefore that Thor was swinging his hammer. And when it rained the corn germinated and thrived in the fields.

How the plants of the field could grow and yield crops was not understood. But it was clearly somehow connected with the rain. And since everybody believed that the rain had something to do with Thor, he was one of the most important of the Norse gods.

There was another reason why Thor was important, a reason related to the entire world order.

The Vikings believed that the inhabited world was an island under constant threat from outside dangers. They called this part of the world Midgard, which means the kingdom in the middle. Within Midgard lay Asgard, the domain of the gods.

Outside Midgard was the kingdom of Utgard, the domain of the treacherous giants, who resorted to all kinds of cunning tricks to try and destroy the world. Evil monsters like these are often referred to as the "forces of chaos." Not only in Norse mythology but in almost all other cultures, people found that there was a precarious balance between the forces of good and evil.

One of the ways in which the giants could destroy Midgard was by abducting Freyja, the goddess of fertility. If they could do this, nothing would grow in the fields and the women would no longer have children. So it was vital to hold these giants in check.

Thor was a central figure in this battle with the giants. His hammer could do more than make rain; it was a key weapon in the struggle against the dangerous forces of chaos. It gave him almost unlimited power. For example, he could hurl it at the giants and slay them. And he never had to worry about losing it because it always came back to him, just like a boomerang.

This was the mythological explanation for how the balance of nature was maintained and why there was a constant struggle between good and evil. And this was precisely the kind of explanation that the philosophers rejected.

But it was not a question of explanations alone.

Mortals could not just sit idly by and wait for the gods to intervene while catastrophes such as drought or plague loomed. They had to act for themselves in the struggle against evil. This they did by performing various religious ceremonies, or rites.

The most significant religious ceremony in Norse times was the offering. Making an offering to a god had the effect of increasing that god's power. For example, mortals had to make offerings to the gods to give them the strength to conquer the forces of chaos. They could do this by sacrificing an animal to the god. The offering to Thor was usually a goat. Offerings to Odin sometimes took the form of human sacrifices.

The myth that is best known in the Nordic countries comes from the Eddie poem "The Lay of Thrym." It tells how Thor, rising from sleep, finds that his hammer is gone. This makes him so angry that his hands tremble and his beard shakes. Accompanied by his henchman Loki he goes to Freyja to ask if Loki may borrow her wings so that he can fly to Jotunheim, the land of the giants, and find out if they are the ones who have stolen Thor's hammer.

At Jotunheim Loki meets Thrym, the king of the giants, who sure enough begins to boast that he has hidden the hammer seven leagues under the earth. And he adds that the gods will not get the hammer back until Thrym is given Freyja as his bride.

Can you picture it, Sophie? Suddenly the good gods find themselves in the midst of a full-blown hostage incident. The giants have seized the gods' most vital defensive weapon. This is an utterly unacceptable situation. As long as the giants have Thor's hammer, they have total control over the world of gods and mortals. In exchange for the hammer they are demanding Freyja. But this is equally unacceptable. If the gods have to give up their goddess of fertility--she who protects all life--the grass will disappear from the fields and all gods and mortals will die. The situation is deadlocked.

Loki returns to Asgard, so the myth goes, and tells Freyja to put on her wedding attire for she is (alas!) to wed the king of the giants. Freyja is furious, and says people will think she is absolutely man-crazy if she agrees to marry a giant.

Then the god Heimdall has an idea. He suggests that Thor dress up as a bride. With his hair up and two stones under his tunic he will look like a woman. Understandably, Thor is not wildly enthusiastic about the idea, but he finally accepts that this is the only way he will ever get his hammer back.

So Thor allows himself to be attired in bridal costume, with Loki as his bridesmaid.

To put it in present-day terms, Thor and Loki are the gods' "anti-terrorist squad." Disguised as women, their mission is to breach the giants' stronghold and recapture Thor's hammer.

When the gods arrive at Jotunheim, the giants begin to prepare the wedding feast. But during the feast, the bride--Thor, that is--devours an entire ox and eight salmon. He also drinks three barrels of beer. This astonishes Thrym. The true identity of the "commandos" is very nearly revealed. But Loki manages to avert the danger by explaining that Freyja has been looking forward to coming to jotunheim so much that she has not eaten for a week.

When Thrym lifts the bridal veil to kiss the bride, he is startled to find himself looking into Thor's burning eyes. Once again Loki saves the situation by explaining that the bride has not slept for a week because she is so excited about the wedding. At this, Thrym commands that the hammer be brought forth and laid in the bride's lap during the wedding ceremony.

Thor roars with laughter when he is given the hammer. First he kills Thrym with it, and then he wipes out the giants and all their kin. And thus the gruesome hostage affair has a happy ending. Thor--the Batman or James Bond of the gods--has once again conquered the forces of evil.

So much for the myth itself, Sophie. But what is the real meaning behind it? It wasn't made up just for entertainment. The myth also tries to explain something. Here is one possible interpretation:

When a drought occurred, people sought an explanation of why there was no rain. Could it be that the giants had stolen Thor's hammer?

Perhaps the myth was an attempt to explain the changing seasons of the year: in the winter Nature dies because Thor's hammer is in jotunheim. But in the spring he succeeds in winning it back. So the myth tried to give people an explanation for something they could not understand.

But a myth was not only an explanation. People also carried out religious ceremonies related to the myths. We can imagine how people's response to drought or crop failure would be to enact a drama about the events in the myth. Perhaps a man from the village would dress up as a bride--with stones for breasts--in order to steal the hammer back from the giants. By doing this, people were taking some action to make it rain so the crops would grow in their fields.

There are a great many examples from other parts of the world of the way people dramatized their myths of the seasons in order to speed up the processes of nature.

So far we have only taken a brief glimpse at the world of Norse mythology. But there were countless myths about Thor and Odin, Freyr and Frey a, Hoder and Balder and many other gods. Mythologica notions of this kind flourished all over the world until philosophers began to tamper with them.

A mythological world picture also existed in Greece when the first philosophy was evolving. The stories of the Greek gods had been handed down from generation to generation for centuries. In Greece the gods were called Zeus and Apollo, Hera and Athene, Dionysos and Ascle-pios, Heracles and Hephaestos, to mention only a few of them.

Around 700 B.C., much of the Greek mythology was written down by Homer and Hesiod. This created a whole new situation. Now that the myths existed in written form, it was possible to discuss them.

The earliest Greek philosophers criticized Homer's mythology because the gods resembled mortals too much and were just as egoistic and treacherous. For the first time it was said that the myths were nothing but human notions.

One exponent of this view was the philosopher Xe-nophanes, who lived from about 570 B.C. Men have created the gods in their own image, he said. They believe the gods were born and have bodies and clothes and language just as we have. Ethiopians believe that the gods are black and flat-nosed, Thracians imagine them to be blue-eyed and fair-haired. If oxen, horses, and lions could draw, they would depict gods that looked like oxen, horses, and lions!

During that period the Greeks founded many city-states, both in Greece itself and in the Greek colonies in Southern Italy and Asia Minor, where all manual work was done by slaves, leaving the citizens free to devote all their time to politics and culture.

In these city environments people began to think in a completely new way. Purely on his own behalf, any citizen could question the way society ought to be organized. Individuals could thus also ask philosophical questions without recourse to ancient myths.

We call this the development from a mythological mode of thought to one based on experience and reason. The aim of the early Greek philosophers was to find natural, rather than supernatural, explanations for natural processes.

Sophie left the den and wandered about in the large garden. She tried to forget what she had learned at school, especially in science classes.

If she had grown up in this garden without knowing anything at all about nature, how would she feel about the spring?

Would she try to invent some kind of explanation for why it suddenly started to rain one day? Would she work out some fantasy to explain where the snow went and why the sun rose in the morning?

Yes, she definitely would. She began to make up a story:

Winter held the land in its icy grip because the evil Muriat had imprisoned the beautiful Princess Sikita in a cold prison. But one morning the brave Prince Bravato came and rescued her. Sikita was so happy that she began to dance over the meadows, singing a song she had composed inside the dank prison. The earth and the trees were so moved that all the snow turned into tears. But then the sun came out and dried all the tears away. The birds imitated Sikita's song, and when the beautiful princess let down her golden tresses, a few locks of her hair fell onto the earth and turned into the lilies of the field ...

Sophie liked her beautiful story. If she had not known any other explanation for the changing seasons, she felt sure she would have come to believe her own story in the end.

She understood that people had always felt a need to explain the processes of nature. Perhaps they could not live without such explanations. And that they made up all those myths in the time before there was anything called science.






中文翻译
神话
   第二天早上,苏菲没有接到任何信。一整天在学校里,她觉得如坐针毡,无聊极了。下课时,她特别小心,对乔安比平日更好。放学回家途中,她们讨论相偕露营的计划,只等树林里的地变干时便可以成行。
   好不容易终于捱到了开信箱的时刻。首先她拆开一封盖着墨西哥邮戳的信,是爸爸写来的。信上说他非常想家,还有他生平第一遭在棋赛中打败了大副。除此之外,他也几乎看完了他在寒假过后带上船的一批书。之后,苏菲又看到了一个写着她名字的棕色信封。把书包和其他邮件放进屋里后,她便跑进密洞中,把信封内刚打开的信纸抽出来,开始看着:
   神话的世界观
   嗨,苏菲!今天要讲的东西很多,因此我们就马上开始吧。
   所谓哲学,我们指的是耶稣基督降生前六百年左右,在希腊演进的一种崭新的思考方式。在那以前,人们在各种宗教中找到了他们心中问题的答案。这些宗教上的解释透过神话的形式代代流传下来。所谓神话就是有关诸神的故事,其目的在解释为何生命是这一番面貌。
   数千年来,世界各地有许多企图解答哲学性问题的神话故事。
   希腊哲学家则想证明这些解释是不可信赖的。
   为了要了解古代哲学家的想法,我们必须先了解神话中显现的世界是何种面貌。我们可以拿一些北欧神话来做例子。
   你也许曾经听过索尔(Thor)与他的铁锤的故事。在基督教传入挪威之前,人们相信索尔时常乘着一辆由两只山羊拉着的战车横越天空。他一挥动斧头便产生闪电与雷声。挪威文中的“雷”(Thor—don)字意指索尔的怒吼。在瑞典文中,“雷”字(aska)原来写成as—ah,意指神(在天上)出游。•当天空雷电交加时,便会下雨,而雨对北欧农民是很重要的。
   因此,索尔又被尊为象征肥沃、富饶的神。
   因此神话中对雨的解释便是:索尔挥动锤子时,就会下雨。而一旦下雨,田里的玉米便会开始发芽、茁长。
   田里的植物如何能够生长并结出果实?这问题令人不解,不过显然与雨水有关。更重要的是,每一个人都相信雨水与索尔有关,因此他便成了古代北欧最重要的神祗之一。
   索尔之所以受到重视另外有一个原因,而这个原因与整个世界秩序有关。
   北欧人相信人类居住的这部分世界是一个岛屿,时常面临来自外界的危险。他们称此地为“米德加德”(M记gard),就是“中央王国”的意思。在这个中央王国内,有一个地方名叫“阿斯加德”(As—gard),乃是诸神的领地。
   中央王国外面有一个叫做“乌特加德”(Utgard)的王国,是狡猾的巨人居住的地方。这些巨人运用各种诡计想要摧毁这个世界。
   类似这样的邪恶怪物经常被称为“混乱之力”。事实上,不仅挪威神话,几平所有其他文化都发现善与恶这两种势力之间存在着一种不稳定的平衡。
   巨人们摧毁“中央王国”的方法之一就是绑架象征肥沃、多产的女神芙瑞雅(Freyja)。如果他们得逞,田野里将无法长出作物,妇女也将生不出小孩。因此,非得有人来制住这些巨人不可。
   这时就要仰赖索尔了。他的铁锤不仅能使天空下雨,也是对抗危险的混乱之力的重要武器。这支锤子几乎给了他无边的法力,他可以用它掷杀巨人,而且毋需担心把它弄丢,因为它总是会自动回到他身边,就像回力球一样。
   这就是神话中对于大自然如何维持平衡、为何善与恶之间永远相互对抗等问题的解释,而哲学家们拒绝接受这种解释。
   然而,这并不仅仅是解释的问题。
   当干旱、瘟疫等灾害发生时,凡人不能光是呆坐在那儿,等着神明来解救。他们必须在这场对抗邪恶的战争中出力,而他们出力的方法则是举行种种宗教仪式。
   在古代的北欧,意义最重大的宗教仪式乃是献祭。对神明献祭可以增强神明的法力。举个例子,凡人必须以祭品供奉神明,以给予他们战胜混乱之力的力量。其方法是宰杀牲畜,祭拜神明。古代北欧人祭祀索尔时通常以山羊为祭品,祭拜欧丁(Odin)时有时还会以人为祭品。
   北欧国家最著名的神话来自冰岛一首名为《史莱慕之诗》(TheLayo{Thrym)的诗。诗中叙述有一天索尔醒来,发现他的锤子不见了,气得双手发抖,吹胡子瞪眼睛。于是他带着侍僮洛奇去拜访芙瑞雅,问她是否可以将翅膀借他,好让洛奇可以飞到巨人所住的“约腾海”(Jotunheim),以查探那些巨人是否偷了索尔的锤子。
   洛奇到了约腾海后,见到了巨人之王史莱慕。后者得意地宣称他已将锤子藏在地下七里格的地方,并说除非诸神将芙瑞雅嫁给他,否则他不会归还锤子。
   苏菲,你了解吗?这些善良的神明突然间面临了一个全面的人质危机。巨人们夺走了诸神最有力的防卫武器,这是令人完全无法忍受的情况。只要巨人们拥有索尔的锤子,他们便能够百分之百控制诸神与凡人的世界。他们要求用芙瑞雅来交换锤子的行为也令人无法接受。如果诸神被迫放弃芙瑞雅这位保护天下生灵的丰饶女神,则田野上将看不到绿草,所有的神明与凡人也都将死去。
   这真是令人左右为难的困境。假如你能想象一群恐怖分子扬言要在伦敦或巴黎的市中心引爆一枚核子炸弹,除非他们达到他们所提的可怕要求,你马上就可以了解这个情况的严重性了。
   据说,洛奇回到阿斯加德后,就叫芙瑞雅穿上她的新娘礼服,准备嫁给巨人之王。(呜呼哀哉!)芙瑞雅非常生气。她说,如果她答应嫁给一个巨人,人们准会以为她想男人想疯了。
   这时候,一个名叫海姆达尔(HeimdaU)的天神想出了一个很聪明的办法。他建议索尔扮成新娘,把头发梳起来,在衣服内垫两块石头,装成女人。可想而知,索尔当然很不情愿,不过他终于不得不承认,如果他要取回铁锤,这是唯一的办法。
   于是,索尔穿上了新娘礼服,洛奇则扮成伴娘。洛奇说:“现在,就让我们这两个女人前往约腾海吧!”以现代话来说,索尔和洛奇是天神中的反恐怖特勤小组。他们男扮女装,任务是渗透巨人的根据地,夺回索尔的锤子。他们到达约腾海后,巨人们开始筹备婚宴。
   然而在筵席中,新娘(就是索尔)一口气吃下一整只牛和八条鲑鱼,并且痛饮了三桶啤酒,把史莱慕吓了一大跳。这个“突击小组”的真实身分几乎就要曝光了。幸好,洛奇及时辩称芙瑞雅是因为期盼到约腾海来,整整一个星期都没有吃饭,才化解了这场危机。
   史莱慕掀开新娘面纱要亲吻新娘时,吃惊地看•到一双红彤彤的眼睛。此时洛奇再度出面解围。他说,新娘是因为在婚礼前太过兴奋,才整整一个礼拜都没有阖眼。于是,史莱慕使命手下将锤子取来以便在进行婚礼时放在新娘的怀中。
   据说,索尔拿到锤子时,忍不住放声大笑。他先用锤子击杀了史莱慕,然后便将巨人们以及他们所有的亲族杀个精光。就这样,这个可怕的人质事件终于有了一个美满结局。索尔这个天神世界中的蝙蝠侠或OO七又再一次击败了恶势力。
   这个神话故事到此结束。然而,其中真正的意义究竟是什么?这不仅是一个有娱乐效果的故事,同时也具有说明的作用。我们也许可以做如下的解释:当旱灾发生时,人们便思索天空之所以不下雨的原因,是因为巨人们偷了索尔的锤予吗?也许这则神话之缘起,是人们试图解释一年中季节更替的现象:冬天时大自然死亡,是因为索尔的铁锤被偷到约腾海,但是到春天时索尔便将它取回。如此这般,神话的作用便是为人们不了解的事物寻求一令解释。
   然而,一则神话可不只是一个解释而已。人们同时也进行与神话有关的宗教仪式。我们可以想象当时的人在荒旱或作物歉收时,如何依照神话情节来搬演一出戏剧。也许村里一名男子会打扮成新娘,用石块绑在胸部,以便从巨人那儿偷回铁锤。人们这样做的目的在采取若干行动以促使下雨,好让田地里长出作物来。
   除此之外,世界其他各地也有许许多多如何将“季节的神话”编成戏剧,以加速季节更替的例子。
   到目前为止,我们只对古代北欧的神话世界有一个粗浅的印象。事实上,关于索尔与欧丁、芙瑞耶(Freyr)、芙瑞雅、霍德尔(Hoder)、波尔德(Balder)与其他多位天神,还有数不清的神话故事。这类神话式的观念遍布全球,直到哲学家们开始提出疑问为止。
   当世界上最早的哲学开始寒展之际,希腊人也有一套表达他们世界观的神话。这些有关他们的天神的故事乃是数百年来世代流传下来的,这些神包括主神宙斯、太阳神阿波罗、主神之妻希拉,与司智慧、艺术、学问、战争等的女神雅典娜、酒神戴奥尼索斯、医术之神艾斯克里皮雅斯、大力士海瑞克里斯与海菲思特斯(H印—haestos)等等。
   公元前七百年左右,有一大部分希腊神话被荷马与贺西欧德(Hesiod)以文字记录下来。至此情况大不相同,因为神话既然以文字的形式存在,也就可以加以讨论了。
   于是,最早的希腊哲学家对于荷马的神话提出批评,理由是神话里的天神与人类太过相似了。他们与人一样自大、狡诈。这是破天荒第一遭有人说神话只不过是人们想象出来的。
   批评者当中有一位名叫赞诺芬尼司(Xenophanes)的哲学家,生于公元前五七O年左右。他指出,人类按照自己的形象创造出这些天神,认为他们也是由父母所生,并像凡人一样有身体、穿衣服,也有语言。问题是,衣索比亚人认为天神是扁鼻子的黑人,史瑞思(巴尔干半岛东部的古国)人则认为神有金发蓝眼。假使牛、马、狮子会画图,一定也会把天神画成牛、马、狮子的模样。
   在这段期间,希腊人在希腊本土与意大利南部、小亚细亚等希腊殖民地建立了许多城市。在这些城市中,所有的劳力工作都由奴隶担任,因此市民有充分的闲暇,可以将所有时间都投注在政治与文化上。
   在这样的城市环境中,人的思考方式开始变得与以前大不相同。任何人都可以发言质疑社会的组成方式,也可毋需借助古代神话而提出一些哲学性的问题。
   我们称这样的现象为“从神话的思考模式发展到以经验与理性为基础的思考模式”。早期希腊哲学家的目标乃是为大自然的变化寻找自然的——而非超自然的——解释。
   苏菲继续在偌大的园子里信步走着。她试着忘记她在学校——尤其是在科学课上——学到的东西。假使她生长在这花园中,对于大自然一无所知,那么她对春天会有什么感觉呢?她会不会试着为突然下雨的现象找出某种解释?她会不会编造出某种神话来解释雪到哪儿去了,及为何太阳会升起?会的,她一定会的。这是毫无疑问的。她开始编故事:邪恶的穆瑞耶特将美丽的奚琪塔公主囚禁在寒冷的牢房中,于是冬天遂以它冰冷的手掌攫住了大地。然而有一天早上,勇敢的布拉瓦托王子来到这里,将她救出。奚琪塔高兴得在草原上跳舞,并唱起一首她在湿冷的牢房中所作的曲子。大地与树木都受到感动,以至于雪全都化成了眼泪。后来,太阳出来,把所有的眼泪都晒干了。鸟儿们模仿奚琪塔的歌声鸣唱着。当美丽的公主将她金黄色的长发放下来时,几绺发丝落到地上,化为田野中的百合花。
   苏菲很喜欢自己编的美丽故事。如果她不知道其他有关季节变换的解释,她一定会相信这个自己编的故事。
   她明白人们总是想为大自然的变迁寻求解释。这就是他们何以在科学还没有产生之、前会编造出那些神话故事的原因。





[ 此帖被喻然末年在2013-10-25 17:17重新编辑 ]
暮辞朝

ZxID:15103679


等级: 内阁元老
配偶: 清风雅乐
这一段开心的日子请你勿忘
举报 只看该作者 4楼  发表于: 2013-10-25 0
英文原文
The Natural Philosophers

 nothing can come from nothing 

When her mother got home from work that afternoon Sophie was sitting in the glider, pondering the possible connection between the philosophy course and Hilde Moller Knag, who would not be getting a birthday card from her father.

Her mother called from the other end of the garden, "Sophie! There's a letter for you!"

She caught her breath. She had already emptied the mailbox, so the letter had to be from the philosopher. What on earth would she say to her mother?

"There's no stamp on it. It's probably a love letter!"

Sophie took the letter.

"Aren't you going to open it?"

She had to find an excuse.

"Have you ever heard of anyone opening a love letter with her mother looking over her shoulder?"

Let her mother think it was a love letter. Although it was embarrassing enough, it would be even worse if her mother found out that she was doing a correspondence course with a complete stranger, a philosopher who was playing hide-and-seek with her.

It was one of the little white envelopes. When Sophie got upstairs to her room, she found three new questions:

Is there a basic substance that everything else is made of?

Can water turn into wine? How can earth and water produce a live frog!

Sophie found the questions pretty stupid, but nevertheless they kept buzzing around in her head all evening. She was still thinking about them at school the next day, examining them one by one.

Could there be a "basic substance" that everything was made of? If there was some such substance, how could it suddenly turn into a flower or an elephant?

The same objection applied to the question of whether water could turn into wine. Sophie knew the parable of how Jesus turned water into wine, but she had never taken it literally. And if Jesus really had turned water into wine, it was because it was a miracle, something that could not be done normally. Sophie knew there was a lot of water, not only in wine but in all other growing things. But even if a cucumber was 95 percent water, there must be something else in it as well, because a cucumber was a cucumber, not water.

And then there was the question about the frog. Her philosophy teacher had this really weird thing about frogs.

Sophie could possibly accept that a frog consisted of earth and water, in which case the earth must consist of more than one kind of substance. If the earth consisted of a lot of different substances, it was obviously possible that earth and water together could produce a frog. That is, if the earth and the water went via frog spawn and tadpoles. Because a frog could not just grow out of a cabbage patch, however much you watered it.

When she got home from school that day there was a fat envelope waiting for her in the mailbox. Sophie hid in the den just as she had done the other days.

THE PHILOSOPHERS' PROJECT

Here we are again! We'll go directly to today's lesson without detours around white rabbits and the like.

I'll outline very broadly the way people have thought about philosophy, from the ancient Greeks right up to our own day. But we'll take things in their correct order.

Since some philosophers lived in a different age--and perhaps in a completely different culture from ours--it is a good idea to try and see what each philosopher's project is. By this I mean that we must try to grasp precisely what it is that each particular philosopher is especially concerned with finding out. One philosopher might want to know how plants and animals came into being. Another might want to know whether there is a God or whether man has an immortal soul.

Once we have determined what a particular philosopher's project is, it is easier to follow his line of thought, since no one philosopher concerns himself with the whole of philosophy.

I said his line of thought--referring to the philosopher, because this is also a story of men. Women of the past were subjugated both as females and as thinking beings, which is sad because a great deal of very important experience was lost as a result. It was not until this century that women really made their mark on the history of philosophy.

I do not intend to give you any homework--no difficult math questions, or anything like that, and conjugating English verbs is outside my sphere of interest. However, from time to time I'll give you a short assignment.

If you accept these conditions, we'll begin.

THE NATURAL PHILOSOPHERS

The earliest Greek philosophers are sometimes called natural philosophers because they were mainly concerned with the natural world and its processes.

We have already asked ourselves where everything comes from. Nowadays a lot of people imagine that at some time something must have come from nothing. This idea was not so widespread among the Greeks. For one reason or another, they assumed that "something" had always existed.

How everything could come from nothing was therefore not the all-important question. On the other hand the Greeks marveled at how live fish could come from water, and huge trees and brilliantly colored flowers could come from the dead earth. Not to mention how a baby could come from its mother's womb!

The philosophers observed with their own eyes that nature was in a constant state of transformation. But how could such transformations occur?

How could something change from being substance to being a living thing, for example?

All the earliest philosophers shared the belief that there had to be a certain basic substance at the root of all change. How they arrived at this idea is hard to say. We only know that the notion gradually evolved that there must be a basic substance that was the hidden cause of all changes in nature. There had to be "something" that all things came from and returned to.

For us, the most interesting part is actually not what solutions these earliest philosophers arrived at, but which questions they asked and what type of answer they were looking for. We are more interested in how they thought than in exactly what they thought.

We know that they posed questions relating to the transformations they could observe in the physical world. They were looking for the underlying laws of nature. They wanted to understand what was happening around them without having to turn to the ancient myths. And most important, they wanted to understand the actual processes by studying nature itself. This was quite different from explaining thunder and lightning or winter and spring by telling stories about the gods.

So philosophy gradually liberated itself from religion. We could say that the natural philosophers took the first step in the direction of scientific reasoning, thereby becoming the precursors of what was to become science.

Only fragments have survived of what the natural philosophers said and wrote. What little we know is found in the writings of Aristotle, who lived two centuries later. He refers only to the conclusions the philosophers reached. So we do not always know by what paths they reached these conclusions. But what we do know enables us to establish that the earliest Greek philosophers' project concerned the question of a basic constituent substance and the changes in nature.

THREE PHILOSOPHERS FROM MILETUS

The first philosopher we know of is Thales, who came from Miletus, a Greek colony in Asia Minor. He traveled in many countries, including Egypt, where he is said to have calculated the height of a pyramid by measuring its shadow at the precise moment when the length of his own shadow was equal to his height. He is also said to have accurately predicted a solar eclipse in the year 585 B.C.

Thales thought that the source of all things was water. We do not know exactly what he meant by that, he may have believed that all life originated from water--and that all life returns to water again when it dissolves.

During his travels in Egypt he must have observed how the crops began to grow as soon as the floods of the Nile receded from the land areas in the Nile Delta. Perhaps he also noticed that frogs and worms appeared wherever it had just been raining.

It is likely that Thales thought about the way water turns to ice or vapor--and then turns back into water again.

Thales is also supposed to have said that "all things are full of gods." What he meant by that we can only surmise. Perhaps, seeing how the black earth was the source of everything from flowers and crops to insects and cockroaches, he imagined that the earth was filled with tiny invisible "life-germs." One thing is certain--he was not talking about Homer's gods.

The next philosopher we hear of is Anaximander, who also lived in Miletus at about the same time as Thales. He thought that our world was only one of a myriad of worlds that evolve and dissolve in something he called the boundless. It is not so easy to explain what he meant by the boundless, but it seems clear that he was not thinking of a known substance in the way that Thales had envisaged. Perhaps he meant that the substance which is the source of all things had to be something other than the things created. Because all created things are limited, that which comes before and after them must be "boundless." It is clear that this basic stuff could not be anything as ordinary as water.

A third philosopher from Miletus was Anaximenes (c. 570--526 B.C.). He thought that the source of all things must be "air" or "vapor." Anaximenes was of course familiar with Tholes' theory of water. But where does water come from? Anaximenes thought that water was condensed air. We observe that when it rains, water is pressed from the air. When water is pressed even more, it becomes earth, he thought. He may have seen how earth and sand were pressed out of melting ice. He also thought that fire was rarefied air. According to Anaximenes, air was therefore the origin of earth, water, and fire.

It is not a far cry from water to the fruit of the earth. Perhaps Anaximenes thought that earth, air, and fire were all necessary to the creation of life, but that the source of all things was air or vapor. So, like Thales, he thought that there must be an underlying substance that is the source of all natural change.

Nothing Can Come from NothingThese three Milesian philosophers all believed in the existence of a single basic substance as the source of all things. But how could one substance suddenly change into something else? We can call this the problem of change.

From about 500 B.C., there was a group of philosophers in the Greek colony of Elea in Southern Italy. These "Eleatics" were interested in this question.

The most important of these philosophers was Parmenides (c. 540-480 B.C.). Parmenides thought that everything that exists had always existed. This idea was not alien to the Greeks. They took it more or less for granted that everything that existed in the world was everlasting. Nothing can come out of nothing, thought Parmenides. And nothing that exists can become nothing.

But Parmenides took the idea further. He thought that there was no such thing as actual change. Nothing could become anything other than it was.

Parmenides realized, of course, that nature is in a constant state of flux. He perceived with his senses that things changed. But he could not equate this with what his reason told him. When forced to choose between relying either on his senses or his reason, he chose reason.

You know the expression "I'll believe it when I see it." But Parmenides didn't even believe things when he saw them. He believed that our senses give us an incorrect picture of the world, a picture that does not tally with our reason. As a philosopher, he saw it as his task to expose all forms of perceptual illusion.

This unshakable faith in human reason is called rationalism. A rationalist is someone who believes that human reason is the primary source of our knowledge of the world.

All Things Flow

A contemporary of Parmenides was Heraditus (c. 540-480 B.C.), who was from Ephesus in Asia Minor. He thought that constant change, or flow, was in fact the mosf basic characteristic of nature. We could perhaps say that Heraclitus had more faith in what he could perceive than Parmenides did.

"Everything flows," said Heraclitus. Everything is in constant flux and movement, nothing is abiding. Therefore we "cannot step twice into the same river." When I step into the river for the second time, neither I nor the river are the same.

Heraclitus pointed out that the world is characterized by opposites. If we were never ill, we would not know what it was to be well. If we never knew hunger, we would take no pleasure in being full. If there were never any war, we would not appreciate peace. And if there were no winter, we would never see the spring.

Both good and bad have their inevitable place in the order of things, Heraclitus believed. Without this constant interplay of opposites the world would cease to exist.

"God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, hunger and satiety," he said. He used the term "God," but he was clearly not referring to the gods of the mythology. To Heraclitus, God--or the Deity--was something that embraced the whole world. Indeed, God can be seen most clearly in the constant transformations and contrasts of nature.

Instead of the term "God," Heraclitus often used the Greek word logos, meaning reason. Although we humans do not always think alike or have the same degree of reason, Heraclitus believed that there must be a kind of "universal reason" guiding everything that happens in nature.

This "universal reason" or "universal law" is something common to us all, and something that everybody is guided by. And yet most people live by their individual reason, thought Heraclitus. In general, he despised his fellow beings. "The opinions of most people," he said, "are like the playthings of infants."

So in the midst of all nature's constant flux and oppo-sites, Heraclitus saw an Entity or one-ness. This "something," which was the source of everything, he called God or logos.

Four Basic ElementsIn one way, Parmenides and Heraclitus were the direct opposite of each other. Parmenides' reason made it clear that nothing could change. Heraclitus' sense perceptions made it equally clear that nature was in a constant state of change. Which of them was right? Should we let reason dictate or should we rely on our senses?

Parmenides and Heraclitus both say two things:

Parmenides says:

a) that nothing can change, andb) that our sensory perceptions must therefore be unreliable. Heraclitus, on the

other hand, says:

a) that everything changes ("all things flow"), andb) that our sensory perceptions are reliable.

*    *    *

Philosophers could hardly disagree more than that! But who was right? It fell to Empedocles (c. 490-430 B.C.) from Sicily to lead the way out of the tangle they had gotten themselves into.

He thought they were both right in one of their assertions but wrong in the other.

Empedocles found that the cause of their basic disagreement was that both philosophers had assumed the presence of only one element. If this were true, the gap between what reason dictates and what "we can see with our own eyes" would be unbridgeable.

Water obviously cannot turn into a fish or a butterfly. In fact, water cannot change. Pure water will continue to be pure water. So Parmenides was right in holding that "nothing changes."

But at the same time Empedocles agreed with Heraclitus that we must trust the evidence of our senses. We must believe what we see, and what we see is precisely that nature changes.

Empedocles concluded that it was the idea of a single basic substance that had to be rejected. Neither water nor air alone can change into a rosebush or a butterfly. The source of nature cannot possibly be one single "element."

Empedocles believed that all in all, nature consisted of four elements, or "roots" as he termed them. These four roots were earth, air, fire, and wafer.

All natural processes were due to the coming together and separating of these four elements. For all things were a mixture of earth, air, fire, and water, but in varying proportions. When a flower or an animal dies, he said, the four elements separate again. We can register these changes with the naked eye. But earth and air, fire and water remain everlasting, "untouched" by all the compounds of which they are part. So it is not correct to say that "everything" changes. Basically, nothing changes. What happens is that the four elements are combined and separated--only to be combined again.

We can make a comparison to painting. If a painter only has one color--red, for instance--he cannot paint green trees. But if he has yellow, red, blue, and black, he can paint in hundreds of different colors because he can mix them in varying proportions.

An example from the kitchen illustrates the same thing. If I only have flour, I have to be a wizard to bake a cake. But if I have eggs, flour, milk, and sugar, then I can make any number of different cakes.

It was not purely by chance that Empedocles chose earth, air, fire, and water as nature's "roots." Other philosophers before him had tried to show that the primordial substance had to be either water, air, or fire. Thales and Anaximenes had pointed out that both water and air were essential elements in the physical world. The Greeks believed that fire was also essential. They observed, for ex-ample, the importance of the sun to all living things, and they also knew that both animals and humans have body heat.

Empedocles might have watched a piece of wood burning. Something disintegrates. We hear it crackle and splutter. That is "water." Something goes up in smoke. That is "air." The "fire" we can see. Something also remains when the fire is extinguished. That is the ashes--or "earth."

After Empedocles' clarification of nature's transformations as the combination and dissolution of the four "roots," something still remained to be explained. What makes these elements combine so that new life can occur? And what makes the "mixture" of, say, a flower dissolve again?

Empedocles believed that there were two different forces at work in nature. He called them love and strife. Love binds things together, and strife separates them.

He distinguishes between "substance" and "force." This is worth noting. Even today, scientists distinguish between elements and natural forces. Modern science holds that all natural processes can be explained as the interaction between different elements and various natural forces.

Empedocles also raised the question of what happens when we perceive something. How can I "see" a flower, for example? What is it that happens? Have you ever thought about it, Sophie?

Empedocles believed that the eyes consist of earth, air, fire, and water, just like everything else in nature. So the "earth" in my eye perceives what is of the earth in my surroundings, the "air" perceives what is of the air, the "fire" perceives what is of fire, and the "water" what is of water. Had my eyes lacked any of the four substances, I would not have seen all of nature.

Something of Everything in EverythingAnaxagoras (500-428 B.C.) was another philosopher who could not agree that one particular basic substance--water, for instance--might be transformed into everything we see in the natural world. Nor could he accept that earth, air, fire, and water can be transformed into blood and bone.

Anaxagoras held that nature is built up of an infinite number of minute particles invisible to the eye. Moreover, everything can be divided into even smaller parts, but even in the minutest parts there are fragments of all other things. If skin and bone are not a transformation of something else, there must also be skin and bone, he thought, in the milk we drink and the food we eat. ~~A couple of present-day examples can perhaps illustrate Anaxagoras' line of thinking. Modern laser technology can produce so-called holograms. If one of these holograms depicts a car, for example, and the hologram is fragmented, we will see a picture of the whole car even though we only have the part of the hologram that showed the bumper. This is because the whole subject is present in every tiny part.

In a sense, our bodies are built up in the same way. If I loosen a skin cell from my finger, the nucleus will contain not only the characteristics of my skin: the same cell will also reveal what kind of eyes I have, the color of my hair, the number and type of my fingers, and so on. Every cell of the human body carries a blueprint of the way all the other cells are constructed. So there is "something of everything" in every single cell. The whole exists in each tiny part.

Anaxagoras called these minuscule particles which have something of everything in them seeds.

Remember that Empedocles thought that it was "love" that joined the elements together in whole bodies. Anaxagoras also imagined "order" as a kind of force, creating animals and humans, flowers and trees. He called this force mind or intelligence (nous).

Anaxagoras is also interesting because he was the first philosopher we hear of in Athens. He was from Asia Minor but he moved to Athens at the age of forty. He was later accused of atheism and was ultimately forced to leave the city. Among other things, he said that the sun was not a god but a red-hot stone, bigger than the entire Peloponnesian peninsula.

Anaxagoras was generally very interested in astronomy. He believed that all heavenly bodies were made of the same substance as Earth. He reached this conclusion after studying a meteorite. This gave him the idea that there could be human life on other planets. He also pointed out that the Moon has no light of its own--its light comes from Earth, he said. He thought up an explanation for solar eclipses as well.

P.S. Thank you for your attention, Sophie. It is not unlikely that you will need to read this chapter two or three times before you understand it all. But understanding will always require some effort. You probably wouldn't admire a friend who was good at everything if it cost her no effort.

The best solution to the question of basic substance and the transformations in nature must wait until tomorrow, when you will meet Democritus. I'll say no more!

Sophie sat in the den looking out into the garden through a little hole in the dense thicket. She had to try and sort out her thoughts after all she had read.

It was as clear as daylight that plain water could never turn into anything other than ice or steam. Water couldn't even turn into a watermelon, because even watermelons consisted of more than just water. But she was only sure of that because that's what she had learned. Would she be absolutely certain, for example, that ice was only water if that wasn't what she had learned? At least, she would have to have studied very closely how water froze to ice and melted again.

Sophie tried once again to use her own common sense, and not to think about what she had learned from others.

Parmenides had refused to accept the idea of change in any form. And the more she thought about it, the more she was convinced that, in a way, he had been right. His intelligence could not accept that "something" could suddenly transform itself into "something completely different." It must have taken quite a bit of courage to come right out and say it, because it meant denying all the natural changes that people could see for themselves. Lots of people must have laughed at him.

And Empedocles must have been pretty smart too, when he proved that the world had to consist of more than one single substance. That made all the transformations of nature possible without anything actually changing.

The old Greek philosopher had found that out just by reasoning. Of course he had studied nature, but he didn't have the equipment to do chemical analysis the way scientists do nowadays.

Sophie was not sure whether she really believed that the source of everything actually was earth, air, fire, and water. But after all, what did that matter? In principle, Empedocles was right. The only way we can accept the transformations we can see with our own eyes--without losing our reason--is to admit the existence of more than one single basic substance.

Sophie found philosophy doubly exciting because she was able to follow all the ideas by using her own common sense--without having to remember everything she had learned at school. She decided that philosophy was not something you can learn; but perhaps you can learn to think philosophically.






中文翻译
自然派哲学家
   那天下午苏菲的妈妈下班回家时,苏菲正坐在秋千上,想着哲学课程与席德(那位收不到她父亲寄来的生日卡的女孩)之间究竟有什么关系?妈妈在花园另一头喊她:“苏菲,你有一封信!”苏菲吓了一跳。她刚才已经把信箱里的信都拿出来了,因此这封信一定是那位哲学家写来的。她该对妈妈说什么好呢?“信上没有贴邮票,可能是情书哩!”苏菲接过信。
   “你不打开吗?”她得编一个借口。
   “你听过谁当着自己妈妈的面拆情书的吗?”就让妈妈认为这是一封情书好了。虽然这样挺令人难为情的,但总比让妈妈发现自己接受一个完全陌生的人——一个和她玩捉迷藏的哲学家——的函授教学要好些。
   这次,信装在一个白色的小信封里。苏菲上楼回房后,看到信纸上写了三个新的问题:
   万事万物是否由一种基本的物质组成?
   水能变成酒吗?
   泥土与水何以能制造出一只活生生的青蛙?
   苏菲觉得这些问题很蠢,但整个晚上它们却在她的脑海里萦绕不去。到了第二天她还在想,把每个问题逐一思索了一番。
   世上万物是否’由一种“基本物质”组成的呢?如果是,这种基本物质又怎么可能突然变成一朵花或一只大象呢?同样的疑问也适用于水是否能变成酒的问题。苏菲听过耶稣将水变成酒的故事,但她从未当真。就算耶稣真的将水变成了酒,这也只是个奇迹,不是平常可以做到的。苏菲知道世间有很多水,不仅酒里有水,其他能够生长的事物中也都有水。然而,就拿黄瓜来说好了,即使它的水分含量高达百分之九十五,它里面必然也有其他的物质。因为黄瓜就是黄瓜,不是水。
   接下来是有关青蛙的问题。奇怪,她的这位哲学老师好像特别偏爱青蛙。
   她或许可以接受青蛙是由泥土与水变成的说法。但果真这样,泥土中必然含有一种以上的物质。如果泥土真的含有多种不同的物质,则它与水混合后说不定真的可以生出青蛙来。当然,它们必须先变成蛙卵与蝌蚪才行。因为,无论再怎么浇水,包心菜园里是长不出青蛙的。
   那天她放学回家后,信箱里已经有一封厚厚的信在等着她了。
   她像往常一样躲到密洞中去看信。
   哲学家的课题
   嗨,苏菲,又到上课的时间了。我们今天就不再谈白兔等等,直接上课吧。
   在这堂课里,我将大略描述从古希腊时期到现代,人们对哲学的观念。我们将按照应有的次序,逐一道来。
   由于这些哲学家生活的年代与我们不同,文化也可能与我们相异,因此也许我们应该先试着了解每+位哲学家给自己的课题,也就是说,明白他们每个人关注、质疑的事项是什么。可能有的哲学家想探索植物与动物是如何产生的,有的则想研究世间是否有上帝或人的灵魂是否不朽等问题。
   知道了每一位哲学家的“课题”之后,我们就比较容易了解他的思想的脉络,因为没有任何一位哲学家会企图探讨哲学的所有领域。
   我之所以用“他”来代表哲学家是因为在这期间哲学乃是男人的专利。从前的妇女无论做为一个女人或一个有思想的人都只有对男人俯首听命的份。这是很悲哀的事,因为许多宝贵经验就这样丧失了。一直要到本世纪,妇女们才真正在哲学史上留下了足印。
   我不想出家庭作业给你,不会让你做很难的算术题目或类似的功课,也不会让你背英文的动词变化。不过我偶尔会给你二些墒短的作业。
   如果你接受这些条件,我们就开始吧。
   自然派哲学家最早的希腊哲学家有时被称为“自然派哲学家”,因为他们关切的主题是大自然与它的循环与变化。
   我们都曾经好奇万物从何而来。现代有许多人认为万物必定是在某个时刻无中生有的。希腊人持有这种想法的并不多,由于某种理由,他们认定有“一种东西”是一直都存在的。因此对于他们而言,万物是如何从无到有并非重要的问题。他们惊叹的是水中如何会有活鱼、瘠土里如何会长出高大的树木与色彩鲜丽的花朵。而更让他们惊异的是女人的子宫居然会生出婴儿?.哲学家用自己的眼睛观察。他们发现大自然的形貌不断改变。
   这类变化是怎么发生的呢?举个例子,原来是属于物质的东西何以会变为有生命的物体?早期的哲学家都相信,这些变化必定来自某种基本物质。至于他们何以持此看法,这就很难说清楚。我们只知道,经过一段时间后,他们慢慢形成这样的观念,认为大自然的变化必定是某种基本物质造成的。他们相信,世上必定有某种“东西”,万物皆由此衍生,而且最终仍旧回归于此。
   我们最感兴趣的并不是这些早期的哲学家找出了哪些答案,而是他们问了什么问题、寻求何种答案等等。我们对他们的思考方式较感兴趣,而不是他们思考的内容。
   我们已经知道他们所提的问题与他们在物质世界观察到的变化有关。他们想寻求其中隐含的自然法则。他们想要从古代神话以外的观点来了解周遭发生的事。最重要的是,他们想要透过对大自然本身的研究来了解实际的变化过程。这与借神话故事来解释雷鸣、闪电或春去冬来的现象大不相同。
   就这样,哲学逐渐脱离了宗教的范畴。我们可以说自然派的哲学家朝科学推理的方向迈出了第一步,成为后来科学的先驱。
   这些自然派哲学家的论述,至今只留下断简残篇。我们所知的一小部分乃是根据两百多年后亚理斯多德的著作。其中只提到这些哲学家所做的若干结论,因此我们无法确切了解他们是经由何种方式达成这些结论。不过,我们根据已知的资料可以断定这些早期希腊哲学家的“课题”与宇宙的基本组成物质与大自然的变化等问题有关。
   米雷特斯的三位哲学家我们所知道的第一位哲学家是泰利斯(Thales)。他来自希腊在小亚细亚的殖民地米雷特斯,曾游历过埃及等许多国家。据说他在埃及时曾计算过金字塔的高度,他的方法是在他自己的影子与身高等长时测量金字塔的影子高度。另外据说他还在公元前五八五年时准确预测过日蚀的时间。
   泰利斯认为水是万物之源。我们并不很清楚这希的意思。或许他相信所有的生命源自于水,而所有的生命在消融后也仍旧变成水。
   他在埃及旅游时,必定看过尼罗河三角洲上的洪水退去后,陆地上的作物立刻开始生长的现象。他可能也注意到凡是刚下雨的地方一定会出现青蛙与虫子。
   更可能的是,泰利斯想到了水结成冰或化为蒸气后又变回水的现象。
   此外,据说泰利斯曾宣称:“万物中皆有神在”。此话含义为何,我们同样只能猜测。也许他在看到花朵、作物、昆虫乃至蟑螂全都来自黑色的泥土后,他便想象泥土中必定充满了许多肉眼看不见的微小“生命菌”。但有一件事情是可以肯定的:他所谓的“神”并非指荷马神话中的天神。
   我们所知的第二个哲学家是安纳克西曼德(Anaximander)。
   他也住在米雷特斯。他认为我们的世界只是他所谓的“无限定者”(注:世界由无限定者元素所构成)中无数个生生灭灭的世界之一。
   要解释他所谓“无限”的意思并不容易,但很明显的他并不像泰利斯一样认为世界是由一种物质造成的。
   也许他的意思是形成万物的物质不一定不是这些已经被创造出来的事物。因此这种基本物质不可能是像水这样平常的东西,而是某种无以名之的物质。
   第三位来自米雷特斯的哲学家是安那西梅尼斯(Anaximenes,约公元前五七O年~公元前五二六年)。他认为万物之源必定是“空气”或“气体”。毫无疑问,安那西梅尼斯必定熟知泰利斯有关水的理论。然而水从何来?安那西梅尼斯认为水是空气凝结后形成的。我们也可看到下雨时,水是从空气中挤出来的。安那西梅尼斯认为当水再进一步受到挤压时,就会变成泥土。他可能曾经注意到冰雪融解时,会有泥土、沙石出现。他并认为火是比较精纯的空气。
   因此他主张空气是泥土、水、火的源头。
   这与“水是万物生长之源”的理论相去不远。也许安那西梅尼斯认为泥土、空气与火都是创造生命的必要条件,但“空气”或“气体”才是万物之源。因此,他和泰利斯一样,认为自然界的一切事物必定是由一种基本物质造成的。
   没有任何事物会来自虚无这三位米雷特斯的哲学家都相信,宇宙间有一种基本物质是所有事物的源头。
   然而一种物质又如何会突然变成另外一种东西?我们可以把这个问题称为“变化的问题”。•约莫从公元前五OO年开始,位于意大利南部的希腊殖民地伊利亚(Elea)有一群哲学家也对这个问题很有兴趣。其中最重要的一位是帕梅尼德斯(Parmen记es,约公元前五四O~公元前四八O年)。
   帕梅尼德斯认为现有的万物是一直都存在的。这个观念对希腊人并不陌生,他们多少认为世上的万物是亘古长存的。在帕梅尼德斯的想法中,没有任何事物会来自虚无,而已经存在的事物中也不会消失于无形。
   不过,帕梅尼德斯的思想比其他大多数人更加深入。他认为世上根本没有真正的变化,没有任何事物可以变成另外一种事物。
   当然,帕梅尼德斯也体认到大自然恒常变迁的事实。透过感官,他察觉到事物的确会发生变化,不过他无法将这个现象与他的理智思考画上等号。当他不得不在依赖感官和依赖理智之间做一个选择时,他选择了理智。
   你听过“眼见为信”这句话。不过帕梅尼德斯甚至在亲眼见到后仍不相信。他认为我们的感官使我们对世界有不正确的认识,这种认识与我们的理智不符。身为一个哲学家,他认为他的使命就是要揭穿各种形式的“感官幻象”。
   这里坚决相信人的理智的态度被称为理性主义。所谓理性主义者就是百分之百相信人类的理智是世间所有知识泉源的人。
   所有•事物都是流动的帕梅尼德斯的时代另有一位哲学家叫做赫拉克里特斯(Hera—c1讧us,约公元前五四O~公元前四八O)。当时他从以弗所(Ephesus)来到小亚细亚。他认为恒常变化(或流动)事实上正是大自然的最基本特征。我们也许可以说,赫拉克里特斯对于自己眼见的事物要比帕梅尼德斯更有信心。
   赫拉克里特斯说:“所有事物都是流动的。”每一件事物都在不停变化、移动,没有任何事物是静止不变的,因此我们不可能“在同一条河流中涉水两次”。当我第二次涉水时,无论是我还是河流都已经与从前不同了。
   赫拉克里特斯指出,世间的事物都是相对的。如果我们从未生病,就不会知道健康的滋味。如果我们从未尝过饥饿的痛苦,我们在饱足时就不会感到愉悦。如果世上从未有过战争,我们就不会珍惜和平。如果没有冬天,春天也不会来临。
   赫拉克里特斯相信,在事物的秩序中,好与坏、善与恶都是不可或缺的。如果好坏善恶两极之间没有不停的交互作用,则世界将不再存在。
   他说:“神是白天也是黑夜,是冬天也是夏天,是战争也是和平,是饥饿也是饱足。”这里他提到的“神”所指的显然不是神话中的神。对于赫拉克里特斯而言,神是涵盖整个世界的事物。的确,在大自然不停的变化与对比中,我们可以很清楚地看见神的存在。
   赫拉克里特斯经常用logos(意为“理性”)这个希腊字来替代“神”一词。他相信,人类虽然思想不见得永远一致,理性也不一定同样发达,但世上一定有一种“普遍的理性”指导大自然所发生的每一件事。
   “普遍的理性”或“普遍法则”是所有人都具备,而且以之做为行事准则的。不过,赫拉克里特斯认为,大多数人还是依照个人的理性来生活。总而言之,他瞧不起其他的人。他说;“大多数人的意见就像儿戏一般。”所以,赫拉克里特斯在大自然不断地变迁与对比的现象中看出了一个“一致性”。他认为这就是万物之源,他称之为“上帝”或“理性”。
   四种基本元素从某方面来看,帕梅尼德斯和赫拉克里特斯两人的看法正好相反。帕梅尼德斯从理性的角度认为没有一件事物会改变。赫拉克里特斯则从感官认知的观点认为大自然不断在改变。究竟谁对谁错?我们应该听从理性还是依循感官?帕梅尼德斯和赫拉克里特斯各自主张两点。
   帕梅尼德斯说:1.没有任何事物会改变。
   2.因此我们的感官认知是不可靠的。
   赫拉克里特斯则说:1.万物都会改变(“一切事物都是流动的”)2.我们的感官认知是可靠的。
   两人的意见可说是南辕北辙。但究竟谁是谁非?这样各执一词、相持不下的局面最后由西西里的哲学家恩培窦可里斯(Empe—docles)解决了。
   他认为他们两人各有一点是对的,也各有一点是错的。
   他指出,他们两人之所以有这个根本性的差异是因为他们都认定世间只有一种元素存在。他说,果真如此,则由理性引导的事物与“眼睛可见到的”事物之间将永远有无法跨越的鸿沟。
   他说,水显然不会变成鱼或蝴蝶。事实上,水永远不会改变。纯粹的水将一直都是纯粹的水。帕梅尼德斯主张“没有任何事物会改变”并没有错。
   但同时恩培窦可里斯也同意赫拉克里特斯的说法,认为我们必须相信我们的感官所体验到的。我们必须信任自己亲眼所见的事物,而我们的确亲眼看到大自然的变化。
   恩培窦可里斯的结论是:我们不应该接受世间只有一种基本物质的观念;无论水或空气都无法独力变成玫瑰或蝴蝶。大自然不可能只由一种“元素”组成。
   恩培窦可里斯相信,整体来说,大自然是由四种元素所组成的,他称之为四个“根”。这四个根就是土、气、火与水。
   他指出,大自然所有的变化都是因为这四种元素相互结合或分离的缘故。因为所有事物都是由泥土、空气、火与水混合而成,只是比例各不相同。他说,当一株花或一只动物死亡时,它们体内的这四种元素就再度分离了,这些变化是肉眼可见的。不过土、气、火与水却是永远不灭的,不受他们所组成事物的影响。因此,说“万物”都会改变是不正确的。基本上,没有任何一件事情有变化。世间发生的事不过是这四种元素的分合聚散罢了。
   也许我们可以拿绘画来做比喻。假如一位画家只有一种颜料——例如红色——他便无法画出绿树。但假如他有黄、红、蓝、黑四色,他便可以将它们依照不同的比例来调配,得出数百种颜色。
   或者也可以拿烹饪来比方。如果我只有面粉,那么我得是个魔法师才能做出蛋糕来。但如果我有鸡蛋、面粉、牛奶与糖,我便可以做出各式各样的蛋糕。
   恩培窦可里斯之所以选择土、气、火与水做为大自然的四个“根”并非偶然。在他之前有些哲学家也曾经试图证明宇宙的基本元素不是水,就是空气或火。泰利斯与安那西梅尼斯也曾经指出,水与气都是物质世界中不可或缺的元素。希腊人则相信火也同样重要。举例来说,他们发现阳光对所有生物的重要性,也知道动物与人都有体温。
   恩培窦可里斯可能观察过木材燃烧的情形。他看到木材因此分解。木材燃烧时发出“劈啪!劈啪1”的声音,那是“水”,另外也有某些东西随着烟雾往上升,那是“气”,而“火”更是明白可见的。至于火熄灭后所残余的灰烬便是“土”了。
   恩培窦可里斯将自然界的变化解释为四个“根”的分合聚散之后,仍有一件事情有待解释。是什么因素使得这些元素聚合在一起,创造了新的生命?又是什么因素使得这些聚合物——例如花——再度分解?•恩培窦可里斯认为自然界有两种力量。他称之为“爱”与“恨”。
   爱使得事物聚合,而恨则使他们分散。
   他将“物质”与“力量”分开来。这是值得注意的一件事。即使是在今天,科学家们仍将“矿物”与“自然力”分开。现代科学家相信,自然界的一切变化都可说是各种矿物在不同自然力之下相互作用的结果。
   恩培窦可里斯并提出“我们何以能看见某物”的问题。例如我们何以能“看见”一株花?其间究竟发生了什么事?苏菲,你有没有想过这个问题?如果没有,你现在可有机会了。
   恩培窦可里斯认为,我们的眼睛就像自然界的其他事物一样,也是由土、气、火、水所组成。所以我们眼睛当中的“土”可以看见周遭环境中的土,我们眼中的“气”则看到四周的气,我们眼中的“火”看到四周的火,我们眼中的“水”则看到四周的水。我们的眼睛中如果缺少这四种物质中的任何一种,便无法看到大自然所有的事物了。
   万物中皆含有各物的一部分还有一位哲学家也不认为我们在自然界中所看到的每一件事物都是由某一种基本物质——如水——变成的。他的名字叫安纳萨哥拉斯(Anaxagoras,公元前五OO~公元前四二八年)。他也不相信土、气、火、水就能够变成血液与骨头。
   安纳萨哥拉斯主张大自然是由无数肉眼看不见的微小粒子所组成,而所有事物都可以被分割成更小的部分。然而,即使是在最小的部分中也有其他每种事物的成分存在。他认为,如果皮肤与骨头不是由其他东西变成,则我们喝的牛奶与吃的食物中也必定有皮肤与骨头的成分。
   我们用一些现代的例子也许可以说明安纳萨哥拉斯的思想。
   现代的镭射科技可以制造所谓的“镭射摄影图”。如果一张镭射摄影图描绘的是一辆汽车,且这张图被切割成一片一片的,那么我们虽然手中只有显示汽车保险杆的那一张图,也仍旧可以看到整辆汽车的图像。这是因为在每一个微小的部分中都有整体的存在。
   从某一方面来说,我们身体的构造也是一样。假如我的指头上掉落了一个皮肤细胞,此一细胞核不仅会包含我皮肤的特征,也会显示我有什么样的眼睛、什么颜色的头发、有几根指头、是什么样的指头等等、人体的每个细胞都带有决定所有其他细胞构造方式的蓝图,因此在每一个细胞中,都含有“各物的一部分”;整体存在于每一个微小的部分中。
   安纳萨哥拉斯称呼这些含有“各物的一部分”的“小粒子”为“种子”。
   我们还记得恩培寞可里斯认为“爱”凝聚各种元素组成整体的力量。安纳哥拉斯也认为“秩序”是一种力量,可以创造动物与人、花与树等。他称这个力量为“心灵”或“睿智”。
   安纳萨哥拉斯之所以引起我们的兴趣,一方面也是因为他是我们所知第一个住在雅典的哲学家。他生长于小亚细亚,但在四十岁时迁居雅典。他后来被责为无神论者,因此最后被迫离开雅典。
   他还说过,太阳不是一个神,而是一块红热的石头,比希腊的培洛彭尼索斯半岛还大。
   安纳萨哥拉斯对天文学很感兴趣。他相信天上所有物体的成分都与地球相同。这是他研究一块陨石后达成的结论。他因此想到别的星球上可能也有人类。他并指出,月亮自己并不会发光,它的光来自于地球。同时他还解释了日蚀的现象。
   P.S:苏菲,谢谢你注意听讲。你可能需要将这一章读个两三遍才能完全理解。不过话说回来,要理解一件事物总是要费一些力气的。你的朋友如果有人一点不费力气就可以样样精通的话,我相信你也不会很欣赏她。
   关于宇宙基本组成物质与自然界变化这个问题的最佳答案,必须要等到明天再说了。到时你将会认识德谟克里特斯(Democrltus)。今天就到此为止了。
   苏菲坐在密洞中,透过浓密的灌木丛中的小洞向花园张望。在读了这么多东西后,她得理清她的思绪才行。
   显然的,白水除了变成冰块或蒸气之外,永远不能变成其他的东西,甚至也不能变成西瓜,因为西瓜里面除了水以外还有别的。
   不过她之所以这么肯定,是因为她曾经在学校中上过课。如果她没有上过相关的课,她还会这么肯定冰块的成分完全是水吗?至少她得密切观察水如何结冻成冰块、又如何融解才行。
   苏菲再次试着运用自己的常识,而不去想她从别人那儿学到的知识。
   帕梅尼德斯不承认世上任何事物会变化。苏菲愈想愈相信从某一方面来说,他是对的。在智性上,他无法接受事物会突然转变成“另外一种完全不同的事物”的说法。要坦白说出这个观念一定需要很大的勇气,因为这必定意味着他必须驳斥人们亲眼所见到的种种自然界的变化。一定有很多人取笑他。
   恩培窦可里斯一定也是个聪明的人。因为他证明这世界是由一种以上的物质组成,如此自然界才可能在万事万物实际上皆未曾改变的情况下产生种种变化。
   他只凭推理就发现了这个事实。当然他曾经研究过大自然,但他却没有现代科学家的设备来进行化学分析。
   苏菲并不一定相信万事万物都是由土、气、火与水所组成。但这又有什么关系呢?就原则上来说,恩培窦可里斯说得没错。如果我们要接受自己亲眼所见的各种大自然的变化而又不致违反自己的理性,唯一的方式就只有承认世间存在着一种以上的基本物质。
   现在,苏菲发现哲学这门课程更有趣了,因为她可运用自己的常识来理解这些哲学思想,而毋需凭借她在学校学到的知识。她的结论是:哲学不是一般人能够学到的,但也许我们可以学习如何以哲学的方式思考。





暮辞朝

ZxID:15103679


等级: 内阁元老
配偶: 清风雅乐
这一段开心的日子请你勿忘
举报 只看该作者 5楼  发表于: 2013-10-25 0
英文原文
Democritus

the most ingenious toy in the world

Sophie put all the typed pages from the unknown philosopher back into the cookie tin and put the lid on it. She crawled out of the den and stood for a while looking across the garden. She thought about what happened yesterday. Her mother had teased her about the "love letter" again at breakfast this morning. She walked quickly over to the mailbox to prevent the same thing from happening today. Getting a love letter two days in a row would be doubly embarrassing.

There was another little white envelope! Sophie began to discern a pattern in the deliveries: every afternoon she would find a big brown envelope. While she read the contents, the philosopher would sneak up to the mailbox with another little white envelope.

So now Sophie would be able to find out who he was. If it was a he! She had a good view of the mailbox from her room. If she stood at the window she would see the mysterious philosopher. White envelopes don't just appear out of thin air!

Sophie decided to keep a careful watch the following day. Tomorrow was Friday and she would have the whole weekend ahead of her.

She went up to her room and opened the envelope. There was only one question today, but it was even dumber than the previous three:

Why is Lego the most ingenious toy in the world?

For a start, Sophie was not at all sure she agreed that it was. It was years since she had played with the little plastic blocks. Moreover she could not for the life of her see what Lego could possibly have to do with philosophy.

But she was a dutiful student. Rummaging on the top shelf of her closet, she found a bag full of Lego blocks of all shapes and sizes.

For the first time in ages she began to build with them. As she worked, some ideas began to occur to her about the blocks.

They are easy to assemble, she thought. Even though they are all different, they all fit together. They are also unbreakable. She couldn't ever remember having seen a broken Lego block. All her blocks looked as bright and new as the day they were bought, many years ago. The best thing about them was that with Lego she could construct any kind of object. And then she could separate the blocks and construct something new.

What more could one ask of a toy? Sophie decided that Lego really could be called the most ingenious toy in the world. But what it had to do with philosophy was beyond her.

She had nearly finished constructing a big doll's house. Much as she hated to admit it, she hadn't had as much fun in ages.

Why did people quit playing when they grew up?

When her mother got home and saw what Sophie had been doing, she blurted out, "What fun! I'm so glad you're not too grown up to play!"

"I'm not playing!" Sophie retorted indignantly, "I'm doing a very complicated philosophical experiment!"

Her mother signed deeply. She was probably thinking about the white rabbit and the top hat.

When Sophie got home from school the following day, there were several more pages for her in a big brown envelope. She took them upstairs to her room. She could not wait to read them, but she had to keep her eye on the mailbox at the same time.

THE ATOM THEORY

Here I am again, Sophie. Today you are going to hear about the last of the great natural philosophers. His name is Democritus (c. 460-370 B.C.) and he was from the little town of Abdera on the northern Aegean coast.

If you were able to answer the question about Lego blocks without difficulty, you should have no problem understanding what this philosopher's project was.

Democritus agreed with his predecessors that transformations in nature could not be due to the fact that anything actually "changed." He therefore assumed that everything was built up of tiny invisible blocks, each of which was eternal and immutable. Democritus called these smallest units atoms.

The word "a-tom" means "un-cuttable." For Democritus it was all-important to establish that the constituent parts that everything else was composed of could not be divided indefinitely into smaller parts. If this were possible, they could not be used as blocks. If atoms could eternally be broken down into ever smaller parts, nature would begin to dissolve like constantly diluted soup.

Moreover, nature's blocks had to be eternal--because nothing can come from nothing. In this, he agreed with Parmenides and the Eleatics. Also, he believed that all atoms were firm and solid. But they could not all be the same. If all atoms were identical, there would still be no satisfactory explanation of how they could combine to form everything from poppies and olive trees to goatskin and human hair.

Democritus believed that nature consisted of an unlimited number and variety of atoms. Some were round and smooth, others were irregular and jagged. And precisely because they were so different they could join together into all kinds of different bodies. But however infinite they might be in number and shape, they were all eternal, immutable, and indivisible.

When a body--a tree or an animal, for instance--died and disintegrated, the atoms dispersed and could be used again in new bodies. Atoms moved around in space, but because they had "hooks" and "barbs," they could join together to form all the things we see around us.

So now you see what I meant about Lego blocks. They have more or less the same properties as those which Democritus ascribed to atoms. And that is what makes them so much fun to build with. They are first and foremost indivisible. Then they have different shapes and sizes. They are solid and impermeable. They also have "hooks" and "barbs" so that they can be connected to form every conceivable figure. These connections can later be broken again so that new figures can be constructed from the same blocks.

The fact that they can be used over and over is what has made Lego so popular. Each single Lego block can be part of a truck one day and part of a castle the day after. We could also say that lego blocks are "eternal." Children of today can play with the same blocks their parents played with when they were little.

We can form things out of clay too, but clay cannot be used over and over, because it can be broken up into smaller and smaller pieces. These tiny pieces can never be joined together again to make something else.

Today we can establish that Democritus' atom theory was more or less correct. Nature really is built up of different "atoms" that join and separate again. A hydrogen atom in a cell at the end of my nose was once part of an elephant's trunk. A carbon atom in my cardiac muscle was once in the tail of a dinosaur.

In our own time, however, scientists have discovered that atoms can be broken into smaller "elemental particles." We call these elemental particles protons, neutrons, and electrons. These will possibly some day be broken into even lesser particles. But physicists agree that somewhere along the line there has to be a limit. There has to be a "minimal part" of which nature consists.

Democritus did not have access to modern electronic apparatus. His only proper equipment was his mind. But reason left him no real choice. Once it is accepted that nothing can change, that nothing can come out of nothing, and that nothing is ever lost, then nature must consist of infinitesimal blocks that can join and separate again.

Democritus did not believe in any "force" or "soul" that could intervene in natural processes. The only things that existed, he believed, were atoms and the void. Since he believed in nothing but material things, we call him a materialist.

According to Democritus, there is no conscious "design" in the movement of atoms. In nature, everything happens quite mechanically. This does not mean that everything happens randomly, for everything obeys the inevitable laws of necessity. Everything that happens has a natural cause, a cause that is inherent in the thing itself. Democritus once said that he would rather discover a new cause of nature than be the King of Persia.

The atom theory also explains our sense perception, thought Democritus. When we sense something, it is due to the movement of atoms in space. When I see the moon, it is because "moon atoms" penetrate my eye.

But what about the "soul," then? Surely that could not consist of atoms, of material things? Indeed it could. Democritus believed that the soul was made up of special round, smooth "soul atoms." When a human being died, the soul atoms flew in all directions, and could then become part of a new soul formation.

This meant that human beings had no immortal soul, another belief that many people share today. They believe, like Democritus, that "soul" is connected with brain, and that we cannot have any form of consciousness once the brain disintegrates.

Democritus's atom theory marked the end of Greek natural philosophy for the time being. He agreed with ,Her-aclitus that everything in nature "flowed," since Torms come and go. But behind everything that flowed there were some eternal and immutable things that did not flow. Democritus called them atoms.

During her reading Sophie glanced out of the window several times to see whether her mysterious correspondent had turned up at the mailbox. Now she just sat staring down the road, thinking about what she had read. She felt that Democritus's ideas had been so simple and yet so ingenious. He had discovered the real solution to the problem of "basic substance" and "transformation." This problem had been so complicated that philosophers had gone around puzzling over it for generations. And in the end Democritus had solved it on his own by using his common sense.

Sophie could hardly help smiling. It had to be true that nature was built up of small parts that never changed. At the same time Heraclitus was obviously right in thinking that all forms in nature "flow." Because everybody dies, animals die, even a mountain range slowly disintegrates. The point was that the mountain range is made up of tiny indivisible parts that never break up.

At the same time Democritus had raised some new questions. For example, he had said that everything happened mechanically. He did not accept that there was any spiritual force in life--unlike Empedocles and An-axagoras. Democritus also believed that man had no immortal soul.

Could she be sure of that?

She didn't know. But then she had only just begun the philosophy course.





中文翻译
德谟克里特斯
   苏菲将信纸放回饼干盒,盖上盖子。她爬出密洞,并在花园里站了一会,看着整座园子,想到昨天发生的事。今天吃早饭时,妈妈又拿情书这件事情来取笑她。于是她很快走向信箱,以免又发生类似昨天的事。连续两天接到情书将会使她更难为情。
   信箱里又有一个小小的白色信封1她开始察觉哲学家送信的时间有一定的模式:每天下午她会接到一个棕色的大信封。趁着她看信时,哲学家又会神不知鬼不觉地把另一个白色小信封放在她的信箱内。
   因此,现在苏菲有办法查出他的身分了。说不定,他还是个女人呢!她可以从楼上的房间清楚看到信箱。如果她站在窗前,就可以看到这位神秘的哲学家了。白信封总不会是从空气里变出来的吧?苏菲决定明天要密切观察。明天是星期五,她有一整个周末可以做这件事。她上楼回到自己的房间,并打开信封。今天只有一个问题,但这个问题,却比她的“情书”里的那三个问题更蠢。
   积木为何是世界上最巧妙的玩具首先,苏菲并不认为积木是世界上最巧妙的玩具。她已经有好些年没玩过它了。再说,她实在看不出积木和哲学有什么关联。
   不过,她是一个很守本分的学生。于是,她在橱柜的上层翻寻了一遍,找出一个装满各种形状、尺寸的积木的塑胶袋。
   她开始玩起积木来,她好久好久没有这样做了。当她动手时,脑中开始出现了一些关于积木的想法。
   她想,这些积木很容易组合。虽然它们每一块各不相同,但都可以互相衔接。此外,这些积木也摔不破。印象中她好像没有看过破掉的积木。她手中的这些积木看来就像许多年前刚买时一样,新得发亮。最棒的是她可以用积木组合任何东西,然后又可以把它们拆开,再组合别的东西。
   对于这样的玩具你还能有什么要求呢?现在苏菲开始认为积木的确是世界上最巧妙的玩具了。不过她还是不明白这跟哲学有什么关系。她几乎盖好一栋很大的娃娃屋。她虽然不愿意承认,但事实上她很久很久没有玩得这么开心了。
   为什么人们长大后就不再玩耍了呢?当妈妈进门时,看到苏菲正在玩积木,忍不住脱口而出:“多好玩哪!我很高兴你还没有长大到不能玩的年纪。”“我不是在玩!”苏菲生气地说。“我在做一项非常复杂的哲学实验。”妈妈深深叹了口气,苏菲大概又在想白兔与帽子的事了。
   第二天苏菲放学回家后,放着好几页信纸的棕色大信封已经在等着她了。她把信拿到楼上的房间内,迫不及待要看信,但同时她也告诉自己必须要注意信箱附近的动静才行。
   原子理论
   苏菲,我又来了!今天我们将谈到最后一位伟大的自然派哲学他的名字叫德谟克里特斯(约公元前四六O~公元前三七O)来自爱琴海北部海岸一个叫阿布德拉的小镇。
   如果你能够毫无困难地回答有关积木的问题,你将可以了解这位哲学家的课题。
   德谟克里特斯同意前面几位哲学家的看法,认为自然界的转变不是因为任何事物真的有所“改变”。他相信每一种事物都是由微小的积木所组成,而每一块积木都是永恒不变的。德谟克里特斯把这些最小的单位称为原予。
   原子(atom)这个字的本意是“不可分割的”。德谟克里特斯认为,证明组成各种事物的单位不可能被无限制分割咸更小的单位是很重要的。因为如果每一个组成各种事物的单位都可以被分割咸更小的单位,则大自然将开始像不断被稀释的汤一般消失了。
   更重要的是,大自然的积木必须是永恒的,因为没有一件事物会来自虚无。在这方面,他同意帕梅尼德斯与伊利亚地区那些哲学家的看法,也认为所有的原予都是坚硬结实的,但却非完全一样。
   他说,如果所有原予都一模一样,则我们将无法圆满解释它们何以能够聚合成像罂粟花、橄榄树、羊皮、人发等各种不同的东西。
   德谟克里特斯相信,大自然是由无数形状各异的原子组成的。
   其中有些是平滑的圆形,有些是不规则的锯齿形。正因为它们形状如此不同,才可以组合在一起,成为各种不同的物体。然而,无论它们的数量和形状多么无穷无尽,它们都是永恒不变、不可被分割的。
   当一个物体——如一棵树或一只动物——死亡并分解时,原子就分散各处并可用来组成新的物体。这些原予在空间中到处移动,但因为它们有“钩”与“刺”,因此可以组成我们周遭所见的事物。
   因此,现在你明白我问你积木问题的用意了吧?积木的性质多少与德谟克里特斯所说的原子相似’,这也是为何积木如此好玩的原因。首先它们是不可分割的,其次它们有各种不同的形状与尺寸,它们是硬而且不可渗透的。它们也有“钩”与“刺”,使得它们可以组合在一起,形成任何你想象得到的形状。组合完成后,你也可以将它们拆掉,用同一批积木再组成新的东西。
   它们可以一再重复使用,这也是积木为何如此受到欢迎的原因。同一块积木今天可以用来造卡车,明天可以用来造城堡。我们也可以说积木是“永恒”的玩具,因为父母小时玩的积木可以拿给下一代玩。
   我们也可以用黏土来做东西,不过黏土不可以重复使用,因为它可以不断被分割成更小的单位。这些微小的单位不能够再度组合,做成别的东西。
   今天我们可以确定,德谟克里特斯的原子理论或多或少是A确的。大自然的确是由聚散不定的不同“原子”所组成。我鼻头细胞里的一个氢原子以前可能属于某只大象的鼻子;我d脏肌肉里的一个碳原子从前可能在恐龙的尾巴上。
   不过,现代科学家已经发现原子可以分裂为更小的“基本粒子”。我们称之为质子、中子与电子。也许这些粒子有一天也可以被分裂成更小的粒子。但物理学家一致认为这样分裂下去,一定会有一个极限。一定有一个组成大自然的“最小单位”。
   德谟克里特斯当年并没有现代的电子设备可以利用。他唯一的工具就是他的心灵。不过在运用他的理性思考之后,他其实也只能提出这样的答案。他既然接受没有任何事物会改变、没有任何事物来自虚无、没有任何事物会消失的说法,那么大自然必定是由可以一再聚散的无限小单位组成的。
   德谟克里特斯并不相信有任何“力量”或“灵魂”介入大自然的变化过程。他认为世间唯一存在的东西就只有原子与虚空。由于只相信物质的东西,因此我们称他为唯物论者。
   根据德谟克里特斯的说法,原子的移动并没有任何刻意的“设计”。在自然界中,每一件事物的发生都是相当机械化的。这并不是说每一件事都是偶然发生的,因为万事万物都遵从必要的“必然法则”。每一件事之所以发生都有一个自然的原因,这个原因原本即存在于事物的本身。德谟克里特斯曾经说过,他对发现新的自然法则比当波斯国王更有兴趣。•德谟克里特斯认为,原予理论同时也解释了我们的感官何以会有知觉。我们之所以会感觉到某样东西,是因为原子在空间中移动的缘故,我们之所以能看到月亮,是因为“月亮原子”穿透了我们的眼睛。
   然而,有关“灵魂”这档事又怎么说呢?它一定不可能是由原子、由物质组成的吧?事实上,那是可能的。德谟克里特斯认为,灵魂是由一种既圆又平滑的特别的“灵魂原子”组成。人死时,灵魂原子四处飞散,然后可能变成另一个新灵魂的一部分。
   这表示人类并没有不朽的灵魂。今天许多人都持有这种想法。
   他们像德谟克里特斯一样,相信“灵魂”与脑子连在一起,脑子分解之后,我们就没有任何知觉意识了。
   关于希腊的自然派哲学,我们暂时就讨论到德谟克里特斯的原子理论为止。他赞成赫拉克里特斯的看法,认为各种物体出现、消失、出现、消失,因此自然界的一切事物都是“流动”的。不过每一件“流动”的事物背后,有某种永恒不变、不会流动的东西,德谟克里特斯称之为原子。
   在看信的当儿,苏非向窗外瞥过好几眼,想看那位神秘的哲学家是否会出现在信箱旁。现在她却只是坐着,看着路的那一头,想着刚才信里的内容。
   她觉得德谟克里特斯的概念虽然简单,但却非常巧妙。他发现了“基本物质”与“变化”这个问题的真正答案。这个问题非常复杂,历代的哲学家都为它绞尽脑汁。最后德谟克里特斯却单凭常识就解决了这个问题。
   苏菲忍不住要微笑起来。大自然必定是由许多不变的微小单位组成的。另外一方面,赫拉克里特斯认为自然界所有形体都在“流动”的想法显然也是对的,因为每一个人都会死,动物也会死,就连山脉也会慢慢瓦解。重点是山脉是由微小的、不可分割的单位组成的,而这些单位永远不会分解。
   同时,德谟克里特斯也提出了一些新的问题。例如,他说每一件事物的发生都是机械化的。就像恩培窦可里斯与安纳萨哥拉斯一样,他并不认为生命中有任何精神力量存在。他也相信人没有不朽的灵魂。
   她是否赞成这种想法呢?她不知道。不过毕竟她才开始上这门哲学课呀!





暮辞朝

ZxID:15103679


等级: 内阁元老
配偶: 清风雅乐
这一段开心的日子请你勿忘
举报 只看该作者 6楼  发表于: 2013-10-25 0
英文原文
Fate

 the "fortune-teller" is trying to foresee something that is really quite unforeseeable ...

Sophie had been keeping her eye on the mailbox while she read about Democritus. But just in case, she decided nevertheless to take a stroll down to the garden gate.

When she opened the front door she saw a small envelope on the front step. And sure enough--it was addressed to Sophie Amundsen.

So he had tricked her! Today of all days, when she had kept such careful watch on the mailbox, the mystery man had sneaked up to the house from a different angle and just laid the letter on the step before making off into the woods again. Drat!

How did he know that Sophie was watching the mailbox today? Had he seen her at the window? Anyway, she was glad to find the letter before her mother arrived.

Sophie went back to her room and opened the letter. The white envelope was a bit wet around the edges, and had two little holes in it. Why was that? It had not rained for several days.

The little note inside read:

Do you believe in Fate?

Is sickness the punishment of the gods?

What forces govern the course of history?

Did she believe in Fate? She was not at all sure. But she knew a lot of people who did. There was a girl in her class who read horoscopes in magazines. But if they believed in astrology, they probably believed in Fate as well, because astrologers claimed that the position of the stars influenced people's lives on Earth.

If you believed that a black cat crossing your path meant bad luck--well, then you believed in Fate, didn't you? As she thought about it, several more examples of fatalism occurred to her. Why do so many people knock on wood, for example? And why was Friday the thirteenth an unlucky day? Sophie had heard that lots of hotels had no room number 13. It had to be because so many people were superstitious.

"Superstitious." What a strange word. If you believed in Christianity or Islam, it was called "faith." But if you believed in astrology or Friday the thirteenth it was superstition! Who had the right to call other people's belief superstition?

Sophie was sure of one thing, though. Democritus had not believed in fate. He was a materialist. He had only believed in atoms and empty space.

Sophie tried to think about the other questions on the note.

"Is sickness the punishment of the gods?" Surely nobody believed that nowadays? But it occurred to her that many people thought it helped to pray for recovery, so at any rate they must believe that God had some power over people's health.

The last question was harder to answer. Sophie had never given much thought to what governed the course of history. It had to be people, surely? If it was God or Fate, people had no free will.

The idea of free will made Sophie think of something else. Why should she put up with this mysterious philosopher playing cat and mouse with her? Why couldn't she write a letter to him. He (or she) would quite probably put another big envelope in the mailbox during the night or sometime tomorrow morning. She would see to it that there was a letter ready for this person.

Sophie began right away. It was difficult to write to someone she had never seen. She didn't even know if it was a man or a woman. Or if he or she was old or young. For that matter, the mysterious philosopher could even be someone she already knew. She wrote:

Most respected philosopher, Your generous correspondence course in philosophy is greatly appreciated by us here. But it bothers us not to know who you are. We therefore request you to use your full name. In return we would like to extend our hospitality should you care to corne and have coffee with us, but preferably when my mother is at home. She is at work from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. every day from Monday to Friday. I am at school during these days, but I am always home by 2:15 p.m., except on Thursdays. I am also very good at making coffee.

Thanking you in advance, I remainYour attentive student,Sophie Amundsen (aged 14)

At the bottom of the page she wrote RSVP.

Sophie felt that the letter had turned out much too formal. But it was hard to know which words to choose when writing to a person without a face. She put the letter in a pink envelope and addressed it "To the philosopher."

The problem was where to put it so her mother didn't find it. She would have to wait for her to get home before putting it in the mailbox. And she would also have to remember to look in the mailbox early the next morning before the newspaper arrived. If no new letter came for her this evening or during the night, she would have to take the pink envelope in again.

Why did it all have to be so complicated?

That evening Sophie went up to her room early, even though it was Friday. Her mother tried to tempt her with pizza and a thriller on TV, but Sophie said she was tired and wanted to go to bed and read. While her mother sat watching TV, she sneaked out to the mailbox with her letter.

Her mother was clearly worried. She had started speaking to Sophie in a different tone since the business with the white rabbit and the top hat. Sophie hated to be a worry to her mother, but she just had to go upstairs and keep an eye on the mailbox.

When her mother came up at about eleven o'clock, Sophie was sitting at the window staring down the road.

"You're not still sitting there staring at the mailbox!" she said.

"I can look at whatever I like."

"I really think you must be in love, Sophie. But if he is going to bring you another letter, he certainly won't come in the middle of the night."

Yuck! Sophie loathed all that soppy talk about love. But she had to let her mother go on believing it was true.

"Is he the one who told you about the rabbit and the top hat?" her mother asked.

Sophie nodded.

"He--he doesn't do drugs, does he?"

Now Sophie felt really sorry for her mother. She couldn't go on letting her worry this way, although it was completely nutty of her to think that just because someone had a slightly bizarre idea he must be on something. Grownups really were idiotic sometimes.

She said, "Mom, I promise you once and for all I'll never do any of that stuff... and he doesn't either. But he is very interested in philosophy."

"Is he older than you?"

Sophie shook her head.

"The same age?"

Sophie nodded.

"Well, I'm sure he's very sweet, darling. Now I think you should try and get some sleep."

But Sophie stayed sitting by the window for what seemed like hours. At last she could hardly keep her eyes open. It was one o'clock.

She was just about to go to bed when she suddenly caught sight of a shadow emerging from the woods.

Although it was almost dark outside, she could make out the shape of a human figure. It was a man, and Sophie thought he looked quite old. He was certainly not her age! He was wearing a beret of some kind.

She could have sworn he glanced up at the house, but Sophie's light was not on. The man went straight up to the mailbox and dropped a big envelope into it. As he let go of it, he caught sight of Sophie's letter. He reached down into the mailbox and fished it up. The next minute he was walking swiftly back toward the woods. He hurried down the woodland path and was gone.

Sophie felt her heart pounding. Her first instinct was to run after him in her pajamas but she didn't dare run after a stranger in the middle of the night. But she did have to go out and fetch the envelope.

After a minute or two she crept down the stairs, opened the front door quietly, and ran to the mailbox. In a flash she was back in her room with the envelope in her hand. She sat on her bed, holding her breath. After a few minutes had passed and all was still quiet in the house, she opened the letter and began to read.

She knew this would not be an answer to her own letter. That could not arrive until tomorrow.

FATE

Good morning once again, my dear Sophie. In case you should get any ideas, let me make it quite clear that you must never attempt to check up on me. One day we will meet, but I shall be the one to decide when and where. And that's final. You are not going to disobey me, are you?

But to return to the philosophers. We have seen how they tried to find natural explanations for the transformations in Nature. Previously these things had been ex-plained through myths.

Old superstitions had to be cleared away in other areas as well. We see them at work in matters of sickness and health as well as in political events. In both these areas the Greeks were great believers in fatalism.

Fatalism is the belief that whatever happens is predestined. We find this belief all over the world, not only throughout history but in our own day as welt. Here in the Nordic countries we find a strong belief in "lagnadan," or fate, in the old Icelandic sagas of the Edda.

We also find the belief, both in Ancient Greece and in other parts of the world, that people could learn their fate from some form of oracle. In other words, that the fate of a person or a country could be foreseen in various ways.

There are still a lot of people who believe that they can tell your fortune in the cards, read your palm, or predict your future in the stars.

A special Norwegian version of this is telling your fortune in coffee cups. When a coffee cup is empty there are usually some traces of coffee grounds left. These might form a certain image or pattern--at least, if we give our imagination free rein. If the grounds resemble a car, it might mean that the person who drank from the cup is going for a long drive.

Thus the "fortune-teller" is trying to foresee something that is really quite unforeseeable. This is characteristic of all forms of foreseeing. And precisely because what they "see" is so vague, it is hard to repudiate fortune-tellers' claims.

When we gaze up at the stars, we see a veritable chaos of twinkling dots. Nevertheless, throughout the ages there have always been people who believed that the stars could tell us something about our life on Earth. Even today there are political leaders who seek the advice of astrologers before they make any important decisions.

The Oracle at Delphi

The ancient Greeks believed that they could consult the famous oracle at Delphi about their fate. Apollo, the god of the oracle, spoke through his priestess Pythia, who sat on a stool over a fissure in the earth, from which arose hypnotic vapors that put Pythia in a trance. This enabled her to be Apollo's mouthpiece. When people came to Delphi they had to present their question to the priests of the oracle, who passed it on to Pythia. Her answer would be so obscure or ambiguous that the priests would have to interpret it. In that way, the ieople got the benefit of Apollo's wisdom, believing that e knew everything, even about the future.

There were many heads of state who dared not go to war or take other decisive steps until they had consulted the oracle at Delphi. The priests of Apollo thus functioned more or less as diplomats, or advisers. They were experts with an intimate knowledge of the people and the country.

Over the entrance to the temple at Delphi was a famous inscription: KNOW THYSELF! It reminded visitors that man must never believe himself to be more than mortal--and that no man can escape his destiny.

The Greeks had many stories of people whose destiny catches up with them. As time went by, a number of plays--tragedies--were written about these "tragic" people. The most famous one is the tragedy of King Oedipus.

History and Medicine

But Fate did not just govern the lives of individuals. The Greeks believed that even world history was governed by Fate, and that the fortunes of war could be swayed by the intervention of the gods. Today there are still many people who believe that God or some other mysterious power is steering the course of history.

But at the same time as Greek philosophers were trying to find natural explanations for the processes of nature, the first historians were beginning to search for natural explanations for the course of history. When a country lost a war, the vengeance of the gods was no longer an acceptable explanation to them. The best known Greek historians were Herodotus (484-424 B.C.) and Thucydides (460-400 B.C.).

The Greeks also believed that sickness could be ascribed to divine intervention. On the other hand, the gods could make people well again if they made the appropriate sacrifices.

This idea was in no way unique to the Greeks. Before the development of modern medicine, the most widely accepted view was that sickness was due to supernatural causes. The word "influenza" actually means a malign influence from the stars.

Even today, there are a lot of people who believe that some diseases--AIDS, for example--are God's punishment. Many also believe that sick people can be cured with the help of the supernatural.

Concurrently with the new directions in Greek philosophy, a Greek medical science arose which tried to find natural explanations for sickness and health. The founder of Greek medicine is said to have been Hippocrates, who was born on the island of Cos around 460 B.C.

The most essential safeguards against sickness, according to the Hippocratic medical tradition, were moderation and a healthy lifestyle. Health is the natural condition. When sickness occurs, it is a sign that Nature has gone off course because of physical or mental imbalance. The road to health for everyone is through moderation, harmony, and a "sound mind in a sound body."

There is a lot of talk today about "medical ethics," which is another way of saying that a doctor must practice medicine according to certain ethical rules. For instance, a doctor may not give healthy people a prescription for narcotics. A doctor must also maintain professional secrecy, which means that he is not allowed to reveal anything a patient has told him about his illness. These ideas go back to Hippocrates. He required his pupils to take the following oath:

I will follow that system or regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider to be for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. 1 will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked nor suggest any such counsel, and in like manner I will not give to a woman the means to produce an abortion. Whenever I go into a house, I will go for the benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption, and further, from the seduction of females or males, whether freemen or slaves.

Whatever, in connection with my professional practice, I see or hear which ought not to be spoken abroad, I will keep secret. So long as I continue to carry out this oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men in all times, but should I violate this oath, may the reverse be my lot.

Sophie awoke with a start on Saturday morning. Was it a dream or had she really seen the philosopher?

She felt under the bed with one hand. Yes--there lay the letter that had come during the night. It wasn't only a dream.

She had definitely seen the philosopher! And what's more, with her own eyes she had seen him take her letter!

She crouched down on the floor and pulled out all the typewritten pages from under the bed. But what was that? Right by the wall there was something red. A scarf, perhaps?

Sophie edged herself in under the bed and pulled out a red silk scarf. It wasn't hers, that was for sure!

She examined it more closely and gasped when she saw HILDE written in ink along the seam.

Hilde! But who was Hilde? How could their paths keep crossing like this?






中文翻译
   命运
   ……算命者试图预测某些事实上
   极不可测的事物……
  
   苏菲刚才读着德谟克里特斯的理论时,已经留神查看过信箱附近的动静。不过为了保险起见,她决定还是走到花园门口去看看。
   当她打开前门时,看到门前的阶梯上放着一个小信封。不用说,是写给苏菲的。
   这么说,他已经知道了。今天她特地留意信箱附近的动静,但这个神秘客却悄悄从另外一个角度溜到屋前,把信放在台阶上,然后又匆匆躲进树林中。真是的!
   他怎么知道苏菲今天会注意观察信箱?也许他看到她站在窗口了?无论如何,苏菲还是很高兴能在妈妈回家前拿到这封信。
   苏菲回到房里,打开信。信封的边缘有一点潮湿,并且有两个小洞。为何会这样呢?有好几天都没有下雨了呀!
   信封里的纸条写着:
   你相信命运吗?
   疾病是诸神对人类的惩罚吗?
   是什么力量影响历史的走向?
   她相信命运吗?她可不敢说,不过她知道有很多人相信。她班上有一个女生常常看杂志上的星座栏。如果人们相信占星术,他们大概也相信命运,因为占星学家宣称星座的位置会影响地球人类的生活。
   如果你相信在路上遇见黑猫表示运气不好,那么就表示你相信命运,是不是?她思考这个问题时,想到另外几个宿命论的例子。
   举例来说,为什么那么多人会在自夸或谈论好运时,敲一敲木头做的东西以避免带来厄运呢?为什么十三号星期五不吉利?苏菲听说有很多旅馆没有第十三号房。这一定是因为有很多人迷信的缘故。
   “迷信”,多么奇怪的一个名词。如果你信基督教或伊斯兰教,这就叫“信仰”,但如果你相信占星术或十三号星期五不吉利,就是迷信]谁有权利说别人相信的东西就是“迷信”呢?
   不过,苏菲倒可以肯定的一件事:德谟克里特斯并不相信命运,他是个唯物论者,他只相信原子与虚空。
   苏菲又试着思索纸条上的其他问题。
   “疾病是诸神对人类的惩罚吗?”今天一定不会有人相信这种说法吧?不过她又想到很多人认为祈祷会帮助疾病痊愈。所以无论如何,他们一定相信上帝有某种力量可以左右哪些人生病、哪些人痊愈。
   至于最后一个问题就更难回答了。苏菲以前从未深思过什么力量会影响历史走向的问题。一定是人类吧?如果是上帝或命运的话,那人类就没有自由意志了。
   自由意志这个观念使苏菲想到别的东西。她为什么要忍受这个神秘的哲学家跟她玩捉迷藏的游戏呢?她为什么不写一封信给他呢?他(或她)非常可能又会在晚上或明天早晨在信箱里放一个大信封。到时她要写好一封信给这个人。
   苏菲立刻下楼。她心想,要写信给一位她从未见过的人可真难呀!她连那人是男是女都不知道呢!也不知道他(她)是老是少。
   讲到这点,说不定这位神秘的哲学家还是她认识的人呢!
     很快的,她已经写好了一封短信。
   可敬的哲学家:
     我很欣赏您所函授的哲学课程,但对于不知您的身分一事甚感困扰。因此请求您具上全名。为了回报,欢迎您前来寒舍小坐并共进咖啡,不过最好利用我母亲不在家时。她的上班时间为周一到周五每天上午七点半到下午五点。同一段时间我也在校上课,但除周四之外,总是在下午两点十五分回到家门。还有,我很擅于煮咖啡,
   在此先谢谢您。
   学生 苏菲(十四岁)敬上
   在信纸的最下面,她写上“烦请回函”这几个字。
   苏菲觉得这封信写得太正式了。不过当你写给一个从未谋面的人时,很难决定要使用什么样的字眼。
   她把信放在一个粉红色的信封里,并塞进去。信封上写着:“哲学家启”。
   问题是:她应该把信放在哪里才不会被妈妈看到呢?她得等到妈妈回家后才能把它放在信箱里。还有,她也必须记得在第二天清晨报纸送来前,查看信箱。如果今天傍晚或深夜她没有收到新的信,她就得把那封粉红色的信拿回来。
   事情为什么一定要弄得这么复杂呢?
   那天晚上,虽然是星期五,苏菲还是早早就回房。妈妈拿意大利脆饼和电视恐怖剧引诱她留下来,但苏菲说累了,想上床看书。
   趁妈妈坐在那儿看电视时,她偷偷拿了信溜到信箱那儿。
   妈妈显然很担心她。自从苏菲上次讲过白兔与帽子的事后,妈妈对苏菲讲话的语气都不一样了。苏菲不想让妈妈担心,但她必须上楼观察信箱旁边的动静。
   十一点钟左右,妈妈上楼来时,苏菲正坐在窗子旁,看着下面那条路。 ·
   妈妈说:“你可不是坐在这儿盯着信箱看吧?”
   “我高兴!”
   “我看你一定是谈恋爱了,苏菲。可是就算他会再送信来,也不会挑三更半夜呀!”
   真讨厌,干嘛老讲这些肉麻的事情?不过苏菲只好让妈妈继续这样想了。
   妈妈又说:“他就是告诉你兔子与帽子那些事的人吗?”
   苏菲点点头。
   “他——他没有喝药吧?”
   现在苏菲真是替妈妈感到难过了。她不能继续让她这样担心下去。虽说妈妈只要听到谁有一些古怪念头,就认为他有喝药的嫌疑,那也是够神经了。大人有时还真白痴呢!
   她转身看着妈妈,说:“妈妈,我答应你永远不会做那类的事情……‘他’也不会。不过他对哲学非常有兴趣。”
     “他年纪比你大吗?”
     苏菲摇摇头。
     “跟你同年?”
   苏菲点点头。
   “嗯,我相信他一定很可爱。现在你应该睡觉了吧?”
   不过苏菲还是继续坐在窗边。时间好像过了好几小时,最后她的眼睛实在睁不开了,已经是半夜一点了。
   她正要上床时,突然看到有一个影子从树林中闪出来。
   虽然外头很黑,但苏菲还是看得出来那是个人,而且是个男人。苏菲心想他看来年纪颇大的,一定不是跟她同年。他头上好像戴着一顶扁帽。
   她发誓他曾经向楼上望了一眼,不过苏菲房间的灯没开。那个男人一直走到信箱旁,将一个大信封丢进里面。这时他突然看到苏菲写的信,他把手伸进信箱,把信拿出来,然后便快步走回树林,沿着树林中的小径慢跑,然后就消失不见了。
   苏菲觉得自己的心“咚!咚!地跳。她的第一个直觉反应是想穿着睡衣出去追他,但她又不敢半夜去追一个陌生人。不过她显然必须出去拿那封信。
   一两分钟后,她蹑手蹑脚地走下楼梯,悄悄打开前门,跑到信箱那儿。一转眼她已经回房,手中拿着那封信。她坐在床上,屏声静气。直到几分钟后屋里仍然静悄悄时,她才打开信封,开始看信。
   她知道这封信不是针对她那封信的回函。那封信要明天才会到。
   命运
   早安,亲爱的苏菲。为了避免你产生任何念头,我先声明:你绝对不可以探查我的身分。有一天我们会见面的,不过要让我来决定时间和地点。就这样说定了,你不会不听话吧?
   现在让我们再谈那些哲学家的理论吧。我们已经看到他们如何试图为大自然的变化寻求自然的解释。在过去,这些现象都是透过神话来解释的。
   然而,其他方面的古老迷信也必须加以破除。我们将谈到他们如何思考疾病与健康以及政治问题。在这些方面,希腊人非常相信宿命论。
   宿命论的意思就是相信所有发生的事都是命中注定的。我们可以发现这种思想遍布全世界,不仅古人这样想,现代人也一样。
   北欧这里的人同样非常相信命运,相信冰岛诗集中的各种神话与传说。
   我们也可以发现,无论是在古希腊或其他地方,人们都相信他们可以借由神谕来得知自己的命运。换句话说,他们相信一个人或一个国家的命运可以用一些方式预算出来。
   现代仍有许多人相信纸牌算命、看手相或观察星座以预知未来等。挪威人有一个用咖啡杯来算命的特别方法。当咖啡喝完后,杯底通常会有一些咖啡粉的残渣。这些渣子可能会形成某种图案 ——如果我们运用我们天马行空的想象力的话。假使杯底的渣子看来像是一辆车子,那也许就表示喝这杯咖啡的人将驾车远行。
   就这样,“算命仙”试图预测一些非常不可能预测的事情,这是所有预言共同的特征。而正因算命仙所“看”到的是如此模糊,你很难去驳斥他的话。
   当我们抬头看着天上的星星时,我们只能看到许多呈不规则分布状的闪亮小点。尽管如此,千百年来仍有不少人相信可以从星星里看出人类的命运。即使在今天,仍有一些政治领袖在做重要决策前会征求占星学家的意见。 
   戴尔菲的神论
  
   古代希腊人相信人们可以透过著名的戴尔菲(Delphi)神论知道自己的命运。负责神论的神是阿波罗。他透过他的女祭司琵西雅(Pythia)发言。琵西雅坐在土地裂缝上方的一张凳子上,裂缝中会冒出一股催眠般的蒸气,使她进入恍惚的状态,而成为阿波罗的代言人。
   人们来到戴尔菲后,必须将他们的问题呈现给负责神论的祭司,再由祭司将问题转达给琵西雅。而她的回答往往含糊不清、模棱两可,因此必须由祭司加以解释。人们就如此这般得着了阿波罗智慧的恩赐,并相信他无所不知,甚至可以预见未来。
   当时,有许多国家元首要等到求教于戴尔菲的神谕后,才敢打仗或采取一些决定性的步骤。因此阿波罗的祭司们或多或少具有一些外交家的功能,也可以说他们是熟悉人民与国家事务的顾问。
   在戴尔菲神庙的入口处上方有一行著名的铭文:“了解自己!”
   意思是人类绝不可自以为不朽,同时也没有人可以逃避命运。
   希腊有许多故事叙述人们如何逃不过命运的捉弄。久而久之,这些“可怜”人物的故事被写成若干出悲剧。其中最有名的一出是有关伊迪帕斯国王的悲惨故事。
   历史与医学
   古希腊人相信命运不仅操纵个人的生活,也左右世界的历史。
   他们并且相信战争的结局可能因诸神的介入而改变。同样的,在我们这个时代,也有许多人相信上帝或某种神秘的力量会影响历史的走向。
   然而,就在希腊哲学家努力为大自然的变化寻求符合自然的解释时,历史上最早的一批历史学家也开始为历史事件寻求合理的解释。他们不再认为一个国家之所以打败仗是因为神向他们报复。最著名的两位希腊历史学家是贺若多陀斯(Herodotus,公元前四八四年~公元前四二四年)与修西德底斯(Thucydides,公元前四六O~公元前四OO年)。
   古希腊人相信疾病可能是神降的灾祸,也相信只要人以适当的方式向神献祭,神就可能使生病的人痊愈。
   这个观念并非希腊人独有。在现代医学发达以前,人们普遍认为疾病是由某些超自然的原因所造成。英文influenza(流行性感冒)一词实际上的意思是“受到星星的不良影响”。
   即使是在今天,仍有很多人相信某些疾病——如艾滋病——是上帝对人类的惩罚,也有许多人相信可以用超自然的力量痊愈。
   在希腊哲学朝新方向迈进之际,希腊的医学也开始兴起。这种学问的目的是为疾病与健康寻求合乎自然的解释。据说希腊医学的始祖是大约公元前四六O年时,在寇斯岛诞生的希波克拉底(H中pOcrates)。
   根据希波克拉底派的医学传统,要预防疾病,最重要的就是饮食起居要节制,同时要有健康的生活方式。他们认为健康是人的自然状态。人之所以生病,是因为身体或心灵不平衡,因而使大自然“出轨”所致。保持健康的方法就是节制饮食、保持和谐,并拥有“健康的身体与健康的心灵”。
   现代人常常谈到“医学伦理”,也就是说医生为人治病时必须遵守若干伦理规范,例如不能开麻醉药品的处方给健康人,同时必须保守职业上的秘密,也就是说,不可以泄漏病人的病情。这些概念都是希波克拉底提出来的。他要求他的学生宣读下列的誓言:
   我将依照自身的能力与判断,采用对病人有利的疗法与处方,绝不施以有害或有毒之物。无论应何人之请,我也绝不给予致命药物或做此类之建议,也绝不协助妇女堕胎。进入病家访视时,我将以病人的福祉为念,不做任何贪渎害人之事,不受男女奴仆之引诱。我在执业时之所见所闻,凡不应泄漏者,我将严予保密。若我遵行此一誓言,不懈不怠,愿上苍使我乐享生命、精进医事并受世人敬重。若我违反誓言,愿我遭相反之命运。
   星期六早上,苏菲醒来时从床上跳了起来。她是在作梦还是她真的见到了那位哲学家?
   她用一只手摸了摸床底下,没错,昨晚收到的信还在那里。不是梦。
   她准是见到那个哲学家了。更重要的是,她亲眼看到他拿走了她写的信。
   她蹲在地板上,把所有的信都从床底下拉出来,咦,那是什么?
   就在墙边,有一样红色的东西,好像是一条围巾吧?
   苏菲钻到床底下,拉出一条红色的丝巾。她肯定这不是她的。
   她仔细加以检查。当她看到丝巾的线缝旁有墨水写的“席德”字样时,不禁目瞪口呆。
   席德!谁又是这个席德呢?她们走的路怎么会如此交错不已呢?





[ 此帖被喻然末年在2013-10-25 17:29重新编辑 ]
暮辞朝

ZxID:15103679


等级: 内阁元老
配偶: 清风雅乐
这一段开心的日子请你勿忘
举报 只看该作者 7楼  发表于: 2013-10-25 0
英文原文
Socrates
wisest is she who knows she does not know

Sophie put on a summer dress and hurried down to the kitchen. Her mother was standing by the kitchen table. Sophie decided not to say anything about the silk scarf.

"Did you bring in the newspaper?" she asked.

Her mother turned.

"Would you get it for me?"

Sophie was out of the door in a flash, down the gravel path to the mailbox.

Only the newspaper. She couldn't expect an answer so soon, she supposed. On the front page of the paper she read something about the Norwegian UN battalion in Lebanon.

The UN battalion ... wasn't that the postmark on the card from Hilde's father? But the postage stamp had been Norwegian. Maybe the Norwegian UN soldiers had their own post office with them.

"You've become very interested in the newspaper," said her mother drily when Sophie returned to the kitchen.

Luckily her mother said no more about mailboxes and stuff, either during breakfast or later on that day. When she went shopping, Sophie took her letter about Fate down to the den.

She was surprised to see a little white envelope beside the cookie tin with the other letters from the philosopher. Sophie was quite sure she had not put it there.

This envelope was also wet around the edges. And it had a couple of deep holes in it, just like the one she had received yesterday.

Had the philosopher been here? Did he know about her secret hiding place? Why was the envelope wet?

All these questions made her head spin. She opened the letter and read the note:

Dear Sophie, I read your letter with great interest-- and not without some regret. I must unfortunately disappoint you with regard to the invitation. We shall meet one day, but it will probably be quite a while before I can come in person to Captain's Bend.

I must add that from now on I will no longer be able to deliver the letters personally. It would be much too risky in the long run. In the future, letters will be delivered by my little messenger. On the other hand, they will be brought directly to the secret place in the garden.

You may continue to contact me whenever you feel the need. When you do, put a pink envelope out with a cookie or a lump of sugar in it. When the messenger finds it, he will bring it straight to me.

P.S. It is not pleasant to decline a young lady's invitation to coffee, but sometimes it is a matter of necessity.

P.P.S. If you should come across a red silk scarf anywhere, please take care of it. Sometimes personal property gets mixed up. Especially at school and places like that, and this is a philosophy school.

Yours, Alberto Knox

Sophie had lived for almost fifteen years, and had received quite a lot of letters in her young life, at least at Christmas and on birthdays. But this letter was the strangest one she had ever received.

It had no postage stamp. It hadn't even been put in the mailbox. It had been brought straight to Sophie's top-secret hideout in the old hedge. The fact that it was wet in the dry spring weather was also most mystifying.

The strangest thing of all was the silk scarf, of course. The philosopher must have another pupil. That was it. And this other pupil had lost a red silk scarf. Right. But how had she managed to lose it under Sophie's bed?

And Alberto Knox  what kind of a name was that?

One thing was confirmed--the connection between the philosopher and Hilde Moller Knag. But that Hilde's own father was now confusing their addresses--that was completely incomprehensible.

Sophie sat for a long time thinking about what connection there could possibly be between Hilde and herself. Finally she gave up. The philosopher had written that she would meet him one day. Perhaps she would meet Hilde too.

She turned the letter over. She now saw that there were some sentences written on the back as well:

Is there such a thing as natural modesty?

Wisest is she who knows she does not know...

True insight comes from within.

He who knows what is right will do right.

Sophie knew that the short sentences that came in the white envelopes were intended to prepare her for the next big envelope, which would arrive shortly thereafter. She suddenly had an idea. If the "messenger" came to the den to deliver a brown envelope, Sophie could simply sit and wait for him. Or was it a her? She would definitely hang on to whoever it was until he or she told her more about the philosopher! The letter said that the "messenger" was little. Could it be a child? "Is there such a thing as natural modesty?" Sophie knew that "modesty" was an old-fashioned word for shyness--for example, about being seen naked. But was it really natural to be embarrassed about that? If something was natural, she supposed, it was the same for everybody. In many parts of the world it was completely natural to be naked. So it must be society that decides what you can and can't do. When Grandma was young you certainly couldn't sunbathe topless. But today, most people think it is "natural," even though it is still strictly forbidden in lots of countries. Was this philosophy? Sophie wondered.

The next sentence was: "Wisest is she who knows she does not know."

Wiser than who? If the philosopher meant that someone who realized that she didn't know everything under the sun was wiser than someone who knew just a little, but who thought she knew a whole lot--well, that wasn't so difficult to agree with. Sophie had never thought about it before. But the more she did, the more clearly she saw that knowing what you don't know is also a kind of knowledge. The stupidest thing she knew was for people to act like they knew all about things they knew absolutely nothing about.

The next sentence was about true insight coming from within. But didn't all knowledge come into people's heads from the outside? On the other hand, Sophie could remember situations when her mother or the teachers at school had tried to teach her something that she hadn't been receptive to. And whenever she had really learned something, it was when she had somehow contributed to it herself. Now and then, even, she would suddenly understand a thing she'd drawn a total blank on before. That was probably what people meant by "insight."

So far, so good. Sophie thought she had done reasonably well on the first three questions. But the next statement was so odd she couldn't help smiling: "He who knows what is right will do right."

Did that mean that when a bank robber robbed a bank it was because he didn't know any better? Sophie didn't think so.

On the contrary, she thought that both children and adults did stupid things that they probably regretted afterwards, precisely because they had done them against their better judgment.

While she sat thinking, she heard something rustling in the dry undergrowth on the other side of the hedge nearest the woods. Could it be the messenger? Her heart started beating faster. It sounded like a panting animal was coming.

The next moment a big Labrador pushed its way into the den.

In its mouth it held a big brown envelope which it dropped at Sophie's feet. It all happened so quickly that Sophie had no time to react. A second later she was sitting with the big envelope in her hands--and the golden Labrador had scampered off into the woods again.

Once it was all over she reacted. She started to cry.

She sat like that for a while, losing all sense of time.

Then she looked up suddenly.

So that was his famous messenger! Sophie breathed a sigh of relief. Of course that was why the white envelopes were wet around the edges and had holes in them. Why hadn't she thought of it? Now it made sense to put a cookie or a lump of sugar in the envelope when she wrote to the philosopher.

She may not always have been as smart as she would like, but who could have guessed that the messenger was a trained dog! It was a bit out of the ordinary, to put it mildly! She could certainly forget all about forcing the messenger to reveal Alberto Knox's whereabouts.

Sophie opened the big envelope and began to read.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF ATHENS

Dear Sophie, When you read this you may already have met Hermes. In case you haven't, I'll add that he is a dog. But don't worry. He is very good-tempered--and moreover, a good deal more intelligent than a lot of people. In any event he never tries to give the impression of being cleverer than he is.

You may also note that his name is not without significance.

In Greek mythology, Hermes was the messenger of the gods. He was also the god of seafarers, but we shall not bother about that, at least not for the moment. It is more important that Hermes also gave his name to the word "hermetic," which means hidden or inaccessible--not inappropriate for the way Hermes takes care to keep the two of us hidden from each other.

So the messenger has herewith been introduced. Naturally he answers to his name and is altogether very well behaved.

But to return to philosophy. We have already completed the first part of the course. I refer to the natural philosophers and their decisive break with the mytholog-ical world picture. Now we are going to meet the three great classical philosophers, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Each in his own way, these philosophers influenced the whole of European civilization.

The natural philosophers are also called the pre-Socratics, because they lived before Socrates. Although Democritus died some years after Socrates, all his ideas belong to pre-Socratic natural philosophy. Socrates represents a new era, geographically as well as temporally. He was the first of the great philosophers to be born in Athens, and both he and his two successors lived and worked there. You may recall that Anaxagoras also lived in Athens for a while but was hounded out because he said the sun was a red-hot stone. (Socrates fared no better!)

From the time of Socrates, Athens was the center of Greek culture. It is also important to note the change of character in the philosophical project itself as it pro-gresses from natural philosophy to Socrates. But before we meet Socrates, let us hear a little about the so-called Sophists, who dominated the Athenian scene at the time of Socrates.

Curtain up, Sophie! The history of ideas is like a drama in many acts.

Man at the CenterAfter about 450 B.C., Athens was the cultural center of the Greek world. From this time on, philosophy took a new direction. The natural philosophers had been mainly concerned with the nature of the physical world. This gives them a central position in the history of science. In Athens, interest was now focused on the individual and the individual's place in society. Gradually a democracy evolved, with popular assemblies and courts of law.

In order for democracy to work, people had to be educated enough to take part in the democratic process. We have seen in our own time how a young democracy needs popular enlightenment. For the Athenians, it was first and foremost essential to master the art of rhetoric, which means saying things in a convincing manner.

A group of itinerant teachers and philosophers from the Greek colonies flocked to Athens. They called themselves Sophists. The word "sophist" means a wise and informed person. In Athens, the Sophists made a living out of teaching the citizens for money.

The Sophists had one characteristic in common with the natural philosophers: they were critical of the traditional mythology. But at the same time the Sophists rejected what they regarded as fruitless philosophical speculation. Their opinion was that although answers to philosophical questions may exist, man cannot know the truth about the riddles of nature and of the universe. In philosophy a view like this is called skepticism.

But even if we cannot know the answers to all of nature's riddles, we know that people have to learn to live together. The Sophists chose to concern themselves with man and his place in society.

"Man is the measure of all things," said the Sophist Protagoras (c. 485-410 B.C.). By that he meant that the question of whether a thing is right or wrong, good or bad, must always be considered in relation to a person's needs. On being asked whether he believed in the Greek gods, he answered, "The question is complex and life is short." A person who is unable to say categorically whether or not the gods or God exists is called an agnostic.

The Sophists were as a rule men who had traveled widely and seen different forms of government. Both conventions and local laws in the city-states could vary widely. This led the Sophists to raise the question of what was natural and what was socially induced. By doing this, they paved the way for social criticism in the city-state of Athens.

They could for example point out that the use of an expression like "natural modesty" is not always defensible, for if it is "natural" to be modest, it must be something you are born with, something innate. But is it really innate, Sophie--or is it socially induced? To someone who has traveled the world, the answer should be simple: It is not "natural"--or innate--to be afraid to show yourself naked. Modesty--or the lack of it--is first and foremost a matter of social convention.

As you can imagine, the wandering Sophists created bitter wrangling in Athens by pointing out that there were no absolute norms for what was right or wrong.

Socrates, on the other hand, tried to show that some such norms are in fact absolute and universally valid.

Who Was Socrates?

Socrates (470-399 B.C.) is possibly the most enigmatic figure in the entire history of philosophy. He never wrote a single line. Yet he is one of the philosophers who has had the greatest influence on European thought, not least because of the dramatic manner of his death.

We know he was born in Athens, and that he spent most of his life in the city squares and marketplaces talking with the people he met there. "The trees in the countryside can teach me nothing," he said. He could also stand lost in thought for hours on end.

Even during his lifetime he was considered somewhat enigmatic, and fairly soon after his death he was held to be the founder of any number of different philosophical schools of thought. The very fact that he was so enigmatic and ambiguous made it possible for widely differing schools of thought to claim him as their own.

We know for a certainty that he was extremely ugly. He was potbellied, and had bulging eyes and a snub nose. But inside he was said to be "perfectly delightful." It was also said of him that "You can seek him in the present, you can seek him in the past, but you will never find his equal." Nevertheless he was sentenced to death for his philosophical activities.

The life of Socrates is mainly known to us through the writings of Plato, who was one of his pupils and who became one of the greatest philosophers of all time. Plato wrote a number of Dialogues, or dramatized discussions on philosophy, in which he uses Socrates as his principal character and mouthpiece.

Since Plato is putting his own philosophy in Socrates' mouth, we cannot be sure that the words he speaks in the dialogues were ever actually uttered by him. So it is no easy matter to distinguish between the teachings of Socrates and the philosophy of Plato. Exactly the same problem applies to many other historical persons who left no written accounts. The classic example, of course, is Jesus. We cannot be certain that the "historical" Jesus actually spoke the words that Matthew or Luke ascribed to him. Similarly, what the "historical" Socrates actually said will always be shrouded in mystery.

But who Socrates "really" was is relatively unimportant. It is Plato's portrait of Socrates that has inspired thinkers in the Western world for nearly 2,500 years.

The Art of Discourse

The essential nature of Socrates' art lay in the fact that he did not appear to want to instruct people. On the contrary he gave the impression of one desiring to learn from those he spoke with. So instead of lecturing like a traditional schoolmaster, he discussed.

Obviously he would not have become a famous philosopher had he confined himself purely to listening to others. Nor would he have been sentenced to death. But he just asked questions, especially to begin a conversation, as if he knew nothing. In the course of the discussion he would generally get his opponents to recognize the weakness of their arguments, and, forced into a corner, they would finally be obliged to realize what was right and what was wrong.

Socrates, whose mother was a midwife, used to say that his art was like the art of the midwife. She does not herself give birth to the child, but she is there to help during its delivery. Similarly, Socrates saw his task as helping people to "give birth" to the correct insight, since real understanding must come from within. It cannot be imparted by someone else. And only the understanding that comes from within can lead to true insight.

Let me put it more precisely: The ability to give birth is a natural characteristic. In the same way, everybody can grasp philosophical truths if they just use their innate reason. Using your innate reason means reaching down inside yourself and using what is there.

By playing ignorant, Socrates forced the people he met to use their common sense. Socrates could feign ignorance--or pretend to be dumber than he was. We call this Socratic irony. This enabled him to continually expose the weaknesses in people's thinking. He was not averse to doing this in the middle of the city square. If you met Socrates, you thus might end up being made a fool of publicly.

So it is not surprising that, as time went by, people found him increasingly exasperating, especially people who had status in the community. "Athens is like a sluggish horse," he is reputed to have said, "and I am the gadfly trying to sting it into life."

(What do we do with gadflies, Sophie?)

A Divine Voice

It was not in order to torment his fellow beings that Socrates kept on stinging them. Something within him left him no choice. He always said that he had a "divine voice" inside him. Socrates protested, for example, against having any part in condemning people to death. He moreover refused to inform on his political enemies. This was eventually to cost him his life.

In the year 399 B.C. he was accused of "introducing new gods and corrupting the youth," as well as not believing in the accepted gods. With a slender majority, a jury of five hundred found him guilty.

He could very likely have appealed for leniency. At least he could have saved his life by agreeing to leave Athens. But had he done this he would not have been Socrates. He valued his conscience--and the truth-- higher than life. He assured the jury that he had only acted in the best interests of the state. He was nevertheless condemned to drink hemlock. Shortly thereafter, he drank the poison in the presence of his friends, and died.

Why, Sophie? Why did Socrates have to die? People have been asking this question for 2,400 years. However, he was not the only person in history to have seen things through to the bitter end and suffered death for the sake of their convictions.

I have mentioned Jesus already, and in fact there are several striking parallels between them.

Both Jesus and Socrates were enigmatic personalities, also to their contemporaries. Neither of them wrote down their teachings, so we are forced to rely on the picture we have of them from their disciples. But we do know that they were both masters of the art of discourse. They both spoke with a characteristic self-assuredness that could fascinate as well as exasperate. And not least, they both believed that they spoke on behalf of something greater than themselves. They challenged the power of the community by criticizing all forms of injustice and corruption. And finally--their activities cost them their lives.

The trials of Jesus and Socrates also exhibit clear parallels.

They could certainly both have saved themselves by appealing for mercy, but they both felt they had a mission that would have been betrayed unless they kept faith to the bitter end. And by meeting their death so bravely they commanded an enormous following, also after they had died.

I do not mean to suggest that Jesus and Socrates were alike. I am merely drawing attention to the fact that they both had a message that was inseparably linked to their personal courage.

A Joker in Athens

Socrates, Sophie! We aren't done with him yet. We have talked about his method. But what was his philosophical project?

Socrates lived at the same time as the Sophists. Like them, he was more concerned with man and his place in society than with the forces of nature. As a Roman philosopher, Cicero, said of him a few hundred years later, Socrates "called philosophy down from the sky and established her in the towns and introduced her into homes and forced her to investigate life, ethics, good and evil."

But Socrates differed from the Sophists in one significant way. He did not consider himself to be a "sophist"--that is, a learned or wise person. Unlike the Sophists, he did not teach for money. No, Socrates called himself a philosopher in the true sense of the word. A "philosopher" really means "one who loves wisdom."

Are you sitting comfortably, Sophie? Because it is central to the rest of this course that you fully understand the difference between a sophist and a philosopher. The Sophists took money for their more or less hairsplitting expoundings, and sophists of this kind have come and gone from time immemorial. I am referring to all the schoolmasters and self-opinionated know-it-alls who are satisfied with what little they know, or who boast of knowing a whole lot about subjects they haven't the faintest notion of. You have probably come across a few of these sophists in your young life. A real philosopher, Sophie, is a completely different kettle of fish--the direct opposite, in fact. A philosopher knows that in reality he knows very little. That is why he constantly strives to achieve true insight. Socrates was one of these rare people. He knew that he knew nothing about life and about the world. And now comes the important part: it troubled him that he knew so little.

A philosopher is therefore someone who recognizes that there is a lot he does not understand, and is troubled by it. In that sense, he is still wiser than all those who brag about their knowledge of things they know nothing about. "Wisest is she who knows she does not know," I said previously. Socrates himself said, "One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing."

Remember this statement, because it is an admission that is rare, even among philosophers. Moreover, it can be so dangerous to say it in public that it can cost you your life. The most subversive people are those who ask questions. Giving answers is not nearly as threatening. Any one question can be more explosive than a thousand answers.

You remember the story of the emperor's new clothes? The emperor was actually stark naked but none of his subjects dared say so. Suddenly a child burst out, "But he's got nothing on!" That was a courageous child, Sophie. Like Socrates, who dared tell people how little we humans know. The similarity between children and philosophers is something we have already talked about.

To be precise: Mankind is faced with a number of difficult questions that we have no satisfactory answers to. So now two possibilities present themselves: We can either fool ourselves and the rest of the world by pretending that we know all there is to know, or we can shut our eyes to the central issues once and for all and abandon all progress. In this sense, humanity is divided. People are, generally speaking, either dead certain or totally indifferent. (Both types are crawling around deep down in the rabbit's fur!)

It is like dividing a deck of cards into two piles, Sophie. You lay the black cards in one pile and the red in the other. But from time to time a joker turns up that is neither heart nor club, neither diamond nor spade. Socrates was this joker in Athens. He was neither certain nor indifferent. All he knew was that he knew nothing--and it troubled him. So he became a philosopher--someone who does not give up but tirelessly pursues his quest for truth.

An Athenian is said to have asked the oracle at Delphi who the wisest man in Athens was. The oracle answered that Socrates of all mortals was the wisest. When Socrates heard this he was astounded, to put it mildly. (He must have laughed, Sophie!) He went straight to the person in the city whom he, and everyone else, thought was excessively wise. But when it turned out that this person was unable to give Socrates satisfactory answers to his questions, Socrates realized that the oracle had been right.

Socrates felt that it was necessary to establish a solid foundation for our knowledge. He believed that this foundation lay in man's reason. With his unshakable faith in human reason he was decidedly a rationalist.

The Right Insight Leads to the Right Action

As I have mentioned earlier, Socrates claimed that he was guided by a divine inner voice, and that this "conscience" told him what was right. "He who knows what good is will do good," he said.

By this he meant that the right insight leads to the right action. And only he who does right can be a "virtuous man." When we do wrong it is because we don't know any better. That is why it is so important to go on learning. Socrates was concerned with finding clear and universally valid definitions of right and wrong. Unlike the Sophists, he believed that the ability to distinguish between right and wrong lies in people's reason and not in society.

You may perhaps think this last part is a bit too obscure, Sophie. Let me put it like this: Socrates thought that no one could possibly be happy if they acted against their better judgment. And he who knows how to achieve happiness will do so. Therefore, he who knows what is right will do right. Because why would anybody choose to be unhappy?

What do you think, Sophie? Can you live a happy life if you continually do things you know deep down are wrong? There are lots of people who lie and cheat and speak ill of others. Are they aware that these things are not right--or fair, if you prefer? Do you think these people are happy?

Socrates didn't.

When Sophie had read the letter, she quickly put it in the cookie tin and crawled out into the garden. She wanted to go indoors before her mother got back with the shopping in order to avoid any questions about where she had been. And she had promised to do the dishes.

She had just filled the sink with water when her mother came staggering in with two huge shopping bags. Perhaps that was why her mother said, "You are rather preoccupied these days, Sophie."

Sophie didn't know why she said it; the words just tumbled out of her mouth: "So was Socrates."

"Socrates?"

Her mother stared at her, wide-eyed.

"It was just so sad that he had to die as a result," Sophie went on thoughtfully.

"My goodness! Sophie! I don't know what I'm to do!"

"Neither did Socrates. All he knew was that he knew nothing. And yet he was the cleverest person in Athens."

Her mother was speechless.

Finally she said, "Is this something you've learned at school?"

Sophie shook her head energetically.

"We don't learn anything there. The difference between schoolteachers and philosophers is that school-teachers think they know a lot of stuff that they try to force down our throats. Philosophers try to figure things out together with the pupils."

"Now we're back to white rabbits again! You know something? I demand to know who your boyfriend really is. Otherwise I'll begin to think he is a bit disturbed."

Sophie turned her back on the dishes and pointed at her mother with the dish mop.

"It's not him who's disturbed. But he likes to disturb others--to shake them out of their rut."

"That's enough of that! I think he sounds a bit too impertinent." Sophie turned back to the dishes.

"He is neither impertinent nor pertinent," said Sophie. "But he is trying to reach real wisdom. That's the great difference between a real joker and all the other cards in the deck."

"Did you say joker?"

Sophie nodded. "Have you ever thought about the fact that there are a lot of hearts and diamonds in a pack of cards? And a lot of spades and clubs. But there's only one joker."

"Good grief, how you talk back, Sophie!"

"And how you ask!"

Her mother had put all the groceries away. Now she took the newspaper and went into the living room. Sophie thought she closed the door more loudly than usual.

Sophie finished doing the dishes and went upstairs to her room. She had put the red silk scarf on the top shelf of the closet with the Lego blocks. She took it down and examined it carefully.

Hilde ...





中文翻译
   苏格拉底
   ……最聪明的是明白自己无知的人……
   苏菲穿上一件夏衣,匆匆下楼走进厨房。妈妈正站在桌子旁边。苏菲决定不提任何有关丝巾的事。
   她脱口而出:“你去拿报纸了吗?”
   妈妈转过身来。
   “你去帮我拿好吗?”
   苏菲飞也似地出了门,从石子路走到信箱旁。
   信箱里只有报纸。她想他大概不会这么快回信吧。在报纸的头版,她看到有关挪威联合国部队在黎巴嫩的消息。
   联合国部队。。。这不是席德的父亲寄来的卡片邮戳上盖的字样吗?但信上贴的却是挪威的邮票。也许挪威联合国部队的士兵拥有自己的邮局。
   苏菲回到厨房时,妈妈声音干涩地说:“你现在对报纸好像很有兴趣。”
   幸好当天吃早餐时及早餐过后,妈妈都没有再提到有关信箱的事情。当妈妈出去买东西时,苏菲将那封关于命运的信拿到密洞去。
   当她看到她存放哲学家来信的饼干盒旁边放着一个白色的小信封时,不禁吓了一跳。她很肯定不是她放的。
   这封信的边缘同样有点潮湿,此外信封上还有两三个很深的洞,就像她昨天收到的那封一样。
   难道哲学家来过了吗?他知道她的密洞吗?这封信为什么湿湿的?这些问题把她弄得头昏脑胀。她打开信封来看:
   亲爱的苏菲:
   我读你的信读得津津有味,不过却有些后悔。遗憾的是,有关共进咖啡的事,我恐怕要让你失望了。总有一天我们会见面的,但可能要等很久我才能亲自到船长弯来。
   我必须加上一点,从今以后,我将不能亲自送信了。因为长此下去,风险太大。以后这些信将由我的小小使者送来,同时将会直接送到花园的密洞中。
   有必要时,你可以再和我联络。当你想这样做时,请把一块饼干或糖放在一个粉红色的信封里。我的使者拿到后,会直接送来给我。
   P.S:拒绝一个小淑女共进咖啡的邀请并不是一件令人很愉快的事,但有时我不得不这样做。
   又,如果你在某处看到一条红色的丝巾,请加以保管。那样的东西常常会被人拿错,尤其是在学校等地,而我们这儿又是一所哲学学校。
   艾伯特敬上
   苏菲今年十四岁。这十四年间她曾接过许多的信,尤其是在圣诞节以及她的生日时。但这封信恐怕是其中最奇怪的一封了。
   信上没贴邮票,甚至也不曾放进信箱中,而是直接送到苏菲在老树篱中最秘密藏身之处的。还有,在这样一个干爽的春日里,这封信何以会弄湿,也很令人费解。
   当然,最奇怪的还是有关那条丝巾的事。这位哲学家一定还有另外一个学生,而这个学生掉了一条红色的丝巾,一定是这样。不过她怎么会把它掉在苏菲的床底下呢?
   还有,艾伯特是一个名字吗?
   不过有一件事是可以肯定的;这位哲学家与席德之间有某种关系,不过席德的父亲却把她们两人的地址搞错了,这实在是令人难以理解的事。
   苏菲坐了很久,想着席德和她之间到底有什么关系。最后,她叹了口气,决定放弃。哲学家曾经说过有一天他会跟她见面。也许她也会见到席德。
   她把信纸翻过来,发现背后也写了几行字:
   是否有人天生就很害羞呢?
   最聪明的是明白自己无知的人。
   真正的智慧来自内心。
   明辨是非者必能进退合宜。
   苏菲已经知道白信封内的这些短句是哲学家给她的功课,目的要让她做好准备,以便阅读不久后会送来的大信封。这时她突然想起了一件事。如果那位“使者”会把棕色的大信封送到密洞这儿来,她大可以坐在这里等他。(也许是“她”?)她一定会缠着那人,要 他(或她)透露哲学家的一些底细。信上说,这个使者很小。会是个孩子吗?
   “是否有人天生就很害羞呢?”
   苏菲知道害羞就是难为情,例如因为光着身子被人瞧见而不好意思。但因为这样的事而觉得难为情是很自然的反应吗?在她认为,如果某件事情很自然,那每个人做它的时候都应该觉得很自然。在世界上许多地方,赤身露体是很自然的事。因此一定是一个社会决定你能做什么、不能做什么。在奶奶年轻时,女人做上空日光浴是绝对不可以的。然而今天,大多数人都认为这样做很“自然”,虽然这种行为在许多国家还是严格禁止的。苏菲抓了抓头。难道这就是哲学?
   第二个句子是“最聪明的是明白自己无知的人”。
   这是怎么比较的呢?如果哲学家的意思是,那些明白自己并不知道太阳底下每一件事的人,比那些知道不多,却自认懂得很多的人要聪明,她还比较可以同意。苏菲过去从来没有想过这件事,但她愈想就愈明白:知道自己无知,也是一种知识。她所见过最愚蠢的人,就是那些对某些自己一无所知的事自信满满的人。
   再下面一句:“真正的智慧来自内心”。不过在某个阶段,所有的知识一定得从外面进入人的脑袋吧?但从另外一方面来说,苏菲记得有些时候她对妈妈或学校老师教她的事充耳不闻,而她真正学到的知识则或多或少是自己想出来的。有时候她也会突然间领悟一些事情。这也许就是人们所谓的“智慧”吧!
   嗯,到目前为止都还不错。苏菲心想,前面这三个问题她答的都算可以。但接下来这句话实在太奇怪了,她不禁莞尔:“明辨是非者必能进退合宜。”
   这是不是说一个强盗抢银行是因为他不能辨别是非?她可不这么想。
   相反的,她认为无论孩童还是成人有时总是会干一些傻事,之后可能会后悔,这正是因为他们在做事时不依照自己理性的判断所致。
   当她坐在那儿思考时,听见树篱靠近树林那一边的干枯灌木丛中有某个东西正沙沙作响。使者来了吗?她的心开始怦怦地跳。
   然后她愈来愈害怕地发现,那个正朝她走来的东西居然发出像动物喘息一般的声音。
   说时迟,那时快,一只猎狗钻进了密洞。
   它口中衔着一个棕色的大信封,随后便将信丢在苏菲的脚跟前。事情发生得太快了,以致苏菲来不及有什么反应。下一秒钟,她发现自己坐在那儿,手里拿着那个大信封,而那只金黄色的狗已经一溜烟跑回树林里去了。
   苏菲愣了一会儿才回过神来。她把手放在膝盖上开始哭泣。
   她就这样坐了好一会儿,忘记了时间。
   然后她突然抬起头。
   原来这就是他所说的使者。她叹了一口气,如释重负。难怪那些白色信封的边缘会有些潮湿并且有洞了。她怎么没有想到呢?无怪乎哲学家会要她在写信给他时,在信封里放一块饼干或糖了。
   她也许并不像她自认的那样聪明。但谁会想到送信的使者居然是一只受过训练的狗呢?这还真有点不寻常呢!现在她可别想从送信使者那儿盘问出艾伯特的行踪了。
   苏菲打开大信封,开始看了起来。
   雅典的哲学
   亲爱的苏菲:当你看到这封信时,可能已经遇见汉密士了。
   如果你还没遇见,我可以先告诉你它是一只狗。不过你不用担心。它是一只性情很温和的狗,智商也比许多人要高得多,而且它从来不会试图假装聪明。
   你可能也已经发现,它的名字其实是有意义的。
   在希腊神话中,汉密士(Hermes)是为天神送信的使者,也是航海人的神。不过我们现在且不谈这个。更重要的是,从Hermes衍生了Hermetic这个字。它的意思是“隐藏的”或“无法接近的”。
   从汉密士小心不让我俩见面的这个角度来看,这个名字不是颇为恰当吗?
   好了,我们的送信使者终于出场了。不用说,你叫它的名字它就会答应,而且它非常乖。
   现在我们还是来谈哲学吧!我们已经完成第一部分了。我曾提到自然派的哲学理论以及人类后来完全摒弃神话式世界观的 :事。现在我们要谈谈三位伟大的古典派哲学家:苏格拉底、柏拉图与亚理斯多德。这三位哲学家各自以不同的方式影响了整个欧洲文明。
   自然派的哲学家也被称为“苏格拉底之前的哲学家”,因为他们生在苏格拉底之前。德谟克里特斯虽然死于苏格拉底数年之后,但他所有的想法都属于苏格拉底之前的自然派哲学。无论就时间或空间而言,苏格拉底都代表了一个新的时代。他是第一个在雅典诞生的伟大哲学家,他和他的两位传人都在雅典生活、工作。你也许还记得安纳萨哥拉斯以前也曾经在雅典住过一段时间,但后来因为他宣称太阳只是一块红热的石头而被驱逐出境。苏格拉底的遭遇也好不了多少。
   自从苏格拉底之后,雅典成为希腊文化的中心。我们要注意的是,在哲学理论从自然派演变到苏格拉底学说的过程中,哲学课题的性质也有了改变。但在我们谈到苏格拉底之前,先让我们来听一听所谓“诡辩学派”的学说。这一派的哲学家是苏格拉底时代雅典的主流学派。
   哲学史就像一出分成许多幕的戏剧。注意,苏菲,现在舞台上的布幕就要升起了。
   以人为中心
   从大约公元前四五O年左右起,雅典成了希腊王国的文化中心。从此以后,哲学走上了一个新的方向。
   自然派的哲学家关切的主题是自然世界的本质,这使得他们在科学史上占了很重要的一席之地。而雅典的哲学家的兴趣主要在个人本身与每个人在社会的地位。当时,一个拥有人民议会与法庭等机构的民主制度正在雅典逐渐成形。
   为了使民主能够运作,人民必须接受足够的教育以参与民主的进程。在现代,我们也看到新兴的民主国家如何需要开启民智。
   当时的雅典人认为,最重要的事就是要精通演说术,也就是说要能够用令人信服的方式来表达自己的看法。
   这时,有一群四处游历的教师与哲学家从希腊各殖民地来到了雅典。他们自称为哲士或智者(SopLists)。Sophist这个字原来指的是一个有智慧而且博学的人(按:一般贬称为诡辩学家)。这些诡辩学家在雅典以教导市民为生。
   诡辩学家与自然派哲学家有一个共通点,那就是:他们都批评传统的神话。但诡辩学家不屑于从事在他们眼中了无益处的哲学
   性思考。他们的看法是:虽然哲学问题或许有答案,但人类永远不可能揭开大自然及宇宙之谜。在哲学上,类似这样的看法被称为
   “怀疑论”。
   诡辩学家认为,我们虽然无法知道所有自然之谜的答案,却可以肯定人类必须学习如何共同生活。因此,他们宁愿关心个人在社会中的地位的问题。
   诡辩学家普罗塔哥拉斯(Protagoras,约公元前四八五一公元前四一O年)曾说过:“人是衡量一切的尺度。”他的意思是:一件事情是对是错、是好是坏,完全要看它与人类的需求有何关系而定。
   当有人问他是否相信希腊的诸神时,他答道:“这个问题太复杂,而生命又太短促了。”一个无法确定世上是否有神的人,我们称他为“不可知论者”。
   这批诡辩学家多半都是一些游遍各地、见过不同政治制度的人。在他们到过的各个城邦中,无论传统规范或地方法律可能都各不相同。这使得那些诡辩学家不禁质疑哪些事物是与生俱来,而哪些事物又是社会环境造成的。就这样,他们播下了雅典城邦内社会批评的种子。
   例如,他们指出,像“天生害羞”这样的说法并不一定成立,因为假使害羞是一种“天生”的性格,那一定是人一出生就有的,是一种出于内在的品格。但是,苏菲,害羞的个性果真是天生的吗?还是由社会环境造成的?对于某个已经游遍世界的人来说,答案应该很简单:害怕展露自己赤裸的身体并非“自然”的,也不是天生的。
   害羞——或不害羞——最主要还是受到社会规范的制约所致。
   你应该想象得到,这批游历四方的诡辩学家宣称,世间没有绝对的是非标准,这种说法在雅典会造成多么激烈的争议。
   相反的,苏格拉底则试图证明此类的规范事实上不容置疑,而且是放诸四海皆准的。
   苏格拉底是谁7
   苏格拉底(公元前四七O~公元前三九九年)也许是整个哲学
   史上最神秘难解的人物。他从未留下任何文字,但却是对欧洲思想影响最重大的人物之一。而这并不全然是因为他后来戏剧性的结束了生命的缘故。
   我们知道苏格拉底生于雅典。他有生之年大半时间都在市中心广场与市场等地与他遇见的人闲谈。他说:“乡野的树木不能教我任何东西。”有时他也会连续好几小时站着思想、发呆。
   即使在当时,他也被视为谜样的人物,但他死后很快就被誉为许多哲学学派的始祖。正因为他神秘难解、模棱两可,才使得一些在学说上大相径庭的学派都可以宣称他们是苏格拉底的传人。
   我们现在可以确知的是:苏格拉底长得很丑。他肚大、眼凸,有个狮子鼻。但据说他的性情“极为和蔼可亲”,也有人说他是“古今无人能及”的人物。尽管如此,他还是因为他从事的哲学活动而被判处死刑。
   我们之所以能够得知苏格拉底的生平,主要是透过柏拉图的著作。柏拉图是苏格拉底的学生,后来也成为古往今来最伟大的哲学家之一。
   柏拉图曾撰写过几本《对话录》,以类似戏剧对白来讨论哲学,而苏格拉底就是其中的主要人物与代言人。
   由于柏拉图在书中是透过苏格拉底之口来阐扬自己的哲学,因此我们无法确定对话录中苏格拉底说的话是否确是苏格拉底本人说的。因此,要区分苏格拉底的学说与柏拉图的哲学并不容易。这也是我们面临其他许多未曾留下撰述的历史人物时遭遇的难题。最典型的例子当然是耶稣了。
   我们无法确定当年的耶稣是否讲过马太福音或路加福音上记载的话。同样的,苏格拉底本人究竟说过些什么话,将会一直是历史上的谜团。
   不过,苏格拉底的真正面貌其实并不那么重要。因为近两千五百年来对西方思想家产生启发作用的,事实上是柏拉图描绘出来的苏格拉底。
   谈话的艺术
   苏格拉底的高明之处在于他与人谈话时看来并无意要指导别人。事实上他给人的印象是他很想从那些与他谈话的人身上学到一些东西。所以,他并不像传统的学校教师那般讲课,而是与别人
   进行讨论。
   如果他纯粹只是倾听别人说话,那他显然不会成为一个著名的哲学家,也不会被判处死刑。不过,话说回来,他所做的也只不过是提出问题而已,尤其是在刚开始与人谈话时,仿佛他一无所知似的。通常在讨论过程中,他会设法使他的对手承认自己理论上的弱点。最后,到了词穷之际,他们也不得不认清是非与对错。
   苏格拉底的母亲是一位产婆。苏格拉底也常说他的谈话艺术就像为人接生一样。产婆本身并不是生孩子的人,她只是帮忙接生而已。同样的,苏格拉底认为他的工作就是帮助人们“生出”正确的
   思想,因为真正的知识来自内心,而不是得自别人的传授。同时,唯有出自内心的知识,才能使人拥有真正的智慧。
   说得更明白些:生小孩的能力是与生俱来的。同样的,每一个人只要运用本身的常识,就可以领悟哲学的真理。所谓运用本身的常识就是搜寻自己的内心,运用内心的智慧。
   借着假装无知的方式,苏格拉底强迫他所遇见的人们运用本身的常识。这种装傻、装呆的方式,我们称为“苏格拉底式的反讽”。
   这使得他能够不断揭露人们思想上的弱点。即使在市区广场的中心,他也照做不误。于是,对于某些人而言,与苏格拉底谈话无异于当众出丑并成为众人的笑柄。
   因此我们不难理解为何当时的人愈来愈将苏格拉底视为眼中钉,尤其是那些在地方上有头有脸的人。据说,苏格拉底曾说:“雅典就像一匹驽马,而我就是一只不断叮它,让它具有活力的牛蝇。”
   “我们是怎样对付牛蝇的?苏菲,你可以告诉我吗?”
   神圣的声音
   苏格拉底之所以不断地像牛蝇般叮他的同胞,并不是想折磨他们。而是他内心有某种声音让他非如此做不可。他总是说他的心中有“神明指引”。举例说,他不愿伙同众人将他人判处死罪,也不愿打政敌的小报告。这终于使他丧失性命。
   在公元前三九九年时,他被控“宣扬新的神明,腐化青年人”。
   在五百名陪审团员的投票之下,他以些微的票数之差被定罪。
   他大可以恳求陪审团手下留情,或至少可以同意离开雅典,借以免于一死。
   然而,如果他这样做,他就不是苏格拉底了。问题在于他重视他的良心——与真理——更甚于生命。他向陪审团保证他过去所作所为全是为了国家的福祉。然而他们还是要他服毒。不久,苏格拉底就当着友人的面喝下毒药,结束了生命。
   为什么?苏菲,为什么苏格拉底非死不可?两千四百年来人们不断问着这个问题。然而,他并不是历史上唯一坚持不肯妥协,最后落得被定罪处死的人。
   我曾经提过的耶稣就是其中之一。事实上,苏格拉底与耶稣之间还有若干极为相似之处。
   他们两人都是谜样的人物,即使对于与他们同时代的人也是 如此。他们都没有将他们的学说教诲撰写成书,因此我们只好透过他们门徒的描写来认识他们。不过可以肯定的是,他们两个都是通晓谈话艺术的专家。他们说起话来都充满自信、侃侃而谈,虽然引人入胜,但也可能会得罪别人。此外,他们都相信自己是某一种更高力量的代言人。他们批评各种形式的不公不义与腐败现象,向地方势力挑战,最后并因此丧命。
   耶稣与苏格拉底所受的审判显然也有雷同之处。
     他们原本都可以求饶,但他们却都觉得如果不成仁取义,就无法完成他们的使命。而由于他们如此从容就义,所以吸引了许多徒众追随,即使在他们死后仍然如此。
   我指出这些相似之处并不是说耶稣与苏格拉底相像。我只是要提醒你注意,他们所要传达的信息与他们个人的勇气是密不可分的。
   雅典的小丑
   苏菲,接下来我们还是要谈苏格拉底。我们刚才已经谈到他所使用的方法,但他的哲学课题又是什么?
   苏格拉底与那些诡辩学家生在同一时代。他就像他们一样,比 较关心个人与他在社会中的位置,对于大自然的力量较不感兴趣。
   就像几百年后罗马哲学家西塞罗所说的,苏格拉底“将哲学从天上召唤下来,使它在各地落脚生根,并进入各个家庭,还迫使它审视生命、伦理与善恶”。
   不过,苏格拉底有一点与诡辩学派不同,而这点很重要。他并不认为自己是个“智者”,即博学或聪明的人。他也不像诡辩学家一样,为赚钱而教书。不,苏格拉底称自己为“哲学家”,而他也的确是 一位真正的哲学家,因为哲学家的英文philo---sopher这个字的意思是“一个爱好智慧的人”。
   苏菲,你现在坐得舒服吗?你必须完全了解“智者”与“哲学家”之间的差异,这样我们才能继续上以后的课程。诡辩学家教人道理,并收取学费,而他们所说的道理或多或少都有吹毛求疵的意味。这样的诡辩学家千百年来不知凡几。我指的是所有的学校教师、那些自以为无所不知而以既有的一丁点知识为满足的人,以及那些自夸博学多闻但实际上一无所知的人。你年纪虽小,但或许已经遇见过几位这样的诡辩学家。一个真正的哲学家则完全不同,事实上他们与诡辩学家正好相反。他们知道实际上自己所知十分有限,这也是为何他们不断追求真知灼见的原因。苏格拉底就是这些稀有人物之一。他知道自己对生命与世界一无所知,并对自己贫乏的知识感到相当懊恼。这点非常重要。
   所以说,所谓哲学家就是那些领悟到自己有很多事情并不知道,并因此而感到苦恼的人。就这一方面而言,他们还是比那些自称博学但实际上非常无知的人更聪明。我曾经说过:“最聪明的是明白自己无知的人。”苏格拉底也说:“我只知道一件事,就是我一无所知。”
   请你记住这句话,因为很难得有人会承认自己无知,即使哲学家也不例外。最重要的是,当众说这句话是很危险的,可能会使你丧命。最具颠覆性的人就是那些提出问题的人,而回答问题则比较不危险。任何一个问题都可能比一千个答案要更具爆炸性。
   你是否听说过国王的新衣这个故事?故事中的国王其实浑身一丝不挂,但他的臣民却没有人敢说出真相。这时,一个小孩突然脱口而出:“可是他什么衣服都没穿呀!”苏菲,这个孩子很勇敢,就像苏格拉底一样。苏格拉底也敢于告诉我们人类所知多么有限。哲学家与小孩子的相似性我们已经谈过了。
   确切来说,人类面临了许多难解的问题,而我们对这些问题还没有找到满意的答案。因此现在我们面临两种可能:一个是假装拥有所有的知识,借此自欺欺人。另一个则是闭上眼睛,从此不去理会,并放弃一切我们迄今所有的成就。就这方面而言,人类的意见并不一致。人们通常不是太过笃定,就是漠不关心(这两种人都是 在兔子的毛皮深处蠕动的虫子)。苏菲,这就像切牌一样。你把黑牌放在一堆,红牌放在一堆,但不时会有小丑牌出现。他们既不是红桃也不是黑桃,既不是红砖也不是梅花。在雅典,苏格拉底就像是小丑一样。他既不笃定也不漠然。他只知道自己一无所知,而这使他非常苦恼。因此他成为一个哲学家,一个孜孜不倦追求真理,永不放弃的人。
   据说,一个雅典人问戴尔菲的神谕:“谁是雅典最聪明的人?”
   神谕回答说:“在所有的凡人中,苏格拉底是最聪明的。”苏格拉底听到这件事时,大为震惊(苏菲,我想他一定曾经放声大笑)。他直接去找城内公认聪明出众的一个人问问题。但是当此人也无法给他一个满意的答案时,苏格拉底便知道神谕是对的。
   苏格拉底认为人类必须为自己的知识奠定巩固的基础,他相信这个基础就是人的理性。由于他对人的理性具有不可动摇的信念,因此他显然是一个理性主义者。
   正确的见解导致正确的行动
   正如我先前讲过的,苏格拉底声称他受到内心一个神圣声音的指引,同时他的“良心”也告诉他什么是对的。他说:“知善者必能行善。”
   他的意思是人只要有正确的见解,就会采取正确的行动。也唯有行所当行的人才能成为一个“有德之人”。我们之所以犯错,是因为我们不知道何者是对的。这是人何以必须不断学习的原因。苏格拉底想为是非对错找出一个清楚明白,而且放诸四海皆准的定义。他与那些诡辩家不同的是,他相信辨别是非的能力就存在于人的理性中,而不存在于社会中。
   你,也许会认为最后一部分有些大过含糊。让我们这样说好了:苏格拉底认为,人如果违反自己的理性就不会快乐。而那些知道如何找到快乐的人就会遵照自己的理性行事。因此,明白是非者必然不会为恶。因为世间哪有人会想要成为一个不快乐的人?
   你怎么想呢?苏菲。如果你一直做一些自己深知不对的事,你还会活得很快乐吗?有很多人撒谎、舞弊、中伤别人,而他们本身也深深明白这些行为是不对或不公平的。你想这些人会快乐吗?
   苏菲看完有关苏格拉底的信后,匆匆将信放在饼干盒内便爬出密洞。她想在妈妈买菜回家前进门,以免妈妈啰哩啰唆地盘问她的行踪。再说,苏菲答应要帮妈妈洗碗。
   苏菲刚在碗槽里放满水,妈妈就提着两个大袋子,跌跌撞撞地走进来了。也许是因为这样,妈妈才说:“苏菲,最近你很心不在焉。”
   苏菲也不知道自己是怎么回事,脱口就说:“苏格拉底也是这样啊!”
   “苏格拉底?”
   妈妈睁大眼睛看着她。
   “他因此而非死不可,这真是太悲哀了。”苏菲悠悠地说。
   “天哪!苏菲,我真不知道该怎么办才好!”
   “苏格拉底也是。他只知道自己一无所知,然而他却是雅典最聪明的人。”
   妈妈差点说不出话来。最后,她说:“这是你在学校里学到的吗?”
   苏菲用力摇摇头:“我们在那儿什么也学不到。教师和哲学家的不同之处在于老师自认为懂得很多,并且强迫我们吸收。哲学家则是与学生一起寻求答案。”
   “瞧,现在我们又回到兔子的问题了。苏菲,我要你告诉我你的男朋友究竟是谁。要不然我会认为他脑筋有点问题。”
   苏菲转过身来,背对着碗槽,手拿着一块洗碗布指着妈妈:“脑筋有问题的可不是他。不过他喜欢让别人伤一伤脑筋,让他们脱离窠臼。”
   “够了!我看他有点目中无人。”
     苏菲转回身去。
   “他既不是目中无人,也不是目中有人,他只是努力追寻真正的智慧。一个真正的小丑和其他纸牌是大不相同的。”
   “你是说小丑吗?”
   苏菲点点头。“你有没有想过一副牌里面有很多红心和红砖,也有很多黑桃和梅花,但只有一个小丑。”
   “天哪!你看你多会顶嘴。”
   “你看你问的什么问题嘛!”
   妈妈已经把买来的东西都放好了,于是她拿着报纸走进起居室。苏菲感到,她今天关门的声音比平常都大。
   苏菲洗完碗后,就上楼回到自己的房间。
   她已经把那条红色的丝巾和积木一起放在衣柜的上层。现在她把丝巾拿了下来,仔细地看。
   席德……





暮辞朝

ZxID:15103679


等级: 内阁元老
配偶: 清风雅乐
这一段开心的日子请你勿忘
举报 只看该作者 8楼  发表于: 2013-10-25 0
英文原文
Athens

... several tall buildings had risen from the ruins 

Early that evening Sophie's mother went to visit a friend. As soon as she was out of the house Sophie went down the garden to the den. There she found a thick package beside the big cookie tin. Sophie tore it open. It was a video cassette.

She ran back to the house. A video tape! How on earth did the philosopher know they had a VCR? And what was on the cassette?

Sophie put the cassette into the recorder. A sprawling city appeared on the TV screen. As the camera zoomed in on the Acropolis Sophie realized that the city must be Athens. She had often seen pictures of the ancient ruins there.

It was a live shot. Summer-clad tourists with cameras slung about them were swarming among the ruins. One of them looked as if he was carrying a notice board. There it was again. Didn't it say "Hilde"?

After a minute or two there was a close-up of a middle-aged man. He was rather short, with a black, well-trimmed beard, and he was wearing a blue beret. He looked into the camera and said: "Welcome to Athens, Sophie. As you have probably guessed, I am Alberto Knox. If not, I will just reiterate that the big rabbit is still being pulled from the top hat of the universe.

"We are standing at the Acropolis. The word means 'citadel'--or more precisely, 'the city on the hill.' People have lived up here since the Stone Age. The reason, naturally, was its unique location. The elevated plateau was easy to defend against marauders. From the Acrop-olis there was also an excellent view down to one of the best harbors in the Mediterranean. As the early Athens began to develop on the plain below the plateau, the Acropolis was used as a fortress and sacred shrine... During the first half of the fifth century B.C., a bitter war was waged against the Persians, and in 480 the Persian king Xerxes plundered Athens and burned all the old wooden buildings of the Acropolis. A year later the Persians were defeated, and that was the beginning of the Golden Age of Athens. The Acropolis was rebuilt-- prouder and more magnificent than ever--and now purely as a sacred shrine.

"This was the period when Socrates walked through the streets and squares talking with the Athenians. He could thus have witnessed the rebirth of the Acropolis and watched the construction of all the proud buildings we see around us. And what a building site it was! Behind me you can see the biggest temple, the Parthenon, which means 'the Virgin's Place.' It was built in honor of Athene, the patron goddess of Athens. The huge marble structure does not have a single straight line; all four sides are slightly curved to make the building appear less heavy. In spite of its colossal dimensions, it gives the impression of lightness. In other words, it presents an optical illusion. The columns lean slightly inwards, and would form a pyramid 1,500 meters high if they were continued to a point above the temple. The temple contained nothing but a twelve-meter-high statue of Athene. The white marble, which in those days was painted in vivid colors, was transported here from a mountain sixteen kilometers away."

Sophie sat with her heart in her mouth. Was this really the philosopher talking to her? She had only seen his profile that one time in the darkness. Could he be the same man who was now standing at the Acropolis in Athens?

He began to walk along the length of the temple and the camera followed him. He walked right to the edge of the terrace and pointed out over the landscape. The camera focused on an old theater which lay just below the plateau of the Acropolis.

"There you can see the old Dionysos Theater," continued the man in the beret. "It is probably the very oldest theater in Europe. This is where the great tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides were performed during the time of Socrates. I referred earlier to the ill-fated King Oedipus. The tragedy about him, by Sophocles, was first performed here. But they also played comedies. The best known writer of comedies was Aristophanes, who also wrote a spiteful comedy about Socrates as the buffoon of Athens. Right at the back you can see the stone wall which the actors used as a backdrop. It was called skene, and is the origin of our word 'scene.' Incidentally, the word 'theater' comes from an old Greek word meaning 'to see.' But we must get back to the philosophers, Sophie. We are going around the Parthenon and down through the gateway ..."

The little man walked around the huge temple and passed some smaller temples on his right. Then he began to walk down some steps between several tall columns. When he reached the foot of the Acropolis, he went up a small hill and pointed out toward Athens: "The hill we are standing on is called Areopagos. It was here that the Athenian high court of justice passed judgment in murder trials. Many hundreds of years later, St. Paul the Apostle stood here and preached about Jesus and Christianity to the Athenians. We shall return to what he said on a later occasion. Down to the left you can see the remains of the old city square in Athens, the agora. With the exception of the large temple to Hephaestos, the god of smiths and metalworkers, only some blocks of marble are preserved. Let us go down ..."

The next moment he appeared among the ancient ruins. High up beneath the sky--at the top of Sophie's screen--towered the monumental Athene temple on the Acropolis. Her philosophy teacher had seated himself on one of the blocks of marble. He looked into the camera and said: "We are sitting in the old agora in Athens. A sorry sight, don't you think? Today, I mean. But once it was surrounded by splendid temples, courts of justice and other public offices, shops, a concert hall, and even a large gymnastics building. All situated around the square, which was a large open space ... The whole of European civilization was founded in this modest area.

"Words such as politics and democracy, economy and history, biology and physics, mathematics and logic, theology and philosophy, ethics and psychology, theory and method, idea and system date back to the tiny populace whose everyday life centered around this square. This is where Socrates spent so much of his time talking to the people he met. He might have buttonholed a slave bearing a jar of olive oil, and asked the unfortunate man a question on philosophy, for Socrates held that a slave had the same common sense as a man of rank. Perhaps he stood in an animated wrangle with one of the citizens--or held a subdued conversation with his young pupil Plato. It is extraordinary to think about. We still speak of Socratic or Platonic philosophy, but actually being Plato or Socrates is quite another matter."

Sophie certainly did think it was extraordinary to think about. But she thought it was just as extraordinary the way her philosopher was suddenly talking to her on a video that had been brought to her own secret hideout in the garden by a mysterious dog.

The philosopher rose from the block of marble he was sitting on and said quietly: "It was actually my intention to leave it at that, Sophie. I wanted you to see the Acropolis and the remains of the old agora in Athens. But I am not yet sure that you have grasped just how splendid these surroundings once were ... so I am very tempted to go a bit further. It is quite irregular of course ... but I am sure I can count on it remaining just between the two of us. Oh well, a tiny glimpse will suffice anyway ..."

He said no more, but remained standing there for a long time, staring into the camera. While he stood there, several tall buildings had risen from the ruins. As if by magic, all the old buildings were once again standing.

Above the skyline Sophie could still see the Acropolis, but now both that and all the buildings down on the square were brand-new. They were covered with gold and painted in garish colors. Gaily dressed people were strolling about the square. Some wore swords, others carried jars on their heads, and one of them had a roll of papyrus under his arm.

Then Sophie recognized her philosophy teacher. He was still wearing the blue beret, but now he was dressed in a yellow tunic in the same style as everyone else. He came toward Sophie, looked into the camera, and said:

"That's better! Now we are in the Athens of antiquity, Sophie. I wanted you to come here in person, you see. We are in the year 402 B.C., only three years before Socrates dies. I hope you appreciate this exclusive visit because it was very difficult to hire a video camera ..."

Sophie felt dizzy. How could this weird man suddenly be in Athens 2,400 years ago? How could she be seeing a video film of a totally different age? There were no videos in antiquity ... so could this be a movie?

But all the marble buildings looked real. If they had recreated all of the old square in Athens as well as the Acropolis just for the sake of a film--the sets would have cost a fortune. At any rate it would be a colossal price to pay just to teach Sophie about Athens.

The man in the beret looked up at her again.

"Do you see those two men over there under the colonnade?"

Sophie noticed an elderly man in a crumpled tunic. He had a long unkempt beard, a snub nose, eyes like gimlets, and chubby cheeks. Beside him stood a handsome young man.

"That is Socrates and his young pupil, Plato. You are going to meet them personally."

The philosopher went over to the two men, took off his beret, and said something which Sophie did not understand. It must have been in Greek. Then he looked into the camera and said, "I told them you were a Norwegian girl who would very much like to meet them. So now Plato will give you some questions to think about. But we must do it quickly before the guards discover us."

Sophie felt the blood pounding in her temples as the young man stepped forward and looked into the camera.

"Welcome to Athens, Sophie," he said in a gentle voice. He spoke with an accent. "My name is Plato and I am going to give you four tasks. First you must think over how a baker can bake fifty absolutely identical cookies. Then you can ask yourself why all horses are the same. Next you must decide whether you think that man has an immortal soul. And finally you must say whether men and women are equally sensible. Good luck!"

Then the picture on the TV screen disappeared. Sophie wound and rewound the tape but she had seen all there was.

Sophie tried to think things through clearly. But as soon as she thought one thought, another one crowded in before she had thought the first one to its end.

She had known from the start that her philosophy teacher was eccentric. But when he started to use teaching methods that defied all the laws of nature, Sophie thought he was going too far.

Had she really seen Socrates and Plato on TV? Of course not, that was impossible. But it definitely wasn't a cartoon.

Sophie took the cassette out of the video recorder and ran up to her room with it. She put it on the top shelf with all the Lego blocks. Then she sank onto the bed, exhausted, and fell asleep.

Some hours later her mother came into the room. She shook Sophie gently and said:

"What's the matter, Sophie?"

"Mmmm?"

"You've gone to sleep with all your clothes on!"

Sophie blinked her eyes sleepily.

"I've been to Athens," she mumbled. That was all she could manage to say as she turned over and went back to sleep.







中文翻译
   雅典
   ……废墟中升起了几栋高楼……
   那天傍晚,苏菲的妈妈去拜访一位朋友。她一出门,苏菲立刻下楼,跑到花园中老树篱内的密洞。她在里面发现了一个厚厚的包裹,就放在饼干盒旁。苏菲拆开包裹,里面是一卷录影带。
   她跑回屋里。一卷录影带!这次特别不同。哲学家怎会知道她家有录放影机?录影带内又是什么呢?
   苏菲将带子放进录影机。电视荧屏出现了一座面积辽阔的城市。当摄影机镜头带人到巴特农神殿时,苏菲知道这座城市一定是雅典。她从前常常看到当地古代废墟的照片。
   这卷录影带拍的是真实的情景。一群穿着夏装、的游客背着相机在废墟之间走动。其中有一个人好像拿着一块告示牌。又来了。
   苏菲心想,牌子上面写的可不是“席德”这两个字吗?
   一两分钟后,镜头变成一个中年男子的特写。他个子甚为矮小,留着一脸整齐干净的黑胡子,头上戴着一顶蓝扁帽。他看着镜头说:
   “欢迎你来到雅典,苏菲。我想你大概已经猜到了,我就是艾伯特。如果你还没猜到,我可以再说一次,那只大兔子仍然可以被魔术师从宇宙的帽子之中拉出来。
   “我们现在正站在雅典的高城(Acropolis)。这个字的意思是‘城堡’,或者更准确地说,是‘山城’的意思。自从石器时代以来,这里就有人居住。这自然是因为它地理位置特殊的缘故。它的地势高,在盗匪入侵时容易防守。从高城这儿俯瞰,可以很清楚地看到地中海的一个良港。古代雅典人开始在高地下面的平原发展时,高城被当作城堡和神庙。公元前第四世纪的前半,雅典人对波斯人发‘动了一场惨烈的战争。公元前四八O年时,波斯国王齐尔克西(Xerxes)率兵掠夺了雅典城,并将高城所有的古老木造建筑焚烧净尽。一年后,波斯人被打败,雅典的黄金时代也从此开始。雅典人开始重建高城,规模更大,气象也更雄浑,而且完全做为神庙使用。
   “就在这个时期,苏格拉底穿梭在大街小巷与广场上,与雅典
   人民谈话。他原本可以目睹高城的复兴,并看到我们四周这些雄伟建筑的进展。你瞧,这是一个多么好的地方。在我后面,你可以看到世界上最大的神庙巴特农神殿。巴特农(Panhenon)的意思是‘处女之地’,是为了崇奉雅典的保护神雅典娜(Athene)而建造的。
   这整座宏伟的大理石建筑看不到一条直线。它的四面墙壁都稍微有些弧度,以使整栋建筑看来不致太过沉重。也因此这座神庙虽然硕大无朋,却仍给人轻巧之感,这就是所谓的视觉幻象。神殿所有的柱子都微向内弯,如果继续朝上发展,将可以形成一座一千五百公尺高的金字塔。神殿内只有一尊十二公尺高的雅典娜雕像。此处所用的白色大理石是从十六公里以外的一座山上运来的,当年上面还有五彩的图画。”
   苏菲的心差一点跳出来。哲学家真的是在跟她说话吗?她只有一次在黑暗中看过他的侧影。他真的就是这位站在雅典高城的男人吗?
   他开始沿着神殿的前方走,摄影机也跟着他。他走到台地边缘;指着四周的风景。摄影机把焦点放在高城高地的正下方一座古老的戏院。
   “你在那里可以看到古老的酒神剧院。”这位戴着扁帽的老人继续说:“这也许是欧洲最古老的剧院。在苏格拉底时期,伊思齐勒斯(Aeschylus)、索福克里斯(Sophoeles)与尤瑞皮底斯(Euripides)等希腊剧作家写的伟大悲剧就在这儿上演。我以前曾经提到命运凄惨的伊迪帕斯国王。这出悲剧最先就是在这儿上演。不过这里也演喜剧。当时最知名的喜剧作家叫亚里斯多芬尼斯(Aristo—phanes)。他曾经写过一出恶毒的喜剧,将苏格拉底描写成雅典的一个丑角。在剧院正后方,你可以看到一块当年被演员们用作背景的地方,叫做skene,英文的scene(场景)这个字就是由此字衍生的。顺便一提的是,英文theater(剧院、剧场)这个字是源自古希腊文,原意是“看”。不过,到这里,我们得回头谈谈哲学家了。现在我们要绕过巴特农神殿走下去,经过大门口……”
   这个矮小的男人绕过巨大的神殿,经过右边几座较小的神庙。
   然后他开始沿着两边排列着高大石柱的梯阶走下去。到达高城的最低点时,他走上一座小山丘,用手遥指着雅典的方向:“我们现在站的这个小山丘是古代雅典的高等法院(Areopa—gos),也是雅典人审判杀人犯的地方。几百年以后,使徒保罗曾站在此处对雅典人宣扬耶稣基督的教诲。以后我们会谈到他所说的。
   在左下方,你可以看到雅典古老的市区广场(Agora)的遗迹,如今除了供奉铁匠与金属工人之神贺非斯托思(Hephaestos)的大神庙之外,只剩下几块大理石了。现在我们继续往下走……”
   不久,他出现在这片古废墟中。在荧屏上方,只见高城的雅典 娜神殿巍然矗立在天空下。她的哲学教师已经坐在一块大理石上。
   一两分钟后,他看着摄影机说:
   “现在我们正坐在从前雅典的市区广场上。如今这里的景象令人唏嘘,不是吗?但从前这里四周环绕的都是壮丽的神殿、法院和 其他政府机构、商店、音乐厅,甚至还有一个大型的体育场。这些建筑物环绕着广场,而广场本身则是一个宽阔开放的空间……整个欧洲的文明都在这个朴实的地方扎下根基。
   “今天我们听到的一些字眼,如政治与民主、经济与历史、生物与物理、数学与逻辑、神学与哲学、伦理学与,b理学、理论与方法、概念与系统以及其他许许多多的字眼,最先都是由以这个广场为日常生活中心的一小群人发明的。这里也就是当年苏格拉底花了许多时间与人谈话的广场,那个时候,他可能会抓住一个扛着一瓶橄榄油的奴隶不放,并且问这个倒楣的人一个哲学问题,因为苏格拉底认为奴隶与一般人一样有常识。有时他也会与别人争辩得脸红脖子粗,或与他的学生柏拉图进行一场温和的讨论。想起来,这是多么奇妙的事啊!现代人仍然时常提到‘苏格拉底式’与‘柏拉图式’的哲学,但真正做苏格拉底或柏拉图却是两码子事。”
   一时之间,苏菲也觉得这件事想起来真是很奇妙。
   不过,她认为,她的哲学老师居然派他那只很不寻常的狗把录影带送到她在花园中的密洞,而现在他本人正在荧屏上对她说话,这件事不是也很奇妙吗?
   哲学家从大理石上起身,平静地说道:
   “苏菲,我原来只打算到此为止,让你看看高城和古代雅典广 畅的遗迹就好了。但是现在我还不确定你是否能够想象从前这儿四周的景象是多么壮观……因此我很想……再进一步……当然这是不太寻常的……但我确实想要这么做。我相信你一定不会告诉别人吧?不管怎么说,我们看一下就够了……”
   他说完后站在那儿静默了好一会儿,眼睛看着摄影机。就在这段时间,废墟中突然升起了几栋高大的建筑。就像魔术一般,所有昔日的建筑又突然再现。高城依旧巍然矗立天际,但不同的是,无论高城或是广场上的屋宇建筑,如今看来都焕然一新,上面镶着金箔,绘着艳丽的色彩。服饰鲜明的人群在广场四周慢慢走着。有人佩着剑,有人头上顶着瓶子,其中有一个人腋下夹着一卷纸草做成的纸。
   这时,苏菲看到了她的哲学老师。他还是戴着那顶蓝色的扁帽,只是换了衣裳。如今他穿着一件长及膝盖的黄衫,与其他人没有两样。他走向苏菲,看着镜头说道:
   “这样好些了。我们来到了古代的雅典城,我就是希望你能亲自来这儿。你瞧,现在的年代是公元前四O二年,也就是苏格拉底逝世的三年前。我希望你喜欢这次游览,因为我可是费了很大的劲才雇到一个摄影师的……”
   苏菲觉得头昏。这个奇怪的人怎么会一下子就到了两千四百年前的雅典?自己怎么可能看到另外一个时代的录影带?古代并没有录影机呀!难道这是电影吗?
   然而,那些大理石建筑看起来却是如此逼真。如果他们为了拍片而重建整座雅典广场与高城的话,那光是布景一定就要花一大笔钱。如果这样做,只是为了让苏菲了解雅典昔日的景象,那花费实在是太大了。
   戴着蓝扁帽的男人再度抬起头看着苏菲
   “你看到那边廊柱下站的两个男人吗?”
   苏菲看到一个年长的男子穿了一件皱巴巴的长衫,一脸乱七八糟的胡子,狮子鼻,目光犀利,两颊丰满。他身旁站了一个英俊的年轻人。
   “这就是苏格拉底和他的学生柏拉图,你将亲自与他们见面。”
   哲学家走到那两人身旁,取下他的扁帽,说了一些苏菲听不懂的话。苏菲想,那一定是希腊文。然后,他看着摄影机说:
   “我告诉他们你是一个挪威女孩,很想见见他们。因此,现在柏拉图会问你一些问题让你思考。不过我们得快点,以免被警卫发现。”
   当那位年轻人走向前来,看着摄影机时,苏菲觉得自己全身的血液都涌到太阳穴来。
   “苏菲,欢迎你到雅典来,”年轻人用一种浓厚的外国腔调轻声地说。“我的名字叫柏拉图。我要让你做四件事。第一,请你想一想,一个面包师傅如何能做五十个一模一样的饼干。其次,你要问自己,为何所有的马都一样。第三,你必须肯定地回答人的灵魂是否不朽。最后请你告诉我们,男人与女人是否一样具有理性。祝你好运。”
   然后,电视荧屏上的影像消失了。苏菲将带子转了又转,倒了又倒。不过再也没有任何影像了。
   苏菲努力整理自己的思绪。不过她一件事还没想完,第二件事已开始在脑中浮现。
   她一开始就知道她的哲学教师与常人不同。不过苏菲认为,他运用这类违反所有自然法则的教学方法也实在是太过分了。
   她真的在电视上看到了苏格拉底与柏拉图吗?当然不,这完全不可能。但那看起来又绝对不像是卡通。
   苏菲将带子从录影机内取出,拿到楼上房间。她把它放在柜子上层,积木的旁边,然后她就一股脑儿躺下,整个人疲倦不堪。不久就睡着了。
   几个小时后,妈妈走进她的房间,轻轻地摇一摇她,说:
   “苏菲,你怎么啦?”
     “嗯?”
   “你衣服都没脱就睡了。”
     苏菲睁了睁惺忪的睡眼。
   “我到雅典去了。”她含糊地说,之后翻个身又睡着了。





暮辞朝

ZxID:15103679


等级: 内阁元老
配偶: 清风雅乐
这一段开心的日子请你勿忘
举报 只看该作者 9楼  发表于: 2013-10-25 0
英文原文
Plato

 a longing to return to the realm of the soul

Sophie woke with a start early the next morning. She glanced at the clock. It was only a little after five but she was so wide awake that she sat up in bed. Why was she wearing a dress? Then she remembered everything.

She climbed onto a stool and looked on the top shelf of the closet. Yes--there, at the back, was the video cassette. It hadn't been a dream after all; at least, not all of it.

But she couldn't really have seen Plato and Socrates ... oh, never mind! She didn't have the energy to think about it any more. Perhaps her mother was right, perhaps she was acting a bit nuts these days.

Anyway, she couldn't go back to sleep. Perhaps she ought to go down to the den and see if the dog had left another letter. Sophie crept downstairs, put on a pair of jogging shoes, and went out.

In the garden everything was wonderfully clear and still. The birds were chirping so energetically that Sophie could hardly keep from laughing. The morning dew twinkled in the grass like drops of crystal. Once again she was struck by the incredible wonder of the world.

Inside the old hedge it was also very damp. Sophie saw no new letter from the philosopher, but nevertheless she wiped off one of the thick roots and sat down.

She recalled that the video-Plato had given her some questions to answer. The first was something about how a baker could bake fifty identical cookies.

Sophie had to think very carefully about that, because it definitely wouldn't be easy. When her mother occasionally baked a batch of cookies, they were never all exactly the same. But then she was not an expert pastry cook; sometimes the kitchen looked as if a bomb had hit it. Even the cookies they bought at the baker's were never exactly the same. Every single cookie was shaped separately in the baker's hands.

Then a satisfied smile spread over Sophie's face. She remembered how once she and her father went shopping while her mother was busy baking Christmas cookies. When they got back there were a lot of gingerbread men spread out on the kitchen table. Even though they weren't all perfect, in a way they were all the same. And why was that? Obviously because her mother had used the same mold for all of them.

Sophie felt so pleased with herself for having remembered the incident that she pronounced herself done with the first question. If a baker makes fifty absolutely identical cookies, he must be using the same pastry mold for all of them. And that's that!

Then the video-Plato had looked into the camera and asked why all horses were the same. But they weren't, at all! On the contrary, Sophie thought no two horses were the same, just as no two people were the same.

She was ready to give up on that one when she remembered what she had thought about the cookies. No one of them was exactly like any of the others. Some were a bit thicker than the others, and some were broken. But still, everyone could see that they were--in a way-- "exactly the same."

What Plato was really asking was perhaps why a horse was always a horse, and not, for example, a cross between a horse and a pig. Because even though some horses were as brown as bears and others were as white as lambs, all horses had something in common. Sophie had yet to meet a horse with six or eight legs, for example.

But surely Plato couldn't believe that what made all horses alike was that they were made with the same mold?

Then Plato had asked her a really difficult question. Does man have an immortal soul? That was something Sophie felt quite unqualified to answer. All she knew was that dead bodies were either cremated or buried, so there was no future for them. If man had an immortal soul, one would have to believe that a person consisted of two separate parts: a body that gets worn out after many years--and a soul that operates more or less independently of what happens to the body. Her grandmother had said once that she felt it was only her body that was old. Inside she had always been the same young girl-The thought of the "young girl" led Sophie to the last question: Are women and men equally sensible? She was not so sure about that. It depended on what Plato meant by sensible.

Something the philosopher had said about Socrates came into her mind. Socrates had pointed out that everyone could understand philosophical truths if they just used their common sense. He had also said that a slave had the same common sense as a nobleman. Sophie was sure that he would also have said that women had the same common sense as men.

While she sat thinking, there was a sudden rustling in the hedge, and the sound of something puffing and blowing like a steam engine. The next second, the golden Labrador slipped into the den. It had a large envelope in its mouth.

"Hermes!" cried Sophie. "Drop it! Drop it!" The dog dropped the envelope in Sophie's lap, and Sophie stretched out her hand to pat the dog's head. "Good boy, Hermes!" she said. The dog lay down and allowed itself to be patted. But after a couple of minutes it got up and began to push its way back through the hedge the same way it had come in. Sophie followed with the brown envelope in her hand. She crawled through the dense thicket and was soon outside the garden.

Hermes had already started to run toward the edge of the woods, and Sophie followed a few yards behind. Twice the dog turned around and growled, but Sophie was not to be deterred.

This time she was determined to find the philosopher--even if it meant running all the way to Athens.

The dog ran faster and suddenly turned off down a narrow path. Sophie chased him, but after a few minutes he turned and faced her, barking like a watchdog. Sophie still refused to give up, taking the opportunity to lessen the distance between them.

Hermes turned and raced down the path. Sophie realized that she would never catch up with him. She stood quite still for what seemed like an eternity, listening to him running farther and farther away. Then all was silent.

She sat down on a tree stump by a little clearing in the woods. She still had the brown envelope in her hand. She opened it, drew out several typewritten pages, and began to read:

PLATO'S ACADEMY

Thank you for the pleasant time we spent together, Sophie. In Athens, I mean. So now I have at least introduced myself. And since I have also introduced Plato, we might as well begin without further ado.

Plato (428-347 B.C.) was twenty-nine years old when Socrates drank the hemlock. He had been a pupil of Socrates for some time and had followed his trial very closely. The fact that Athens could condemn its noblest citizen to death did more than make a profound impression on him. It was to shape the course of his entire philosophic endeavor.

To Plato, the death of Socrates was a striking example of the conflict that can exist between society as it really is and the true or ideal society. Plato's first deed as a philosopher was to publish Socrates' Apology, an account of his plea to the large jury.

As you will no doubt recall, Socrates never wrote anything down, although many of the pre-Socratics did. The problem is that hardly any of their written material remains. But in the case of Plato, we believe that all his principal works have been preserved. (In addition to Socrates' Apology, Plato wrote a collection of Epistles and about twenty-five philosophical Dialogues.) That we have these works today is due not least to the fact that Plato set up his own school of philosophy in a grove not far from Athens, named after the legendary Greek hero Academus. The school was therefore known as the Academy. (Since then, many thousands of "academies" have been established all over the world. We still speak of "academics" and "academic subjects.")

The subjects taught at Plato's Academy were philosophy, mathematics, and gymnastics--although perhaps "taught" is hardly the right word. Lively discourse was considered most important at Plato's Academy. So it was not purely by chance that Plato's writings took the form of dialogues.

The Eternally True, Eternally Beautiful, and Eternally Good

In the introduction to this course I mentioned that it could often be a good idea to ask what a particular philosopher's project was. So now I ask: what were the problems Plato was concerned with?

Briefly, we can establish that Plato was concerned with the relationship between what is eternal and immutable, on the one hand, and what "flows," on the other. (Just like the pre-Socratics, in fact.) We've seen how the Sophists and Socrates turned their attention from questions of natural philosophy to problems related to man and society. And yet in one sense, even Socrates and the Sophists were preoccupied with the relationship between the eternal and immutable, and the "flowing." They were interested in the problem as it related to human morals and society's ideals or virtues. Very briefly, the Sophists thought that perceptions of what was right or wrong varied from one city-state to another, and from one generation to the next. So right and wrong was something that "flowed." This was totally unacceptable to Socrates. He believed in the existence of eternal and absolute rules for what was right or wrong. By using our common sense we can all arrive at these immutable norms, since human reason is in fact eternal and immutable.

Do you follow, Sophie? Then along comes Plato. He is concerned with both what is eternal and immutable in nature and what is eternal and immutable as regards morals and society. To Plato, these two problems were one and the same. He tried to grasp a "reality" that was eternal and immutable.

And to be quite frank, that is precisely what we need philosophers for. We do not need them to choose a beauty queen or the day's bargain in tomatoes. (This is why they are often unpopular!) Philosophers will try to ignore highly topical affairs and instead try to draw people's attention to what is eternally "true," eternally "beau-tiful," and eternally "good."

We can thus begin to glimpse at least the outline of Plato's philosophical project. But let's take one thing at a time. We are attempting to understand an extraordinary mind, a mind that was to have a profound influence on all subsequent European philosophy.

The World of Ideas

Both Empedocles and Democritus had drawn attention to the fact that although in the natural world everything "flows," there must nevertheless be "something" that never changes (the "four roots," or the "atoms"). Plato agreed with the proposition as such--but in quite a different way.

Plato believed that everything tangible in nature "flows." So there are no "substances" that do not dissolve. Absolutely everything that belongs to the "material world" is made of a material that time can erode, but everything is made after a timeless "mold" or "form" that is eternal and immutable.

You see? No, you don't.

Why are horses the same, Sophie? You probably don't think they are at all. But there is something that all horses have in common, something that enables us to identify them as horses. A particular horse "flows," naturally. It might be old and lame, and in time it will die. But the "form" of the horse is eternal and immutable.

That which is eternal and immutable, to Plato, is therefore not a physical "basic substance," as it was for Empedocles and Democritus. Plato's conception was of eternal and immutable patterns, spiritual and abstract in their nature that all things are fashioned after.

Let me put it like this: The pre-Socratics had given a reasonably good explanation of natural change without having to presuppose that anything actually "changed." In the midst of nature's cycle there were some eternal and immutable smallest elements that did not dissolve, they thought. Fair enough, Sophie! But they had no reasonable explanation for how these "smallest elements" that were once building blocks in a horse could suddenly whirl together four or five hundred years later and fashion themselves into a completely new horse. Or an elephant or a crocodile, for that matter. Plato's point was that Democritus' atoms never fashioned themselves into an "eledile" or a "crocophant." This was what set his philosophical reflections going.

If you already understand what I am getting at, you may skip this next paragraph. But just in case, I will clarify: You have a box of Lego and you build a Lego horse. You then take it apart and put the blocks back in the box. You cannot expect to make a new horse just by shaking the box. How could Lego blocks of their own accord find each other and become a new horse again? No, you have to rebuild the horse, Sophie. And the reason you can do it is that you have a picture in your mind of what the horse looked like. The Lego horse is made from a model which remains unchanged from horse to horse.

How did you do with the fifty identical cookies? Let us assume that you have dropped in from outer space and have never seen a baker before. You stumble into a tempting bakery--and there you catch sight of fifty identical gingerbread men on a shelf. I imagine you would wonder how they could be exactly alike. It might well be that one of them has an arm missing, another has lost a bit of its head, and a third has a funny bump on its stomach. But after careful thought, you would nevertheless conclude that all gingerbread men have something in common. Although none of them is perfect, you would suspect that they had a common origin. You would realize that all the cookies were formed in the same mold. And what is more, Sophie, you are now seized by the irresistible desire to see this mold. Because clearly, the mold itself must be utter perfection--and in a sense, more beautiful--in comparison with these crude copies.

If you solved this problem all by yourself, you arrived at the philosophical solution in exactly the same way that Plato did.

Like most philosophers, he "dropped in from outer space." (He stood up on the very tip of one of the fine hairs of the rabbit's fur.) He was astonished at the way all natural phenomena could be so alike, and he concluded that it had to be because there are a limited number of forms "behind" everything we see around us. Plato called these forms ideas. Behind every horse, pig, or human being, there is the "idea horse," "idea pig," and "idea human being." (In the same way, the bakery we spoke of can have gingerbread men, gingerbread horses, and gingerbread pigs. Because every self-respecting bakery has more than one mold. But one mold is enough for each type of gingerbread cookie.)

Plato came to the conclusion that there must be a reality behind the "material world." He called this reality the world of ideas; it contained the eternal and immutable "patterns" behind the various phenomena we come across in nature. This remarkable view is known as Plato's theory of ideas.

True Knowledge

I'm sure you've been following me, Sophie dear. But you may be wondering whether Plato was being serious. Did he really believe that forms like these actually existed in a completely different reality?

He probably didn't believe it literally in the same way for all his life, but in some of his dialogues that is certainly how he means to be understood. Let us try to follow his train of thought.

A philosopher, as we have seen, tries to grasp something that is eternal and immutable. It would serve no purpose, for instance, to write a philosophic treatise on the existence of a particular soap bubble. Partly because one would hardly have time to study it in depth before it burst, and partly because it would probably be rather difficult to find a market for a philosophic treatise on something nobody has ever seen, and which only existed for five seconds.

Plato believed that everything we see around us in nature, everything tangible, can be likened to a soap bubble, since nothing that exists in the world of the senses is lasting. We know, of course, that sooner or later every human being and every animal will die and decompose. Even a block of marble changes and gradually disintegrates. (The Acropolis is falling into ruin, Sophie! It is a scandal, but that's the way it is.) Plato's point is that we can never have true knowledge of anything that is in a constant state of change. We can only have opinions about things that belong to the world of the senses, tangible things. We can only have true knowledge of things that can be understood with our reason.

All right, Sophie, I'll explain it more clearly: a gingerbread man can be so lopsided after all that baking that it can be quite hard to see what it is meant to be. But having seen dozens of gingerbread men that were more or less successful, I can be pretty sure what the cookie mold was like. I can guess, even though I have never seen it. It might not even be an advantage to see the actual mold with my own eyes because we cannot always trust the evidence of our senses. The faculty of vision can vary from person to person. On the other hand, we can rely on what our reason tells us because that is the same for everyone.

If you are sitting in a classroom with thirty other pupils, and the teacher asks the class which color of the rainbow is the prettiest, he will probably get a lot of different answers. But if he asks what 8 times 3 is, the whole class will--we hope--give the same answer. Because now reason is speaking and reason is, in a way, the direct opposite of "thinking so" or "feeling." We could say that reason is eternal and universal precisely because it only expresses eternal and universal states.

Plato found mathematics very absorbing because mathematical states never change. They are therefore states we can have true knowledge of. But here we need an example.

Imagine you find a round pinecone out in the woods. Perhaps you say you "think" it looks completely round, whereas Joanna insists it is a bit flattened on one side. (Then you start arguing about it!) But you cannot have true knowledge of anything you can perceive with your eyes. On the other hand you can say with absolute certainty that the sum of the angles in a circle is 360 degrees. In this case you would be talking about an ideal circle which might not exist in the physical world but which you can clearly visualize. (You are dealing with the hidden gingerbread-man mold and not with the particular cookie on the kitchen table.)

In short, we can only have inexact conceptions of things we perceive with our senses. But we can have true knowledge of things we understand with our reason. The sum of the angles in a triangle will remain 180 degrees to the end of time. And similarly the "idea" horse will walk on four legs even if all the horses in the sensory world break a leg.

An Immortal Soul

As I explained, Plato believed that reality is divided into two regions.

One region is the world of the senses, about which we can only have approximate or incomplete knowledge by using our five (approximate or incomplete) senses. In this sensory world, "everything flows" and nothing is permanent. Nothing in the sensory world is, there are only things that come to be and pass away.

The other region is the world of ideas, about which we can have true knowledge by using our reason. This world of ideas cannot be perceived by the senses, but the ideas (or forms) are eternal and immutable.

According to Plato, man is a dual creature. We have a body that "flows," is inseparably bound to the world of the senses, and is subject to the same fate as everything else in this world--a soap bubble, for example. All our senses are based in the body and are consequently unreliable. But we also have an immortal soul--and this soul is the realm of reason. And not being physical, the soul can survey the world of ideas.

But that's not all, Sophie. IT'S NOT ALL!

Plato also believed that the soul existed before it inhabited the body, (it was lying on a shelf in the closet with all the cookie molds.) But as soon as the soul wakes up in a human body, it has forgotten all the perfect ideas. Then something starts to happen. In fact, a wondrous process begins. As the human being discovers the various forms in the natural world, a vague recollection stirs his soul. He sees a horse--but an imperfect horse. (A gingerbread horse!) The sight of it is sufficient to awaken in the soul a faint recollection of the perfect "horse," which the soul once saw in the world of ideas, and this stirs the soul with a yearning to return to its true realm. Plato calls this yearning eras--which means love. The soul, then, expe-riences a "longing to return to its true origin." From now on, the body and the whole sensory world is experienced as imperfect and insignificant. The soul yearns to fly home on the wings of love to the world of ideas. It longs to be freed from the chains of the body.

Let me quickly emphasize that Plato is describing an ideal course of life, since by no means all humans set the soul free to begin its journey back to the world of ideas. Most people cling to the sensory world's "reflections" of ideas. They see a horse--and another horse. But they never see that of which every horse is only a feeble imitation. (They rush into the kitchen and stuff themselves with gingerbread cookies without so much as a thought as to where they came from.) What Plato describes is the philosophers'way. His philosophy can be read as a description of philosophic practice.

When you see a shadow, Sophie, you will assume that there must be something casting the shadow. You see the shadow of an animal. You think it may be a horse, but you are not quite sure. So you turn around and see the horse itself--which of course is infinitely more beautiful and sharper in outline than the blurred "horse-shadow." Plato believed similarly that all natural phenomena are merely shadows of the eternal forms or ideas. But most people are content with a life among shadows. They give no thought to what is casting the shadows. They think shadows are all there are, never realizing even that they are, in fact, shadows. And thus they pay no heed to the immortality of their own soul.

Out of the Darkness of the Cave

Plato relates a myth which illustrates this. We call it the Myth of the Cave. I'll retell it in my own words.

Imagine some people living in an underground cave. They sit with their backs to the mouth of the cave with their hands and feet bound in such a way that they can only look at the back wall of the cave. Behind them is a high wall, and behind that wall pass human-like creatures, holding up various figures above the top of the wall. Because there is a fire behind these figures, they cast flickering shadows on the back wall of the cave. So the only thing the cave dwellers can see is this shadow play. They have been sitting in this position since they were born, so they think these shadows are all there are.

Imagine now that one of the cave dwellers manages to free himself from his bonds. The first thing he asks himself is where all these shadows on the cave wall come from. What do you think happens when he turns around and sees the figures being held up above the wall? To begin with he is dazzled by the sharp sunlight. He is also dazzled by the clarity of the figures because until now he has only seen their shadow. If he manages to climb over the wall and get past the fire into the world outside, he will be even more dazzled. But after rubbing his eyes he will be struck by the beauty of everything. For the first time he will see colors and clear shapes. He will see the real animals and flowers that the cave shadows were only poor reflections of. But even now he will ask himself where all the animals and flowers come from. Then he will see the sun in the sky, and realize that this is what gives life to these flowers and animals, just as the fire made the shadows visible.

The joyful cave dweller could now have gone skipping away into the countryside, delighting in his new-found freedom. But instead he thinks of all the others who are still down in the cave. He goes back. Once there, he tries to convince the cave dwellers that the shadows on the cave wall are but flickering reflections of "real" things. But they don't believe him. They point to the cave wall and say that what they see is all there is. Finally they kill him.

What Plato was illustrating in the Myth of the Cave is the philosopher's road from shadowy images to the true ideas behind all natural phenomena. He was probably also thinking of Socrates, whom the "cave dwellers" killed because he disturbed their conventional ideas and tried to light the way to true insight. The Myth of the Cave illustrates Socrates' courage and his sense of pedagogic responsibility.

Plato's point was that the relationship between the darkness of the cave and the world beyond corresponds to the relationship between the forms of the natural world and the world of ideas. Not that he meant that the natural world is dark and dreary, but that it is dark and dreary in comparison with the clarity of ideas. A picture of a beautiful landscape is not dark and dreary either. But it is only a picture.

The Philosophic State

The Myth of the Cave is found in Plato's dialogue the Republic. In this dialogue Plato also presents a picture of the "ideal state," that is to say an imaginary, ideal, or what we would call a Utopian, state. Briefly, we could say that Plato believed the state should be governed by philosophers. He bases his explanation of this on the construction of the human body.

According to Plato, the human body is composed of three parts: the head, the chest, and the abdomen. For each of these three parts there is a corresponding faculty of the soul. Reason belongs to the head, will belongs to the chest, and appetite belongs to the abdomen. Each of these soul faculties also has an ideal, or "virtue." Reason aspires to wisdom, Will aspires to courage, and Appetite must be curbed so that temperance can be exercised. Only when the three parts of the body function together as a unity do we get a harmonious or "virtuous" individual. At school, a child must first learn to curb its appetites, then it must develop courage, and finally reason leads to wisdom.

Plato now imagines a state built up exactly like the tripartite human body. Where the body has head, chest, and abdomen, the State has rulers, auxiliaries, and fa-borers (farmers, for example). Here Plato clearly uses Greek medical science as his model. Just as a healthy and harmonious man exercises balance and temperance, so a "virtuous" state is characterized by everyone knowing their place in the overall picture.

Like every aspect of Plato's philosophy, his political philosophy is characterized by rationalism. The creation of a good state depends on its being governed with reason. Just as the head governs the body, so philosophers must rule society.

Let us attempt a simple illustration of the relationship between the three parts of man and the state:

BODY SOUL VIRTUE STATE

head reason wisdom rulers

chest will courage auxiliaries

abdomen appetite temperance laborers

Plato's ideal state is not unlike the old Hindu caste system, in .which each and every person has his or her particular function for the good of the whole. Even before Plato's time the Hindu caste system had the same tripartite division between the auxiliary caste (or priest caste), the warrior caste, and the laborer caste. Nowadays we would perhaps call Plato's state totalitarian. But it is worth noting that he believed women could govern just as effectively as men for the simple reason that the rulers govern by virtue of their reason. Women, he asserted, have exactly the same powers of reasoning as men, provided they get the same training and are exempt from child rearing and housekeeping. In Plato's ideal state, rulers and warriors are not allowed family life or private property. The rearing of children is considered too important to be left to the individual and should be the responsibility of the state. (Plato was the first philosopher to advocate state-organized nursery schools and full-time education.)

After a number of significant political setbacks, Plato wrote the tows, in which he described the "constitutional state" as the next-best state. He now reintroduced both private property and family ties. Women's freedom thus became more restricted. However, he did say that a state that does not educate and train women is like a man who only trains his right arm.

All in all, we can say that Plato had a positive view of women--considering the time he lived in. In the dialogue Symposium, he gives a woman, the legendary priestess Diotima, the honor of having given Socrates his philosophic insight.

So that was Plato, Sophie. His astonishing theories have been discussed--and criticized--for more than two thousand years. The first man to do so was one of the pupils from his own Academy. His name was Aristotle, and he was the third great philosopher from Athens.

I'll say no more!

While Sophie had been reading about Plato, the sun had risen over the woods to the east. It was peeping over the horizon just as she was reading how one man clambered out of the cave and blinked in the dazzling light outside.

It was almost as if she had herself emerged from an underground cave. Sophie felt that she saw nature in a completely different way after reading about Plato. It was rather like having been color-blind. She had seen some shadows but had not seen the clear ideas.

She was not sure Plato was right in everything he had said about the eternal patterns, but it was a beautiful thought that all living things were imperfect copies of the eternal forms in the world of ideas. Because wasn't it true that all flowers, trees, human beings, and animals were "imperfect"?

Everything she saw around her was so beautiful and so alive that Sophie had to rub her eyes to really believe it. But nothing she was looking at now would last. And yet--in a hundred years the same flowers and the same animals would be here again. Even if every single flower and every single animal should fade away and be forgotten, there would be something that "recollected" how it all looked.

Sophie gazed out at the world. Suddenly a squirrel ran up the trunk of a pine tree. It circled the trunk a few times and disappeared into the branches.

"I've seen you before!" thought Sophie. She realized that maybe it was not the same squirrel that she had seen previously, but she had seen the same "form." For all she knew, Plato could have been right. Maybe she really had seen the eternal "squirrel" before--in the world of ideas, before her soul had taken residence in a human body.

Could it be true that she had lived before? Had her soul existed before it got a body to move around in? And was it really true that she carried a little golden nugget inside her--a jewel that cannot be corroded by time, a soul that would live on when her own body grew old and died?





中文翻译
   柏拉图
   ……回归灵魂世界的渴望……
   第二天清早,苏菲猛然惊醒,看一看钟,才刚过五点,但她却已经没有一点睡意了,于是她便在床上坐起来。奇怪,自己为何仍然穿着白天的衣裳呢?然后,她想起了昨天发生的一切。
   她爬到凳子上,检查一下柜子的上层。没错,带子还在那里。原来这真的不是一场梦。至少不完全是一场梦。
   不过她一定不可能真的见到了柏拉图与苏格拉底……算了,真伤脑筋,她现在已经没有力气再去想它了。也许妈妈说得对,也许她这几天真的有些神经兮兮的。
   不管怎样,她是再睡不着了。也许她应该到密洞去,看看那只狗是否曾留下任何信件。
   苏菲溜下楼,穿上一双慢跑鞋便出门了。
   花园中一切都清朗宁静美好。鸟儿们唱得如此起劲,使苏菲忍不住想笑。草叶上的朝露宛如水晶一般闪闪发光。
   这世界如此美好,令人不可思议。苏菲再一次深深受到感动。
   老树篱内非常潮湿。苏菲没有看到哲学家的来信,不过她还是掸了掸一截粗大的树根,坐了下来。
   她想起录影带上的柏拉图曾经要她回答一些问题。第一个问 题是面包师傅如何做出五十个一模一样的饼干。
   苏菲暗忖,她得仔细想一想才行,因为这个问题一定不简单。
   妈妈偶尔也会做一些饼干,但从来没有一次饼干形状完全相同。不过话说回来,妈妈不是专业的面包师傅,有时厨房甚至乱得像被炸弹轰炸过一样。即使是店里卖的饼干也从来没有完全一样的,每一块饼干在制饼师傅手中都捏成不同的样子。
   此时,苏菲脸上浮现满意的笑容。她记得有一回妈妈忙着烤圣诞节的饼干,因此她和爸爸一起去买东西。他们回到家后看到厨房的桌子上散放了许多姜饼人。这些姜饼人虽然不很完美,但就某一方面来说,却都是一模一样的。为什么会这样呢?显然是由于妈妈做这些姜饼人时用了同一个模子的缘故。
   想到自己居然记得这件小事,苏菲很是得意。因此她想这第一个问题应该已经答完了。
   如果一个饼干师傅做了五十个完全一模一样的饼干,他一定是用了同样一副饼干模子。很简单,就是这样。
   录影带上的柏拉图问的第二个问题是:为何所有的马都一样?
   可是,事实并非如此啊j相反的,苏菲认为没有两匹马是完全相同的,就像没有两个人是一模一样的。
   苏菲正要放弃这个问题时,突然想到她刚才对饼干的看法。事
   实上,也没有两块饼干是一模一样的,有些比较厚,有些比较薄,有些碎了。然而,每个人都可以看出这些饼干就某一方面来说是“一模一样”的。
   也许柏拉图问的是为何马一直是马,而不会变成一种既像马又像猪的动物。因为,虽然有些马像熊一样是棕色的,有些则白得像绵羊,但所有的马都有一些共同点。举例来说,苏菲就从没有见过六条腿或八条腿的马。
   但柏拉图不可能相信所有的马之所以相同,是因为他们是用同一个模子做成的吧?
   然后柏拉图又问了她一个很深、很难的问题:人有没有不朽的灵魂?
   苏菲觉得自己不太够资格回答这个问题。她只知道人死后,人体不是火葬就是土葬,因此实在没有未来可言。如果人有一个不朽的灵魂,那我们就必须相信一个人是由两个不同的部分组成的一个是用了多年之后就会老旧、损坏的躯体,还有一个是无论身体情况如何,仍然多少可以独立作业的灵魂。苏菲的奶奶曾经说过,她觉得变老的只是自己的身体而已,在内心她一直都还是一个年轻的女孩。
   想到“年轻女孩”,苏菲就想到最后
   有理性吗?对于这点,她可不敢确定。
   性”是什么。
   —个问题:女人和男人一样
   这要看柏拉图所谓的“理
   哲学老师在谈论苏格拉底时所说的一些话突然浮现在苏菲的脑海中。苏格拉底曾经指出,每一个人只要运用自己的常识,都可以了解哲学的真理。他也曾说奴隶与贵族一样有常识。因此苏菲肯定他也会说女人和男人一样有常识。
   当她正坐在那儿想着这些问题时,突然听到树篱里有沙沙的声音以及类似蒸汽引擎“噗!噗!”喷气的声音。下一秒钟,一条金色的狗已经钻进了密洞,嘴里衔着一个大信封。
   “汉密士!”苏菲叫它,“丢下来,丢下来!”
   狗儿把信放在苏菲的怀中。苏菲伸出手摸摸它的头“你真乖。”她说。
   狗儿躺下来任由苏菲抚摸。但过了两三分钟,它就站了起来,钻过树篱由原路回去。苏菲手拿棕色的信封跟着它,爬过浓密的枝叶,不一会就出了花园。
   汉密士已经开始向树林的边缘跑去了。苏菲在后头跟了几码路,狗儿两次转过身来对她吠叫,但苏菲一点也不害怕。
   这次她决心要找到那个哲学家,即使必须一路跑到雅典也在所不惜。狗儿愈跑愈快,然后突然跑到一条窄的小路上。苏菲紧迫不舍,但几分钟后狗儿转过身来面对着她,像看门狗一样的吠叫。
   苏菲仍然不肯放弃,趁机会拉近他们之间的距离。
   汉密士一转身,向前飞奔。苏菲发现自己永远不可能迫得上。
   于是她停下来,在那儿站了好久好久,听到它愈跑愈远,而后一切复归寂静。
   她在林中空地旁的一截树木残桩上坐下,手里仍拿着那个棕色的信封。她把它拆开,拿出几页打着字的信纸,开始看信:
   柏拉图学院
   苏菲,谢谢你与我共度一段愉快的时光。我是指我们在雅典的时候。现在我至少已经算是做过自我介绍了。还有,既然我也向你介绍了柏拉图,因此我们还是开门见山地谈他吧。
   苏格拉底服毒而死时,柏拉图(公元前四二七~公元前三四七年)才二十九岁。当时他受教于苏格拉底门下已经有一段时间。他密切注意苏格拉底受审的经过。当他看到雅典人民居然将他们当中最高贵的人判处死刑时,内心非常震动。这件事影响了他后来的哲学生涯。
   对柏拉图而言,苏格拉底之死证明了当今社会与理想社会之间的冲突。柏拉图成为哲学家后所做的第一件事就是将苏格拉底对陪审团的陈情内容出版成《自辩》(Apo1ogy)一书。
   你也许还记得,苏格拉底从未留下任何丈字。至于苏格拉底之前的哲学家虽然有许多人曾著书立说,但他们的文字到现在却几乎都荡然无存。至于柏拉图,我们相信他所有的重要著作应该都已经保存下来了。除了苏格拉底的《自辩》之外,柏拉图也写了好些书信与至少三十五篇哲学对话录。这些作品之所以能留存至今,一部分是因为柏拉图在距雅典不远之处的一个树林中创立了一个哲学学校,并以传奇中的希腊英雄阿卡戴慕士(ACademus)为名。因此这个学校被称为“学园”或“学院”(Academy)(从此以后全世界各 地成立了成千上万所学院,以后我们会谈到有关“学院”与“学科”的问题)。
   柏拉图学园中教授的科目包括哲学、数学与体育。不过,说“教授”其实不太正确,因为柏拉图学园也是采取活泼的对话方式上课,因此柏拉图之所以采用对话录的形式来写作并非偶然。
   永远的真善美
   在这堂课的序言中,我曾经提到一个人可以不时问问自己某 一个哲学家研究什么课题。因此我现在要问:柏拉图关心的是哪些问题?
   简单地说,我们可以断定柏拉图关心的是永恒不变的事物与“流动”事物之间的关系(就像苏格拉底之前的哲学家一样)。我们已经谈过诡辩论学派与苏格拉底如何将他们的注意力由有关自然哲学的问题转到与人和社会的问题。然而从某个角度来看,就连苏格拉底与诡辩学派也都关心永恒不变的事物与“流动”事物之间的关系。他们之所以对这个问题感兴趣,乃是由于它与人类道德与社会理想及美德之间的关系。简而言之,诡辩学家认为每一个城邦、每一个世代对于是非的观念各不相同。因此是非的观念是“流动”的。苏格拉底则完全不能接受这种说法,他认为世间有所谓永恒、绝对的是非观念存在。我们只要运用自己的常识便可以悟出这些不变的标准,因为人类的理智事实上是永恒不变的。
   你明白吗?苏菲。后来,柏拉图出现了。他既关心自然界中永恒不变的事物,也关心与人类道德及社会有关的永恒不变的事物。
   对于柏拉图而言,这两个问题是一体的两面。他试图掌握有关个人永恒不变的“真理”。
   坦白说,这正是世间为何要有哲学家的原因。我们需要哲学家,不是因为他们可以为我们选拔美皇后或告诉我们今天番茄最低价。(这是他们为何经常不受欢迎的原因㈠哲学家们总是试图避开这类没有永恒价值的热门话题,而努力将人们的的注意力吸引到永远“真”、永远“善”、永远“美”的事物上。
   明白了这点,我们才可以开始略微了解柏拉图课题的大概内容,不过还是让我们一样一样来吧。我们将试着了解一个不凡的心灵、一个对后来所有欧洲哲学有着深远影响的心灵。
   理型的世界
   恩培窦可里斯与德谟克里特斯两人都提醒世人:尽管自然界的所有事物都是“流动”的,但世间一定仍有“某些东西”永远不会改变(如“四根”或“原子”)。柏拉图也同意这个命题,但他的方式却大不相同。
   柏拉图认为,自然界中有形的东西是“流动”的,所以世间才没有不会分解的“物质”。属于“物质世界”的每一样东西必然是由某种物质做成。这种物质会受时间侵蚀,但做成这些东西的“模子”或“形式”却是永恒不变的。
   你了解了吗?苏菲。不,我想你还不了解。
   为何全天下的马儿都一样?你也许不认为它们是一样的,但有些特质是所有的马儿都具备的,这些特质使得我们可以认出它们是马。当然个别的马是“流动”的,因为它会老、会瘸,时间到了甚至会死。但马的“形式”却是永恒不变的。
   因此,对柏拉图而言,永恒不变的东西并非一种“基本物质”,而是形成各种事物模样的精神模式或抽象模式。
   我们这么说吧:苏格拉底之前的哲学家对于自然界的变化提出了相当不错的解释。他们指出,自然界的事物事实上并未“改变”,因为在大自然的各种变化中,有一些永恒不变的最小单位是不会分解的。他们的说法固然不错,但是,苏菲,他们并未对为何这些原本可能组成一匹马“最小单位”突然会在四五百年后突然又聚在一起,组成另外一批新的马(或大象或鳄鱼)提出合理的解释。柏拉图的看法是:这些德谟克里特斯所说的原子只会变成大象或鳄鱼,而绝不会成为“象鳄”或“鳄象”。这是他的哲学思想的特色。如果你已经了解我所要说的,你可以跳过这一段。不过为了保险起见,我要再补充说明一下:假如你有一盒积木,并用这些积木造了一匹马。完工后,你把马拆开,将积木放回盒内。你不可能光是把盒子摇一摇就造出另外一匹马。这些积木怎么可能会自动找到彼此,并再度组成一匹新的马呢?不,这是不可能的。你必须重新再组合过。而你之所以能够这样做,是因为你心中已经有了一幅马的图像,你所参考的模型适用于所有的马匹。
   关于五十块一模一样饼干的问题,你回答得如何呢?让我们假设你是从外大空来的,从来没有见过一位面包师傅。有一天你无意间走进一家香气扑鼻的面包店,看到架子上有五十个一模一样的姜饼人。我想你大概会搔搔头,奇怪它们怎么看起来都一个样子。
   事实上这些姜饼人可能有的少了一双胳臂,有的头上缺了一角,有的则是肚子上很滑稽的隆起了一块。不过你仔细想过之后,还是认为这些姜饼人都有一些共同点。虽然这些姜饼人没有一个是完美的,但你仍会怀疑它们是出自同一双手的杰作。你会发现这些饼干全部都是用同一个模子做出来的。更重要的是,苏菲,你现在开始有一股不可抗拒的念头,想要看看这个模子。因为很明显的,这个模子本身一定是绝对完美的,而从某个角度来看,它比起这些粗糙的副本来,也会更美丽。
   如果你是完全靠自己的思考解答了这个问题,那么你回答这个哲学问题的方法就跟柏拉图完全一样。
   就像大多数哲学家一般,他也是“从外太空来的”(他站在兔子毛皮中一根细毛的最顶端)。他看到所有的自然现象都如此类似,觉得非常惊讶,而他认为这一定是因为我们周遭事物的“背后”有一些特定的形式的缘故。柏拉图称这些形式为“理型”或观念。在每一匹马、每一只猪或每一个人的后面,都有一个“理型马”、“理型猪”或“理型人”。(同样的,刚才我们说的面包店也可能会有姜饼人、姜饼马或姜饼猪,因为每一家比较有规模的面包店都会做一种以上的姜饼模子。但一个模子已够做许许多多同样形状的姜饼了。)
   柏拉图因此得出一个结论:在“物质世界的背后,必定有一个实在存在。他称这个实在为‘理型的世界’,其中包含存在于自然界各种现象背后、永恒不变的模式。”这种独树一格的观点我们称之为“柏拉图的理型论”。
   真正的知识
   亲爱的苏菲,到目前为止我所说的话你一定可以了解。不过你
   也许会问,柏拉图是认真的吗?他真的相信类似这样的形式的确存在于一个完全不同的世界中吗?
   他也许并不是终其一生都保持这种看法,但在他部分对话录中他的意思无疑就是这样。让我们试着追随他思想的脉络。
   就像我们看到的,哲学家努力掌握一些永恒不变的事物。举例来说,如果我要你就“某个肥皂泡的存在”这个题目来撰写一篇哲学论文,这就没有什么意义了。原因之一是:往往在我们还没来得及深入研究之前,肥皂泡就破了。原因之二是:这个肥皂泡没有别人看过,并且仅存在五秒钟,这样的哲学论文可能很难找到市场。
   柏拉图认为我们在周遭的自然界中所看到的一切具体事物,都可以比做是一个肥皂泡泡,因为没有一件存在于感官世界的东西是永远不变的。我们知道每一个人、每一只动物迟早会死,而且会腐烂分解。即使一决大理石也会发生变化,逐渐分解。(希腊的高城目前正逐渐倒塌,这真是非常糟糕的事,但也没有办法。)柏拉 图的观点是:我们对于那些不断改变的事物不可能会有真正的认识。我们对于那些属于感官世界的具体事物只能有意见或看法。我们能够真正认识的,只有那些我们可以运用理智来了解的事物。
   好,苏菲,我再解释得更清楚一些:经过烘烤后,有的姜饼人可能会不成形状。不过在看了几百个像与不像的姜饼人之后,我可以非常确定姜饼人的模型是什么样子。虽然我未曾见过它的模样,但也可以猜到。甚至可以说,即使我们亲眼见过那个模子也不见得会更好,因为我们并不一定信任我们的感官所察知的事物。视觉能力因人而异,但我们却能信赖我们的理智告诉我们的事物,因为理智是人人相同的。
   如果你和三十个同学一起坐在教室内。老师问全班学生彩虹里的哪一种颜色最漂亮,他也许会得到很多不同的答案。但如果他问8乘3是多少,全班大概都会提出相同的答案。因为这时理性正在发言,而理性可说是“想法”或“感觉”的相反。正因为理性只表达永恒不变、宇宙共通的事物,因此我们可以说理性永恒不变,而且是宇宙共通的。
   柏拉图认为数学是非常吸引人的学科,因为数学的状态永远不会改变,因此也是人可以真正了解的状态。这里让我们来举一个 例子。
   假设你在树林间捡到一个圆形的松果,也许你会说你“认为”这个松果是圆的,而乔安则坚持它一边有点扁。(然后你们两个就开始为这件事拌嘴!)所以说,我们人类是无法真正了解我们肉眼所见的事物的,但是我们却可以百分之百确定,一个圆形内所有的角度加起来一定是三六O度。我们这里所说的是一个理想的圆形,也许这个圆形在物质世界中并不存在,不过我们仍然可以很清楚地想象出来。(这个圆形就像那个看不见的姜饼人模子,而不是放在厨房桌上的那些姜饼人。)
   简而言之,我们对于感官所感受到的事物,只能有模糊、不精确的观念,但是我们却能够真正了解我们用理智所理解的事物。三角形内的各内角总和一定是一八O度,这是亘古不变的。而同样的,即使感官世界中所有的马都瘸了,“理型”马还会是四肢健全的。
   不朽的灵魂
   我们已经见到柏拉图如何认为实在世界可以分为两个领域。
   其中一个是感官世界。我们只能用我们五种并不精确的官能来约略认识这个世界。在这个世界中,“每一件事物都会流动”,而且没有一个是永久不变的。这里面存在的都是一些生生灭灭的事物。
   另外一个领域则是理型的世界。我们可以用理性来确实认识这个世界。我们无法用感官来察知这个理型的世界,但这些理型(或形式)是永恒不变的。
   根据柏拉图的说法,人是一种具有双重性质的生物。我们的身体是“流动”的,与感官的世界不可分割,并且其命运与世界上其他每一件事物(如肥皂泡)都相同。我们所有的感官都是以身体为基础,因此是不可靠的。但我们同时也有一个不朽的灵魂,而这个灵魂则是理性的天下。由于灵魂不是物质,因此可以探索理型的世界。
   苏菲,柏拉图的学说差不多就是这样了,但这并不是全部。这并不是全部!
   柏拉图同时认为,灵魂栖居在躯体内之前,原本就已经存在(它和所有的饼干模子一起躺在橱柜的上层)。然而一旦灵魂在某 一具躯体内醒来时,它便忘了所有的完美的理型。然后,一个奇妙的过程展开了。当人类发现自然界各种不同的形式时,某些模糊的回忆便开始扰动他的灵魂。他看到了一匹马,然而是一匹不完美的马。(一匹姜饼马!)灵魂一看到这匹马,便依稀想起它在理型世界中所见过的完美“马”,同时涌起一股回到它本来领域的渴望。柏拉图称这种渴望为eros,也就是“爱”的意思。此时,灵魂体验到“一种回归本源的欲望”。从此以后.,肉体与整个感官世界对它而言,都是不完美而且微不足道的。灵魂渴望乘着爱的翅膀回“家”,回到理型的世界。它渴望从“肉体的枷锁”中挣脱。
   我要强调的是,柏拉图在这里描述的,是一个理想中的生命历程,因为并非所有人都会释放自己的灵魂,让它踏上回到理型世界的旅程。大多数人都紧抱完美理型在感官世界中的“倒影”不放。他们看见一匹又一匹的马,却从未见到这些马所据以产生的“完美马”的形象。(他们只是冲进厨房,拿了姜饼人就吃,也不想一想这些姜饼人是打哪里来的。)柏拉图描述的是哲学家面对事物的方式。他的哲学可以说是对哲学性做法的一种描述。
   苏菲,当你看到一个影子时,一定会假定有一样东西投射出这个影子。你看到一只动物的影子,心想那可能是一匹马,但你也不太确定。于是你就转过身来,瞧瞧这匹马。而比起那模糊的影子,这匹马当然显得更俊秀,轮廓也更清晰。同样的,柏拉图也相信,自然界所有的现象都只是永恒形式或理型的影子。但大多数人活在影子之间就已经感到心满意足。他们从不去思考是什么东西投射出这些影子。他们认为世间就只有影子,甚至从不曾认清世间万物都只是影子,也因此他们对于自身灵魂不朽的物质从不在意。
   走出黑暗的洞穴
   柏拉图用一个神话故事来说明这点。我们称之为“洞穴神话”。
   现在就让我用自己的话再说一次这个故事。
   假设有些人住在地下的洞穴中。他们背向洞口,坐在地上,手脚都被绑着,因此他们只能看到洞穴的后壁。在他们的身后是一堵高墙,墙后面有一些人形的生物走过,手中举着各种不同形状的人偶,由于人偶高过墙头,同时墙与洞穴间还有一把火炬,因此它们在洞穴的后壁上投下明明灭灭的影子。在这种情况下,穴中居民所看到的唯一事物就是这种“皮影戏”。他们自出生以来就像这样坐着,因此他们认为世间唯一存在的便只有这些影子了。
   再假设有一个穴居人设法挣脱了他的锁链。他问自己的第一
   个问题便是:洞壁上的这些影子从何而来?你想:如果他一转身,看到墙头上高举着的人偶时,会有何反应?首先,强烈的火光会照得他睁不开眼睛,人偶的鲜明形状也会使他大感惊讶,因为他过去看到的都只是这些人偶的影子而已。如果他想办法爬过墙,越过火炬,进入外面的世界,他会更加惊讶。在揉揉眼睛后,他会深受万物之美的感动。这是他生平第一次看到色彩与清楚的形体。他看到了真正的动物与花朵,而不是洞穴里那些贫乏的影子。不过即使到了现在,他仍会问自己这些动物与花朵从何而来?然后他会看到天
   空中的大阳,并悟出这就是将生命赋予那些花朵与动物的源头,就像火光造就出影子一般。
   这个穴居人如获至宝。他原本大可以从此奔向乡间,为自己新 获的自由而欢欣雀跃,但他却想到那些仍然留在洞里的人,于是他回到洞中,试图说服其他的穴居人,使他们相信洞壁上那些影子只不过是“真实”事物的闪烁影像罢了。然而他们不相信他,并指着洞壁说除了他们所见的影子之外,世间再也没有其他事物了。最后,他们把那个人杀了。
   柏拉图借着这个洞穴神话,想要说明哲学家是如何从影子般的影像出发,追寻自然界所有现象背后的真实概念。这当中,他也许曾想到苏格拉底,因为后者同样是因为推翻了“穴居人”传统的观念。并试图照亮他们追寻真知的道路而遭到杀害。这个神话说
   明了苏格拉底的勇气与他的为人导师的责任感。
   柏拉图想说的是:黑暗洞穴与外在世界的关系就像是自然世界的形式与理型世界的关系。他的意思并非说大自然是黑暗、无趣的,而是说,比起鲜明清楚的理型世界来,它就显得黑暗而平淡。同样的,一张漂亮女孩的照片也不是单调无趣的,但再怎么说它也只是一张照片而已。
   哲学之国
   洞穴神话记载于柏拉图的对话录《理想国》(TheReublic)中。
   柏拉图在这本书中也描述了“理想国”的面貌。所谓“理想国”就是一个虚构的理想的国度,也就是我们所称的“乌托邦”。简而言之,
   我们可以说柏拉图认为这个国度应该由哲学家来治理。他用人体的构造来解释这个概念。
   根据柏拉图的说法,人体由三部分构成,分别是头、胸、腹。人的灵魂也相对的具有三种能力。“理性”属于头部的能力,“意志”属于胸部,“欲望”则属于腹部。这些能力各自有其理想,也就是“美德”。理性追求智慧,意志追求勇气,欲望则必须加以遏阻,以做到“自制”。唯有人体的这三部分协调运作时,个人才会达到“和谐”或“美德”的境界。在学校时,儿童首先必须学习如何克制自己的欲望,而后再培养自己的勇气,最后运用理性来达到智慧。
   在柏拉图的构想中,一个国家应该像人体一般,由三个部分组成。就像人有头、胸、腹一般,一个国家也应该有统治者、战士与工匠(如农夫)。此处柏拉图显然是参考希腊医学的说法。正如一个健康和谐的人懂得平衡与节制一般,一个“有德”之国的特色是,每一位国民都明白自己在整个国家中扮演的角色。
   柏拉图的政治哲学与他在其他方面的哲学一般,是以理性主义为特色。国家要能上轨道,必须以理性来统治。就像人体由头部来掌管一般,社会也必须由哲学家来治理。
   现在让我们简单说明人体三部分与国家之间的关系:
   身体 灵魂 美德 国家
   头部 理性 智慧 统治者
   胸部 意志 勇气 战士
   腹部 欲望 自制 工匠
   柏拉图的理想国有点类似印度的阶级世袭制度,每一个人在社会上都有其特殊的功能,以满足社会整体的需求。事实上,早在柏拉图降生以前,印度的社会便已分成统治阶级(或僧侣阶级)、战士阶级与劳动阶级这三个社会族群。对于现代人而言,柏拉图的理想国可算是极权国家。但有一点值得一提的是:他相信女人也能和男人一样有效治理国家,理由很简单:统治者是以理性来治国,而柏拉图认为女人只要受到和男人一样的训练,而且毋需生育、持家的话,也会拥有和男人不相上下的理性思考能力。在柏拉图的理想国中,统治者与战士都不能享受家庭生活,也不许拥有私人的财产。同时,由于养育孩童的责任极为重大,因此不可由个人从事,而必须由政府来负责(柏拉图是第一位主张成立公立育儿所和推展全时教育的哲学家)。
   在遭遇若干次重大的政治挫败后,柏拉图撰写了《律法》(ThelaWS)这本对话录。他在书中描述“宪法国家”,并认为这是仅次于理想国的最好国家。这次他认为在上位者可以拥有个人财产与家庭生活,也因此妇女的自由较受限制。但无论如何,他说一个国家若不教育并训练其女性国民,就好像一个人只锻炼右臂,而不锻炼左臂一般。
   总而言之,我们可以说,就他那个时代而言,柏拉图对妇女的看法可算是相当肯定。他在《飨宴》(Symposium)对话录中指出,苏格拉底的哲学见解一部分得自于一个名叫黛娥缇玛(Diotima)的女祭司。这对妇女而言可算是一大荣耀了。
   柏拉图的学说大致就是这样了。两千多年来,他这些令人惊异的理论不断受人议论与批评,而第一个讨论、批评他的人乃是他园内的一名学生,名叫亚理斯多德,是雅典第三位大哲学家。
   好了,今天就到此为止吧!
   苏菲坐在虬结的树根上读着柏拉图的学说,不知不觉太阳已经升到东边的树林上。当她读到那个人如何爬出洞穴,被外面闪耀的阳光照得睁不开眼睛时,太阳正在地平线上露出顶端,向大地窥望。
   苏菲感觉自己仿佛也刚从地下洞穴出来一般。在读了柏拉图的学说后,她对大自然的看法已经完全改观。那种感觉就好像她从前一直是色盲,并且只看到一些影子,从没见过清楚的概念。
   她并不确定柏拉图所谓永恒范式的说法是否都对,但“每一种生物都是理型世界中永恒形体的不完美复制品”,这种想法多美妙啊!世上所有花、树、人与动物不都是“不够完美”的吗?
   苏菲周遭所见的事物在在如此美丽、如此生气盎然,以至于她不得不揉揉眼睛才能相信这些都是真的。不过,她现在眼见的事物没有一样会永远存在。但话说回来,在一百年之后,同样的一些花朵和动物仍然会在这里。虽然每一朵花、每一只动物都会凋萎、死去,而且被世人遗忘,但却有某种东西会“记得”它们从前的模样。
   苏菲向远处望去。突然间一只松鼠爬上了一棵松树,沿着树干绕了几圈,然后就消失在枝桠间。
   苏菲心想:“我看过这只松鼠!”然后又悟到也许这只松鼠并非她从前看到的那只,但她看过同样的“形式”。在她看来,柏拉图可能说得没错。也许她过去真的见过永恒的“松鼠”——在理型世界中,在她的灵魂还没有栖息在她的身体之前。
   有没有可能苏菲从前曾经活过呢?她的灵魂在找到身体寄宿之前是否就已经存在?她的身体内是不是真的有一个小小的金色物体,一个不受光阴侵蚀的宝物,一个在她的肉身衰朽之后仍然活着的灵魂?





暮辞朝

ZxID:15103679


等级: 内阁元老
配偶: 清风雅乐
这一段开心的日子请你勿忘
举报 只看该作者 10楼  发表于: 2013-10-25 0
英文原文
The Major's Cabin
... the girl in the mirror winked with both eyes
It was only a quarter past seven. There was no need to hurry home. Sophie's mother always took it easy on Sundays, so she would probably sleep for another two hours.
Should she go a bit farther into the woods and try to find Alberto Knox? And why had the dog snarled at her so viciously?
Sophie got up and began to walk down the path Hermes had taken. She had the brown envelope with the pages on Plato in her hand. Wherever the path diverged she took the wider one.
Birds were chirping everywhere--in the trees and in the air, in bush and thicket. They were busily occupied with their morning pursuits. They knew no difference between weekdays and Sundays. Who had taught them to do all that? Was there a tiny computer inside each one of them, programming them to do certain things?
The path led up over a little hill, then steeply down between tall pine trees. The woods were so dense now that she could only see a few yards between the trees.
Suddenly she caught sight of something glittering between the pine trunks. It must be a little lake. The path went the other way but Sophie picked her way among the trees. Without really knowing why, she let her feet lead her.
The lake was no bigger than a soccer field. Over on the other side she could see a red-painted cabin in a small clearing surrounded by silver birches. A faint wisp of smoke was rising from the chimney.
Sophie went down to the water's edge. It was very muddy in many places, but then she noticed a rowboat. It was drawn halfway out of the water. There was a pair of oars in it.
Sophie looked around. Whatever she did, it would be impossible to get around the lake to the red cabin without getting her shoes soaked. She went resolutely over to the boat and pushed it into the water. Then she climbed aboard, set the oars in the rowlocks, and rowed across the lake. The boat soon touched the opposite bank. Sophie went ashore and tried to pull the boat up after her. The bank was much steeper here than the opposite bank had been.
She glanced over her shoulder only once before walking up toward the cabin.
She was quite startled at her own boldness. How did she dare do this? She had no idea. It was as if "something" impelled her.
Sophie went up to the door and knocked. She waited a while but nobody answered. She tried the handle cautiously, and the door opened.
"Hallo!" she called. "Is anyone at home?"
She went in and found herself in a living room. She dared not shut the door behind her.
Somebody was obviously living here. Sophie could hear wood crackling in the old stove. Someone had been here very recently.
On a big dining table stood a typewriter, some books, a couple of pencils, and a pile of paper. A smaller table and two chairs stood by the window that overlooked the lake. Apart from that there was very little furniture, although the whole of one wall was lined with book-shelves filled with books. Above a white chest of drawers hung a large round mirror in a heavy brass frame. It looked very old.
On one of the walls hung two pictures. One was an oil painting of a white house which lay a stone's throw from a little bay with a red boathouse. Between the house and the boathouse was a sloping garden with an apple tree, a few thick bushes, and some rocks. A dense fringe of birch trees framed the garden like a garland. The title of the painting was "Bjerkely."
Beside that painting hung an old portrait of a man sitting in a chair by a window. He had a book in his lap. This picture also had a little bay with trees and rocks in the background. It looked as though it had been painted several hundred years ago. The title of the picture was "Berkeley." The painter's name was Smibert.
Berkeley and Bjerkely. How strange!
Sophie continued her investigation. A door led from the living room to a small kitchen. Someone had just done the dishes. Plates and glasses were piled on a tea towel, some of them still glistening with drops of soapy water. There was a tin bowl on the floor with some leftover scraps of food in it. Whoever lived here had a pet, a dog or a cat.
Sophie went back to the living room. Another door led to a tiny bedroom. On the floor next to the bed there were a couple of blankets in a thick bundle. Sophie discovered some golden hairs on the blankets. Here was the evidence! Now Sophie knew that the occupants of the cabin were Alberto Knox and Hermes.
Back in the living room, Sophie stood in front of the mirror. The glass was matte and scratched, and her reflection correspondingly blurred. Sophie began to make faces at herself like she did at home in the bathroom. Her reflection did exactly the same, which was only to be expected.
But all of a sudden something scary happened. Just once--in the space of a split second--Sophie saw quite clearly that the girl in the mirror winked with both eyes. Sophie started back in fright. If she herself had winked--how could she have seen the other girl wink? And not only that, it seemed as though the other girl had winked at Sophie as if to say: I can see you, Sophie. I am in here, on the other side.
Sophie felt her heart beating, and at the same time she heard a dog barking in the distance. Hermes! She had to get out of here at once. Then she noticed a green wallet on the chest of drawers under the mirror. It contained a hundred-crown note, a fifty, and a school I.D. card. It showed a picture of a girl with fair hair. Under the picture was the girl's name: Hilde Moller Knag ...
Sophie shivered. Again she heard the dog bark. She had to get out, at once!
As she hurried past the table she noticed a white envelope between all the books and the pile of paper. It had one word written on it: SOPHIE.
Before she had time to realize what she was doing, she grabbed the envelope and stuffed it into the brown envelope with the Plato pages. Then she rushed out of the door and slammed it behind her.
The barking was getting closer. But worst of all was that the boat was gone. After a second or two she saw it, adrift halfway across the lake. One of the oars was floating beside it. All because she hadn't been able to pull it completely up on land. She heard the dog barking quite nearby now and saw movements between the trees on the other side of the lake.
Sophie didn't hesitate any longer. With the big envelope in her hand, she plunged into the bushes behind the cabin. Soon she was having to wade through marshy ground, sinking in several times to well above her ankles. But she had to keep going. She had to get home.
Presently she stumbled onto a path. Was it the path she had taken earlier? She stopped to wring out her dress. And then she began to cry.
How could she have been so stupid? The worst of all was the boat. She couldn't forget the sight of the row-boat with the one oar drifting helplessly on the lake. It was all so embarrassing, so shameful. . .
The philosophy teacher had probably reached the lake by now. He would need the boat to get home. Sophie felt almost like a criminal. But she hadn't done it on purpose.
The envelope! That was probably even worse. Why had she taken it? Because her name was on it, of course, so in a way it was hers. But even so, she felt like a thief. And what's more, she had provided the evidence that it was she who had been there.
Sophie drew the note out of the envelope. It said:
What came first--the chicken or the "idea" chicken ?
Are we born with innate "ideas"? What is the difference between a plant, an animal, and a human? Why does it rain? What does it take to live a good life?
Sophie couldn't possibly think about these questions right now, but she assumed they had something to do with the next philosopher. Wasn't he called Aristotle?
When she finally saw the hedge after running so far through the woods it was like swimming ashore after a shipwreck. The hedge looked funny from the other side.
She didn't look at her watch until she had crawled into the den. It was ten-thirty. She put the big envelope into the biscuit tin with the other papers and stuffed the note with the new questions down her tights.
Her mother was on the telephone when she came in. When she saw Sophie she hung up quickly.
"Where on earth have you been?"
"I... went for a walk ... in the woods," she stammered.
"So I see."
Sophie stood silently, watching the water dripping from her dress.
"I called Joanna..."
"Joanna?"
Her mother brought her some dry clothes. Sophie only just managed to hide the philosopher's note. Then they sat together in the kitchen, and her mother made some hot chocolate.
"Were you with him?" she asked after a while.
"Him?"
Sophie could only think about her philosophy teacher.
"With him, yes. Him.... your rabbit!"
Sophie shook her head.
"What do you do when you're together, Sophie? Why are you so wet?"
Sophie sat staring gravely at the table. But deep down inside she was laughing. Poor Mom, now she had that to worry about.
She shook her head again. Then more questions came raining down on her.
"Now I want the truth. Were you out all night? Why did you go to bed with your clothes on? Did you sneak out as soon as I had gone to bed? You're only fourteen, Sophie. I demand to know who you are seeing!"
Sophie started to cry. Then she talked. She was still frightened, and when you are frightened you usually talk.
She explained that she had woken up very early and had gone for a walk in the woods. She told her mother about the cabin and the boat, and about the mysterious mirror. But she mentioned nothing about the secret correspondence course. Neither did she mention the green wallet. She didn't quite know why, but she had to keep Hilde for herself.
Her mother put her arms around Sophie, and Sophie knew that her mother believed her now.
"I don't have a boyfriend," Sophie sniffed. "It was just something I said because you were so upset about the white rabbit."
"And you really went all the way to the major's cabin ..." said her mother thoughtfully.
"The major's cabin?" Sophie stared at her mother.
"The little woodland cabin is called the major's cabin because some years ago an army major lived there for a time. He was rather eccentric, a little crazy, I think. But never mind that. Since then the cabin has been unoccupied."
"But it isn't! There's a philosopher living there now."
"Oh stop, don't start fantasizing again!"
Sophie stayed in her room, thinking about what had happened. Her head felt like a roaring circus full of lumbering elephants, silly clowns, daring trapeze flyers, and trained monkeys. But one image recurred unceasingly-- a small rowboat with one oar drifting in a lake deep in the woods--and someone needing the boat to get home.
She felt sure that the philosophy teacher didn't wish her any harm, and would certainly forgive her if he knew she had been to his cabin. But she had broken an agreement. That was all the thanks he got for taking on her philosophic education. How could she make up for it? Sophie took out her pink notepaper and began to write:
Dear Philosopher, It was me who was in your cabin early Sunday morning. I wanted so much to meet you and discuss some of the philosophic problems. For the moment I am a Plato fan, but I am not so sure he was right about ideas or pattern pictures existing in another reality. Of course they exist in our souls, but I think--for the moment anyway-- that this is a different thing. I have to admit too that I am not altogether convinced of the immortality of the soul. Personally, I have no recollections from my former lives. If you could convince me that my deceased grandmother's soul is happy in the world of ideas, I would be most grateful.
Actually, it was not for philosophic reasons that I started to write this letter (which I shall put in a pink envelope with a lump of sugar). I just wanted to say I was sorry for being disobedient. I tried to pull the boat completely up on shore but I was obviously not strong enough. Or perhaps a big wave dragged the boat out again.
I hope you managed to get home without getting your feet wet. If not, it might comfort you to know that I got soaked and will probably have a terrible cold. But that'll be my own fault.
I didn't touch anything in the cabin, but I am sorry to say that I couldn't resist the temptation to take the envelope that was on the table. It wasn't because I wanted to steal anything, but as my name was on it, I thought in my confusion that it belonged to me. I am really and truly sorry, and I promise never to disappoint you again.
P.S. I will think all the new questions through very carefully, starting now.
P.P.S. Is the mirror with the brass frame above the white chest of drawers an ordinary mirror or a magic mirror? I'm only asking because I am not used to seeing my own reflection wink with both eyes.
With regards from your sincerely interested pupil, SOPHIE
Sophie read the letter through twice before she put it in the envelope. She thought it was less formal than the previous letter she had written. Before she went downstairs to the kitchen to get a lump of sugar she looked at the note with the day's questions:
"What came first--the chicken or the "idea" chicken?
This question was just as tricky as the old riddle of the chicken and the egg. There would be no chicken without the egg, and no egg without the chicken. Was it really just as complicated to figure out whether the chicken or the "idea" chicken came first? Sophie understood what Plato meant. He meant that the "idea" chicken had existed in the world of ideas long before chickens existed in the sensory world. According to Plato, the soul had "seen" the "idea" chicken before it took up residence in a body. But wasn't this just where Sophie thought Plato must be mistaken? How could a person who had never seen a live chicken or a picture of a chicken ever have any "idea" of a chicken? Which brought her to the next question:
Are we born with innate "ideas"? Most unlikely, thought Sophie. She could hardly imagine a newborn baby being especially well equipped with ideas. One could obviously never be sure, because the fact that the baby had no language did not necessarily mean that it had no ideas in its head. But surely we have to see things in the world before we can know anything about them.
"What is the difference between a plant, an animal, and a human?" Sophie could immediately see very clear differences.
For instance, she did not think a plant had a very complicated emotional life. Who had ever heard of a bluebell with a broken heart? A plant grows, takes nourishment, and produces seeds so that it can reproduce itself. That's about all one could say about plants. Sophie concluded that everything that applied to plants also applied to animals and humans. But animals had other attributes as well. They could move, for example. (When did a rose ever run a marathon?) It was a bit harder to point to any differences between animals and humans. Humans could think, but couldn't animals do so as well? Sophie was convinced that her cat Sherekan could think. At least, it could be very calculating. But could it reflect on philosophical questions? Could a cat speculate about the difference between a plant, an animal, and a human? Hardly! A cat could probably be either contented or unhappy, but did it ever ask itself if there was a God or whether it had an immortal soul? Sophie thought that was extremely doubtful. But the same problem was raised here as with the baby and the innate ideas. It was just as difficult to talk to a cat about such questions as it would be to discuss them with a baby.
"Why does it rain?" Sophie shrugged her shoulders. It probably rains because seawater evaporates and the clouds condense into raindrops. Hadn't she learnt that in the third grade? Of course, one could always say that it rains so that plants and animals can grow. But was that true? Had a shower any actual purpose?
The last question definitely had something to do with purpose: "What does it take to live a good life?"
The philosopher had written something about this quite early on in the course. Everybody needs food, warmth, love, and care. Such basics were the primary condition for a good life, at any rate. Then he had pointed out that people also needed to find answers to certain philosophical questions. It was probably also quite important to have a job you liked. If you hated traffic, for instance, you would not be very happy as a taxi driver. And if you hated doing homework it would probably be a bad idea to become a teacher. Sophie loved animals and wanted to be a vet. But in any case she didn't think it was necessary to win a million in the lottery to live a good life.
Quite the opposite, more likely. There was a saying:
The devil finds work for idle hands.
Sophie stayed in her room until her mother called her down to a big midday meal. She had prepared sirloin steak and baked potatoes. There were cloudberries and cream for dessert.
They talked about all kinds of things. Sophie's mother asked her how she wanted to celebrate her fifteenth birthday. It was only a few weeks away.
Sophie shrugged.
"Aren't you going to invite anyone? I mean, don't you want to have a party?"
"Maybe."
"We could ask Martha and Anne Marie ... and Helen. And Joanna, of course. And Jeremy, perhaps. But that's for you to decide. I remember my own fifteenth birthday so clearly, you know. It doesn't seem all that long ago. I felt I was already quite grown up. Isn't it odd, Sophie! I don't feel I have changed at all since then."
"You haven't. Nothing changes. You have just developed, gotten older..."
"Mm ... that was a very grownup thing to say. I just think it's all happened so very quickly."





中文翻译
   少校的小木屋
   .....镜中的女孩双眼眨了一眨.....
  
   时间才七点十五分,没有必要赶回家。苏菲的妈妈在星期日总是过得比较悠闲一些,因此她也许还会再睡个两小时。
   她应不应该再深入树林去找艾伯特呢?上次那只狗为何对她叫得这么凶呢?
   苏菲站起身来,开始沿上次汉密士走过的路走去,手里拿着那个装着柏拉图学说的棕色信封。遇到岔路时,她便挑大路走。
   到处都可听到鸟儿们轻快的叫声。在林梢、在空中、在荆棘与草丛之中。这些鸟儿正忙于它们的晨间活动。对它们而言,周间与周末并没有分别。是谁教它们如此的呢?难道每一只鸟儿体内都有一架迷你电脑,设定好程式,叫它们做某些特定的事?
   苏菲沿着路走上了一座小山丘,然后走到一个向下的陡坡,两旁都是高大的松树,树林非常浓密,以至于苏菲只能看到树与树枝间几码之处。
   突然,她看到树干间有个东西在闪动。那一定是个小湖。路向另外一头延伸,但苏菲却转向树丛间走去。她不由自主地走着,自己也不太明白为什么会这样做。
   这个湖并不比足球场大。在湖的彼岸,一块由银色桦树所围绕的小小空地上,有一栋红色的小屋。屋顶上的烟囱有一道轻烟正袅袅上升。
   苏菲走到湖畔。这里有多处泥泞,不过后来她发现了一条小船,船身有一半在水中,里面还有一对桨。
   苏菲环顾四周。看来无论她怎么做,都无法在不把鞋子弄湿的情况下,渡湖到小红屋那边。于是,她一咬牙,走到小船那儿,将它 推到水中。然后她爬上船,将桨固定在桨架上,开始划过湖面。不 一会儿,船便到了对岸。苏菲跨上岸,想把船拖上来。此处的湖岸要比刚才那边陡。
   她只回头望了一望,便走向小木屋。
   一探究竟
   她对自己如此大胆的行径也感到讶异。她怎么敢这样做呢?她也不知道。仿佛有“某种东西”催促她似的。
   苏菲走到小木屋的门前,敲敲门,但等了一会儿并没有人应门。她小心地转了一下门柄,门就开了。
     “嗨!”她喊。“有人在家吗?”
   她走进去,进入一个客厅,但却不敢把门带上。
   这里显然有人住。苏菲听到柴火在旧炉子里发出哔哔剥剥的声音,显然不久前还有人在这里。
   客厅里的一张大餐桌上放了一台打字机、几本书、几支铅笔和 一沓纸。面湖的窗前有一张较小的桌子和两把椅子。除此之外,屋里很少家具,不过有一整面墙都是书架,上面放满了书。一个白色的五斗柜上方挂了一面圆形的大镜子,外围镶着巨大的铜框,看起来已经是老古董了。
   另外一面墙上挂着两幅画。一幅是油画作品,画里有一个建有红色船坞的小港湾,距港湾不远处有一栋白屋。船库与白屋之间是 一个有点坡度的花园,种了一株苹果树、几棵浓密的灌木,此外还有几块岩石。一排浓密的桦树像花环一般围绕着这座花园。画的题名为“柏客来”(Bjerkely)。
   这幅油画旁挂了另一幅古老的肖像画。画的是一个男人坐在窗边的椅子上,怀中放了一本书,背景也是一个有树、有岩石的小港湾。这幅画看来像是几百年前画的,题名是“柏克莱”(Berkeley)。画家的名字叫史密伯特(Smibert)。
   “柏克莱”与“柏客来”,苏菲心想,多奇怪呀!
   苏菲继续勘查这座小木屋。客厅有一扇门通向一间小厨房。不久前这里刚有人洗过碗,盘子与玻璃杯都堆在一条茶巾上,其中几个碗杯上面还有几滴闪闪发光的肥皂水。地板上有一个锡碗,里面放着一些剩饭剩菜。这房子的主人一定养了狗或猫。
   苏菲回到客厅。另外一扇门通向一间小小的卧室,里面有一张 床,旁边的地板上放着两、三条捆得厚厚的毯子。苏菲在毯子上发现几根金色的毛发。这就是证据了]现在苏菲知道住在这栋小木屋里的就是艾伯特和汉密士。
   再回到客厅后,苏菲站在五斗柜上方的镜子前。镜面已经失去光泽,而且刮痕累累,因此她在镜中的影像也显得模糊不清。苏菲开始对着镜中的自己扮鬼脸,就像她在家中浴室里做的一般。镜中人也一如预期的跟着她的动作做。
   突然间,一件骇人的事发生了。有一刹那,苏菲很清楚地看到镜中的女孩同时眨着双眼。苏菲吓得倒退了一步。如果是她自己同时眨动双眼,那她怎么看到镜中的影像呢?不仅如此,那个女孩眨眼的样子仿佛是在告诉苏菲:“我可以看到你喔!我在这里,在另外一边。”
   苏菲觉得自己的心怦怦地跳着。就在这时候,她听到远处的狗吠声。汉密士来了!她得马上离开这里才行。这时她看到镜子下方的五斗柜上面有一个绿色的皮夹,里面有一张百元大钞、一张五十元的钞票以及一张学生证,上面贴着一张金发女孩的照片,照片下面写着女孩的名字:席德……
   苏菲打了一个冷颤。她再次听到狗叫声,她必须马上离开!
   当她匆匆经过桌旁时,看到那些书与纸堆旁放着一个白色的信封,上面写着两个字:“苏菲”。
   在她还没有时间弄清楚自己在做什么以前,她已经一把抓起了那封信,把它塞到装着柏拉图学说的棕色信封里,然后她便冲出大门,把门在身后“砰!”一声关上。
   狗叫声愈来愈近。但最糟的是小船不见了。一两秒钟后,她才看到它,原来它正在湖心漂浮,一只桨也在船边漂着。这都是因为她那时无力将它拖上岸的缘故。她听到狗叫声已经逼近,同时湖对岸的树林间也有一些动静。
   苏菲不再迟疑。手里拿着大信封,她飞奔到小木屋后面的树丛中。不久她就已置身一片潮湿的沼地。当她在草地上跋涉时,好几次不小心踩进比她脚踝还高很多的水洼中。但是她非继续往前走
   不可。她必须回家……回家。
   不久,她看到了一条路。这是她来时所走的路吗?她停下来把衣服拧干,然后开始哭泣。
   她怎么会这么笨呢?最糟的是那条船。她忘不了那船还有那只桨在湖上无助地漂浮的景象。真难为情,真是羞死人了……
   她的哲学老师现在可能已经到达湖边了。他必须要坐船才能回到家。苏菲觉得自己几乎像是个罪犯一般,不过她不是故意的。
   对了,那封信!这下,事情更糟了。她为什么要拿它呢?当然,
   是因为信上写着她的名字,因此可以说那封信是她的。但即使如此,她仍然觉得自己像个小偷。更糟的是,她这样做无异留下证据,
   显示擅闯小屋的不是别人,就是她。
   苏菲把那信从信封里抽出来看,上面写着:
   鸡与鸡的观念何者先有?
   人是否生来就有一些概念?
   植物、动物与人类的差别在哪里?
   天为何会下雨?
   人需要什么才能过好的生活?
   苏菲现在没法思考这些问题。不过她想它们大概与下一位要讨论的哲学家有关。他不是叫亚理斯多德吗?
   解释
   苏菲在树林间跑了很久。当她终于看到家附近的树篱时,感觉就好像发生船难后游泳上岸的人一般。从这个方向看过去,那排树篱显得很滑稽。
   她爬进密洞后,看了看腕表,已经十点半了。她把大信封放进饼干盒里,并把那张写着新问题的纸条塞进她贴身衬衣内。
   她进门时,妈妈正在打电话。她一看到苏菲,马上挂掉电话。
   “你到底到哪里去了?”
   “我……我去……树林里散步。”她舌头有点打结。
   “原来如此。”
   苏菲静静地站着,看着水滴从她的衣服上滴下来。
   “我打电话给乔安……”
   “乔安?”
   妈妈拿了几条干布来。苏菲差一点藏不住哲学家的纸条。然后她们母女两个一起坐在厨房里,妈妈泡了一杯热巧克力给苏菲喝。
   过了一会儿后,妈妈问道;“你刚才是跟他在一起吗?”
   “他?”
   苏菲的脑海里想的只有她的哲学老师。
   “对,他……那个跟你谈兔子的人。”
   她摇摇头。
   . “苏菲,你们在一起时都做些什么?为什么你会把衣服弄得这么湿?”
   苏菲坐在那儿,神情严肃地看着桌子,心里却在暗笑。可怜的妈妈,她现在还得操心“那档子事”。
   她再度摇摇头。然后妈妈又连珠炮似的问了她一堆问题。
   “现在你要说实话。你是不是整晚都在外面?那天晚上你为什么没换衣服就睡了?你是不是一等我上床就偷跑出去了?苏菲,你
   才十四岁。我要你告诉我你到底和什么人交朋友!”
   苏菲哭了起来,然后她便开始说话。因为她心里还是很害怕, 而当一个人害怕时,通常会想要说些话。
   她向妈妈解释:她今天早上起得很早,于是便去森林里散步。
   她告诉妈妈有关那小木屋与船,还有那面神秘镜子的事情,但她没有提到她所上的秘密函授课程。也没有提到那只绿色的皮夹。她也不知道为什么,不过她觉得她“不能”把有关席德的事说出来。
   妈妈用手抱着苏菲,因此苏菲知道妈妈相信她了。
   “我没有男朋友。”苏菲啜泣说,“那是我编的,因为那时候我说白兔的事情让你不高兴。”
   “你真的一路走到少校的小木屋去……”妈妈若有所思地说。
   “少校的小木屋?”苏菲睁大了眼睛。
   “那栋小木屋叫少校的小木屋,因为多年前有一位老少校住在那儿。他性情很古怪,我想他大概有点疯狂吧。不过,别管这个了。
   后来,小屋就一直空着。”
   “不,现在有一个哲学家住在那里。”
   “得了,苏菲,别再幻想了。”
   苏菲待在房间内,心里想着这段时间发生的事。她的脑袋像一个满是大象、滑稽小丑、大胆空中飞人与训练有素的猴子闹哄哄的马戏团。不过有一个影像一‘直在她脑海里挥之不去,那就是一艘只有一只桨的小舟在林间深处的湖面上漂浮,而湖岸上有一个人正需要划船回家的情景。
   苏菲可以肯定她的哲学老师不会愿意见她受伤,同时,即使他知道她到过他的小木屋,也一定会原谅她的。但是她打破了他们之间的协议。这就是他为她上哲学课所得的报酬吗?她要怎样才能弥补呢?
   苏菲拿出粉红色的笔记纸,开始写信:
   亲爱的哲学家:
   星期天清晨闯进你的小屋的人就是我。因为我很想见到你,和你讨论一些哲学问题。现在我成了柏拉图迷,不过我不太确定他所说的存在于另外一个世界的观念或形式的说法是否正确。当然这些东西存在于我们的灵魂中,但我认为——至少现在如此——这是两回事。同时我必须承认,我还是不太相信灵魂是不朽的。就我个人来说,我不记得前生的事。如果你能够让我相信我奶奶死后的灵魂正在观念世界里过得很快乐,我会很感谢你。
   事实上,我最初写这封信(我会把它和一块糖一起放在一个粉红色的信封里)并不是为了有关哲学的问题。我只是想告诉你我很抱歉没有遵守你的规定。我曾想办法把船拉上岸,但显然我的力气不够大,或者可能是一个大浪把船打走了。
   我希望你已经设法回到家,而且没有把脚弄湿。但就算你把脚弄湿了,你也可以稍感安慰,因为我自己也弄得湿淋淋的,而且可能还会得重感冒。当然啦,我是自作自受。
   我没有碰小屋里的任何东西,不过很惭愧的是,我受不了诱惑,拿走了放在桌上的那封信。我并不是想偷东西,只是因为信封上写着我的名字,所以我在一时糊涂之下,便以为那是属于我的。
   我真的很抱歉,我答应以后绝不会再让你失望了。
   P.S:从现在开始,我会把所有的新问题很仔细地想过一遍。
   PP.S:白色的五斗柜上那面镶铜框的镜子是普通的镜子还是魔镜?我之所以这样问,是因为我不怎么习惯看到自己在镜中的影像同时眨着两只眼睛。
   敬祝安好
   学生 苏菲敬上
   苏菲把信念了两遍,才装进信封。她觉得这次的信不像上一封那么正式。在下楼到厨房拿糖之前,她特地再看了一下纸条上的问题:
   “鸡和鸡的观念,是何者先有?”
   思索
   这个问题就像“鸡生蛋还是蛋生鸡”这个老问题一样难以回答。没有蛋就没有鸡,但没有鸡也无从有蛋。“先有鸡还是先有蛋’这个观念”这个问题真的一样复杂吗?苏菲了解柏拉图的意思。他是说早在感官世界出现鸡以前,“鸡”这个观念已经存在于观念世界多时了。根据柏拉图的说法,灵魂在寄宿于人体之前已经
   “见过“观念鸡”。不过这就是苏菲认为柏拉图可能讲错的地方。一个从来没有看过一只活生生的鸡,也从来没有看过鸡的图片的人怎么可能会有任何有关鸡的“观念”呢。这又让她想到下一个问题:
   “人是否生来就有一些观念呢?”苏菲认为,这是不太可能的。
   她很难想象一个初生的婴儿有很多自己的想法。当然,这点我们无法确定,因为婴儿虽不会讲话,也并不一定意味着他的脑袋里没有任何想法。不过我们一定要先看到世间之物,才能对这些事物有所了解吧!
   “植物、动物与人类之间有何区别?”答案太明显了,苏菲可以立即指出来。
   例如,她认为植物没有复杂的感情生活。谁听过风铃草伤心欲碎?植物生长、吸收养分,然后制造种子以繁衍下一代。除此之外,
   就没有什么了。苏菲的结论是:植物所有的,动物与人类也都有,但动物还有其他的特色。例如,动物可以移动,(谁听说过一株玫瑰可以跑六十公尺?)至于动物与人类之间的区别就比较难说了。人类能够思考,动物也会吗?苏菲相信她的猫咪雪儿懂得如何思考。至少它很会为自己打算,但是它会思索哲学问题吗?一只猫会去思考植物、动物与人类之间的差异吗?这是不太可能的。一只猫可能很快乐,也可能不快乐,但它会问自己“世间有没有上帝”或“猫儿有没有不朽的灵魂”这类问题吗?苏菲认为这是非常令人怀疑的。不过,话说回来,这个问题就像婴儿有没有自己的想法一样难以回答。就像我们很难和婴儿讨论这类问题一样,我们也很难跟一只猫谈这些问题。
   “天为何会下雨?”苏菲耸了耸肩膀。下雨是因为海水蒸发,云层凝聚成雨滴的缘故。这个道理她不是三年级就学过了吗?当然,我们也可以说天之所以下雨是为了要让植物、动物能够生长。但这是真的吗?天空下雨真的有任何目的吗?
   无论如何,最后一个问题至少与目的有关
   “人需要什么才能过好的生活?”
   哲学家在课程开始不久时曾经谈过这个问题。每一个人都需要食物、温暖、爱与关怀。这类事物是良好生活的基本条件。接着哲学家指出,人们也需要为一些哲学问题寻找答案。除此之外,拥有一份自己喜欢的工作可能也是很重要的。举例来说,如果你讨厌塞车,那么你要是当个计程车司机绝对不会快乐。如果你不喜欢做作业,那么你也许不太适合当老师。苏菲喜欢动物,想当兽医。不过,无论如何,她不认为人一定要中百万大奖才能过得好。事实上很可能正好相反。不是有句俗话说“游手好闲,易生祸端”吗?
   苏菲一直待在房间内,直到妈妈叫她下楼吃晚饭为止。妈妈煮了沙朗牛排与烤马铃薯。真棒!餐桌上点了蜡烛,饭后还有奶油草莓当甜点。
   吃饭时,母女俩谈天说地。妈妈问苏菲想如何庆祝自己的十五岁生日。再过几个礼拜苏菲的生日就到了。
   苏菲耸了耸肩。
   “你不想请别人到家里来吗?我的意思是,你不想开个宴会吗?”
   “也许。”
   “我们可以请玛莎和安玛丽来……还有海姬,当然啦,还有乔安,说不定还可以请杰瑞米。不过这得由你自己决定。你知道吗?
   我还很清楚的记得我自己过十五岁生日酌情景。感觉上好像才没过多久。当时我觉得自己已经很大了。这不是很奇怪吗?苏菲。我觉得从那以后,自己好像一点都没变。”
   “你没变啊。什么事情都没有改变。你只是不断成长,一年比 一年大罢了……”
   “嗯……你说话已经有大人的口气了。我只是认为一切都发生得太快了,快得让人害怕。”





[ 此帖被喻然末年在2013-10-25 17:48重新编辑 ]
暮辞朝

ZxID:15103679


等级: 内阁元老
配偶: 清风雅乐
这一段开心的日子请你勿忘
举报 只看该作者 11楼  发表于: 2013-10-26 0
英文原文
Aristotle
...a meticulous organizer who wanted to clarify our concepts 
While her mother was taking her afternoon nap, Sophie went down to the den. She had put a lump of sugar in the pink envelope and written "To Alberto" on the outside.
There was no new letter, but after a few minutes Sophie heard the dog approaching.
"Hermes!" she called, and the next moment he had pushed his way into the den with a big brown envelope in his mouth.
"Good boy!" Sophie put her arm around the dog, which was snorting and snuffling like a walrus. She took the pink envelope with the lump of sugar and put it in the dog's mouth. He crawled through the hedge and made off into the woods again.
Sophie opened the big envelope apprehensively, wondering whether it would contain anything about the cabin and the boat.
It contained the usual typed pages held together with a paperclip. But there was also a loose page inside. On it was written:
Dear Miss Sleuth, or, to be more exact, Miss Burglar. The case has already been handed over to the police.
Not really. No, I'm not angry. If you are just as curious when it comes to discovering answers to the riddles of philosophy, I'd say your adventure was very promising. It's just a little annoying that I'll have to move now. Still, I have no one to blame but myself, I suppose. I might have known you were a person who would always want to get to the bottom of things.
Greetings, Alberto
Sophie was relieved. So he was not angry after all. But why would he have to move?
She took the papers and ran up to her room. It would be prudent to be in the house when her mother woke up. Lying comfortably on her bed, she began to read about Aristotle.
PHILOSOPHER AND SCIENTIST
Dear Sophie: You were probably astonished by Plato's theory or ideas. You are not the only one! I do not know whether you swallowed the whole thing--hook, line, and sinker--or whether you had any critical comments. But if you did have, you can be sure that the self-same criticism was raised by Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), who was a pupil at Plato's Academy for almost twenty years.
Aristotle was not a native of Athens. He was born in Macedonia and came to Plato's Academy when Plato was 61. Aristotle's father was a respected physician-- and therefore a scientist. This background already tells us something about Aristotle's philosophic project. What he was most interested in was nature study. He was not only the last of the great Greek philosophers, he was Europe's first great biologist.
Taking it to extremes, we could say that Plato was so engrossed in his eternal forms, or "ideas," that he took very little notice of the changes in nature. Aristotle, on the other hand, was preoccupied with just these changes--or with what we nowadays describe as natural processes.
To exaggerate even more, we could say that Plato turned his back on the sensory world and shut his eyes to everything we see around us. (He wanted to escape from the cave and look out over the eternal world of ideas!) Aristotle did the opposite: he got down on all fours and studied frogs and fish, anemones and poppies.
While Plato used his reason, Aristotle used his senses as well.
We find decisive differences between the two, not least in their writing. Plato was a poet and mythologist; Aristotle's writings were as dry and precise as an encyclopedia. On the other hand, much of what he wrote was based on up-to-the-minute field studies.
Records from antiquity refer to 170 titles supposedly written by Aristotle. Of these, 47 are preserved. These are not complete books; they consist largely of lecture notes. In his time, philosophy was still mainly an oral activity.
The significance of Aristotle in European culture is due not least to the fact that he created the terminology that scientists use today. He was the great organizer who founded and classified the various sciences.
Since Aristotle wrote on all the sciences, I will limit myself to some of the most important areas. Now that I have told you such a lot about Plato, you must start by hearing how Aristotle refuted Plato's theory of ideas. Later we will look at the way he formulated his own natural philosophy, since it was Aristotle who summed up what the natural philosophers before him had said. We'll see how he categorizes our concepts and founds the discipline of Logic as a science. And finally I'll tell you a little about Aristotle's view of man and society.
No Innate Ideas
Like the philosophers before him, Plato wanted to find the eternal and immutable in the midst of all change. So he found the perfect ideas that were superior to the sensory world. Plato furthermore held that ideas were more real than all the phenomena of nature. First came the idea "horse," then came all the sensory world's horses trotting along like shadows on a cave wall. The idea "chicken" came before both the chicken and the egg.
Aristotle thought Plato had turned the whole thing upside down. He agreed with his teacher that the particular horse "flows" and that no horse lives forever. He also agreed that the actual form of the horse is eternal and immutable. But the "idea" horse was simply a concept that we humans had formed after seeing a certain number of horses. The "idea" or "form" horse thus had no existence of its own. To Aristotle, the "idea" or the "form" horse was made up of the horse's characteristics--which define what we today call the horse species.
To be more precise: by "form" horse, Aristotle meant that which is common to all horses. And here the metaphor of the gingerbread mold does not hold up because the mold exists independently of the particular gingerbread cookies. Aristotle did not believe in the existence of any such molds or forms that, as it were, lay on their own shelf beyond the natural world. On the contrary, to Aristotle the "forms" were in the things, because they were the particular characteristics of these things.
So Aristotle disagreed with Plato that the "idea" chicken came before the chicken. What Aristotle called the "form" chicken is present in every single chicken as the chicken's particular set characteristics--for one, that it lays eggs. The real chicken and the "form" chicken are thus just as inseparable as body and soul.
And that is really the essence of Aristotle's criticism of Plato's theory of ideas. But you should not ignore the fact that this was a dramatic turn of thought. The highest degree of reality, in Plato's theory, was that which we think with our reason. It was equally apparent to Aristotle that the highest degree of reality is that which we perceive with our senses. Plato thought that all the things we see in the natural world were purely reflections of things that existed in the higher reality of the world of ideas--and thereby in the human soul. Aristotle thought the opposite: things that are in the human soul were purely reflections of natural objects. So nature is the real world. According to Aristotle, Plato was trapped in a mythical world picture in which the human imagination was confused with the real world.
Aristotle pointed out that nothing exists in consciousness that has not first been experienced by the senses. Plato would have said that there is nothing in the natural world that has not first existed in the world of ideas. Aristotle held that Plato was thus "doubling the number of things." He explained a horse by referring to the "idea" horse. But what kind of an explanation is that, Sophie? Where does the "idea" horse come from, is my question. Might there not even be a third horse, which the "idea" horse is just an imitation of?
Aristotle held that all our thoughts and ideas have come into our consciousness through what we have heard and seen. But we also have an innate power of reason. We have no innate ideas, as Plato held, but we have the innate faculty of organizing all sensory impressions into categories and classes. This is how concepts such as "stone," "plant," "animal," and "human" arise. Similarly there arise concepts like "horse," "lobster," and "canary."
Aristotle did not deny that humans have innate reason. On the contrary, it is precisely reason, according to Aristotle, that is man's most distinguishing characteristic. But our reason is completely empty until we have sensed something. So man has no innate "ideas."
The Form of a Thing Is Its Specific CharacteristicsHaving come to terms with Plato's theory of ideas, Aristotle decided that reality consisted of various separate things that constitute a unity of form and substance. The "substance" is what things are made of, while the "form" is each thing's specific characteristics.
A chicken is fluttering about in front of you, Sophie. The chicken's "form" is precisely that it flutters--and that it cackles and lays eggs. So by the "form" of a chicken, we mean the specific characteristics of its species--or in other words, what it does. When the chicken dies--and cackles no more--its "form" ceases to exist. The only thing that remains is the chicken's "substance" (sadly enough, So-phie), but then it is no longer a chicken.
As I said earlier, Aristotle was concerned with the changes in nature. "Substance" always contains the potentiality to realize a specific "form." We could say that "substance" always strives toward achieving an innate potentiality. Every change in nature, according to Aristotle, is a transformation of substance from the "potential" to the "actual."
Yes, I'll explain what I mean, Sophie. See if this funny story helps you. A sculptor is working on a large block of granite. He hacks away at the formless block every day. One day a little boy comes by and says, "What are you looking for?" "Wait and see," answers the sculptor. After a few days the little boy comes back, and now the sculptor has carved a beautiful horse out of the granite. The boy stares at it in amazement, then he turns to the sculptor and says, "How did you know it was in there?"
How indeed! In a sense, the sculptor had seen the horse's form in the block of granite, because that particular block of granite had the potentiality to be formed into the shape or a horse. Similarly Aristotle believed that everything in nature has the potentiality of realizing, or achieving, a specific "form."
Let us return to the chicken and the egg. A chicken's egg has the potentiality to become a chicken. This does not mean that all chicken's eggs become chickens--many of them end up on the breakfast table as fried eggs, omelettes, or scrambled eggs, without ever having realized their potentiality. But it is equally obvious that a chicken's egg cannot become a goose. That potentiality is not within a chicken's egg. The "form" of a thing, then, says something about its limitation as well as its potentiality.
When Aristotle talks about the "substance" and "form" of things, he does not only refer to living organisms. Just as it is the chicken's "form" to cackle, flutter its wings, and lay eggs, it is the form of the stone to fall to the ground. Just as the chicken cannot help cackling, the stone cannot help falling to the ground. You can, of course, lift a stone and hurl it high into the air, but because it is the stone's nature to fall to the ground, you cannot hurl it to the moon. (Take care when you perform this experiment, because the stone might take revenge and find the shortest route back to the earth!)
The Final Cause
Before we leave the subject of all living and dead things having a "form" that says something about their potential "action," I must add that Aristotle had a remarkable view of causality in nature.
Today when we talk about the "cause" of anything, we mean how it came to happen. The windowpane was smashed because Peter hurled a stone through it; a shoe is made because the shoemaker sews pieces of leather together. But Aristotle held that there were different types of cause in nature. Altogether he named four different causes. It is important to understand what he meant by what he called the "final cause."
In the case of window smashing, it is quite reasonable to ask why Peter threw the stone. We are thus asking what his purpose was. There can be no doubt that purpose played a role, also, in the matter of the shoe being made. But Aristotle also took into account a similar "purpose" when considering the purely lifeless processes in nature. Here's an example:
Why does it rain, Sophie? You have probably learned at school that it rains because the moisture in the clouds cools and condenses into raindrops that are drawn to the earth by the force of gravity. Aristotle would have nodded in agreement. But he would have added that so far you have only mentioned three of the causes. The "material cause" is that the moisture (the clouds) was there at the precise moment when the air cooled. The "efficient cause" is that the moisture cools, and the "formal cause" is that the "form," or nature of the water, is to fall to the earth. But if you stopped there, Aristotle would add that it rains because plants and animals need rainwater in order to grow. This he called the "final cause." Aristotle assigns the raindrops a life-task, or "purpose."
We would probably turn the whole thing upside down and say that plants grow because they find moisture. You can see the difference, can't you, Sophie? Aristotle believed that there is a purpose behind everything in nature. It rains so that plants can grow; oranges and grapes grow so that people can eat them.
That is not the nature of scientific reasoning today. We say that food and water are necessary conditions of life for man and beast. Had we not had these conditions we would not have existed. But it is not the purpose of water or oranges to be food for us.
In the question of causality then, we are tempted to say that Aristotle was wrong. But let us not be too hasty. Many people believe that God created the world as it is so that all His creatures could live in it. Viewed in this way, it can naturally be claimed that there is water in the rivers because animals and humans need water to live. But now we are talking about God's purpose. The raindrops and the waters of the river have no interest in our welfare.
Logic
The distinction between "form" and "substance" plays an important part in Aristotle's explanation of the way we discern things in the world.
When we discern things, we classify them in various groups or categories. I see a horse, then I see another horse, and another. The horses are not exactly alike, but they have something in common, and this common something is the horse's "form." Whatever might be distinctive, or individual, belongs to the horse's "substance."
So we go around pigeonholing everything. We put cows in cowsheds, horses in stables, pigs in pigsties, and chickens in chicken coops. The same happens when Sophie Amundsen tidies up her room. She puts her books on the bookshelf, her schoolbooks in her schoolbag, and her magazines in the drawer. Then she folds her clothes neatly and puts them in the closet--underwear on one shelf, sweaters on another, and socks in a drawer on their own. Notice that we do the same thing in our minds. We distinguish between things made of stone, things made of wool, and things made of rubber. We distinguish between things that are alive or dead, and we distinguish between vegetable, animal, and human.
Do you see, Sophie? Aristotle wanted to do a thorough clearing up in nature's "room." He tried to show that everything in nature belongs to different categories and subcategories. (Hermes is a live creature, more specifically an animal, more specifically a vertebrate, more specifically a mammal, more specifically a dog, more specifically a Labrador, more specifically a male Labrador.)
Go into your room, Sophie. Pick up something, anything, from the floor. Whatever you take, you will find that what you are holding belongs to a higher category The day you see something you are unable to classify you will get a shock. If, for example, you discover a small whatsit, and you can't really say whether it is animal, vegetable, or mineral--I don't think you would dare touch it.
Saying animal, vegetable, and mineral reminds me of that party game where the victim is sent outside the room, and when he comes in again he has to guess what everyone else is thinking of. Everyone has agreed to think of Fluffy, the cat, which at the moment is in the neighbor's garden. The victim comes in and begins to guess. The others must only answer "yes" or "no." If the victim is a good Aristotelian--and therefore no victim--the game could go pretty much as follows:
Is it concrete? (Yes!) Mineral? (No!) Is it alive? (Yes!) Vegetable? (No!) Animal? (Yes!) Is it a bird? (No!) Is it a mammal? (Yes!) Is it the whole animal? (Yes!) Is it a cat? (Yes!) Is it Fluffy? (Yeah! Laughter. . .)
So Aristotle invented that game. We ought to give Plato the credit for having invented hide-and-seek. Democritus has already been credited with having invented Lego.
Aristotle was a meticulous organizer who set out to clarify our concepts. In fact, he founded the science of Logic. He demonstrated a number of laws governing conclusions or proofs that were valid. One example will suffice. If I first establish that "all living creatures are mortal" (first premise), and then establish that "Hermes is a living creature" (second premise), I can then elegantly conclude that "Hermes is mortal."
The example demonstrates that Aristotle's logic was based on the correlation of terms, in this case "living creature" and "mortal." Even though one has to admit that the above conclusion is 100% valid, we may also add that it hardly tells us anything new. We already knew that Hermes was "mortal." (He is a "dog" and all dogs are "living creatures"--which are "mortal," unlike the rock of Mount Everest.) Certainly we knew that, Sophie. But the relationship between classes of things is not always so obvious. From time to time it can be necessary to clarify our concepts.
For example: Is it really possible that tiny little baby mice suckle just like lambs and piglets? Mice certainly do not lay eggs. (When did I last see a mouse's egg?) So they give birth to live young--just like pigs and sheep. But we call animals that bear live young mammals--and mammals are animals that feed on their mother's milk. So--we got there. We had the answer inside us but we had to think it through. We forgot for the moment that mice really do suckle from their mother. Perhaps it was because we have never seen a baby mouse being suckled, for the simple reason that mice are rather shy of humans when they suckle their young.
Nature's Scale
When Aristotle "clears up" in life, he first of all points out that everything in the natural world can be divided into two main categories. On the one hand there are nonliving things, such as stones, drops of water, or clumps of soil. These things have no potentiality for change. According to Aristotle, nonliving things can only change through external influence. Only living things have the potentiality for change.
Aristotle divides "living things" into two different categories. One comprises plants, and the other creatures. Finally, these "creatures" can also be divided into two subcategories, namely animals and humans.
You have to admit that Aristotle's categories are clear and simple. There is a decisive difference between a living and a nonliving thing, for example a rose and a stone, just as there is a decisive difference between a plant and an animal, for example a rose and a horse. I would also claim that there definitely is a difference between a horse and a man. But what exactly does this difference consist of? Can you tell me that?
Unfortunately I do not have time to wait while you write the answer down and put it in a pink envelope with a lump of sugar, so I'll answer myself. When Aristotle divides natural phenomena into various categories, his criterion is the object's characteristics, or more specifically what it can do or what it does.
All living things (plants, animals, humans) have the ability to absorb nourishment, to grow, and to propagate. All "living creatures" (animals and humans) have in addition the ability to perceive the world around them and to move about. Moreover, all humans have the ability to think--or otherwise to order their perceptions into various categories and classes.
So there are in reality no sharp boundaries in the natural world. We observe a gradual transition from simple growths to more complicated plants, from simple animals to more complicated animals. At the top of this "scale" is man--who according to Aristotle lives the whole life of nature. Man grows and absorbs nourishment like plants, he has feelings and the ability to move like animals, but he also has a specific characteristic peculiar to humans, and that is the ability to think rationally.
Therefore, man has a spark of divine reason, Sophie. Yes, I did say divine. From time to time Aristotle reminds us that there must be a God who started all movement in the natural world. Therefore God must be at the very top of nature's scale.
Aristotle imagined the movement of the stars and the planets guiding all movement on Earth. But there had to e something causing the heavenly bodies to move. Aristotle called this the "first mover," or "God." The "first mover" is itself at rest, but it is the "formal cause" of the movement of the heavenly bodies, and thus of all movement in nature.
Ethics
Let us go back to man, Sophie. According to Aristotle, man's "form" comprises a soul, which has a plant-like part, an animal part, and a rational part. And now he asks: How should we live? What does it require to live a good life? His answer: Man can only achieve happiness by using all his abilities and capabilities.
Aristotle held that there are three forms of happiness. The first form of happiness is a life of pleasure and enjoyment. The second form of happiness is a life as a free and responsible citizen. The third form of happiness is a life as thinker and philosopher.
Aristotle then emphasized that all three criteria must be present at the same time for man to find happiness and fulfillment. He rejected all forms of imbalance. Had he lived today he might have said that a person who only develops his body lives a life that is just as unbalanced as someone who only uses his head. Both extremes are an expression of a warped way of life.
The same applies in human relationships, where Aristotle advocated the "Golden Mean." We must be neither cowardly nor rash, but courageous (too little courage is cowardice, too much is rashness), neither miserly nor extravagant but liberal (not liberal enough is miserly, too liberal is extravagant). The same goes for eating. It is dangerous to eat too little, but also dangerous to eat too much. The ethics of both Plato and Aristotle contain echoes of Greek medicine: only by exercising balance and temperance will I achieve a happy or "harmonious" life.
Politics
The undesirability of cultivating extremes is also expressed in Aristotle's view of society. He says that man is by nature a "political animal." Without a society around us, we are not real people, he claimed. He pointed out that the family and the village satisfy our primary needs of food, warmth, marriage, and child rearing. But the highest form of human fellowship is only to be found in the state.
This leads to the question of how the state should be organized. (You remember Plato's "philosophic state"?) Aristotle describes three good forms of constitution.
One is monarchy, or kingship--which means there is only one head of state. For this type of constitution to be good, it must not degenerate into "tyranny"--that is, when one ruler governs the state to his own advantage. Another good form of constitution is aristocracy, in which there is a larger or smaller group of rulers. This constitutional form must beware of degenerating into an "oligarchy"--when the government is run by a few people. An example of that would be a junta. The third good constitutional form is what Aristotle called polity, which means democracy. But this form also has its negative aspect. A democracy can quickly develop into mob rule. (Even if the tyrannic Hitler had not become head of state in Germany^ all the lesser Nazis could have formed a terrifying mob rule.)
Views on Women
Finally, let us look at Aristotle's views on women. His was unfortunately not as uplifting as Plato's. Aristotle was more inclined to believe that women were incomplete in some way. A woman was an "unfinished man." In reproduction, woman is passive and receptive whilst man is active and productive; for the child inherits only the male characteristics, claimed Aristotle. He believed that all the child's characteristics lay complete in the male sperm. The woman was the soil, receiving and bringing forth the seed, whilst the man was the "sower." Or, in Aristotelian language, the man provides the "form" and the woman contributes the "substance."
It is of course both astonishing and highly regrettable that an otherwise so intelligent man could be so wrong about the relationship of the sexes. But it demonstrates two things: first, that Aristotle could not have had much practical experience regarding the lives of women and children, and second, it shows how wrong things can go when men are allowed to reign supreme in the fields of philosophy and science.
Aristotle's erroneous view of the sexes was doubly harmful because it was his--rather than Plato's--view that held sway throughout the Middle Ages. The church thus inherited a view of women that is entirely without foundation in the Bible. Jesus was certainly no woman hater!
I'll say no more. But you will be hearing from me again.
When Sophie had read the chapter on Aristotle one and a half times, she returned it to the brown envelope and remained sitting, staring into space. She suddenly became aware of the mess surrounding her. Books and ring binders lay scattered on the floor. Socks and sweaters, tights and jeans hung half out of the closet. On the chair in front of the writing desk was a huge pile of dirty laundry.
Sophie had an irresistible desire to clear up. The first thing she did was to pull all the clothes out of the closet and onto the floor. It was necessary to start all over. Then she began folding her things very neatly and stacking them all tidily on the shelves. The closet had seven shelves. One was for underwear, one for socks and tights, and one for jeans. She gradually filled up each shelf. She never had any question about where to put anything. Dirty laundry went into a plastic bag she found on the bottom shelf. One thing she did have trouble with--a white knee-length stocking. The problem was that the other one of the pair was missing. What's more, it had never been Sophie's.
She examined it carefully. There was nothing to identify the owner, but Sophie had a strong suspicion about who the owner was. She threw it up onto the top shelf to join the Lego, the video cassette, and the red silk scarf.
Sophie turned her attention to the floor. She sorted books, ring binders, magazines, and posters--exactly as the philosophy teacher had described in the chapter on Aristotle. When she had done that, she made her bed and got started on her writing desk.
The last thing she did was to gather all the pages on Aristotle into a neat pile. She fished out an empty ring binder and a hole punch, made holes in the pages, and clipped them into the ring binder. This also went onto the top shelf. Later on in the day she would have to bring in the cookie tin from the den.
From now on things would be kept neat. And she didn't only mean in her room. After reading Aristotle, she realized it was just as important to keep her ideas orderly. She had reserved the top shelf of the closet especially for that kind of thing. It was the only place in the room that she did not yet have complete control over.
There had been no sign of life from her mother for over two hours. Sophie went downstairs. Before she woke her mother up she decided to feed her pets.
She bent over the goldfish bowl in the kitchen. One of the fishes was black, one orange, and one red and white. This was why she called them Black Jack, Gold-top, and Red Ridinghood.
As she sprinkled fish food into the water she said:
"You belong to Nature's living creatures, you can absorb nourishment, you can grow and reproduce yourselves. More specifically, you belong to the animal kingdom. So you can move around and look out at the world. To be precise, you are fish, and you breathe through your gills and can swim back and forth in the waters of life."
Sophie put the lid back on the fish food jar. She was quite satisfied with the way she had placed the goldfish in Nature's scale, and she was especially pleased with the expression "the waters of life." So now it was the budgerigars' turn.
Sophie poured a little birdseed in their feeding cup and said:
"Dear Smit and Smule. You have become dear little budgerigars because you grew out of dear little budgerigar eggs, and because these eggs had the form of being budgerigars, luckily you didn't grow into squawking parrots."
Sophie then went into the large bathroom, where the sluggish tortoise lay in a big box. Every now and then when her mother showered, she yelled that she would kill it one day. But so far it had been an empty threat. Sophie took a lettuce leaf from a large jam jar and laid it in the box.
"Dear Govinda," she said. "You are not one of the speediest animals, but you certainly are able to sense a tiny fraction of the great big world we live in. You'll have to content yourself with the fact that you are not the only one who can't exceed your own limits."
Sherekan was probably out catching mice--that was a cat's nature, after all. Sophie crossed the living room toward her mother's bedroom. A vase of daffodils stood on the coffee table. It was as if the yellow blooms bowed respectfully as Sophie went by. She stopped for a moment and let her fingers gently brush their smooth heads. "You belong to the living part of nature too," she said. "Actually, you are quite privileged compared to the vase you are in. But unfortunately you are not able to appreciate it."
Then Sophie tiptoed into her mother's bedroom. Although her mother was in a deep sleep, Sophie laid a hand on her forehead.
"You are one of the luckiest ones," she said, "because you are not only alive like the lilies of the field. And you are not only a living creature like Sherekan or Govinda. You are a human, and therefore have the rare capacity of thought."
"What on earth are you talking about, Sophie?"
Her mother had woken up more quickly than usual.
"I was just saying that you look like a lazy tortoise. I can otherwise inform you that I have tidied up my room, with philosophic thoroughness."
Her mother lifted her head.
"I'll be right there," she said. "Will you put the coffee on?"
Sophie did as she was asked, and they were soon sitting in the kitchen over coffee, juice, and chocolate.
Suddenly Sophie said, "Have you ever wondered why we are alive, Mom?"
"Oh, not again!"
"Yes, because now I know the answer. People live on this planet so that someone can go around giving names to everything."
"Is that right? I never thought of that."
"Then you have a big problem, because a human is a thinking animal. If you don't think, you're not really a human."
"Sophie!"
"Imagine if there were only vegetables and animals. Then there wouldn't have been anybody to tell the difference between 'cat' and 'dog,' or 'lily' and 'gooseberry.' Vegetables and animals are living too, but we are the only creatures that can categorize nature into different groups and classes."
"You really are the most peculiar girl I have ever had," said her mother.
"I should hope so," said Sophie. "Everybody is more or less peculiar. I am a person, so I am more or less peculiar. You have only one girl, so I am the most peculiar."
"What I meant was that you scare the living daylights out of me with all that new talk."
"You are easily scared, then."
Later that afternoon Sophie went back to the den. She managed to smuggle the big cookie tin up to her room without her mother noticing.
First she put all the pages in the right order. Then she punched holes in them and put them in the ring binder, before the chapter on Aristotle. Finally she numbered each page in the top right-hand corner. There were in all over fifty pages. Sophie was in the process of compiling her own book on philosophy. It was not by her, but written especially for her.
She had no time to do her homework for Monday. They were probably going to have a test in Religious Knowledge, but the teacher always said he valued personal commitment and value judgments. Sophie felt she was beginning to have a certain basis for both.





中文翻译
   亚理斯多德
   ……一位希望澄清我们观念的严谨的逻辑学家,
   妈妈睡午觉时,苏菲跑到密洞去。之前她已经把一块糖放在那个粉红色的信封里,信上并写着“艾伯特收”。
   密洞中并没有任何新的信,但几分钟后她听到狗儿走近的声音。
   “汉密士!”她喊。一转眼,它已经钻进密洞,嘴里衔着一个棕色的大信封。
   “乖狗狗!”汉密士正像海象一般在咻咻喘气。苏菲一手抱着它,一手拿起装有一块糖的粉红色信封,放在它的嘴里。然后汉密士便钻过树篱,奔回树林中。
   苏菲焦急地打开大信封,心想信里不知是否会提到有关木屋与小船的事。
   信封里还是像往常那样装了几张用纸夹夹住的打字信纸过这次里面还有另一张信纸,上面写着:
   亲爱的侦探小姐(或小偷小姐):
   有关阁下擅闯小屋的事,我已经报警处理了。
   说着玩的。其实,我并不很生气。如果你在追求哲学问题的答案时,也有同样的好奇心,那你的前途真是不可限量。只是我现在非搬家不可了,这是颇恼人的一点。不过我想我只能怪自己,我应该早就知道你是那种喜欢打破砂锅问到底的人。
   祝好。
   艾伯特笔
   苏菲松一口气,放下心中的一块大石头。原来他一点也不生气,但他为何非搬家不可呢?
   她拿了这一沓信纸,跑到楼上的房间去。她想,妈妈醒来时,她还是待在屋里比较好。不久她便舒适地躺在她的床上,开始读有关亚理斯多德的种种。
   亲爱的苏菲:
   柏拉图的理型论也许使你很震惊。其实有这种感觉的不只你 一个人而已。我不知道你对这个理论是否照单全收,还是有所批 评。不过,即使你不能完全同意,你也大可放心,因为同样的批评亚理斯多德(公元前三八四~公元前三二二年)都曾经提出过。
   亚理斯多德曾经在柏拉图的学园中进修了二十年。他并不是雅典当地的人士,他出生于马其顿,在柏拉图六十一岁时来到他的学园进修。他的父亲是一位很受人敬重的医生(所以也算是一位科学家),这个背景对于亚理斯多德的哲学事业影响颇大,他因此对研究大自然极感兴趣。他不仅是希腊最后一位大哲学家,也是欧洲第一位大生物学家。
   我们可以说柏拉图太过沉迷于他那些永恒的形式(或“理型”),以至于他很少注意到自然界的变化。相反的,亚理斯多德则只对这些变化(或我们今天所称的大自然的循环)感到兴趣。
   说得夸张一些,我们可以说柏拉图无视于感官世界的存在,也无视于我们在周遭所见的一切事物。(他只想逃离洞穴,观察永恒的概念世界。)
   亚理斯多德则正好相反:他倾全力研究青蛙与鱼、白头翁与罂粟等事物。
   我们可以说,柏拉图运用他的理性,而亚理斯多德则同时也运用他的感官。
   他们有很大的不同,这些差异也显现于他们的写作上。柏拉图是一位诗人与神话学家,亚理斯多德的文章则朴实精确,一如百科全书。此外,他有许多作品都是他进行实地研究的结果。
   根据古籍记载,亚理斯多德写了一百七十本书,其中只有四十七本保存至今。这些作品都不完整,大部分都是一些演讲的笔记。
   在他那个时代,哲学主要仍是一种口头的活动。
   亚理斯多德在欧洲文化的地位并不仅是因为他创造了许多现代科学家使用的辞汇,同时也是因为他是一位伟大的组织家,他发明了各种科学并且加以分类。
   亚理斯多德的作品涉及各种科学,但我只想讨论其中较为重要的领域。由于我们已经谈了许多柏拉图的哲学,因此一开始我们要听听亚理斯多德如何驳斥柏拉图的理型论。然后,我们再来看他
   如何总结前人的理论,创立他自己的自然哲学。
   我们也会谈到他如何将我们的概念加以分类,并创建理则学(或称逻辑学)这门学科。最后,我将略微讨论亚理斯多德对人与社会的看法。
   如果你可以接受这种安排,那就让我们卷起袖子开始吧!
   没有的概念
   柏拉图和他的前辈一样,想在所有变化无常的事物中找出永恒与不变之物。因此他发现了比感官世界层次更高的完美理型。他更进一步认为理型比所有的自然现象真实。他指出,世间是先有“马”的理型,然后才有感官世界里所有的马匹,它们就像洞壁上的影子一般达达前进。因此“鸡”的理型要先于鸡,也先于蛋。
   亚理斯多德则认为柏拉图将整个观念弄反了。他同意他的老 师的说法,认为一匹特定的马是“流动”的,没有一匹马可以长生不死,他也认为马的形式是永恒不变的。但他认为马的“理型”是我们人类在看到若干匹马后形成的概念。因此马的“理型”或“形式”
   本身是不存在的。对于亚理斯多德而言,马的“理型”或“形式”就是马的特征,后者定义了我们今天所称的马这个“种类”。
   更精确地说,亚理斯多德所谓马的“形式”乃是指所有马匹都共有的特征。在这里姜饼人模子的比喻并不适用,因为模于是独立于姜饼人之外而存在的。亚理斯多德并不相信自然界之外有这样一些模子或形式放在他们所属的架子上。相反的,亚理斯多德认为“形式”存在于事物中,因为所谓形式就是这些事物的特征。
   所以,亚理斯多德并不赞成柏拉图主张“鸡”的理型比鸡先有的说法。亚理斯多德所称的鸡的“形式”存在于每一只鸡的身上,成为鸡之所以为鸡的特色,例如:鸡会生蛋。因此真正的鸡和鸡的“形式”就像身体与灵魂一般是不可分割的。
   这就是亚理斯多德批评柏拉图的理型论的大要。这是思想上的一大转变。在柏拉图的理论中,现实世界中最高层次的事物乃是那些我们用理性来思索的事物。但对亚理斯多德而言,真实世界中最高层次的事物乃是那些我们用感官察觉的事物。柏拉图认为,我们在现实世界中看到的一切事物纯粹只是更高层次的概念世界(以及灵魂)中那些事物的影子。亚理斯多德的主张正好相反。他认为,人类灵魂中存在的事物纯粹只是自然事物的影子。因此自然就是真实的世界。根据亚理斯多德的说法,柏拉图是陷入了一个神话世界的图像中不可自拔,在这个世界中人类的想像与真实世界混淆不清。
   亚理斯多德指出,我们对于自己感官未曾经验过的事物就不可能有意识。柏拉图则会说:不先存在于理型世界中的事物就不可能出现在自然界中。亚理斯多德认为柏拉图如此的主张会使“事物的数目倍增”。他用“马的理型”来解释马,但那是怎样的一种解释呢?苏菲,我的问题在于:这个“马的理型”从何而来?世间会不会有另外一匹马,而马的理型只不过是模仿这匹马罢了?
   亚理斯多德认为,我们所拥有的每一种想法与意念都是透过我们看到、听到的事物而进入我们的意识。不过我们也具有与生俱来的理性,因此天生就能够组织所有的感官印象,并且将它们加以整理与分类,所以才会产生诸如“石头”、“植物”、“动物”与“人类”等概念。而“马”、“龙虾”、“金丝雀”这些概念也是以同样的方式形成的。
   亚理斯多德并不否认人天生就有理性。相反的,根据他的说法,具有理性正是人最大的特征。不过在我们的感官经验到各种事物之前,我们的理性是完全真空的。因此人并没有天生的“观念”。
   一件事物的形式乃是它的特征
  
   在批评柏拉图的理型论后,亚理斯多德认为实在界乃是由各种本身的形式与质料和谐一致的事物所组成的。“质料”是事物组成的材料,“形式”则是每一件事物的个别特征。
   苏菲,假设现在你眼前有一只鼓翅乱飞的鸡。这只鸡的“形式”正是它会鼓翅、会咕咕叫、会下蛋等。因此我们所谓的一只鸡的“形式”就是指鸡这种动物的特征,也可以说是鸡的各种行为。当这只鸡死时(当它不再咕咕叫时),它的“形式”也不再存在。唯一剩下的就是鸡的“物质”(说起来很悲哀),但这时它已经不再是鸡了。
   就像我先前所说的,亚理斯多德对于自然界的变化很感兴趣。
   “质料”总是可能实现成某一特定的“形式”。我们可以说“质料”总是致力于实现一种内在的可能性。亚理斯多德认为自然界的每一种变化,都是物质从“潜能”转变为“实现”的结果。
   这点显然我必须加以解释,我将试着用一个小故事来说明。有一位雕刻家正在雕凿一块大花岗石。他每天一斧一斧的雕凿着这块没有形状的岩石。有一天,一个小男孩走过来问他:“你在找寻什么?”雕刻家答道:“你等着瞧吧!”几天后小男孩又回来了,看到雕刻家已经将花岗岩雕成了一匹骏马。小男孩惊异的注视着这只马,
   然后转向雕刻家问道:“你怎么知道马在里面呢?”
   的确,就某一方面来说,雕刻家确实在那块花岗岩里看到了马的形式,因为这块花岗岩具有变成一匹马的潜能。同样的,亚理斯多德相信自然界的每一件事物都可能实现或达成某一个特定的形式”。
   让我们回到鸡与蛋的问题。鸡蛋有成为一只鸡的潜能,这并不表示每一个鸡蛋都会变成鸡,因为许多鸡蛋到头来会变成人们早餐桌上的煎蛋、蛋卷或炒蛋等佳肴,因而未能实现它们的潜能。同理,鸡蛋显然不能变成一只鹅,因为鸡蛋没有这样的潜能。因此,一件事物的“形式”不但说明了这件事物的潜能,也说明了它的极限。
   当亚理斯多德谈到事物的“质料”与“形式”时,他所指的不仅是生物而已。正如鸡的“形式”就是会咕咕叫、会鼓翅、会下蛋,石头的形式就是会掉在地上。正如鸡无法不咕咕叫一般,石头也无法不掉在地上。当然你可以捡起一块石头,把它丢向空中,但由于石头的天性就是要掉在地上,因此你无法把它丢向月亮。(你做这个实验的时候可要小心,因为石头可能会报复,并且由最短的一条路径回到地球上。希望上帝保佑那些站在它的路径上的人!)
   目的因
  
   在我们结束“所有生物、无生物的‘形式’都说明他们可能采取的‘行动’”这个话题前,我必须声明亚理斯多德对自然界的因果律的看法实在很高明。
   今天当我们谈到一件事物的“原因”时,我们指的是这件事物为何会发生。窗子之所以被砸破是因为彼德丢了一块石头穿过它;
   鞋子之所以被制造出来,是因为鞋匠把几块皮革缝在一起。不过亚理斯多德认为自然界有各种不同的原因。他一共举出了四种原因。
   我们必须了解他所谓的“目的因”是什么意思。
   在窗予被砸破后,问问彼德为何要丢石头是一件很合理的事。
   我们所问的就是他的目的。在这里,目的无疑扮演了一个重要的角色。在制鞋的例子中也是如此。同样的,亚理斯多德认为自然界种种循环变迁中也可能有类似的“目的”存在。我们用一个简单的例子来说明好了:
   苏菲,你认为天为什么会下雨?不用说,你曾在学校里念过天之所以下雨,是因为云层中的湿气冷却凝结后变成雨滴,然后受重力的吸引,降落在地上。对这个说法,亚理斯多德应该会点头同意。
   但是,他也会补充说你只提到其中的三种肇囚。“质料因”是在空气冷却时湿气(云层)正好在那儿。“主动因”是湿气冷却,“形式因”则是水的“形式”(或天性)就是会降落地面。不过假如你只提到这三者,亚理斯多德会补充说,天空下雨的原因是因为植物和动物需要雨水才能生长,这就是他所谓的“目的因”。因此,你可以看出来,亚理斯多德赋予雨滴一个任务或“目的”。
   我们也许可以反过来说,植物之所以生长是因为它们有了湿气,你应该可以看出这两种说法之间的不同,是不是?亚理斯多德相信自然界的每一件事物都有其目的。天空下雨是因为要让植物生长,柳橙和葡萄之所以生长是为了供人们食用。
   这并不是现代科学思维的本质。我们说食物、雨水是人类与动物维生的必要条件。如果没有这些条件,我们就无法生存。不过,水或柳橙存在的目的并不是为了供人类食用。
   因此,就因果律的问题而言,我们往往会认为亚理斯多德的想法是错误的。但我们且勿遽下定论。许多人相信上帝创造这个世界,是为了让它所有的子民都可以生活于其间。从这种说法来看,我们自然可以宣称河流里面之所以有水是因为动物与人类需要水才能生存。不过,话说回来,这是上帝的目的。雨滴和河水本身对我们人类的福祉可是一点也不感兴趣。
   逻辑
   亚理斯多德说明人类如何区别世间事物时,强调了“形式”与“质料”的差别。
   我们区别事物的方法是将事物分门别类。例如,我先看到一匹马,然后又看到另外两匹。这些马并非完全相同,但也有一些相似之处。这些相似之处就是马的“形式”。至于每匹马与其他马不同
   之处就是它的“质料”。
   就这样,我们把每一件事物都加以分类。我们把牛放在牛棚里,把马放在马厩里,把猪赶进猪圈里,把鸡关在鸡舍里。你在清理房间时,一定也是这样做的。你会把书放在书架上,把书本放在书包里,把杂志放在抽屉里。然后再把衣服折得整整齐齐的,放在衣橱里:内衣放一格、毛衣放一格、袜子则单独放在抽屉里。注意,我们心里也是做着类似的工作,我们把事物分成石头做的、羊毛做的或橡胶做的;我们也把事物分成活的、死的、植物、动物或人类。
   你明白了吗?苏菲。亚里斯多德想把大自然“房间”内的东西都彻底地分门别类。他试图显示自然界里的每一件事物都各自有其所属的类目或次类目。(例如,我们可以说汉密士是一个生物,但更严格地说,它是一只动物,再严格一点说,它是一只脊椎动物,更进一步说,它是一只哺乳类动物,再进一步说,它是一只狗,更精确地说,它是一只猎狗,更完整地说,它是一只雄猎狗。)
   苏菲,假设你进入房间,从地上捡起某样东西。无论你捡的是什么,你会发现它属于一个更高的类目。如果有一天你看到了一样你很难分类的东西,你一定会大吃一惊。举例来说,如果你发现了一个小小的、不知道是啥玩意的东西,你不确定它是动物、植物还是矿物,我想你大概不敢碰它吧!
   说到动物、植物与矿物,让我想到一个大伙聚会时常玩的游戏:当“鬼”的人必须要离开房间,当他再回来时,必须猜出大家心里面在想什么东西。在此之前,大家已经商量好要想的东西是那只正在隔壁花园里玩耍的猫咪“毛毛”。当“鬼”的人回到房间后就开始猜。其他人必须答“是”或“不是”。如果这个“鬼”受过良好的亚理斯多德式训练的话,这个游戏的情形很可能会像下面描述的一样:
   是具体的东西吗?(是门是矿物吗?(不是!)是活的吗?(是!)是植物吗?(不是!)是动物吗?(是!)是鸟吗?(不是!)是哺乳类动物吗?(是!)是一整只动物吗?(是!)是猫吗?(是!)是“毛毛”吗?(猜对了!大伙笑……)
   如此看来,发明这个游戏的人应该是亚理斯多德,而捉迷藏的游戏则应该是柏拉图发明的。至于堆积木的游戏,我们早已经知道是德谟克里特斯发明的。
   亚理斯多德是一位严谨的逻辑学家。他致力于澄清我们的概念。因此,是他创立了逻辑学这门学科。他以实例显示我们在得出合乎逻辑的结论或证明时,必须遵循若干法则。
   我们只单一个例子就够了。如果我先肯定“所有的生物都会死”(第一前提),然后再肯定“汉密士是生物”(第二前提),则我可以从容地得出一个结论:“汉密士会死”。
   这个例子显示亚理斯多德的推理是建立在名词之间的相互关系上。在这个例子中,这两个名词分别是“生物”与“会死”。虽然我们不得不承认这两个结论都是百分之百正确,但我们可能会说:这些都是我们已经知道的事情呀。我们已经知道汉密士“会死”。(他是一只“狗”,而所有的狗都是“生物”,而所有的生物都“会死”,不像圣母峰的岩石一样。)不用说,这些我们都知道,但是,苏菲,各种事物之间的关系并非都是如此明显。因此我们可能需要不时澄清我们的概念。
   我举一个例子就好了:一丁点大的小老鼠真的可能像小羊或不猪一样吸奶吗?对于小老鼠来说,吸奶当然是一件很吃力的工作。但我们要记得:老鼠一定不会下蛋。(我们什么时候见过老鼠蛋?)因此,它们所生的是小老鼠,就像猪生小猪,羊生小羊一般。同时,我们将那些会生小动物的动物称为哺乳动物,而哺乳动物也就是那些吃母奶的动物。因此,答案很明显了。我们心中原来就有答案,但必须要想清楚,答案才会出来。我们会一下子忘记了老鼠真是吃奶长大的。这也许是因为我们从未见过老鼠喂奶的缘故。理由很简单:老鼠喂奶时很怕见人。
  
   自然的层级
  
   当亚理斯多德将人类的生活做一番整理时,他首先指出:自然界的万事万物都可以被分成两大类。一类是石头、水滴或土壤等无生物,这些无生物没有改变的潜能。亚理斯多德认为无生物只能透过外力改变。另外一类则是生物,而生物则有潜能改变。
   亚理斯多德同时又把生物分成两类:一类是植物,一类是动物。而这些“动物”又可以分成两类,包括禽兽与人类。
   我们不得不承认亚理斯多德的分类相当清楚而简单。生物与无生物(例如玫瑰与石头)确实截然不同。而植物与动物(如玫瑰与马儿)之间也有很大的不同。我们也会说,马儿与人类之间确实是不相同的。但这些差异究竟何在呢?你能告诉我吗?
   很遗憾我没有时间等你把答案写下来,和一块糖一起放在一个粉红色的信封内。所以我就直接告诉你答案好了。当亚理斯多德把自然现象分成几类时,他是以对象的特征为标准。说得详细一些,所谓标准就是这个东西能做什么或做些什么。
   所有的生物(植物、动物与人类)都有能力吸收养分以生长、繁殖。所有的动物(禽兽与人类)则还有感知周遭环境以及到处移动
   的能力。至于人类则更进一步有思考(或将他们感知的事物分门别类)的能力。
   因此,实际上自然界各类事物中并没有清楚分明的界线。我们看到的事物从简举的生物到较为复杂的植物,从简单的动物到较为复杂的动物都有。在这些层级之上的就是人类。亚理斯多德认为人类乃是万物中最完全的生命。人能够像植物一般生长并吸收养分,也能够像动物一般有感觉并能移动。除此之外,人还有一个与众不同的特质,就是理性思考的能力。
   因此,苏菲,人具有一些神的理性。没错,我说的是“神”的理性。亚理斯多德不时提醒我们,宇宙间必然有一位上帝推动自然界
   所有的运作,因此上帝必然位于大自然层级的最顶端。
   亚理斯多德猜想地球上所有的活动乃是受到各星球运转的影响。不过,这些星球必定是受到某种力量的操控才能运转。亚理斯多德称这个力量为“最初的推动者”或“上帝”。这位“最初的推动者”本身是不动的,但他却是宇宙各星球乃至自然界各种活动的“目的因”。
   伦理学
  
   让我们回到人类这个主题。根据亚理斯多德的看法,人的“形式”是由一个“植物”灵魂、一个“动物”灵魂与一个“理性”灵魂所组成。同时他问道:“我们应该如何生活?…‘人需要什么才能过良好的生活?”我可以用一句话来回答:“人唯有运用他所有的能力与才干,才能获得幸福。”
   亚理斯多德认为,快乐有三种形式。一种是过着享乐的生活, 一种是做一个自由而负责的公民,另一种则是做一个思想家与哲学家。
   接着,他强调,人要同时达到这三个标准才能找到幸福与满足。他认为任何一种形式的不平衡都是令人无法接受的。他如果生在现今这个时代,也许会说:一个只注重锻炼身体的人所过的生活就像那些只动脑不动手的人一样不平衡。无论偏向哪一个极端,生活方式都会受到扭曲。
   同理也适用于人际关系。亚理斯多德提倡所谓的“黄金中庸”。
   也就是说:人既不能懦弱,也不能太过鲁莽,而要勇敢(不够勇敢就是懦弱,太过勇敢就变成鲁莽);既不能吝啬也不能挥霍,而要慷慨(不够慷慨即是吝啬,太过慷慨则是挥霍)。在饮食方面也是如此。
   吃得太少或吃得太多都不好。柏拉图与亚理斯多德两人关于伦理道德的规范使人想起希腊医学的主张:唯有平衡、节制,人才能过着快乐和谐的生活。
   政治学
   亚理斯多德谈到他对社会的看法时,也主张人不应该走极端。
   他说人天生就是“政治动物”。他宣称人如果不生存在社会中,就不算是真正的人。他指出,家庭与社区满足我们对食物、温暖、婚姻与生育的基本需求。但人类休戚与共的精神只有在国家中才能表现得淋漓尽致。
   这就使我们想到一个国家应该如何组织起来的问题。(你还记得柏拉图的“哲学国度”吗?)亚理斯多德描述了三种良好的政治制度。
   一种是君主制,就是一个国家只有一位元首。但这种制度如果要成功,统治者就不能致力于谋求私利,以免沦为“专制政治”。另一种良好的制度是“贵族政治”,就是国家由一群人来统治。这种制度要小心不要沦于“寡头政治”(或我们今天所称的“执政团”式的政治制度)。第三种制度则是亚理斯多德所称的Polity,也就是民主政治的意思。但这种制度也有不好的一面,因为它很容易变成暴民政治。(当年即使专制的希特勒没有成为德国元首,他乎下那些纳粹分子可能也会造成可怕的暴民政治。)
  
   对女人的看法
  
   最后,让我们来看看亚理斯多德对女性的看法。很遗憾的,他在这方面的观点并不像柏拉图那般崇高。亚理斯多德似乎倾向于认为女性在某些方面并不完整。在他眼中,女性是“未完成的男人”在生育方面,女性是被动的,只能接受,而男性则是主动且多产的。亚理斯多德宣称小孩只继承男性的特质。他相信男性的精子中具有小孩所需的全部特质,女性只是土壤而已,她们接受并孕育种子,但男性则是“播种者”。或者,用亚理斯多德的话来说,男人提供“形式”,而女人则仅贡献“质料”。
   像亚理斯多德这样有智慧的男人居然对两性关系有如此谬误的见解,的确令人震惊而且遗憾。但这说明了两件事:第一,亚理斯多德对妇女与儿童的生活大概没有多少实际的经验。第二,这个例子显示如果我们任由男人主宰哲学与科学的领域的话,可能发生
   何等的错误。
   亚理斯多德对于两性错误的见解带来很大的负面作用,因为整个中世纪时期受到他(而不是柏拉图)的看法的影响。教会也因此继承了一种歧视女性的观点,而事实上,这种观点在圣经上是毫无根据的。耶稣基督当然不是一个仇视妇女的人。
   今天就到此为止吧。我会再和你联络的。
   苏菲把信又读了一遍,读到一半时,她把信纸放回棕色的信封内,仍然坐着发呆。
   她突然察觉到房间内是如何凌乱:地板上到处放着书本与讲义夹,袜子、毛衣、衬衣与牛仔裤有
   一半露在衣橱外,书桌前的椅子上放着一大堆待洗的脏衣服。
   她突然有一股无法抗拒的冲动,想要把房间清理一下。首先她把所有的衣服都拉出衣橱,丢在地板上,因为她觉得有必要从头做起。然后她开始把东西折得整整齐齐的,叠在架子上。衣橱共有七格,一格放内衣,一格放袜子与衬衣,一格放牛仔裤。她轮流把每 一格放满。她从不曾怀疑过什么东西应该放哪里。脏衣服总是放在最底下一格的一个塑胶袋内。但是现在有一样东西她不知道该放哪里,那就是一只白色的及膝的袜子。因为,另外一只不见了。何况,苏菲从来没有过这样的袜子。
   苏菲仔细地看着这只袜子,看了一两分钟。袜子上并没有任何标记,但苏菲非常怀疑它的主人究竟是谁。她把它丢到最上面一格,和积木、录影带与丝巾放在一起。
   现在,苏菲开始把注意力放在地板上。她把书本、讲义夹、杂志与海报加以分类,就像她的哲学老师在讲到亚理斯多德时形容的一般。完成后,她开始铺床并整理书桌。
   最后,她把所有关于亚理斯多德的信纸叠好,并找出一个没有用的讲义夹和一个打孔机,在每一张信纸上打几个洞,然后夹进讲义夹中,并且把这个讲义夹放在衣橱最上一格,白袜子的旁边。她决定今天要把饼干盒从密洞中拿出来。
   从今以后,她将把一切收拾得井然有序。她指的可不止是房间而已。在读了亚理斯多德的学说后,她领悟到她应该把自己的思想也整理得有条不紊。她已经将衣橱的最上面一格留作这样的用途。
   这是房间内唯一一个她还没有办法完全掌握的地方。
   妈妈已经有两个多小时没有动静了。苏菲走下楼。在把妈妈叫醒之前,她决定先喂她的宠物。
   她躬身在厨房里的金鱼缸前看着。三条鱼中,有一条是黑色的,一条是橘色的,另一条则红、白相间。这是为什么她管它们叫黑水手、金冠与小红帽的缘故。
   当她把鱼饲料撒进水中时,她说:“你们属于大自然中的生物。
   你们可以吸收养分、可以生长并且繁殖下一代。更精确地说,你们属于动物王国,因此你们可以移动并且看着外面的这个世界。再说得精确些,你们是鱼,用鳃呼吸,并且可以在生命的水域中游来游去。”
   苏菲把饲料罐的盖子合上。她很满意自己把金鱼放在大自然的层级中的方式,更满意自己所想出来的“生命的水域”这样的词句。现在,该喂那些鹦哥了。
   苏菲倒了一点鸟食在鸟杯中,并且说:“亲爱的史密特和史穆尔,你们之所以成为鹦哥是因为你们从小鹦哥的蛋里生出来,也是因为那些蛋具有成为鹦哥的形式。你们运气不错,没有变成叫声很难听的鹦鹉。”
   然后,苏菲进入那间大浴室。她的乌龟正在里面一个大盒子里缓缓爬动。以前妈妈不时在洗澡时大声嚷嚷说,总有一天她要把那只乌龟弄死。不过,到目前为让,她并没有这样做。苏菲从一个大果酱罐子里拿了一片莴苣叶,放在盒子里。
   “亲爱的葛文达,”她说,“你并不是世间跑得最快的动物之一,但是你当然能够感觉到一小部分我们所生活的这个伟大世界。你应该知足了,因为你并不是唯一无法超越自己限制的生物。”
   雪儿也许正在外面抓老鼠,毕竟这是猫的天性。苏菲穿过客厅,走向妈妈的卧室。一瓶水仙花正放在茶几上,苏菲经过时,那些黄色的花朵仿佛正向她弯腰致敬。她在花旁停驻了一会儿,用手指轻轻抚摸着那光滑的花瓣。
   她说:“你们也是属于大自然的生物。事实上,比起装着你们的花瓶来说,你们是非常幸福的。不过很可惜的是你们无法了解这点。”
   然后苏菲蹑手蹑脚地进入妈妈的房间。虽然妈妈正在熟睡,但苏菲仍用一只手放在她的额头上。
   “你是最幸运的一个。”她说,“因为你不像原野里的百合花一样,只是活着而已,也不像雪儿或葛文达一样,只是一种生物。你是人类,因此具有难能可贵的思考能力。”
   “苏菲,你到底在说什么?”妈妈比平常醒得更快。
   “我只是说你看起来像一只懒洋洋的乌龟。还有,我要告诉你,我已经用哲学家般严谨的方法把房间收拾干净了。”
   妈妈抬起头。
   “我就来。”她说,“请你把咖啡拿出来好吗?”
   苏菲遵照妈妈的嘱咐。很快地,她们已经坐在厨房里,喝着咖啡、果汁和巧克力。
   突然间,苏菲问道;“妈,你有没有想过为什么我们会活着?”
   “天哪!你又来了!”
   “因为我现在知道答案了。人活在这个星球上是为了替每东西取名字。”
   “是吗?我倒没有这样想过。”
   “那你的问题可大了,因为人是会思考的动物。如果你不思考,就不算是人。”
   “苏菲!”
   “你有没有想过,如果世间只有植物和动物,就没有人可以区分猫和狗、百合与鹅莓之间的不同。植物和动物虽然也活着,但我们是唯一可以将大自然加以分类的生物。”
   “我怎么会生出像你这样古怪的女儿?”妈妈说。
   “我倒希望自己古怪一点。”苏菲说。“每一个人或多或少都有些古怪。我是个人,因此或多或少总有些古怪。你只有一个女儿,因此我可以算是最古怪的。”
   “我的意思是你刚才讲的那些话可把我吓坏了。”
   “那你真是太容易受到惊吓了。”
   那天下午,苏菲回到密洞。她设法偷偷地将大饼干盒运回楼上的房间,妈妈一点也没有发现。
   回到房间后,她首先将所有的信纸按次序排列。然后她把每一张信纸打洞,并放在讲义夹内亚理斯多德那一章之前。最后她在每一页的右上角写上页序。总共有五十多页。她要自己编纂一本有关哲学的书。虽然不是她写的,却是专门为她写的。
   她没有时间写星期一的功课了。明天宗教知识这门课或许会考试,不过老师常说他比较重视学生用功的程度和价值判断。苏菲觉得自己在这两方面都开始有一些基础了。





暮辞朝

ZxID:15103679


等级: 内阁元老
配偶: 清风雅乐
这一段开心的日子请你勿忘
举报 只看该作者 12楼  发表于: 2013-10-26 0
英文原文
Hellenism
... a spark from the fire
Although the philosophy teacher had begun sending his letters directly to the old hedge, Sophie nevertheless looked in the mailbox on Monday morning, more out of habit than anything else.
It was empty, not surprisingly. She began to walk down Clover Close.
Suddenly she noticed a photograph lying on the sidewalk. It was a picture of a white jeep and a blue flag with the letters UN on it. Wasn't that the United Nations flag?
Sophie turned the picture over and saw that it was a regular postcard. To "Hilde Moller Knag, c/o Sophie Amundsen ..." It had a Norwegian stamp and was postmarked "UN Battalion" Friday June 15, 1990.
June 15! That was Sofie's birthday!
The card read:
Dear Hilde, I assume you are still celebrating your 15th birthday. Or is this the morning after? Anyway, it makes no difference to your present. In a sense, that will last a lifetime. But I'd like to wish you a happy birthday one more time. Perhaps you understand now why I send the cards to Sophie. I am sure she will pass them on to you.
P.S. Mom said you had lost your wallet. I hereby promise to reimburse you the 150 crowns. You will probably be able to get another school I.D. before they close for the summer vacation. Love from Dad.
Sophie stood glued to the spot. When was the previous card postmarked? She seemed to recall that the postcard of the beach was also postmarked June--even though it was a whole month off. She simply hadn't looked properly.
She glanced at her watch and then ran back to the house. She would just have to be late for school today!
Sophie let herself in and leaped upstairs to her room. She found the first postcard to Hilde under the red silk scarf. Yes! It was also postmarked June 15! Sophie's birthday and the day before the summer vacation.
Her mind was racing as she ran over to the supermarket to meet Joanna.
Who was Hilde? How could her father as good as take it for granted that Sophie would find her? In any case, it was senseless of him to send Sophie the cards instead of sending them directly to his daughter. It could not possibly be because he didn't know his own daughter's address. Was it a practical joke? Was he trying to surprise his daughter on her birthday by getting a perfect stranger to play detective and mailman? Was that why she was being given a month's headstart? And was using her as the go-between a way of giving his daughter a new girlfriend as a birthday present? Could she be the present that would "last a lifetime"?
If this joker really was in Lebanon, how had he gotten hold of Sophie's address? Also, Sophie and Hilde had at least two things in common. If Hilde's birthday was June 15, they were both born on the same day. And they both had fathers who were on the other side of the globe.
Sophie felt she was being drawn into an unnatural world. Maybe it was not so dumb after all to believe in fate. Still--she shouldn't be jumping to conclusions; it could all have a perfectly natural explanation. But how had Alberto Knox found Hilde's wallet when Hilde lived in Lillesand? Lillesand was hundreds of miles away. And why had Sophie found this postcard on her sidewalk? Did it fall out of the mailman's bag just as he got to Sophie's mailbox? If so, why should he drop this particular card?
"Are you completely insane?" Joanna burst out when Sophie finally made it to the supermarket.
"Sorry!"
Joanna frowned at her severely, like a schoolteacher.
"You'd better have a good explanation."
"It has to do with the UN," said Sophie. "I was detained by hostile troops in Lebanon."
"Sure ... You're just in love!"
They ran to school as fast as their legs could carry them.
The Religious Knowledge test that Sophie had not had time to prepare for was given out in the third period. The sheet read:
PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE AND TOLERANCE
1. Make a list of things we can know. Then make a list of things we can only believe.
2. Indicate some of the factors contributing to a person's philosophy of life.
3. What is meant by conscience? Do you think conscience is the same for everyone?
4. What is meant by priority of values?
Sophie sat thinking for a long time before she started to write. Could she use any of the ideas she had learned from Alberto Knox? She was going to have to, because she had not opened her Religious Knowledge book for days. Once she began to write, the words simply flowed from her pen.
She wrote that we know the moon is not made of green cheese and that there are also craters on the dark side of the moon, that both Socrates and Jesus were sentenced to death, that everybody has to die sooner or later, that the great temples on the Acropolis were built after the Persian wars in the fifth century B.C. and that the most important oracle in ancient Greece was the oracle at Delphi. As examples of what we can only believe, Sophie mentioned the questions of whether or not there is life on other planets, whether God exists or not, whether there is life after death, and whether Jesus was the son of God or merely a wise man. "We can certainly not know where the world came from," she wrote, completing her list. "The universe can be compared to a large rabbit pulled out of a top hat. Philosophers try to climb up one of the fine hairs of the rabbit's fur and stare straight into the eyes of the Great Magician. Whether they will ever succeed is an open question. But if each philosopher climbed onto another one's back, they would get even higher up in the rabbit's fur, and then, in my opinion, there would be some chance they would make it some day. P.S. In the Bible there is something that could have been one of the fine hairs of the rabbit's fur. The hair was called the Tower of Babel, and it was destroyed because the Magician didn't want the tiny human insects to crawl up that high out of the white rabbit he had just created."
Then there was the next question: "Indicate some of the factors contributing to a person's philosophy of life." Upbringing and environment were important here. People living at the time of Plato had a different philosophy of life than many people have today because they lived in a different age and a different environment. Another factor was the kind of experience people chose to get themselves. Common sense was not determined by environment. Everybody had that. Maybe one could compare environment and social situation with the conditions that existed deep down in Plato's cave. By using their intelligence individuals can start to drag themselves up from the darkness. But a journey like that requires personal courage. Socrates is a good example of a person who managed to free himself from the prevailing views of his time by his own intelligence. Finally, she wrote: "Nowadays, people of many lands and cultures are being intermingled more and more. Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists may live in the same apartment building. In which case it is more important to accept each other's beliefs than to ask why everyone does not believe the same thing."
Not bad, thought Sophie. She certainly felt she had covered some ground with what she had learned from her philosophy teacher. And she could always supplement it with a dash of her own common sense and what she might have read and heard elsewhere.
She applied herself to the third question: "What is meant by conscience? Do you think conscience is the same for everyone?" This was something they had discussed a lot in class. Sophie wrote: Conscience is people's ability to respond to right and wrong. My personal opinion is that everyone is endowed with this ability, so in other words, conscience is innate. Socrates would have said the same. But just what conscience dictates can vary a lot from one person to the next. One could say that the Sophists had a point here. They thought that right and wrong is something mainly determined by the environment the individual grows up in. Socrates, on the other hand, believed that conscience is the same for everyone. Perhaps both views were right. Even if everybody doesn't feel guilty about showing themselves naked, most people will have a bad conscience if they are really mean to someone. Still, it must be remembered that having a conscience is not the same as using it. Sometimes it looks as if people act quite unscrupulously, but I believe they also have a kind of conscience somewhere, deep down. Just as it seems as if some people have no sense at all, but that's only because they are not using it. P.S. Common sense and conscience can both be compared to a muscle. If you don't use a muscle, it gets weaker and weaker."
Now there was only one question left: "What is meant by priority of values?" This was another thing they had discussed a lot lately. For example, it could be of value to drive a car and get quickly from one place to another. But if driving led to deforestation and polluting the natural environment, you were facing a choice of values. After careful consideration Sophie felt she had come to the conclusion that healthy forests and a pure environment were more valuable than getting to work quickly. She gave several more examples. Finally she wrote: "Personally, I think Philosophy is a more important subject than English Grammar. It would therefore be a sensible priority of values to have Philosophy on the timetable and cut down a bit on English lessons."
In the last break the teacher drew Sophie aside.
"I have already read your Religion test," he said. "It was near the top of the pile."
"I hope it gave you some food for thought."
"That was exactly what I wanted to talk to you about. It was in many ways very mature. Surprisingly so. And self-reliant. But had you done your homework, Sophie?"
Sophie fidgeted a little.
"Well, you did say it was important to have a personal point of view."
"Well, yes I did ... but there are limits."
Sophie looked him straight in the eye. She felt she could permit herself this after all she had experienced lately.
"I have started studying philosophy," she said. "It gives one a good background for personal opinions."
"But it doesn't make it easy for me to grade your paper. It will either be a D or an A."
"Because I was either quite right or quite wrong? Is that what you're saying?"
"So let's say A," said the teacher. "But next time, do your homework!"
When Sophie got home from school that afternoon, she flung her schoolbag on the steps and ran down to the den. A brown envelope lay on top of the gnarled roots. It was quite dry around the edges, so it must have been a long time since Hermes had dropped it.
She took the envelope with her and let herself in the front door. She fed the animals and then went upstairs to her room. Lying on her bed, she opened Alberto's letter and read:
HELLENISM
Here we are again, Sophie! Having read about the natural philosophers and Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, you are now familiar with the foundations of European philosophy. So from now on we will drop the introductory questions which you earlier received in white envelopes. I imagine you probably have plenty of other assignments and tests at school.
I shall now tell you about the long period from Aristotle near the end of the fourth century B.C. right up to the early Middle Ages around A.D. 400. Notice that we can now write both B.C. and A.D. because Christianity was in fact one of the most important, and the most mysterious, factors of the period.
Aristotle died in the year 322 B.C., at the time when Athens had lost its dominant role. This was not least due to the political upheavals resulting from the conquests of Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.).
Alexander the Great was the King of Macedonia. Aristotle was also from Macedonia, and for a time he was even the young Alexander's tutor. It was Alexander who won the final, decisive victory over the Persians. And moreover, Sophie, with his many conquests he linked both Egypt and the Orient as far east as India to the Greek civilization.
This marked the beginning of a new epoch in the history of mankind. A civilization sprang up in which Greek culture and the Greek language played a leading role. This period, which lasted for about 300 years, is known as Hellenism. The term Hellenism refers to both the period of time and the Greek-dominated culture that prevailed in the three Hellenistic kingdoms of Macedonia, Syria, and Egypt.
However, from about the year 50 B.C., Rome secured the upper hand in military and political affairs. The new superpower gradually conquered all the Hellenistic kingdoms, and from then on Roman culture and the Latin language were predominant from Spain in the west to far into Asia. This was the beginning of the Roman period, which we often refer to as Late Antiquity. But remember one thing--before the Romans managed to conquer the Hellenistic world, Rome itself was a province of Greek culture. So Greek culture and Greek philosophy came to play an important role long after the political influence of the Greeks was a thing of the past.
Religion, Philosophy and ScienceHellenism was characterized by the fact that the borders between the various countries and cultures became erased. Previously the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Syrians, and the Persians had worshipped their own gods within what we generally call a "national religion." Now the different cultures merged into one great witch's caldron of religious, philosophical, -and scientific ideas.
We could perhaps say that the town square was replaced by the world arena. The old town square had also buzzed with voices, bringing now different wares to market, now different thoughts and ideas. The new aspect was that town squares were being filled with wares and ideas from all over the world. The voices were buzzing in many different languages.
We have already mentioned that the Greek view of life was now much more widespread than it had been in the former Greek cultural areas. But as time went on, Oriental gods were also worshipped in all the Mediterranean countries. New religious formations arose that could draw on the gods and the beliefs of many of the old nations. This is called syncretism or the fusion of creeds.
Prior to this, people had felt a strong affinity with their own folk and their own city-state. But as the borders and boundaries became erased, many people began to experience doubt and uncertainty about their philosophy of life. Late Antiquity was generally characterized by religious doubts, cultural dissolution, and pessimism. It was said that "the world has grown old."
A common feature of the new religious formations during the Hellenistic period was that they frequently contained teachings about how mankind could attain salvation from death. These teachings were often secret. By accepting the teachings and performing certain rituals, a believer could hope for the immortality of the soul and eternal life. A certain insight into the true nature of the universe could be just as important for the salvation of the soul as religious rituals.
So much for the new religions, Sophie. But philosophy was also moving increasingly in the direction of "salvation" and serenity. Philosophic insight, it was now thought, did not only have its own reward; it should also free mankind from pessimism and the fear of death. Thus the boundaries between religion and philosophy were gradually eliminated.
In general, the philosophy of Hellenism was not star-tlingly original. No new Plato or Aristotle appeared on the scene. On the contrary, the three great Athenian philosophers were a source of inspiration to a number of philosophic trends which I shall briefly describe in a moment.
Hellenistic science, too, was influenced by a blend of knowledge from the various cultures. The town of Alexandria played a key role here as a meeting place between East and West. While Athens remained the center of philosophy with still functioning schools of philosophy after Plato and Aristotle, Alexandria became the center for science. With its extensive library, it became the center for mathematics, astronomy, biology, and medicine.
Hellenistic culture could well be compared to the world of today. The twentieth century has also been influenced by an increasingly open civilization. In our own time, too, this opening out has resulted in tremendous upheavals for religion and philosophy. And just as in Rome around the beginning of the Christian era one could come across Greek, Egyptian, and Oriental religions, today, as we approach the end of the twentieth century, we can find in all European cities of any size religions from all parts of the world.
We also see nowadays how a conglomeration of old and new religions, philosophies, and sciences can form the basis of new offers on the "view-of-life" market. Much of this "new knowledge" is actually the flotsam of old thought, some of whose roots go back to Hellenism.
As I have said, Hellenistic philosophy continued to work with the problems raised by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Common to them all was their desire to discover how mankind should best live and die. They were concerned with ethics. In the new civilization, this became the central philosophical project. The main emphasis was on finding out what true happiness was and how it could be achieved. We are going to look at four of these philosophical trends.
The Cynics
The story goes that one day Socrates stood gazing at a stall that sold all kinds of wares. Finally he said, "What a lot of things I don't need!"
This statement could be the motto for the Cynic school of philosophy, founded by Antisthenes in Athens around 400 B.C.
Antisthenes had been a pupil of Socrates, and had become particularly interested in his frugality.
The Cynics emphasized that true happiness is not found in external advantages such as material luxury, political power, or good health. True happiness lies in not being dependent on such random and fleeting things. And because happiness does not consist in benefits of this kind, it is within everyone's reach. Moreover, having once been attained, it can never be lost.
The best known of the Cynics was Diogenes, a pupil of Antisthenes, who reputedly lived in a barrel and owned nothing but a cloak, a stick, and a bread bag. (So it wasn't easy to steal his happiness from him!) One day while he was sitting beside his barrel enjoying the sun, he was visited by Alexander the Great. The emperor stood before him and asked if there was anything he could do for him. Was there anything he desired? "Yes," Diogenes replied. "Stand to one side. You're blocking the sun." Thus Diogenes showed that he was no less happy and rich than the great man before him. He had everything he desired.
The Cynics believed that people did not need to be concerned about their own health. Even suffering and death should not disturb them. Nor should they let them-selves be tormented by concern for other people's woes. Nowadays the terms "cynical" and "cynicism" have come to mean a sneering disbelief in human sincerity, and they imply insensitivity to other people's suffering.
The Stoics
The Cynics were instrumental in the development of the Stoic school of philosophy, which grew up in Athens around 300 B.C. Its founder was Zeno, who came originally from Cyprus and joined the Cynics in Athens after being shipwrecked. He used to gather his followers under a portico. The name "Stoic" comes from the Greek word for portico (stoo). Stoicism was later to have great significance for Roman culture.
Like Heraclitus, the Stoics believed that everyone was a part of the same common sense--or "logos." They thought that each person was like a world in miniature, or "microcosmos," which is a reflection of the "macro-cosmos."
This led to the thought that there exists a universal right-ness, the so-called natural law. And because this natural law was based on timeless human and universal reason, it did not alter with time and place. In this, then, the Stoics sided with Socrates against the Sophists.
Natural law governed all mankind, even slaves. The Stoics considered the legal statutes of the various states merely as incomplete imitations of the "law" embedded in nature itself.
In the same way that the Stoics erased the difference between the individual and the universe, they also denied any conflict between "spirit" and "matter." There is only one nature, they averred. This kind of idea is called monism (in contrast to Plato's clear dualism or two-fold reality).
As true children of their time, the Stoics were distinctly "cosmopolitan," in that they were more receptive to contemporary culture than the "barrel philosophers" (the Cynics). They drew attention to human fellowship, they were preoccupied with politics, and many of them, notably the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 121-180), were active statesmen. They encouraged Greek culture and philosophy in Rome, one of the most distinguished of them being the orator, philosopher, and statesman Cicero (106-43 B.C.). It was he who formed the very concept of "humanism"--that is, a view of life that has the individual as its central focus. Some years later, the Stoic Seneca (4 B.C.-A.D. 65) said that "to mankind, mankind is holy." This has remained a slogan for humanism ever since.
The Stoics, moreover, emphasized that all natural processes, such as sickness and death, follow the unbreakable laws of nature. Man must therefore learn to accept his destiny. Nothing happens accidentally. Everything happens through necessity, so it is of little use to complain when fate comes knocking at the door. One must also accept the happy events of life unperturbed, they thought. In this we see their kinship with the Cynics, who claimed that all external events were unimportant. Even today we use the term "stoic calm" about someone who does not let his feelings take over.
The Epicureans
As we have seen, Socrates was concerned with finding out how man could live a good life. Both the Cynics and the Stoics interpreted his philosophy as meaning that man had to free himself from material luxuries. But Socrates also had a pupil named Aristippus. He believed that the aim of life was to attain the highest possible sensory enjoyment. "The highest good is pleasure," he said, "the greatest evil is pain." So he wished to develop a way of life whose aim was to avoid pain in all forms. (The Cynics and the Stoics believed in enduring pain of all kinds, which is not the same as setting out to avoid pain.)
Around the year 300 B.C., Epicurus (341-270) founded a school of philosophy in Athens. His followers were called Epicureans. He developed the pleasure ethic of Aristippus and combined it with the atom theory of Democritus.
The story goes that the Epicureans lived in a garden. They were therefore known as the "garden philosophers." Above the entrance to this garden there is said to have hung a notice saying, "Stranger, here you will live well. Here pleasure is the highest good."
Epicurus emphasized that the pleasurable results of an action must always be weighed against its possible side effects. If you have ever binged on chocolate you know what I mean. If you haven't, try this exercise: Take all your saved-up pocket money and buy two hundred crowns' worth of chocolate. (We'll assume you like chocolate.) It is essential to this exercise that you eat it all at one time. About half an hour later, when all that delicious chocolate is eaten, you will understand what Epicurus meant by side effects.
Epicurus also believed that a pleasurable result in the short term must be weighed against the possibility of a greater, more lasting, or more intense pleasure in the long term. (Maybe you abstain from eating chocolate for a whole year because you prefer to save up all your pocket money and buy a new bike or go on an expensive vacation abroad.) Unlike animals, we are able to plan our lives. We have the ability to make a "pleasure calculation." Chocolate is good, but a new bike or a trip to England is better.
Epicurus emphasized, though, that "pleasure" does not necessarily mean sensual pleasure--like eating chocolate, for instance. Values such as friendship and the appreciation of art also count. Moreover, the enjoyment of life required the old Greek ideals of self-control, temperance, and serenity. Desire must be curbed, and serenity will help us to endure pain.
Fear of the gods brought many people to the garden of Epicurus. In this connection, the atom theory of Democritus was a useful cure for religious superstitions. In order to live a good life it is not unimportant to overcome the fear of death. To this end Epicurus made use of Democritus's theory of the "soul atoms." You may perhaps remember that Democritus believed there was no life after death because when we die, the "soul atoms" disperse in all directions.
"Death does not concern us," Epicurus said quite simply, "because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist." (When you think about it, no one has ever been bothered by being dead.)
Epicurus summed up his liberating philosophy with what he called the four medicinal herbs:
The gods are not to be feared. Death is nothing to worry about. Good is easy to attain. The fearful is easy to endure.
From a Greek point of view, there was nothing new in comparing philosophical projects with those of medical science. The intention was simply that man should equip himself with a "philosophic medicine chest" containing the four ingredients I mentioned.
In contrast to the Stoics, the Epicureans showed little or no interest in politics and the community. "Live in seclusion!" was the advice of Epicurus. We could per-haps compare his "garden" with our present-day communes. There are many people in our own time who have sought a "safe harbor"--away from society.
After Epicurus, many Epicureans developed an overemphasis on self-indulgence. Their motto was "Live for the moment!" The word "epicurean" is used in a negative sense nowadays to describe someone who lives only for pleasure.
Neoplatonism
As I showed you, Cynicism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism all had their roots in the teaching of Socrates. They also made use of certain of the pre-Socratics like Heraclitus and Democritus.
But the most remarkable philosophic trend in the late Hellenistic period was first and foremost inspired by Plato's philosophy. We therefore call it Neoplatonism.
The most important figure in Neoplatonism was Plotinus (c. 205-270), who studied philosophy in Alexandria but later settled in Rome. It is interesting to note that he came from Alexandria, the city that had been the central meeting point for Greek philosophy and Oriental mysticism for several centuries. Plotinus brought with him to Rome a doctrine of salvation that was to compete seriously with Christianity when its time came. However, Neoplatonism also became a strong influence in mainstream Christian theology as well.
Remember Plato's doctrine of ideas, Sophie, and the way he distinguished between the world of ideas and the sensory world. This meant establishing a clear division between the soul and the body. Man thus became a dual creature: our body consisted of earth and dust like everything else in the sensory world, but we also had an immortal soul. This was widely believed by many Greeks long before Plato. Plotinus was also familiar with similar ideas from Asia.
Plotinus believed that the world is a span between two poles. At one end is the divine light which he calls the One. Sometimes he calls it God. At the other end is absolute darkness, which receives none of the light from the One. But Plotinus's point is that this darkness actually has no existence. It is simply the absence of light--in other words, it is not. All that exists is God, or the One, but in the same way that a beam of light grows progressively dimmer and is gradually extinguished, there is somewhere a point that the divine glow cannot reach.
According to Plotinus, the soul is illuminated by the light from the One, while matter is the darkness that has no real existence. But the forms in nature have a faint glow of the One.
Imagine a great burning bonfire in the night from which sparks fly in all directions. A wide radius of light from the bonfire turns night into day in the immediate area; but the glow from the fire is visible even from a distance of several miles. If we went even further away, we would be able to see a tiny speck of light like a far-off lantern in the dark, and if we went on moving away, at some point the light would not reach us. Somewhere the rays of light disappear into the night, and when it is completely dark we see nothing. There are neither shapes nor shadows.
Imagine now that reality is a bonfire like this. That which is burning is God--and the darkness beyond is the cold matter that man and animals are made of. Closest to God are the eternal ideas which are the primal forms of all creatures. The human soul, above all, is a "spark from the fire." Yet everywhere in nature some of the divine light is shining. We can see it in all living creatures; even a rose or a bluebell has its divine glow. Furthest away from the living God are earth and water and stone.
I am saying that there is something of the divine mystery in everything that exists. We can see it sparkle in a sunflower or a poppy. We sense more of this unfathomable mystery in a butterfly that flutters from a twig--or in a goldfish swimming in a bowl. But we are closest to God in our own soul. Only there can we become one with the great mystery of life. In truth, at very rare moments we can experience that we ourselves are that divine mystery.
Plotinus's metaphor is rather like Plato's myth of the cave: the closer we get to the mouth of the cave, the closer we get to that which all existence springs from. But in contrast to Plato's clear two-fold reality, Plotinus's doctrine is characterized by an experience of wholeness. Everything is one--for everything is God. Even the shadows deep down in Plato's cave have a faint glow of the One.
On rare occasions in his life, Plotinus experienced a fusion of his soul with God. We usually call this a mystical experience. Plotinus is not alone in having had such experiences. People have told of them at all times and in all cultures. The details might be different, but the essential features are the same. Let us take a look at some of these features.
Mysticism
A mystical experience is an experience of merging with God or the "cosmic spirit." Many religions emphasize the gulf between God and Creation, but the mystic experiences no such gulf. He or she has experienced being "one with God" or "merging" with Him.
The idea is that what we usually call "I" is not the true "I." In short glimpses we can experience an identification with a greater "I." Some mystics call it God, others call it the cosmic spirit, Nature, or the Universe. When the fusion happens, the mystic feels that he is "losing himself"; he disappears into God or is lost in God in the same way that a drop of water loses itself when it merges with the sea. An Indian mystic once expressed it in this way: "When I was, God was not. When God is, I am no more." The Christian mystic Angelus Silesius (1624-1677) put it another way: Every drop becomes the sea when it flows oceanward, just as at last the soul ascends and thus becomes the Lord.
Now you might feel that it cannot be particularly pleasant to "lose oneself." I know what you mean. But the point is that what you lose is so very much less than what you gain. You lose yourself only in the form you have at the moment, but at the same time you realize that you are something much bigger. You are the universe. In fact, you are the cosmic spirit itself, Sophie. It is you who are God. If you have to lose yourself as Sophie Amundsen, you can take comfort in the knowledge that this "everyday I" is something you will lose one day anyway. Your real "I"-- which you can only experience if you are able to lose yourself--is, according to the mystics, like a mysterious fire that goes on burning to all eternity.
But a mystical experience like this does not always come of itself. The mystic may have to seek the path of "purification and enlightenment" to his meeting with God. This path consists of the simple life and various meditation techniques. Then all at once the mystic achieves his goal, and can exclaim, "I am God" or "I am You."
Mystical trends are found in all the great world religions. And the descriptions of mystical experiences given by the mystics show a remarkable similarity across all cultural boundaries. It is in the mystic's attempt to provide a religious or philosophic interpretation of the mystical experience that his cultural background reveals itself.
In Western mysticism--that is, within Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--the mystic emphasizes that his meeting is with a personal God. Although God is present both in nature and in the human soul, he is also far above and beyond the world. In Eastern mysticism--that is, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Chinese religion--it is more usual to emphasize that the mystic experiences a total fusion with God or the "cosmic spirit."
"I am the cosmic spirit," the mystic can exclaim, or "I am God." For God is not only present in the world; he has nowhere else to be.
In India, especially, there have been strong mystical movements since long before the time of Plato. Swami Vivekenanda, an Indian who was instrumental in bringing Hinduism to the west, once said, "Just as certain world religions say that people who do not believe in a personal God outside themselves are atheists, we say that a person who does not believe in himself is an atheist. Not believing in the splendor of one's own soul is what we call atheism."
A mystical experience can also have ethical significance. A former president of India, Sarvepalli Radhak-rishnan, said once, "Love thy neighbor as thyself because you ore your neighbor. It is an illusion that makes you think that your neighbor is someone other than yourself."
People of our own time who do not adhere to a particular religion also tell of mystical experiences. They have suddenly experienced something they have called "cosmic consciousness" or an "oceanic feeling." They have felt themselves wrenched out of Time and have experienced the world "from the perspective of eternity."
Sophie sat up in bed. She had to feel whether she still had a body. As she read more and more about Plato and the mystics, she had begun to feel as though she were floating around in the room, out of the window and far off above the town. From there she had looked down on all the people in the square, and had floated on and on over the globe that was her home, over the North Sea and Europe, down over the Sahara and across the African savanna.
The whole world had become almost like a living person, and it felt as if that person were Sophie herself. The world is me, she thought. The great big universe that she had often felt to be unfathomable and terrifying--was her own "I." Now, too, the universe was enormous and majestic, but now it was herself who was so big.
The extraordinary feeling was fleeting, but Sophie was sure she would never forget it. It felt as if something inside her had burst through her forehead and become merged with everything else, the way a drop of color can tint a whole jug of water.
When it was all over, it was like waking up with a headache after a wonderful dream. Sophie registered with a touch of disillusionment that she had a body which was trying to sit up in bed. Lying on her stomach reading the pages from Alberto Knox had given her a backache. But she had experienced something unforgettable.
Eventually she pulled herself together and stood up. The first thing she did was to punch holes in the pages and file them in her ring binder together with the other lessons. Then she .went into the garden.
The birds were singing as if the world had just been born. The pale green of the birches behind the old rabbit hutches was so intense that it seemed as though the Creator had not yet finished blending the color.
Could she really believe that everything was one divine "I"? Could she believe that she carried within her a soul that was a "spark from the fire"? If it was true, then she was truly a divine creature.





中文翻译
   希腊文化
   ……一丝火花……
   虽然哲学老师已经开始把信直接送到老树篱内,但星期一早晨苏菲仍习惯性地看了看信箱。
   里面是空的,这并不让人意外,她开始沿着苜蓿巷往前走。
   突然间她看到人行道上有一张照片。照片中有一辆白色的吉普车,上面插着一支印有联合国字样的蓝色旗帜。那不是联合国的旗帜吗?
   苏菲把照片翻过来,发现这是一张普通的明信片。上面写着“请苏菲代转席德”,贴着挪威邮票,并盖着一九九O年六月十五日星期五“联合国部队”的邮戳。
   六月十五日!这天正是苏菲的生日呀!
   明信片上写着:
   亲爱的席德:
   我猜想你可能仍在庆祝你的十五岁生日。或者你接到信时,已经是第二天的早上了。无论如何,你都会收到我的礼物。就某个角度看,那是一份可以用一辈子的礼物。不过,我想向你再说一声生日快乐。也许你现在已经明白我为何把这些明信片寄给苏菲了。我相信她一定会把它们转交给你的。
   P.S:妈妈说你把你的皮夹弄丢了。我答应你我会给你一百五十块钱做为补偿。还有,在学校放暑假前你也许可以重办一张学生证。
   爱你的爸爸
   苏菲站在原地不动。上一张明信片邮戳上的日期是几号?她隐约记得那张海滩风景明信片上的邮戳日期也是六月——虽然这两张明信片相隔了一个月。不过她并没有看清楚。
   她看了一下腕表,然后便跑回家中。她今天上学是非迟到不可了。
   苏菲进了门便飞奔到楼上的房间,在那条红色丝巾的下面找到了第一张写给席德的明信片。是的,上面的日期也是六月十五日,就是苏菲的生日,也是学校放暑假的前一天。
   她跑到超级市场去和乔安会合时,心里涌出无数个问号。
   这个席德是谁?她爸爸为什么会认定苏菲可以找到她?无论如何,他把明信片寄给苏菲,而不直接寄给他的女儿是说不通的。
   苏菲想这绝不可能是因为他不知道自己女儿的地址。会是谁在恶作剧吗?他是不是想找一个陌生人来当侦探和信差,以便在女儿生日那天给她一个惊喜呢?这就是他提前一个月让她准备的原因吗?
   他是不是想让她这个中间人成为他女儿的新朋友,并以此做为送给她的生日礼物呢?难道她就是那个“可以用一辈子”的礼物吗?
   如果这个开玩笑的人真的在黎巴嫩,他何以能够得知苏菲的地址?还有,苏菲和席德至少有两件事是相同的。第一,如果席德的生日也是六月十五日,那她们俩就是同一天出生的。第二,她们俩的父亲都远在天边。
   苏菲觉得自己被拉进一个不真实的世界。也许,有时候人还真的不得不相信命运。不过,她还不能太早下结论。这件事可能仍然有个缘故。但是,如果席德住在黎乐桑,艾伯特是如何找到她的皮夹的呢?黎乐桑离这儿有好几百英里呀!同时,这张明信片为什么会躺在苏菲家门口的人行道上?它是不是在邮差来到苏菲家的信箱时由他的邮袋里掉出来的?如果这样,为什么他别的不掉,偏偏掉这一张?
   在超市等候的乔安好不容易才看到苏菲出现。她忍不住说:
   “你疯了吗?”
   “对不起!”
   乔安紧紧皱起眉头,像学校老师一样。
   “你最好给我解释清楚。”
   “都是联合国的缘故。”苏菲说。“我在黎巴嫩被敌方部队拘留了。”
   “少来。我看你是谈恋爱了。”
   她们没命似的跑到学校。
   第三节课时考了苏菲昨天没有时间准备的宗教知识这门课。
   题目如下:
   生命与容忍的哲学
  
   1.试列举我们可以确实知道的一些事物。然后再列举一些我们只能相信的事物。
   2.请说明影响一个人的生活哲学的因素。
   3.“良知”的意义为何?你认为每一个人都有同样的良知吗?
   4.何谓价值的轻重?
   苏菲坐在那儿想了很久才开始作答。她可以运用她从艾伯特那儿学到的观念吗?她不得不这样做,因为她已经有好几天没有打开宗教知识的教科书了。她一开始作答后,答案仿佛自然而然就从她的笔端流出来一般。
   她写道:我们可以确定的事包括月亮不是由绿乳酪做成的、月球较黑的那一面也有坑洞、苏格拉底和耶稣基督两人都被判死刑、每一个人都迟早会死、希腊高城宏伟的神殿是在公元前五世纪波斯战争后兴建的,还有古希腊最重要的神论是戴尔菲的神论。至于我们不能确知的事物,苏菲举的例子包括;其他星球上是否有生物存在、世间是否真有上帝、人死后是否还有生命、耶稣是上帝之子或者只是一个聪明人。在举出这些例子后,苏菲写道:“我们当然无法确知这世界从何而来。宇宙就好像是一只被魔术师从帽子里拉出来的大白兔。哲学家努力沿着兔子毛皮中的一根细毛往上爬,希望能一睹伟大魔术师的真面目。虽然他们不一定会成功,但如果所有哲学家都像叠罗汉一般一层一层往上叠,则他们就可以愈接近兔子毛皮的顶端。果真如此,在我认为,有一天他们也许真的可以爬到顶端。P.S:圣经中有一个东西很像是兔子的细毛,那就是巴别塔。这个塔最后被伟大的魔术师摧毁了,因为他不希望这些微不足道的人类爬出他一手创造出的兔子的毛皮。”
   第二个问题是:“请说明影响一个人的生活哲学的因素。”苏菲认为教养与环境很重要。生在柏拉图时代的人们所具有的生活哲学与现代人不同,因为他们生活的时代和环境与我们的不同。另外一个因素是人们选择的经验种类。一般常识不是由环境决定的,而是每一个人都具备的。也许我们可以把我们的环境和社会情况与柏拉图的洞穴相比较。一个人若运用他的聪明才智,将可以使自己脱离黑暗。不过这样的路程需要一些勇气,苏格拉底就是一个很好的例子,显示一个人如何运用自己的聪明才智使自己不受当时思想主流的影响。最后,苏菲写道:“在当今这个时代,来自各个地方、各种文化的人们交流日益密切。基督徒、伊斯兰教徒与佛教徒可能住在同一栋公寓中。在这种情况下,接受彼此的信仰要比去问为什么大家不能有一致的信仰更加重要。”
   嗯,答得不坏!苏菲心想。她觉得自己已经运用她从哲学老师
   那儿学来的知识答出了一些重点,她只要加上一些自己的常识与她从别处听来或读到的东西就成了。
   现在,她专心答第三道问题:“良知是什么?你认为每个人都有同样的良知吗?”
   这个问题他们在课堂上已经讨论过很多次了。苏菲答道:“良知是人们辨别善恶是非的能力。我个人的看法是:“每一个人天生都具备这种能力。换句话说,良知是与生俱来的。苏格拉底应该也会持同样的看法。不过良心对人的影响因人而异。在这方面我们可以说诡辩学振的主张不无道理。他们认为是非的观念主要是由个人成长环境决定的。相反的,苏格拉底则相信每一个人的良心都一样。也许这两种观点都没有错。虽然并不是每一个人在大庭广 众之下赤身露体时都会感到羞愧,但大多数人在欺负别人后多少都会良心不安。不过,我们也不要忘记,具有良知和运用良知是两回事。有时有些人做起事来一副无耻的模样,但我相信他们内心深处还是有某种良知存在的。就像某些人看起来似乎没有大脑的样子,但这只是因为他们不用脑筋罢了。P.S:常识和良心不像肌肉一样。你不去用它,它就会愈来愈萎缩。”
   现在只剩下一个问题了:“何谓价值的轻重?”这也是他们最近—时常讨论的一个主题。举例来说,开着车子迅速往来各地也许是很重要的,但如果驾驶车辆会导致森林遭到砍伐、自然环境受到污染等后果,我们就必须要作个选择。在仔细考量之后,苏菲的结论是:
   维护森林的健康和环境的纯净要比能够节省上班途中的交通时间更有价值。她另外又举了一些例子。最后,她写道:“我个人认为哲学这门课要比英文文法更重要。因此,如果学校能将哲学课列入课程,并且略微减少英文课的时间,他们对价值轻重的判断就是正确的。”
   最后一次课间休息时,老师把苏菲拉到一旁。
   “我已经看过了你宗教课考试的试卷。”他说,“你那一份放在整沓试卷的最上面。”
   “我希望它能给你一些启发。”
   “这就是我要跟你谈的。你的答案在许多方面都很成熟,让我非常讶异。同时你有很多自己的想法。不过,苏菲,你有没有做作业呢?”
   苏菲有点心虚。
   “嗯,你不是说一个人要有自己的看法吗?”
   “是啊,我是说过……不过这总有个限度。”
   苏菲看着老师的眼睛。她觉得在最近经历了这些事情后,她应该可以这样做。
   “我已经开始研究哲学了。”她说,“这使我有了一些形成自己意见的基础。”
   “不过这让我很难给你的考卷打分数。要不是D,要不就是A。”
   “因为我要不就答得很对,要不就错得很多。你的意思是这样吗?”
   “那就算你A好了。”老师说。“不过下一次你可要做作业。”
   那天下午苏菲放学后一回到家,把书包丢在门前台阶上后,就马上跑到密洞中。果然有一个棕色的信封躺在虬结的树根上。信封的边缘已经干了。可以想见汉密士已经把信送来很久了。
   她拿了信,进了前门,喂宠物后就上楼。回房后,她躺床上拆阅艾伯特的信:
  
   希腊文化
   苏菲,我们又上课了。在读完有关自然派哲学家、苏格拉底、柏拉图与亚理斯多德的理论后,你对欧洲哲学的基础应该已经很熟悉了。因此,从现在起,我将省略掉用白色的信封所装的前导式问题。更何况,我想学校给你们的作业和考试可能已经够多了。
   今天我要介绍的是从公元前第四世纪末亚理斯多德时期,一直到公元四百年左右中世纪初期的这一段很长的时期。请注意,我们如今讲公元前、公元后乃是以耶稣降生的前后来区分,而事实上,基督教也是这个时期内最重要、最神秘的因素之一。
   亚理斯多德于公元前三二二年去世,当时雅典人已经失去了挽治者的地位。这一部分原因是亚历山大大帝(公元前三五六~公元前三二三年)征服各地后引发的政治动乱所致。
   亚历山大大帝是马其顿的国王。亚理斯多德也是马其顿人,甚至曾经担任亚历山大小时候的私人教师。亚历山大后来打赢了对波斯人的最后一场决定性的战役。更重要的是,他征服各地的结果使得埃及、东方(远至印度)的文明与希腊的文明得以结合在一起。
   在人类的历史上,这是一个新纪元的开始。一个新文明诞生了。在这个文明中,希腊的文化与希腊的语言扮演了主导的角色。
   这段时期维持了大约三百年,被称为“希腊文化”。这个名词除了指这段时期外,也指在马其顿、叙利亚与埃及这三个希腊王国风行的以希腊为主的文化。
   然而,自从大约公元前五O年以后,罗马在军事与政治上逐渐占了上风。这个新的超级强权逐渐征服了所有的希腊王国。从此以后,从西边的西班牙到东边的亚洲等地,都以罗马文化与拉丁文为主。这是罗马时期(也就是我们经常所说的“近古时期”)的开始。
   不过,我们不可以忘记一件事:在罗马人征服希腊世界之前,罗马本身也受到希腊文化的影响。因此,直到希腊人的政治势力衰微很久以后,希腊文化与希腊哲学仍然继续扮演了很重要的角色。
   宗教、哲学与科学
   希腊文化的特色在于国与国、文化与文化之间的界线泯灭了。
   过去希腊、罗马、埃及、巴比伦、叙利亚、波斯等各民族各有我们一般所说的“国教”,各自崇奉不同的神明。但如今这些不同的文化都仿佛在女巫的咒语之下熔成一炉,汇聚形成各种宗教、哲学与科学概念。
   我们可以说希腊过去的市中心广场已经被世界舞台所取代。
   从前的市镇广场是一片人声嘈杂的景象,有人贩售各种商品,有人 宣扬各种思想与概’念。如今的市镇广场依旧充斥着来自世界各地的货品与思想,只不过嘈杂的人声中夹杂了各国的语言。
   我们曾经提到在这个时候,希腊人的人生哲学影响的地区与范围已经比过去扩大许多。不过,逐渐的,地中海地区的各个国家也开始崇奉东方的神祗。也许是在众多古国原有宗教信仰的交互影响之下,新的宗教兴起了。
   我们称这种现象为“信仰的混合”(syncretism)或“信仰的交互激荡”(the fusion of creeds)。
   在此之前,人们都认同自己所属的城邦。但随着疆界之分逐渐泯灭,许多人开始怀疑自己的社会所持的生命哲学。一般而言,近古时期的特色就是充满了宗教质疑、文化解体与悲观主义。当时的人说:“世界已经衰老了。”希腊文化时期形成的各宗教信仰有一个共同的特征,就是他们经常教导人应该如何获得救赎,免予一死。
   这些教义通常都是以秘密的方式传授。信徒只要接受这些教导,并进行某些仪式,就可望获得不朽的灵魂与永远的生命。但为了达成灵魂的救赎,除了举行宗教仪式外,也有必要对宇宙真实的本质有
   某种程度的了解。
   关于新宗教,我们就谈到这里了。不过在这个时期,哲学也逐渐朝“救赎”与平安的方向发展。当时的人认为,哲学的智慧不仅本身有其好处,也应该能使人类脱离悲观的心态与对死亡的恐惧。因此,宗教与哲学之间的界线逐渐消失了。
   整体来说,我们不得不承认希腊文化的哲学并没有很大的原创性。在这个时期中,并未再出现一个柏拉图或亚理斯多德。相反的,许多学派乃是受到雅典三大哲学家的启发。待会儿,我将略微描述这些学派。
   希腊的科学同样地也受到各种不同文化的影响。亚力山卓(A1exandria)由于位居东西方的交会点,因此在这方面扮演了关键性的角色。在这个时期,由于雅典城内有一些继柏拉图与亚理斯多德之后的哲学学派,因此雅典仍是哲学中心,而亚力山卓则成为科学中心。那里有规模宏大的图书馆,使得亚力山卓成为数学、天文学、生物学与医学的重镇。
   当时的希腊文化可与现代世界相提并论。二十世纪的文明愈趋开放后,造成了宗教与哲学百花齐放的现象。在基督纪元开始前后,生活在罗马的人们也可以见识到希腊、埃及与东方的各种宗教,就像在二十世纪末期的我们可以在欧洲各大小城市发现来自世界各地的宗教一般。
   今天我们也可以看到新旧宗教、哲学与科学融合之后,如何形成了新的生命哲学。这些所谓的“新知识”实际上只是旧思想的残渣而已,其中有些甚至可以追溯至希腊时代。
   正如我刚才所说的,希腊哲学仍旧致力于解决苏格拉底、柏拉图与亚理斯多德等人提出的问题。他们都同样亟欲找寻人类最佳的生、死之道。他们关心人的伦理与道德。在这个新的文明中,这个问题成为哲学家研讨的重心。他们最关心的乃是何谓真正的幸福以及如何获致这种幸福。下面我们将认识其中四个学派。
   犬儒学派
   据说,有一天苏格拉底站在街上,注视着一个贩卖各种商品的摊子。最后他说:“这些东西中有太多是我根本不需要的啊!”
   这句话可以做为犬儒派哲学的注解。这个学派是在公元前四百年左右由雅典的安提塞尼斯(Antisthenes)所创。安提塞尼斯曾受教于苏格拉底门下,对于苏格拉底节俭的生活方式特别有兴趣,犬儒派学者强调,真正的幸福不是建立在外在环境的优势——如丰裕的物质、强大的政治力量与健壮的身体——之上。真正幸福的人不依赖这些稍纵即逝的东西。同时,由于幸福不是由这类福祉构成的,因此每一个人都可以获致幸福,更重要的是,一旦获得了这种幸福,就不可能失去它。
   最著名的犬儒派人士是安提塞尼斯的弟子戴奥基尼斯(Dio—gzenes),据说他住在一个木桶中,除了一袭斗篷、一支棍子与一个面包袋之外,什么也没有,(因此要偷取他的幸福可不容易!)有一天他坐在木桶旁,舒服地晒着太阳时,亚历山大大帝前来探望他。
   亚历山大站在他的前面,告诉他只要他想要任何东西,他都可以赐予他。戴奥基尼斯答道:“我希望你闪到旁边,让我可以晒到太阳。”
   就这样,戴奥基尼斯证明他比亚历山大这位伟大的将军要更富裕,也更快乐,因为他已经拥有了自己想要的一切。
   犬儒学派相信,人们毋需担心自己的健康,不应该因生老病死而苦恼,也不必担心别人的痛苦而让自己活受罪。
   于是,到了今天,“犬儒主义”这些名词的意思变成是对人类真诚的轻蔑不信,暗含对别人的痛苦无动于衷的态度与行为。
   斯多葛学派
   犬儒学派促进了斯多葛学派的发展。后者在公元三百年左右兴起于雅典。它的创始人是季诺(Zeno)。此人最初住在塞浦勒斯,在一次船难后来到雅典,加入犬儒学派。他经常在门廊上聚集徒众。斯多葛(Stoic)这个字就是源自希腊文stoa(门廊)这个字。这个学派后来对于罗马文化有很大的影响。
   就像赫拉克里特斯一样,斯多葛派人士相信每一个人都是宇宙常识的一小部分,每一个人都像是一个“小宇宙”(microcosmos),乃是“大宇宙”(macrocosmos)的缩影。
   他们因此相信宇宙间有公理存在,亦即所谓“神明的律法”。由于此一神明律法是建立在亘古长存的人类理性与宇宙理性之上,因此不会随时空而改变。在这方面,斯多葛学派的主张与苏格拉底
   相同,而与诡辩学派相异。
   斯多葛学派认为,全体人类(包括奴隶在内)都受到神明律法的管辖。在他们眼中,当时各国的法律条文只不过是模仿大自然法则的一些不完美法条罢了。
   斯多葛学派除了否认个人与宇宙有别之外,也不认为“精神”与“物质”之间有任何冲突。他们主张宇宙间只有一个大自然。这种想法被称为“一元论”(monism),与柏拉图明显的“二元论”(du—alism)或“双重实在论”正好相反。
   斯多葛学派人士极富时代精神,思想非常开放。他们比那些“木桶哲学家”(犬儒学派)更能接受当代文化,他们呼吁人们发扬“民胞物与”的精神,也非常关心政治。他们当中有许多人后来都成为活跃的政治家,其中最有名的是罗马皇帝奥瑞里亚斯(MarcusAurelluS,公元一二一年~一八O年)。他们在罗马提倡希腊文化与希腊哲学,其中最出类拔萃的是集演讲家、哲学家与政治家等各种头衔于一身的西塞罗(Cicero,公元前一O六年~公元前四三年),所谓“人本主义”(一种主张以个人为人类生活重心的哲学)就是由他创立的。若干年后,同为斯多葛学派的塞尼卡(Seneca,公元前四年~公元六五年)表示:“对人类而言,人是神圣的。”这句话自此成为人本主义的口号。
   此外,斯多葛学派强调,所有的自然现象,如生病与死亡,都只是遵守大自然不变的法则罢了,因此人必须学习接受自己的命运。
   没有任何事物是偶然发生的,每一件事物发生都有其必要性,因此当命运来敲你家大门时,抱怨也没有用。他们认为,我们也不能为生活中一些欢乐的事物所动。在这方面,他们的观点与犬儒学派相似,因为后者也宣称所有外在事物都不重要。到了今天,我们仍用“斯多葛式的冷静”(stoic calm)来形容那些不会感情用事的人。
   伊比鸠鲁学派
  
   如上所述,苏格拉底关心的是人如何能够过着良好的生活,犬儒学派与斯多葛学派将他的哲学解释成“人不能沉溺于物质上的享受”。不过,苏格拉底另外一个弟子阿瑞斯提普斯(Aristippus)则认为人生的目标就是要追求最高度的感官享受。“人生至善之事乃是享乐。”他说,“至恶之事乃是受苦。”因此他希望发展出一种生活方式,以避免所有形式的痛苦为目标。(犬儒学派与斯多葛学派认为人应该忍受各种痛苦,这与致力避免痛苦是不同的。)
   公元前三百年左右,伊比鸠鲁(Epicurus,公元前三四一年--
   公元前二七O年)在雅典创办了“伊比鸠鲁学派”。他将阿瑞斯提普斯的享乐主义加以发展,并与德谟克里特斯的原于论结合起来。
   由于传说中伊比鸠鲁住在一座花园里,因此这个学派的人士又被称为“花园哲学家”。据说,在这座花园的入口处上方有二块告示牌写着:“陌生人,你将在此地过着舒适的生活。在这里享乐乃是至善之事物。”
   伊比鸠鲁学派强调在我们考量一个行动是否有乐趣时,必须同时斟酌它可能带来的副作用。如果你曾经放怀大嚼巧克力,你就会明白我的意思。如果你不曾这样做过,那么你可以做以下练习:
   把你存的两百元零用钱全部拿来买巧克力(假设你很爱吃巧克力),而且把它一次吃完(这是这项练习的重点)。大约半个小时以后当所有美味的巧克力都吃光了之后,你就会明白伊比鸠鲁所谓的“副作用”是什么意思了。
   伊比鸠鲁并且相信在追求较短暂的快乐时,必须考虑是否另有其他方式可以获致更大、更持久或更强烈的快乐(譬如你决定一年不吃巧克力,因为你想把零用钱存起来买一辆新的脚踏车或去海外度一次豪华假期)。人类不像动物,因为我们可以规划自己的生活。我们有能力从事“乐趣的计算”。巧克力固然好吃,但买一辆新脚踏车或去英国旅游一趟更加美妙。
   尽管如此,伊比鸠鲁强调,所谓“乐趣”并不一定指感官上的快乐,如吃巧克力等。交朋友与欣赏艺术等也是一种乐趣。此外,我们若要活得快乐,必须遵守古希腊人自我规范、节制与平和等原则。自我的欲望必须加以克制,而平和的心境则可以帮助我们忍受痛苦。
   当时有许多人由于惧怕神明而来到伊比鸠鲁的花园。这是因为德谟克里特斯的原子理论可以有效祛除宗教迷信,而为了好好生活,克服自己对死亡的恐惧是很重要的。于是,伊比鸠鲁便运用德谟克里特斯有关“灵魂原于”的理论来达到这个目的。你也许还记得,德谟克里特斯相信人死后没有生命,因为当我们死时,“灵魂原子”就四处飞散。
   “死亡和我们没有关系,”伊比鸠鲁扼要地说,“因为只要我们存在一天,死亡就不会来临。而当死亡来临时,我们也不再存在了。”(说到这点,我们好像从没听说过有谁得了死亡这种病。)
   伊比鸠鲁以他所谓的“四种药草”来总结他的哲学:
   “神不足惧,死不足忧,祸苦易忍,福乐易求。”
   对于希腊人而言,伊比鸠鲁将哲学与医学相提并论的做法并不新鲜。他的主旨是:人应该拥有一个“哲学的药柜”,储存以上四种药方。
   与斯多葛学派截然不同的是,伊比鸠鲁学派对于政治或团体生活并不感兴趣。伊比鸠鲁劝人要“离群索居”。我们也许可以将他的“花园”比做时下的一些公社。我们这个时代确实也有许多人离开社会,前往某处去寻求“避风的港湾”。
   在伊比鸠鲁之后,许多伊比鸠鲁学派的人士逐渐沉溺于自我放纵。他们的格言是“今朝有酒今朝醉”。Epicurean这个字如今已具有贬意,被人们用来形容那些专门追求享乐的人。
   新柏拉图派哲学
   我们已经了解犬儒学派、斯多葛学派及伊比鸠鲁学派与苏格拉底哲学的渊源。当然这些学派也采纳了若干苏格拉底之前的哲学家——如赫拉克里特斯与德谟克里特斯等人——的学说。
   然而,希腊文化末期最令人瞩目的哲学学派主要仍是受到柏拉图学说的启发,因此我们称之为新柏拉图派哲学。
   新柏拉图派哲学最重要的人物是普罗汀(Plotinus,约公元二O五年~二七O年)。他早年在亚力山卓研读哲学,后来在罗马定居;当时,亚力山卓成为希腊哲学与东方神秘主义的交会点已经有好几百年了。普罗汀从那儿将他的“救赎论”(doctrine of salvation)带到罗马。此一学说后来成为基督教的劲敌。不过,新柏拉图派哲
   学对基督教神学也具有很大的影响力。
   苏菲,你还记得柏拉图的理型论吗?你应该记得他将宇宙分为理型世界与感官世界。这表示他将肉体与灵魂区分得很清楚。在这种情况下,人乃成为二元的造物:我们的身体就像感官世界,所有的事物一般是由尘与土所构成,但我们的灵魂却是不朽的。早在粕拉图之前,许多希腊人就已经持此观念,而亚洲人也有类似的看法。普罗汀对这点相当熟悉。
   普罗汀认为,世界横跨两极。一端是他称为“上帝”的神圣之光,另一端则是完全的黑暗,接受不到任何来自上帝的亮光。不过,普罗汀的观点是:这个黑暗世界其实并不存在,它只是缺乏亮光照射而已。世间存在的只有上帝。就像光线会逐渐变弱,终至于熄灭一样,世间也有一个角落是神圣之光无法普照的。
   根据普罗汀的说法,灵魂受到此一神圣之光的照耀,而物质则位于并不真正存在的黑暗世界,至于自然界的形式则微微受到神圣之光的照射。
   让我们想象夜晚升起一堆野火的景象。此时,火花四散,火光将黑夜照亮。从好几英里外望过来,火光清晰可见。但如果我们再走远一些,就只能看到一小点亮光,就像黑暗中远处的灯笼一样。
   如果我们再继续走下去,到了某一点时,我们就再也看不见火光了。此时火光已消失在黑夜中。在这一片黑暗之中,我们看不见任何事物,看不见任何形体或影子。
   你可以想象真实世界就像这样一堆野火。发出熊熊火光的是“上帝”,火光照射不到的黑暗之处则是构成人与动物的冷冷的物质。最接近上帝的是那些永恒的观念。它们是所有造物据以做成的根本形式。而人的灵魂则是那飞散的“火花”。大自然的每一处或多或少都受到这神圣之光的照耀。我们在所有的生物中都可以见到这种光,就连一朵玫瑰或一株风铃草也不例外。离上帝最远的则是那些泥土、水与石头。
   我的意思是说:世间存在的每一样事物都有这种神秘的神圣之光。我们可以看到它在向日葵或罂粟花中闪烁着光芒。在一只飞离枝头的蝴蝶或在水缸中漫游穿梭的金鱼身上,我们可以看到更多这种深不可测的神秘之光。然而,最靠近上帝的还是我们的灵魂。唯有在灵魂中,我们才能与生命的伟大与神秘合而为一。事实上,在某些很偶然的时刻中,我们可以体验到自我就是那神圣的神秘之光。
   昔罗汀的比喻很像柏拉图所说的洞穴神话:我们愈接近洞,就愈接近宇宙万物的源头。不过,与柏拉图的二元论相反的是,普罗汀理论的特色在于万物一体的经验。宇宙间万事万物都是一体,因为上帝存在于万事万物之中。即使在柏拉图所说的洞穴深处的影子中也有微弱的上帝之光。
   普罗汀一生中曾有一两次灵魂与上帝合而为一的体验,我们通常称此为神秘经验。除了普罗汀之外,也有人有过这种经验。事实上,古今中外都有人宣称他们有过同样的体验。细节也许不同,但都具有同样的特征。现在让我们来看看这些特征。
   神秘
   神秘经验是一种与上帝或“天地之心”合而为一的体验。许多宗教都强调上帝与整个宇宙之间的差距,但在神秘主义者的体验中,这种差距并不存在。他(她)们有过与“上帝”合而为一的经验。
   他们认为,我们通常所称的“我”事实上并不是真正的“我”。有时在一刹那间,我们可以体验到一个更大的“我”的存在。有些神秘主义者称这个“我”为“上帝”,也有人称之为“天地之心”、“大自然”或“宇宙”。当这种物我交融的情况发生时,神秘主义者觉得他们失去了自我”,像一滴水落入海洋一般进入上帝之中。一位印度的神秘主义者有一次如此形容他的经验:“过去,当我的自我存在时,我感觉不到上帝。如今我感觉到上帝的存在,自我就消失了。”基督教的神秘主义者塞伦西亚斯(Silesius,公元一六二四年~一六七七年)则另有一种说法:“每一滴水流入海洋后,就成为海洋。同样的,当灵魂终于上升时,则成为上帝。”
   你也许会反驳说,“失去自我”不可能是一种很愉快的经验。我明白你的意思。但重点是,你所失去的东西比起你所得到的东西是显得多么微不足道。你所失去的只是眼前这种形式的自我,但同时你却会发现自己变得更广大。你就是宇宙。事实上,你就是那天地之心,这时你也就是上帝。如果你失去了“苏菲”这个自我,有一点可以让你觉得比较安慰的是:这个“凡俗的自我”乃是你我无论如何终有一天会失去的。而根据神秘主义者的说法,你的真正的“自我”——这个你唯有放弃自我才能感受到的东西——却像一股神秘的火焰一般,会燃烧到永恒。
   不过,类似这样的神秘经验并不一定会自动产生。神秘主义者也许必须透过“净化与启蒙”才能与上帝交流。其方式包括过着简朴的生活以及练习静坐。之后,也许有一天他们可以达到目标,并宣称:“我就是上帝。”
   神秘主义在世界各大宗教中都见得到。来自各种不同文化的人们所描述的神秘经验往往极为相似。唯有在神秘主义者试图为他们的神秘经验寻求宗教或哲学上的解释时,文化差异才会显现出来。
   西方(犹太教、基督教与伊斯兰教)的神秘主义者强调,他们见到的是一个人形的上帝。他们认为,尽管上帝存在于大自然与人的灵魂中,但他也同时超越万物之上。东方(印度教、佛教与中国的宗教)的神秘主义者则较强调他们的神秘经验乃是一种与上帝或“天地之心”水乳交融的经验。
   神秘主义者可以宣称:“我就是天地之心”或“我即上帝”,因为上帝不仅存在于天地万物之中,他本身就是天地万物。
   神秘主义在印度尤其盛行。早在柏拉图之前,印度就已经有了浓厚的神秘主义色彩。曾促使印度教传入西方的一位印度人余维卡南达(SwamiVivekenanda)有一次说道:
   “世界上有些宗教将那些不相信上帝以人形存在于众生之外的人称为无神论者。同样的,我们也说那些不相信自己的人是无神论者。因为,我们认为,所谓无神论就是不相信自己灵魂的神圣与可贵。”
   神秘经验也具有道德价值。曾任印度总统的拉德哈克里希南(SarvepalliRadhakrishnan)曾说:“你当爱邻如己,因你的邻人就是你,你是在幻觉中才将他当成别人。”
   我们这个时代有些不信仰任何特定宗教的人也曾有过神秘经验。他们会突然感受到某种他们称之为“宇宙意识”或“大感觉”(oceanicfeeUng)的事物,觉得自己脱离时空,“从永恒的观点”来感受这个世界。
   苏菲坐在床上,想感受一下自己的身体是否仍然存在。当她读着柏拉图与神秘主义的哲学时,开始觉得自己在房间内到处飘浮,飘到窗外、愈飘愈远,浮在城镇的上空,从那儿向下看着广场上的人群,然后不断飘着,飘到地球的上方、飘到北海和欧洲的上空,再继续飘过撒哈拉沙漠与非洲大草原。
   她觉得整个世界就好像一个人一般,而感觉上这个人就是她自己。她心想,世界就是我。那个她过去经常觉得深不可测、令人害怕的辽阔宇宙,乃是她的“自我”。如今,宇宙依然庄严辽阔,但这个广大的宇宙却是她自己。
   这种不寻常的感觉稍纵即逝,但苏菲相信她永远也忘不了。那种感觉就像是她体内的某种东西从她的额头进裂而出,与宇宙万物融合在一起,就像一滴颜料使整罐水染上色彩一般。
   这种感觉过后,人就像作了一个美梦,醒来时感到头痛一般,当苏菲意识到自己的躯壳仍然存在,且正坐在床上时,内心不免略微感到失望。由于刚才一直趴在床上看信,她的背现在隐隐作痛。
   不过,至少她已经体验到这种令她难忘的感觉了。
   最后,她振作精神,站了起来。她所做的第一件事就是在信纸上打洞。并把它放进讲义夹内。然后,便走到花园里去。
   花园中鸟儿们正在歌唱,仿佛世界才刚诞生。老旧兔笼后的几株桦树叶子是如此嫩绿,仿佛造物主尚未完成调色的工作。
   世间万物果真都是一个神圣的“自我”吗?她的灵魂果真是那神圣之火的“火花”吗?苏菲心想,如果这一切都是真的,那么她确实是一个神圣的造物了。





暮辞朝

ZxID:15103679


等级: 内阁元老
配偶: 清风雅乐
这一段开心的日子请你勿忘
举报 只看该作者 13楼  发表于: 2013-10-26 0
英文原文
The Postcards
I'm imposing a severe censorship on myself
Several days went by without any word from the philosophy teacher. Tomorrow was Thursday, May 17-- Norway's national day. School would be closed on the 18th as well. As they walked home after school Joanna suddenly exclaimed, "Let's go camping!"
Sophie's immediate reaction was that she couldn't be away from the house for long. But then she said, "Sure, why not?"
A couple of hours later Joanna arrived at Sophie's door with a large backpack. Sophie had packed hers as well, and she also had the tent. They both had bedrolls and sweaters, groundsheets and flashlights, large-size thermos bottles and plenty of their favorite food.
When Sophie's mother got home around five o'clock, she gave them a sermon about what they must and must not do. She also insisted on knowing where they were going to set up camp.
They told her they intended to make for Grouse Top. They might be lucky enough to hear the mating call of the grouse next morning.
Sophie had an ulterior motive for choosing that particular spot. She thought that Grouse Top must be pretty close to the major's cabin. Something was urging her to return to it, but she didn't dare go alone.
The two girls walked down the path that led from the little cul-de-sac just beyond Sophie's garden gate. They chatted about this and that, and Sophie enjoyed taking a little time off from everything having to do with philosophy.
By eight o'clock they had pitched their tent in a clearing by Grouse Top. They had prepared themselves for the night and their bedrolls were unfolded. When they had eaten their sandwiches, Sophie asked, "Have you ever heard of the major's cabin?"
"The major's cabin?"
"There's a hut in the woods somewhere near here ... by a little lake. A strange man lived there once, a major, that's why it's called the major's cabin."
"Does anyone live there now?"
"Do you want to go and see?"
"Where is it?"
Sophie pointed in among the trees.
Joanna was not particularly eager, but in the end they set out. The sun was low in the sky.
They walked in between the tall pine trees at first, but soon they were pushing their way through bush and thicket. Eventually they made their way down to a path. Could it be the path Sophie had followed that Sunday morning?
It must have been--almost at once she could point to something shining between the trees to the right of the path.
"It's in there," she said.
They were soon standing at the edge of the small lake. Sophie gazed at the cabin across the water. All the windows were now shuttered up. The red building was the most deserted place she had seen for ages.
Joanna turned toward her. "Do we have to walk on the water?"
"Of course not. We'll row."
Sophie pointed down into the reeds. There lay the rowboat, just as before.
"Have you been here before?"
Sophie shook her head. Trying to explain her previous visit would be far too complicated. And then she would have to tell her friend about Alberto Knox and the philosophy course as well.
They laughed and joked as they rowed across the water. When they reached the opposite bank, Sophie made sure they drew the boat well up on land.
They went to the front door. As there was obviously nobody in the cabin, Joanna tried the door handle.
"Locked... you didn't expect it to be open, did you?"
"Maybe we can find a key," said Sophie.
She began to search in the crevices of the stonework foundation.
"Oh, let's go back to the tent instead," said Joanna after a few minutes.
But just then Sophie exclaimed, "Here it is! I found it!"
She held up the key triumphantly. She put it in the lock and the door swung open.
The two friends sneaked inside as if they were up to something criminal. It was cold and dark in the cabin.
"We can't see a thing!" said Joanna.
But Sophie had thought of that. She took a box of matches out of her pocket and struck one. They only had time to see that the cabin was deserted before the match went out. Sophie struck another, and this time she noticed a stump of candle in a wrought-iron candlestick on top of the stove. She lit it with the third match and the little room became light enough for them to look around.
"Isn't it odd that such a small candle can light up so much darkness?" said Sophie.
Her friend nodded.
"But somewhere the light disappears into the dark," Sophie went on. "Actually, darkness has no existence of its own. It's only a lack of light."
Joanna shivered. "That's creepy! Come on, let's go..."
"Not before we've looked in the mirror."
Sophie pointed to the brass mirror hanging above the chest of drawers, just as before.
"That's really pretty!" said Joanna.
"But it's a magic mirror."
"Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?"
"I'm not kidding, Joanna. I am sure you can look in it and see something on the other side."
"Are you sure you've never been here before? And why is it so amusing to scare me all the time?"
Sophie could not answer that one.
"Sorry."
Now it was Joanna who suddenly discovered something lying on the floor in the corner. It was a small box. Joanna picked it up.
"Postcards," she said.
Sophie gasped.
"Don't touch them! Do you hear--don't you dare touch them!"
Joanna jumped. She threw the box down as if she had burnt herself. The postcards were strewn all over the floor. The next second she began to laugh.
"They're only postcards!"
Joanna sat down on the floor and started to pick them up. After a while Sophie sat down beside her.
"Lebanon ... Lebanon ... Lebanon ... They are all postmarked in Lebanon," Joanna discovered.
"I know," said Sophie.
Joanna sat bolt upright and looked Sophie in the eye.
"So you have been here before!"
"Yes, I guess I have."
It suddenly struck her that it would have been a whole lot easier if she had just admitted she had been here before. It couldn't do any harm if she let her friend in on the mysterious things she had experienced during the last few days.
"I didn't want to tell you before we were here."
Joanna began to read the cards.
"They are all addressed to someone called Hilde Moller Knag."
Sophie had not touched the cards yet.
"What address?"
Joanna read: "Hilde Moller Knag, c/o Alberto Knox, Lillesand, Norway."
Sophie breathed a sigh of relief. She was afraid they would say c/o Sophie Amundsen.
She began to inspect them more closely.
"April 28 ... May 4 ... May 6 ... May 9 ... They were stamped a few days ago."
"But there's something else. All the postmarks are Norwegian! Look at that... UN Battalion ... the stamps are Norwegian too!"
"I think that's the way they do it. They have to be sort of neutral, so they have their own Norwegian post office down there."
"But how do they get the mail home?"
"The air force, probably."
Sophie put the candlestick on the floor, and the two friends began to read the cards. Joanna arranged them in chronological order and read the first card:
Dear Hilde, I can't wait to come home to Lillesand. I expect to land at Kjevik airport early evening on Midsummer Eve. I would much rather have arrived in time for your 15th birthday but I'm under military command of course. To make up for it, I promise to devote all my loving care to the huge present you are getting for your birthday.
With love from someone who is always thinking about his daughter's future.
P.S. I'm sending a copy of this card to our mutual friend. I know you understand, Hilde. At the moment I'm being very secretive, but you will understand.
Sophie picked up the next card:
Dear Hilde, Down here we take one day at a time. If there is one thing I'm going to remember from these months in Lebanon, it's all this waiting. But I'm doing what I can so you have as great a 15th birthday as possible. I can't say any more at the moment. I'm imposing a severe censorship on myself. Love, Dad.
The two friends sat breathless with excitement. Neither of them spoke, they just read what was written on the cards:
My dear child, What I would like best would be to send you my secret thoughts with a white dove. But they are all out of white doves in Lebanon. If there is anything this war-torn country needs, it is white doves. I pray the UN will truly manage to make peace in the world some day.
P.S. Maybe your birthday present can be shared with other people. Let's talk about that when I get home. But you still have no idea what I'm talking about, right? Love from someone who has plenty of time to think for the both of us.
When they had read six cards, there was only one left. It read:
Dear Hilde, I am now so bursting with all these secrets for your birthday that I have to stop myself several times a day from calling home and blowing the whole thing. It is something that simply grows and grows. And as you know, when a thing gets bigger and bigger it's more difficult to keep it to yourself. Love from Dad.
P.S. Some day you will meet a girl called Sophie. To give you both a chance to get to know more about each other before you meet, I have begun sending her copies of all the cards I send to you. I expect she will soon begin to catch on, Hilde. As yet she knows no more than you. She has a girlfriend called Joanna. Maybe site can be of help?
After reading the last card, Joanna and Sophie sat quite still staring wildly at each other. Joanna was holding Sophie's wrist in a tight grip.
"I'm scared," she said.
"So am I."
"When was the last card stamped?"
Sophie looked again at the card.
"May 16," she said. "That's today."
"It can't be!" cried Joanna, almost angrily.
They examined the postmark carefully, but there was no mistaking it... 05-16-90.
"It's impossible," insisted Joanna. "And I can't imagine who could have written it. It must be someone who knows us. But how could they know we would come here on this particular day?"
Joanna was by far the more scared of the two. The business with Hilde and her father was nothing new to Sophie.
"I think it has something to do with the brass mirror."
Joanna jumped again.
"You don't actually think the cards come fluttering out of the mirror the minute they are stamped in Lebanon?"
"Do you have a better explanation?"
"No."
Sophie got to her feet and held the candle up in front of the two portraits on the wall. Joanna came over and peered at the pictures.
"Berkeley and Bjerkely. What does that mean?"
"I have no idea."
The candle was almost burnt down.
"Let's go," said Joanna. "Come on!"
"We must just take the mirror with us."
Sophie reached up and unhooked the large brass mirror from the wall above the chest of drawers. Joanna tried to stop her but Sophie would not be deterred.
When they got outside it was as dark as a May night can get. There was enough light in the sky for the clear outlines of bushes and trees to be visible. The small lake lay like a reflection of the sky above it. The two girls rowed pensively across to the other side.
Neither of them spoke much on the way back to the tent, but each knew that the other was thinking intensely about what they had seen. Now and then a frightened bird would start up, and a couple of times they heard the hooting of an owl.
As soon as they reached the tent, they crawled into their bedrolls. Joanna refused to have the mirror inside the tent. Before they fell asleep, they agreed that it was scary enough, knowing it was just outside the tent flap. Sophie had also taken the postcards and put them in one of the pockets of her backpack.
They woke early next morning. Sophie was up first. She put her boots on and went outside the tent. There lay the large mirror in the grass, covered with dew.
Sophie wiped the dew off with her sweater and gazed down at her own reflection. It was as if she was looking down and up at herself at the same time. Luckily she found no early morning postcard from Lebanon.
Above the broad clearing behind the tent a ragged morning mist was drifting slowly into little wads of cotton. Small birds were chirping energetically but Sophie could neither see nor hear any grouse.
The girls put on extra sweaters and ate their breakfast outside the tent. Their conversation soon turned to the major's cabin and the mysterious cards.
After breakfast they folded up the tent and set off for home. Sophie carried the large mirror under her arm. From time to time she had to rest--Joanna refused to touch it.
As they approached the outskirts of the town they heard a few sporadic shots. Sophie recalled what Hilde's father had written about war-torn Lebanon, and she realized how lucky she was to have been born in a peaceful country. The "shots" they heard came from innocent fireworks celebrating the national holiday.
Sophie invited Joanna in for a cup of hot chocolate. Her mother was very curious to know where they had found the mirror. Sophie told her they had found it outside the major's cabin, and her mother repeated the story about nobody having lived there for many years.
When Joanna had gone, Sophie put on a red dress. The rest of the Norwegian national day passed quite normally. In the evening, the TV news had a feature on how the Norwegian UN battalion had celebrated the day in Lebanon. Sophie's eyes were glued to the screen. One of the men she was seeing could be Hilde's father.
The last thing Sophie did on May 17 was to hang the large mirror on the wall in her room. The following morning there was a new brown envelope in the den. She tore it open at once and began to read.





中文翻译
   明信片
   ......我对自己实施严格的检查制度 ......
   好几天过去了,哲学老师都没有来信。明天就是五月十七日星期四,挪威的国庆日了。学校从这天起放假,一直放到十八日。
   放学回家途中,乔安突然说:“我们去露营吧!”
   苏菲本来想说她不能离家太久,但不知怎的,她却说道:“好呀!”
   几个小时后,乔安背了一个大登山背包来到苏菲家门口。苏菲已经打包完毕。她带了一顶帐篷,他们两人也都各自带了睡袋、毛衣、睡垫、手电筒、大热水瓶,以及很多心爱的食物。
   五点钟左右,苏菲的妈妈回到家。她谆谆告诫两人,要求她们遵守一些应该注意的事项。她并且坚持要知道她们扎营的地点。
   于是,她们告诉她两人计划到松鸡顶去。如果运气好的话,也许第二天早上可以听到松鸡求偶的叫声。
   事实上,苏菲之所以选择去松鸡顶是有“阴谋”的。在她印象中,松鸡顶离少校的小木屋不远。她心里有一股冲动要回到那座木屋,不过她也明白自己不敢一个人去。
   于是,她们两人从苏菲家花园门口那条小小的死巷子出发,沿着一条小路走下去。一路上,她们谈天说地。苏菲觉得暂时不用思考哲学之类问题的感觉还真不错。
   探险 八点时,她们已经在松鸡顶上的一块平地搭好帐篷,准备过夜了。她们的睡袋已经打开。吃完三明治后,苏菲说;“乔安,你有没有听说过少校的小木屋?”
   “少校的小木屋?”
   “这附近的树林里有一座木屋……就在一座小湖边。以前曾经有一个怪人住在那里,是一个少校。所以人家才叫它‘少校的小木屋’。”
   “现在有没有人住呢?”
   “我们去看看好不好?”
   “在哪里呢?”
   苏菲指着树林间。
   乔安不是非常热中,但最后她们还是去了。这时夕阳已经低垂天际。
   最初,她们在高大的松树间走着,不久就经过一片浓密的灌木林,最后走到了下面的一条小路。苏菲心想,这是我星期天早上走的那条路吗?一定是的。她几乎立刻就看到路右边的树林间有某个东西在闪烁。
   “就在那儿。”她说。
   很快地她们就到了小湖边。苏菲站在那儿,看着对岸的木屋。
   红色的小木屋如今门窗紧闭,一片荒凉景象。
   乔安转过身来,看着她。
   “我们要怎么过湖?用走的吗?”
   “当然不了,我们可以划船过去。”
   苏菲指着下面的芦苇丛。小舟就像从前一般躺在那儿。
   “你来过吗?”
   苏菲摇摇头。她不想提上次的事,因为那太复杂了,怎么也说不清楚。同时,如果说了,她也不得不告诉乔安有关艾伯特和哲学课的事。
   她们划船过湖,一路说说笑笑。当她们抵达对岸时,苏菲特别小心地把小舟拉上岸。
   她们走到小屋的前门。屋里显然没有人,因此乔安试着转动门柄。
   “锁住了……你不会以为门是开着的吧?”
   “也许我们可以找到钥匙。”
   于是她开始在屋子底下的石缝间搜寻。
   几分钟后,乔安说:“算了,我们回帐篷去吧就在这时,苏菲叫了一声:“我找到了。、就在这儿!”
   她得意地高举着那把钥匙。然后,她把它插进锁里,门就开了。
   两人蹑手蹑脚地走进去,好像做什么坏事一般。木屋里又冷又黑。
   “什么也看不到!”乔安说。
   不过,苏菲是有备而来。她从口袋里拿出了一盒火柴擦亮一根。在火光熄灭之前的那一刹那,她们看清楚小屋内空无一人。苏菲擦亮另一根火柴,这次她注意到炉子上有一座锻铁做的烛台,上面有半截蜡烛。她用第三根火柴把蜡烛点亮,于是小屋里才有了一点光线,让她们可以看清四周。
   “这样一根小小的蜡烛却可以照亮如此的黑暗,这不是很奇怪吗?”苏菲说。
   乔安点点头。
   “不过你看在某个地方光芒就消失了。”她继续说。
   “事实上黑暗本身是不存在的。它只是缺少光线的照射罢了。”
   乔安打了一个冷颤。“有点恐怖耶!我们走吧!”
   “我们要看看镜子才能走。”
   苏菲指着依旧挂在五斗柜上方的那面铜镜。
   “很漂亮耶广乔安说。
   “可是它是一面魔镜。”
   “魔镜!魔镜!告诉我,这世界上谁最美丽?”
   “乔安,我不是开玩笑。我敢说只要你看着它,就会看到镜子里有东西。”
   “你确定你没来过吗?还有,你为什么那么喜欢吓我?”
   苏菲答不出来。
   “对不起。”
   这回是乔安突然发现靠墙角的地板上有个东西。那是个小盒子,乔安把它捡了起来。
   “是明信片耶!”她说。
   苏菲吃了一惊。
   “别碰它!你听到了吗?千万不要碰!”
   乔安跳了起来,像被火烧到一样赶紧把盒子丢掉。结果明信片撒了一地。乔安随即笑了起来。
   “只不过是一些明信片罢了尸 乔安坐在地板上,开始把那些明信片捡起来。
   过了一会儿,苏菲也坐在她身旁。
   “黎巴嫩……黎巴嫩……黎巴嫩……他们全都盖着黎巴嫩的 邮戳。”乔安说。
   “我知道。”苏菲说。
   乔安猛然坐直,看着苏菲的眼睛。
   “原来你到过这里。”
   “是的,我想是吧!”
   苏菲突然想到,如果她承认来过这里,事情会变得容易得多。
   即使她让乔安知道最近这几天来发生在她身上的神秘事情,也不会有什么坏处的。
   “我们来之前,我并不想让你知道。”
   乔安开始看那些明信片。
   “这些卡片都是写给一个名叫席德的人。”
   苏菲没碰那些卡片。
   “地址是什么?”
   乔安念了出来:“挪威Lillesand,请艾伯特代转席德。”
   苏菲松了一口气。她刚才还怕信上会写“请苏菲代转”。
   她开始仔细检查这些明信片。
   “你看,四月二十八日……五月四日……五月六日……五月九日……这些邮票都是前几天才贴的。”
   “还有,上面盖的通通都是挪威的邮戳!你再看……联合国部队……连邮票也是挪威的!”
   “我想他们大概都是这样。为了要感觉自然一些,他们在那边也设了他们专用的挪威邮局。”
   “但他们是怎么把信寄回家的呢?”
   “也许是通过空军吧!”
   他们在那边
   苏菲把烛台放在地板上,两人开始看这些明信片。乔安把它们按照时间先后的顺序排好,先读第一张:
   亲爱的席德:
   我真的很盼望回到我们在黎乐桑的家。我预定仲夏节黄昏在凯耶维克机场着陆。虽然很想早些抵达以便参加你十五岁生日庆祝会,但我有军令在身。为了弥补这点,我答应你我会全心准备给你的那份大生日礼物。
   爱你并总是考虑到你的前途的老爸P.S:我会把另一张同样的明信片送到我们共同的朋友那儿。
   我想你会了解的,席德。目前的情况看起来虽然是充满了神秘,但我想你会明白的。
   苏菲拿起了第二张:
   亲爱的席德:
   在这里,我们的时间过得很慢。如果这几个月在黎巴嫩的日子有什么事情值得记忆的话,那就是等待的感觉。不过我正尽全力使你有一个很棒的十五岁生日。
   目前我不能说太多。我绝对不能泄漏天机。
   爱你的老爸
  
   苏菲与乔安坐在那儿,兴奋得几乎喘不过气来。两人都没有开口,专心看着明信片。
   亲爱的孩子:
   我最想做的事是用一只白鸽将我心里的秘密传递给你,不过黎巴嫩连一只白鸽也没有。我想这个备受战火摧残的国家最需要的也就是白鸽。我祈祷有一天联合国真的能够创造世界和平。
   P.S:也许你可以与别人分享你的生日礼物。等我回到家再谈这件事好了。你还是不明白我在说些什么,对不对?我在这里可是有很多时间为咱俩打算呢! 老爸他们一连读了六张,现在只剩下最后一张了。上面写道:
   亲爱的席德:
   我现在内心满溢有关你生日的秘密,以致我一天里不得不好几次克制自己不要打电话回家,以免把事件搞砸了。那是一件会愈长愈大的事物。而你也知道,当一个东西愈长愈大,你就愈来愈难隐藏它了。
   P.S:有一天你会遇见一个名叫苏菲的女孩。为了让你们两人在见面前有机会认识,我已经开始将我写给你的明信片寄一份给她。我想她应该可以很快赶上。目前她知道得不比你多。她有一个朋友名叫乔安,也许她可以帮得上忙。
   读了最后一张明信片后,乔安与苏菲静静坐着不动,彼此瞪大了眼睛对望。乔安紧紧地抓着苏菲的手腕。
   “我有点害怕。”她说。
   “我也是。”
   “最后一张明信片盖的是什么时候的邮戳?”
   苏菲再看看卡片。
   “五月十六日,”她说。“就是今天。”
   “不可能!”乔安大声说,语气中几乎有些愤怒。
   他们仔细地看了邮戳。没错,上面的日期的确是一九九O五月十六日。
   “这是不可能的。”
   乔安坚持。“何况我也想不出来这会是谁写的。一定是一个认识我们两个的人。但他是怎么知道我们会在今天来到这里的?”
   乔安比苏菲更害怕,苏菲却已经习惯了。
   “我想这件事一定与那面铜镜有关。”
   乔安再度跳起来。
   “你的意思不是说这些卡片在黎巴嫩盖了邮戳后就从镜子里飞出来吧?”
   “难道你有更好的解释吗?”
   “没有。”
   苏菲站起身来,举起蜡烛照着墙上的两幅画。
   “‘柏克莱’和‘柏客来’这是什么意思?”
   “我也不知道。”
   蜡烛快要烧完了。
   “我们走吧广乔安说。“走呀!”
   “我们得把镜子带走才行。”
   苏菲踮起脚尖,把那面大铜镜从墙壁的钩子上取下。乔安想要 阻止她,但苏菲可不理会。
   当她们走出木屋时,天色就像寻常五月的夜晚一样黑。天边仍 有一些光线,因此她们可以很清楚地看到灌木与树林的轮廓。小湖 静静躺着,仿佛是天空的倒影。划向彼岸时,两个人都心事重重。
   回到帐篷途中,乔安与苏菲都不太说话,但彼此心里明白对方一定满脑子都是方才所见的事。沿途不时有受惊的鸟呱喇飞起。有几次她们还听到猫头鹰“咕!咕!”的叫声。
   她们一到帐篷就爬进睡袋中。乔安不肯把镜子放在帐篷里。入睡前,两人一致认为那面镜子是满可怕的,虽然它只是放在帐篷人口。苏菲今天也拿走了那些明信片,她把它们放在登山背包的口袋里。
   第二天上午她们起得很早。苏菲先醒过来。她穿上靴子,走出帐篷。那面镜子就躺在草地上,镜面沾满了露水。
   苏菲用毛衣把镜子上的露水擦干,然后注视着镜中的自己。她感觉仿佛自己正同时向下、向上地看着自己。还好她今天早晨没有收到从黎巴嫩寄来的明信片。
   在帐篷后面的平原上方,迷离的晨雾正缓缓飘移,逐渐形成许多小小片的棉絮。小鸟儿一度哗然,仿佛受到惊吓,但苏菲既未看到也未听见任何猛禽的动静。 两人各加了一两件毛衣后,便在帐篷外用早餐。她们谈话的内容很快转到少校的小木屋和那些神秘的明信片。
   吃完早餐后,她们卸下帐篷,打道回府。苏菲手臂下挟着那面大镜子。她不时得停下来休息一下,因为乔安根本不愿碰它。
   她们快走到市郊时,听到间歇的熗声。苏菲想起席德的父亲提到的那备受战火摧残的黎巴嫩。她突然发现自己是多么幸运,能够生在一个和平的国家。后来,她才发现那些“熗声”原来是有人放烟火庆祝仲夏节的声音。
   到家后,苏菲邀请乔安进屋里喝一杯热巧克力。苏菲的妈妈很好奇她们是在哪里发现那面镜子的,苏菲说他们是在少校的木屋外面捡到的,妈妈于是又说了一遍那里已有许多年无人居住等等的话。
   乔安走后,苏菲穿上一件红洋装。那天虽是仲夏节,但与平常也没什么两样。到了晚上,电视新闻有个专题报道描写挪威驻黎巴嫩的联合国部队如何庆祝仲夏节。苏菲的眼睛一直盯着荧屏不放,她想她看到的那些人中有一个可能是席德的父亲。
   五月十七日那天,苏菲做的最后一件事便是把那面大镜子挂在她房间的墙上。第二天早上,密洞中又放了一个棕色的信封,苏菲将信打开,开始看了起来。





暮辞朝

ZxID:15103679


等级: 内阁元老
配偶: 清风雅乐
这一段开心的日子请你勿忘
举报 只看该作者 14楼  发表于: 2013-10-26 0
英文原文
Two Cultures
... the only way to avoid floating in a vacuum 
It won't be long now before we meet, my dear Sophie. I thought you would return to the major's cabin--that's why I left all the cards from Hilde's father there. That was the only way they could be delivered to her. Don't worry about how she will get them. A lot can happen before June 15.
We have seen how the Hellenistic philosophers recycled the ideas of earlier philosophers. Some even attempted to turn their predecessors into religious prophets. Plotinus came close to acclaiming Plato as the savior of humanity.
But as we know, another savior was born during the period we have just been discussing--and that happened outside the Greco-Roman area. I refer to Jesus of Nazareth. In this chapter we will see how Christianity gradually began to permeate the Greco-Roman world--more or less the same way that Hilde's world has gradually begun to permeate ours.
Jesus was a jew, and the Jews belong to Semitic culture. The Greeks and the Romans belong to Indo-European culture. European civilization has its roots in both cultures. But before we take a closer look at the way Christianity influenced Greco-Roman culture, we must examine these roots.
THE INDO-EUROPEANS
By Indo-European we mean all the nations and cultures that use Indo-European languages. This covers all European nations except those whose inhabitants speak one of the Finno-Ugrian languages (Lapp, Finnish, Estonian, and Hungarian) or Basque. In addition, most Indian and Iranian languages belong to the Indo-European family of languages.
About 4,000 years ago, the primitive Indo-Europeans lived in areas bordering on the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. From there, waves of these Indo-European tribes began to wander southeast into Iran and India, southwest to Greece, Italy, and Spain, westward through Central Europe to France and Britain, northwestward to Scandinavia and northward to Eastern Europe and Russia. Wherever they went, the Indo-Europeans assimilated with the local culture, although Indo-European languages and Indo-European religion came to play a dominant role.
The ancient Indian Veda scriptures and Greek philosophy, and for that matter Snorri Sturluson's mythology are all written in related languages. But it is not only the languages that are related. Related languages often lead to related ideas. This is why we usually speak of an Indo-European "culture."
The culture of the Indo-Europeans was influenced most of all by their belief in many gods. This is called polytheism. The names of these gods as well as much of the religious terminology recur throughout the whole Indo-European area. I'll give you a few examples:
The ancient Indians worshipped the celestial god Dyaus, which in Sanskrit means the sky, day, heaven/ Heaven. In Greek this god is called Zeus, in Latin, Jupiter (actually iov-pater, or "Father Heaven"), and in Old Norse, Tyr. So the names Dyaus, Zeus, lov, and Tyr are dialectal variants of the same word.
You probably learned that the old Vikings believed in gods which they called Aser. This is another word we find recurring all over the Indo-European area. In Sanskrit, the ancient classical language of India, the gods are called asura and in Persian Ahura. Another word for "god" is deva in Sanskrit, claeva in Persian, deus in Latin and tivurr in Old Norse.
In Viking times, people also believed in a special group of fertility gods (such as Niord, Freyr, and Freyja). These gods were referred to by a special collective name, vaner, a word that is related to the Latin name for the goddess of fertility, Venus. Sanskrit has the related word van/, which means "desire."
There is also a clear affinity to be observed in some of the Indo-European myths. In Snorri's stories of the Old Norse gods, some of the myths are similar to the myths of India that were handed down from two to three thousand years earlier. Although Snorri's myths reflect the Nordic environment and the Indian myths reflect the Indian, many of them retain traces of a common origin. We can see these traces most clearly in myths about immortal potions and the struggles of the gods against the monsters of chaos.
We can also see clear similarities in modes of thought across the Indo-European cultures. A typical likeness is the way the world is seen as being the subject of a drama in which the forces of Good and Evil confront each other in a relentless struggle. Indo-Europeans have therefore often tried to "predict" how the battles between Good and Evil will turn out.
One could say with some truth that it was no accident that Greek philosophy originated in the Indo-European sphere of culture. Indian, Greek, and Norse mythology all have obvious leanings toward a philosophic, or "speculative," view of the world.
The Indo-Europeans sought "insight" into the history of the world. We can even trace a particular word for "insight" or "knowledge" from one culture to another all over the Indo-European world. In Sanskrit it is vidya. The word is identical to the Greek word idea, which was so important in Plato's philosophy. From Latin, we have the word video, but on Roman ground the word simply means to see. For us, "I see" can mean "I understand," and in the cartoons, a light bulb can flash on above Woody Woodpecker's head when he gets a bright idea. (Not until our own day did "seeing" become synonymous with staring at the TV screen.) In English we know the words wise and wisdom--in German, wissen (to know). Norwegian has the word viten, which has the same root as the Indian word vidya, the Greek idea, and the Latin video.
All in all, we can establish that sight was the most important of the senses for Indo-Europeans. The literature of Indians, Greeks, Persians, and Teutons alike was characterized by great cosmic visions. (There is that word again: "vision" comes from the Latin verb "video."} It was also characteristic for Indo-European culture to make pictures and sculptures of the gods and of mythical events.
Lastly, the Indo-Europeans had a cyc//c view of history. This is the belief that history goes in circles, just like the seasons of the year. There is thus no beginning and no end to history, but there are different civilizations that rise and fall in an eternal interplay between birth and death.
Both of the two great Oriental religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, are Indo-European in origin. So is Greek philosophy, and we can see a number of clear parallels between Hinduism and Buddhism on the one hand and Greek philosophy on the other. Even today, Hinduism and Buddhism are strongly imbued with philosophical reflection.
Not infrequently we find in Hinduism and Buddhism an emphasis on the fact that the deity is present in all things (pantheism) and that man can become one with God through religious insight. (Remember Plotinus, Sophie?) To achieve this requires the practice of deep self-communion or meditation. Therefore in the Orient, passivity and seclusion can be religious ideals. In ancient Greece, too, there were many people who believed in an ascetic, or religiously secluded, way of life for the salvation of the soul Many aspects of medieval monastic life can be traced back to beliefs dating from the Greco-Roman civilization.
Similarly, the transmigration of the soul, or the cycle of rebirth, is a fundamental belief in many Indo-European cultures. For more than 2,500 years, the ultimate purpose of life for every Indian has been the release from the cycle of rebirth. Plato also believed in the transmigration of the soul.
The Semites
Let us now turn to the Semites, Sophie. They belong to a completely different culture with a completely different language. The Semites originated in the Arabian Peninsula, but they also migrated to different parts of the world. The Jews lived far from their home for more than 2,000 years. Semitic history and religion reached furthest away from its roots by way of Christendom, although Semitic culture also became widely spread via Islam.
All three Western religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--share a Semitic background. The Muslims' holy scripture, the Koran, and the Old Testament were both written in the Semitic family of languages. One of the Old Testament words for "god" has the same semantic root as the Muslim Allah. (The word "allah" means, quite simply, "god.")
When we get to Christianity the picture becomes more complicated. Christianity also has a Semitic background, but the New Testament was written in Greek, and when the Christian theology or creed was formulated, it was influenced by Greek and Latin, and thus also by Hellenistic philosophy.
The Indo-Europeans believed in many different gods. It was just as characteristic for the Semites that from earliest times they were united in their belief in one God. This is called monotheism. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all share the same fundamental idea that there is only one God.
The Semites also had in common a linear view of history. In other words, history was seen as an ongoing line. In the beginning God created the world and that was the beginning of history. But one day history will end and that will be Judgment Day, when God judges the living and the dead.
The role played by history is an important feature of these three Western religions. The belief is that God intervenes in the course of history--even that history exists in order that God may manifest his will in the world, just as he once led Abraham to the "Promised Land," he leads mankind's steps through history to the Day of Judgment. When that day comes, all evil in the world will be destroyed.
With their strong emphasis on God's activity in the course of history, the Semites were preoccupied with the writing of history for many thousands of years. And these historical roots constitute the very core of their holy scriptures.
Even today the city of Jerusalem is a significant religious center for Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike. This indicates something of the common background of these three religions.
The city comprises prominent (Jewish) synagogues, (Christian) churches, and (Islamic) mosques. It is therefore deeply tragic that Jerusalem should have become a bone of contention--with people killing each other by the thousand because they cannot agree on who is to have ascendancy over this "Eternal City." May the UN one day succeed in making Jerusalem a holy shrine for all three religions! (We shall not go any further into this more practical part of our philosophy course for the moment. We will leave it entirely to Hilde's father. You must have gathered by now that he is a UN observer in Lebanon. To be more precise, I can reveal that he is serving as a major. If you are beginning to see some connection, that's quite as it should be. On the other hand, let's not anticipate events!)
We said that the most important of the senses for Indo-Europeans was sight. How important hearing was to the Semitic cultures is just as interesting. It is no accident that the Jewish creed begins with the words: "Hear, O Israel!" In the Old Testament we read how the people "heard" the word of the Lord, and the Jewish prophets usually began their sermons with the words: "Thus spake Jehovah (God)." "Hearing" the word of God is also emphasized in Christianity. The religious ceremonies of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all characterized by reading aloud or "reciting."
I also mentioned that the Indo-Europeans always made pictorial representations or sculptures of their gods. It was just as characteristic for the Semites that they never did. They were not supposed to create pictures or sculptures of God or the "deity." The Old Testament commands that the people shall not make any image of God. This is still law today both for Judaism and Islam. Within Islam there is moreover a general aversion to both photography and art, because people should not compete with God in "creating" anything.
But the Christian churches are full of pictures of Jesus and God, you are probably thinking. True enough, Sophie, but this is just one example of how Christendom was influenced by the Greco-Roman world. (In the Greek Orthodox Church--that is, in Greece and in Russia-- "graven images," or sculptures and crucifixes, from Bible stories are still forbidden.)
In contrast to the great religions of the Orient, the three Western religions emphasize that there is a distance between God and his creation. The purpose is not to be released from the cycle of rebirth, but to be redeemed from sin and blame. Moreover, religious life is characterized more by prayer, sermons, and the study of the scriptures than by self-communion and meditation.
Israel
I have no intention of competing with your religion teacher, Sophie, but let us just make a quick summary of Christianity's Jewish background.
It all began when God created the world. You can read how that happened on the very first page of the Bible. Then mankind began to rebel against God. Their punishment was not only that Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden of Eden--Death also came into the world.
Man's disobedience to God is a theme that runs right through the Bible. If we go further on in the Book of Genesis we read about the Flood and Noah's Ark. Then we read that God made a covenant with Abraham and his seed. This covenant--or pact--was that Abraham and all his seed would keep the Lord's commandments. In exchange God promised to protect all the children of Abraham. This covenant was renewed when Moses was given the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai around the year 1200 B.C. At that time the Israelites had long been held as slaves in Egypt, but with God's help they were led back to the land of Israel.
About 1,000 years before Christ--and therefore long before there was anything called Greek philosophy--we hear of three great kings of Israel. The first was Saul, then came David, and after him came Solomon. Now all the Israelites were united in one kingdom, and under King David, especially, they experienced a period of political, military, and cultural glory.
When kings were chosen, they were anointed by the people. They thus received the title Messiah, which means "the anointed one." In a religious sense kings were looked upon as a go-between between God and his people. The king could therefore also be called the "Son of God" and the country could be called the "Kingdom of God."
But before long Israel began to lose its power and the kingdom was divided into a Northern kingdom (Israel) and a Southern kingdom (Judea). In 722 B.C. the Northern kingdom was conquered by the Assyrians and it lost all political and religious significance. The Southern kingdom fared no better, being conquered by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. Its temple was destroyed and most of its people were carried off to slavery in Babylon. This "Babylonian captivity" lasted until 539 B.C. when the people were permitted to return to Jerusalem, and the great temple was restored. But for the rest of the period before the birth of Christ the Jews continued to live under foreign domination.
The question Jews constantly asked themselves was why the Kingdom of David was destroyed and why catastrophe after catastrophe rained down on them, for God had promised to hold Israel in his hand. But the people had also promised to keep God's commandments. It gradually became widely accepted that God was punishing Israel for her disobedience.
From around 750 B.C. various prophets began to come forward preaching God's wrath over Israel for not keeping his commandments. One day God would hold a Day of Judgment over Israel, they said. We call prophecies like these Doomsday prophecies.
In the course of time there came other prophets who preached that God would redeem a chosen few of his people and send them a "Prince of Peace" or a king of the House of David. He would restore the old Kingdom of David and the people would have a future of prosperity.
"The people that walked in darkness will see a great light," said the prophet Isaiah, and "they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined." We call prophecies like these prophecies of redemption.
To sum up: The children of Israel lived happily under King David. But later on when their situation deteriorated, their prophets began to proclaim that there would one day come a new king of the House of David. This "Messiah," or "Son of God," would "redeem" the people, restore Israel to greatness, and found a "Kingdom of God."
Jesus
I assume you are still with me, Sophie? The key words are "Messiah," "Son of God," and "Kingdom of God." At first it was all taken politically. In the time of Jesus, there were a lot of people who imagined that there would come a new "Messiah" in the sense of a political, military, and religious leader of the caliber of King David. This "savior" was thus looked upon as a national deliverer who would put an end to the suffering of the Jews under Roman domination.
Well and good. But there were also many people who were more farsighted. For the past two hundred years there had been prophets who believed that the promised "Messiah" would be the savior of the whole world. He would not simply free the Israelites from a foreign yoke, he would save all mankind from sin and blame--and not least, from death. The longing for "salvation" in the sense of redemption was widespread all over the Hellenistic world.
So along comes Jesus of Nazareth. He was not the only man ever to have come forward as the promised "Messiah." Jesus also uses the words "Son of God," the "Kingdom of God," and "redemption." In doing this he maintains the link with the old prophets. He rides into Jerusalem and allows himself to be acclaimed by the crowds as the savior of the people, thus playing directly on the way the old kings were installed in a characteristic "throne accession ritual." He also allows himself to be anointed by the people. "The time is fulfilled," he says, and "the Kingdom of God is at hand."
But here is a very important point: Jesus distinguished himself from the other "messiahs" by stating clearly that he was not a military or political rebel. His mission was much greater. He preached salvation and God's forgiveness for everyone. To the people he met on his way he said "Your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake."
Handing out the "remission of sins" in this way was totally unheard of. And what was even worse, he addressed God as "Father" (Abba). This was absolutely un-precedented in the Jewish community at that time. It was therefore not long before there arose a wave of protest against him among the scribes.
So here was the situation: a great many people at the time of Jesus were waiting for a Messiah who would reestablish the Kingdom of God with a great flourish of trumpets (in other words, with fire and sword). The expression "Kingdom of God" was indeed a recurring theme in the preachings of Jesus--but in a much broader sense. Jesus said that the "Kingdom of God" is loving thy neighbor, compassion for the weak and the poor, and forgiveness of those who have erred.
This was a dramatic shift in the meaning of an age-old expression with warlike overtones. People were expecting a military leader who would soon proclaim the establishment of the Kingdom of God, and along comes Jesus in kirtle and sandals telling them that the Kingdom of God-- or the "new covenant"--is that you must "love thy neighbor as thyself." But that was not all, Sophie, he also said that we must love our enemies. When they strike us, we must not retaliate; we must even turn the other cheek. And we must forgive--not seven times but seventy times seven.
Jesus himself demonstrated that he was not above talking to harlots, corrupt usurers, and the politically subversive. But he went even further: he said that a good-for-nothing who has squandered all his father's inheritance-- or a humble publican who has pocketed official funds-- is righteous before God when he repents and prays for forgiveness, so great is God's mercy.
But hang on--he went a step further: Jesus said that such sinners were more righteous in the eyes of God and more deserving of God's forgiveness than the spotless Pharisees who went around flaunting their virtue.
Jesus pointed out that nobody can earn God's mercy. We cannot redeem ourselves (as many of the Greeks believed). The severe ethical demands made by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount were not only to teach what the will of God meant, but also to show that no man is righteous in the eyes of God. God's mercy is boundless, but we have to turn to God and pray for his forgiveness.
I shall leave a more thorough study of Jesus and his teachings to your religion teacher. He will have quite a task. I hope he will succeed in showing what an excep-tional man Jesus was. In an ingenious way he used the language of his time to give the old war cries a totally new and broader content. It's not surprising that he ended on the Cross. His radical tidings of redemption were at odds with so many interests and power factors that he had to be removed.
When we talked about Socrates, we saw how dangerous it could be to appeal to people's reason. With Jesus we see how dangerous it can be to demand unconditional brotherly love and unconditional forgiveness. Even in the world of today we can see how mighty powers can come apart at the seams when confronted with simple demands for peace, love, food for the poor, and amnesty for the enemies of the state.
You may recall how incensed Plato was that the most righteous man in Athens had to forfeit his life. According to Christian teachings, Jesus was the only righteous person who ever lived. Nevertheless he was condemned to death. Christians say he died for the sake of humanity. This is what Christians usually call the "Passion" of Christ Jesus was the "suffering servant" who bore the sins of humanity in order that we could be "atoned" and saved from God's wrath.
Paul
A few days after Jesus had been crucified and buried, rumors spread that he had risen from the grave. He thereby proved that he was no ordinary man. He truly was the "Son of God."
We could say that the Christian Church was founded on Easter Morning with the rumors of the resurrection of Jesus. This is already established by Paul: "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain and your faith is also vain."
Now all mankind could hope for the resurrection of the body, for it was to save us that Jesus was crucified. But, dear Sophie, remember that from a Jewish point of view there was no question of the "immortality of the soul" or any form of "transmigration"; that was a Greek--and therefore an Indo-European--thought. According to Christianity there is nothing in man--no "soul," for example-- that is in itself immortal. Although the Christian Church believes in the "resurrection of the body and eternal life," it is by God's miracle that we are saved from death and "damnation." It is neither through our own merit nor through any natural--or innate--ability.
So the early Christians began to preach the "glad tidings" of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Through his mediation, the "Kingdom of God" was about to be-come a reality. Now the entire world could be won for Christ. (The word "christ" is a Greek translation of the Hebrew word "messiah," the anointed one.)
A few years after the death of Jesus, the Pharisee Paul converted to Christianity. Through his many missionary journeys across the whole of the Greco-Roman world he made Christianity a worldwide religion. We hear of this in the Acts of the Apostles. Paul's preaching and guidance for the Christians is known to us from the many epistles written by him to the early Christian congregations.
He then turns up in Athens. He wanders straight into the city square of the philosophic capital. And it is said that "his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry." He visited the Jewish synagogue in Athens and conversed with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. They took him up to the Areopagos hill and asked him: "May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean."
Can you imagine it, Sophie? A Jew suddenly appears in the Athenian marketplace and starts talking about a savior who was hung on a cross and later rose from the grave. Even from this visit of Paul in Athens we sense a coming collision between Greek philosophy and the doctrine of Christian redemption. But Paul clearly succeeds in getting the Athenians to listen to him. From the Areopa-gos--and beneath the proud temples of the Acropolis-- he makes the following speech:
"Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things. And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him and find him, though he be not far from every one of us. For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent:
Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given as-surance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."
Paul in Athens, Sophie! Christianity has begun to penetrate the Greco-Roman world as something else, something completely different from Epicurean, Stoic, or Neoplatonic philosophy. But Paul nevertheless finds some common ground in this culture. He emphasizes that the search for God is natural to all men. This was not new to the Greeks. But what was new in Paul's preaching is that God has also revealed himself to mankind and has in truth reached out to them. So he is no longer a "philosophic God" that people can approach with their understanding. Neither is he "an image of gold or silver or stone"--there were plenty of those both on the Acropolis and down in the marketplace! He is a God that "dwelleth not in temples made with hands." He is a personal God who intervenes in the course of history and dies on the Cross for the sake of mankind.
When Paul had made his speech on the Areopagos, we read in the Acts of the Apostles, some mocked him for what he said about the resurrection from the dead. But others said: "We will hear thee again of this matter." There were also some who followed Paul and began to believe in Christianity. One of them, it is worth noting, was a woman named Damaris. Women were amongst the most fervent converts to Christianity.
So Paul continued his missionary activities. A few decades after the death of Jesus, Christian congregations were already established in all the important Greek and Roman cities--in Athens, in Rome, in Alexandria, in Ephesos, and in Corinth. In the space of three to four hundred years, the entire Hellenistic world had become Christian.
The Creed
It was not only as a missionary that Paul came to have a fundamental significance for Christianity. He also had great influence within the Christian congregations. There was a widespread need for spiritual guidance.
One important question in the early years after Jesus was whether non-Jews could become Christians without first becoming Jews. Should a Greek, for instance, observe the dietary laws? Paul believed it to be unnecessary. Christianity was more than a Jewish sect. It addressed itself to everybody in a universal message of salvation. The "Old Covenant" between God and Israel had been replaced by the "New Covenant" which Jesus had established between God and mankind.
However, Christianity was not the only religion at that time. We have seen how Hellenism was influenced by a fusion of religions. It was thus vitally necessary for the church to step forward with a concise summary of the Christian doctrine, both in order to distance itself from other religions and to prevent schisms within the Christian Church. Therefore the first Creed was established, summing up the central Christian "dogmas" or tenets.
One such central tenet was that Jesus was both God and man. He was not the "Son of God" on the strength of his actions alone. He was God himself. But he was also a "true man" who had shared the misfortunes of mankind and actually suffered on the Cross.
This may sound like a contradiction. But the message of the church was precisely that God became man. Jesus was not a "demigod" (which was half man, half god). Belief in such "demigods" was quite widespread in Greek and Hellenistic religions. The church taught that Jesus was "perfect God, perfect man."
Postscript
Let me try to say a few words about how all this hangs together, my dear Sophie. As Christianity makes its entry into the Greco-Roman world we are witnessing a dramatic meeting of two cultures. We are also seeing one of history's great cultural revolutions.
We are about to step out of antiquity. Almost one thousand years have passed since the days of the early Greek philosophers. Ahead of us we have the Christian Middle Ages, which also lasted for about a thousand years.
The German poet Goethe once said that "he who cannot draw on three thousand years is living from hand to mouth." I don't want you to end up in such a sad state. I will do what I can to acquaint you with your historical roots. It is the only way to become a human being. It is the only way to become more than a naked ape. It is the only way to avoid floating in a vacuum.
"It is the only way to become a human being. It is the only way to become more than a naked ape ..."
Sophie sat for a while staring into the garden through the little holes in the hedge. She was beginning to understand why it was so important to know about her historical roots. It had certainly been important to the Children of Israel.
She herself was just an ordinary person. But if she knew her historical roots, she would be a little less ordinary.
She would not be living on this planet for more than a few years. But if the history of mankind was her own history, in a way she was thousands of years old.





中文翻译
   两种文化
   ……避免在真空中飘浮的唯一方式……
   亲爱的苏菲:
   我们相见的日子已经不远了。我想你大概会回到少校的小木屋,所以我才把席德的父亲寄来的明信片留在那儿,这是把那些明信片转给她的唯一方式。你毋需担心她如何才能拿到它们,在六月十五日以前有许多事可能会发生呢!
   我们已经谈过希腊文化时期的哲学家如何重新利用早期哲学家的学说,其中有人还把这些哲学家当成宗教先知。普罗汀就只差没有把柏拉图说成人类的救星。
   说到救星,我们知道,在这个时期,另外一位救星诞生了。这件事情发生在希腊罗马地区以外的地方,我们所说的这位救星就是拿撒勒的耶稣。在这一章中我们会谈到基督教如何逐渐渗透希腊罗马地区,就像席德的世界逐渐渗透我们的世界一样。
   耶稣是犹太人,而犹大人属于闪族文化。
   希腊人与罗马人则属于印欧文化。我们可以断言欧洲文明曾同时受到这两种文化的孕育。不过,在我们详细讨论基督教如何影响希腊罗马地区之前,必须先了解一下这两种文化。
   印欧民族
   所谓印欧民族指的是所有使用印欧语言的民族与文化,包括所有的欧洲国家,除了那些讲菲诺攸格里克(Finno一Ugrian)语族语言(包括斯堪地那维亚半岛最北端的拉普兰语、芬兰语、爱沙尼亚语和匈牙利语)或巴斯克语的民族之外。除此之外,印度和伊朗地区的大多数语言也属于印欧语系。
   大约四千年前,原始的印欧民族住在邻近黑海与里海的地区。
   后来他们陆续向四方迁徙。他们往东南进入伊朗与印度,往西南到达希腊、意大利与西班牙,往西经过中欧,到达法国与英国,往西北进入斯堪地那维亚半岛,往北进入东欧与俄罗斯。无论到什么地方,这些印欧民族都努力吸收当地文化,不过在语言和宗教方面还是以印欧语和印欧宗教较占优势。
   无论是古印度的吠陀经、希腊的哲学或史特卢森(SnorriSturluson)的神话都是以相近的印欧语言撰写的。但相近的不只是语言而已,因为相近的语言往往导致相近的思想,这是我们为何经常谈到印欧“文化”的缘故。
   印欧民族相信宇宙间有许多天神(此即所谓的“多神论”),这对他们的文化有很深远的影响。这些天神的名字和许多宗教词汇曾出现在印欧文化所及的各个地区。下面我将举一些例子:
   古印度人尊奉的天神是戴欧斯(Dyaus),希腊文称他为宙斯(Zeus),拉丁文称他为朱彼得(Jupitter)(事实上是iov—pater,或“法父”之意),古斯堪地那维亚文则称之为泰尔(Tyr)。这些名字事实上指的是同一个字,只是各地称呼不同罢了。你可能读过古代维京人相信他们所谓的Aser(诸神)的事,Aser这个字也出现在各印欧文化地区。在印度古代的传统语言“梵语”中,诸神被称为asura,在波斯文中则被称为ahura。梵语中另外一个表示“神”的字为deva,在波斯文中为daeve,在拉丁文中为deus,在古斯堪地那维亚文中则为tivurr.
   古代的北欧人也相信有一群掌管万物生育、生长的神(如尼欧德与芙瑞雅)。这些神有一个通称,叫做vaner,这个字与拉丁文中代表生育之神的字Venus(维纳斯)相近。梵语中也有一个类似的宇叫Vani为“欲望”之意。
   有些印欧神话也很明显有相近之处。在Sn。ni有关古代北欧诸神的故事中,有些与两三千午前印度流传下来的神话非常相似。
   尽管Snorri的神话反映的是古代北欧的环境,印度神话则反映印度当地的环境,但其中许多神话都有若干痕迹显示他们具有共同的渊源。其中最明显的是那些关于长生不老仙丹与诸神对抗浑沌妖魔的神话故事。
   此外,很明显的,各印欧文化也有相近的思想模式。最典型的例于是他们都将世界看成善与恶无休无止相互对抗的场所,因此舟欧民族才会经常试图“预测”世界未来的前途。
   我们可以说,希腊哲学源自印欧文化并非偶然。印度、希腊与古代北欧的神话明显都有一种以哲学或“思索”的观点来看这个世界的倾向。
   印欧人希望能够“洞察”世界的历史。我们甚至可以发现在各舟欧文化中都有一个特别的字来表示“洞见”或“知识”。在梵语中,这个字是vidya,这个字的意思与希腊文中的idea这个字相当。而idea船此字在柏拉图的哲学中占有很重要的分量。在拉丁文中这个字是video,不过对罗马人来说,这个字只是“看见”的意思。在英文中,Isee可能表示“我懂了”。在卡通影片中,啄木鸟想到一个聪明的办法时,脑袋上方会有灯泡发亮。(到了现代,seeing这个字才变成“盯着电视看”的同义字。)英文中有wise和wisdom这两个字。
   在德文中有wissen(知道)这个字,在挪威文中则有viten。这些字的来源与印度文中的vidya、希腊文中的idea与拉丁文中的video这些字相同。
   总而言之,我们可以断定对印欧人而言,视觉乃是最重要的感官。印度、希腊、波斯与条顿民族(Teut。ns)的文学都以宏大的宇宙观(cosmicvision)为特色(在这里vision这个字源自拉丁文中的Video这个动词)。此外,印欧文化的另一个特色是经常制作描绘诸神以及神话事件的图画和雕刻。
   最后一点,印欧民族认为历史是循环的。他们相信历史就像四季一样会不断循环。因此历史既没有开始,也没有结束,只不过在无尽的生生死死中有不同的文明兴亡消长罢了。
   印度教与佛教这两大东方宗教都源自印欧文化,希腊哲学亦然。我们可以看到这两者间有明显相似的痕迹。到了今天,印度教与佛教仍然充满了哲学式的省思。
   我们可以发现,印度教与佛教都强调万物皆有神性(此即“泛神论”),并主张人悟道后就可以成佛。(还记得普罗汀的说法吗?)为了要悟道,人必须深深自省或打坐冥想。因此,在东方,清净无为、退隐山林可以成为一种宗教理想。同样的,在古代的希腊,许多人也相信禁欲苦修或不食人间烟火的生活可以使灵魂得救。中世纪僧侣的生活在许多方面就是受到希腊罗马观念的影响。
   此外,许多印欧文化也有“灵魂转生”或“生命轮回”的观念。
   两千五百多年来,每一个印度人的生命终极目的就是要挣脱轮回。柏拉图也相信灵魂可以转生。
  
   闪族文化
   现在让我们来谈一谈闪族文化。这是一个完全不同的文化,他们的语言也和印欧语系完全不同。闪族人源自阿拉伯半岛,不过他们后来同样也迁徙到世界各地。两千多年来,这些犹大人一直过着离乡背井的生活。透过基督教与回教,闪族文化(历史与宗教)的影响遍及各地。
   西方三大宗教——犹太教、基督教(编按:Christianity,系包括所有信奉基督的教派,最重要的有四种:
   主要是天主教、基督教、东正教、英国圣公会,其中基督教又称新教,是十六世纪宗教革命后才分出来的)与伊斯兰教——都源出闪族。伊斯兰教的圣经古兰经与基督教的旧约圣经都是以闪族语系的语言写成的。旧约中代表神”的一个字和伊斯兰文中的Allah(“阿拉”,就是“神”的意思)同样都源自闪语。
   谈到基督教时,情况就变得比较复杂了。基督教虽然也是源自闪族文化,但新约则是以希腊文撰写,同时,基督教的教义神学成形时,曾受到希腊与拉丁文化的影响,因此当然也就受到希腊哲学的影响。
   我们说过,印欧民族乃是多神论者,但闪族一开始就相信宇宙间只有一个上帝,这就是所谓的“一神论”。犹大教、基督教与伊斯兰教都是一神论的宗教。
   闪族文化另外一个共同的特色是相信历史乃是呈直线式发展,捷句话说,他们认为历史是一条不断延伸的线。神在鸿濛大初时创造了世界,历史从此展开,但终于有一天它会结束,而这一天就是所谓的“最后审判日”,届时神将会对所有生者与死者进行审判。
   历史扮演的角色乃是这西方三大宗教中一个很重要的特色。
   他们相信,上帝会干预历史发展的方向,他们甚至认为历史存在的目的,是为了让上帝可以完成他在这世界的旨意。就像他曾经带领亚伯拉罕到“应许之地”一般,他将带领人类通过历史,迈向“最后审判日”。当这一天来临时,世界上所有的邪恶都将被摧毁。
   由于强调上帝在历史过程中所扮演的角色,闪族人数千年来一直非常注重历史的纪录。这些历史文献后来成为圣经的核心。
   到了今天,耶路撒冷城仍是犹太人、基督徒与伊斯兰教徒共同的重要宗教中心。这显示三大宗教显然具有某种相同的背景。
   我们曾经说过,对印欧人而言,最重要的感官乃是视觉。而有趣的是,闪族文化中最重要的感官则是听觉,因此犹大人的圣经一开始就是“听哪!以色列”。在旧约圣经中我们也读到人们如何“听到”上帝的话语,而犹太先知通常也以“耶和华(上帝)说”这几个字开始他们的布道。同样的,基督教也强调信徒应“听从”上帝的话语。无论基督教、犹太教或伊斯兰教,同样都有大声朗诵经文的习惯。
   此外,我曾提到印欧人经常以图画或雕刻来描绘诸神的形象。
   在这一点上闪族人正好相反,他们从来不这样做,对闪族人而言,描绘或雕凿神像是不可以的。旧约曾训诫人们不要制作任何神像。
   你也许会想:
   “可是,基督教会的教堂却到处都是耶稣与上帝的画像呀广没错,确是如此。不过,这是基督教受到希腊罗马文化影响的结果(希腊与俄罗斯等地的希腊正教至今仍不许信徒制作有关圣经故事的雕像)。
   与东方各大宗教相反的是,西方三大宗教强调上帝与造物之间有一段距离。对他们而言,生命的目的不在脱离轮回,而在于从罪恶与谴责中得救。此外,西方的宗教生活较偏重祈祷、布道和研究圣经,而不在于自省与打坐。
  
   以色列
   苏菲,我无意与你的宗教课老师互别苗头,但现在我想简短地谈一下基督教与犹大文化的渊源。
   一切都是从上帝创造世界时开始。你可以在圣经第一页看到这件事的始末。后来人类开始反抗上帝,为了惩罚他们,上帝不但将亚当与夏娃逐出伊甸园,并且从此让人类面对死亡。
   人类对上帝的反抗乃是贯穿整部圣经的主题,旧约创世记中记载洪水与诺亚方舟的故事。然后我们读到上帝与亚伯拉罕以及他的子孙立约,要求亚伯拉罕与他的世代子孙都必须遵守上帝的戒律。为了奖赏他们,上帝答应保护亚伯拉罕的后裔。公元前一二00年左右,上帝在西乃山上向摩西颁布十诫时,又再次与他立约。那时以色列人在埃及已经当了很久的奴隶,但借着上帝的帮助,他们在摩西的领导下终于回到了以色列的土地。
   约公元前一千年时(在希腊哲学诞生很久很久之前)有三位伟大的以色列王。第一位是扫罗王,第二位是大卫王,第三位是所罗门王。当时,所有的以色列子孙已经在这个王国之下团结起来。尤其是大卫王统治时期,以色列在政治、军事与文化上都卓然有成。
   依当时的习俗,国王被遴选出来时,要由人民行涂油礼,因此他们被赋予“弥赛亚”(意为“受膏者”)的称号。在宗教的意义上,国王被视为上帝与他的子民间的媒介,因此国王也称为“上帝之子”,而他的王国则可称为“天国”。
   然而,不久之后,以色列的国力开始式微,国家也分裂成南北•两国,南国为“犹太”,北国则仍称“以色列”。公元前七二二年时北国被亚述人征服,失去了政治与宗教的影响力。南国的命运也好不了多少。它在公元前五八六午时被巴比伦人征服,圣殿被毁,大多数人民也被运往巴比伦充当奴隶。这段“巴比伦奴隶时期”一直持续了四十余年,直到公元前五三九年时以色列人民才获准返回耶路撒冷,重建圣殿。然而,一直到基督降生,犹太人都生活在异族统治之下。
   犹太人经常提出的一个问题是:
   上帝既已答应保护以色列,为何大卫的王国会被摧毁?犹太人又为何一次次遭逢劫难?不过,话说回来,人们也曾答应要遵守上帝的诫律。因此,愈来愈多人相信,上帝是因为以色列不遵守诫律才加以惩罚。
   公元前七五O年左右,有多位先知开始宣称上帝已因以色列不遵守诫律而发怒。他们说,总有一天上帝会对以色列进行最后的审判。我们称这类预言为“末日预言”。
   后来,又另有一些先知预言上帝将拯救少数的子民,并且派遣一位“和平之子”或大卫家族的国王协助他们重建大卫的王国,使这些人民享受繁荣的生活。
   先知以赛亚说:
   “那坐在黑暗里的百姓,看见了大光,坐在死荫之地的人,有光发现照着他们。”我们称这类预言为“救赎预言”。
   总而言之,以色列的予民原来在大卫王的统治之下安居乐业,但后来当情形每下愈况时,他们的先知开始宣称有一天将会出现一位大卫家族的新国王。这位“弥赛亚”或“上帝之予”将“拯救”人民,使以色列重新成为一个伟大的国家,并建立“天国”。
  
   耶稣
   苏菲,你还在看吗?我刚才说的关键字是“弥赛亚”、“上帝之子”与“天国”。最初人们只是从政治角度来解释这些字眼。在耶稣的时代,有很多人想象将来会出现一位“救世主”(像大卫王一样有才干的政治、军事与宗教领袖)。这位“救世主”被视为国家救星,可以使犹大人脱离受罗马人统治之苦。
   这固然是一件美事,但也有许多人把眼光放得较远。在那两百年间,不断有先知预言上帝应许派来的“救世主”将会拯救全世界。
   他不仅将使以色列人挣脱异族的桎梏,并将拯救所有世人,使其免于罪草与上帝的责罚,得到永生。这种渴望救赎的想法在希腊文化影响所及的各地区也很普遍。
   于是拿撒勒的耶稣出现了。他不是唯一以“救世主”姿态出现的人,但他同时也使用“上帝之予”、“天国”与“救赎”等字眼,因此保持了他与旧先知之间的联系。他骑马进入耶路撒冷,接受群众赞颂为人民救星,仿佛从前的国王在登基时例行的“加冕典礼”一般。
   他并接受民众涂油。他说:
   “时候到了,天国近了。”
   这些都很重要,但请你注意:耶稣不同于其他“救世主”,因为他声明他并非军事或政治叛徒。他的任务要比这伟大得多。他宣称每一个人都可以得到上帝的拯救与赦免,因此他可以置身沿途所见的人群中,对他们说:
   “你们的罪已经得到赦免了。”
   这种“赦免罪恶”的方式是当时人闻所未闻的。更糟的是他称上帝为“天父”。对于当时的犹太人而言,这是从未有过的事。于是,不久后,律法学者便一致起而反对他。他们一步一步地准备将他处决。
   当时的情况是这样:
   耶稣那个时代有许多人等待一位“救世主”在嘹亮的军号声中(换句话说,就是大举挥军)重建“天国”。耶稣传道时的确也时常提到“天国”这个字眼,但意义要宽广得多。耶稣说,“天国”就是爱你的邻居、同情病弱穷困者,并宽恕犯错之人。
   ”’于是,“天国”这样一个原本具有战争意味的古老字眼,到了耶稣口中便在意义上有了一百八十度的转变。人们原本期待的是一位很快能够建立“天国”的军事领袖,但他们看到的却是穿着短袍、凉鞋,告诉他们“天国”——或“新约”——就是要“爱邻如己”的耶稣。除此之外,耶稣还说我们必须爱我们的敌人,当他们打我们时,我们不得报复,不但如此,我们还要“把另外一边脸转过来”让他们打,同时我们必须宽恕,不止宽恕七次,更要宽恕七十个七次。
   耶稣用他一生的行动显示,他并不以和妓女,贪污、放高利贷的人与政治颠覆分子交谈为耻。但他所行之事还不止于此;他说一个把父亲的家财挥霍净尽的浪子或一个侵吞公款的卑微税吏只要肯悔改并祈求上帝宽恕,在上帝眼中就是一个义人,因为上帝的恩典浩瀚广大。
   然而,耶稣还认为,像浪子与税吏这般的罪人在上帝眼中比那些到处炫耀自己德行的法利赛人要更正直,更值得宽恕。
   耶稣指出,没有人能够获得上帝的怜悯,我们也不能(像许多希腊人相信的)拯救自己。耶稣在《登山宝训》中要求人们遵守的严格道德规范不仅显示上帝的旨意,也显示在上帝眼中,没有人是正直的。上帝的恩典无垠无涯,但我们必须向他祈祷,才能获得宽恕。
   有关耶稣与他的教诲的细节,我还是留给你的宗教老师来讲授吧。这可不是一件容易的事。我希望他能够让你们了解耶稣是一个多么伟大不凡的人。他很巧妙地用那个时代的语言,赋予一个古老的战争口号崭新而宽广的意义。无怪乎他会被钉上十字架,因为他那些有关救赎的崭新信息已经威胁到当时许多人的利益与在位者的权势,因此他们非铲除他不可。
   在谈到苏格拉底时,我们发现,如果有人诉诸人们的理性,对某些人可能会造成很大的威胁。同样的,在耶稣的身上,我们也发现要求人们无条件地爱别人、无条件地宽恕别人,也可能对于某些人造成极大的威胁。即使在今天,我们也可以看到,当人民开始要求和平与爱、要求让穷人免于饥饿、要求当权者赦免政敌时,强权也可能因此在一夕之间倾覆。
   你也许还记得柏拉图对于苏格拉底这位雅典最正直的人居然被处死一事如何忿忿不平。根据基督教的教义,耶稣也是世上唯一正直的人。然而他最后还是被判了死刑。基督徒说他是为了人类而死,这就是一般所称的“基督受难记”。耶稣是“受苦的仆人”
   (sulfenngservant),背负起人类所有的罪孽,以使我们能够得到“救赎”,并免受上帝的责罚。
   保罗耶稣被钉上十字架后就下葬了。几天后有人传言他已经从坟墓中复活。因此证明他并非凡人,而真正是“上帝之子”。
   我们可以说复活节当天早上,人们传言耶稣复活之时就是基督教会创始之日。保罗已经断言:
   “若基督没有复活,则我们所传的便是枉然,你们所信的也是枉然。”
   如今全人类都可以盼望“肉体的复活”,因为耶稣正是为了拯救我们才被钉上十字架。不过,苏菲,你不要忘了:
   从犹太人的观点来看,世间并没有“不朽的灵魂”,也没有任何形式的“转生”。这些都是希腊人和整个印欧民族的想法。基督教认为人并没有什么东西(如灵魂)是生来就不朽的。虽然基督教会相信“人的肉体将复活并得到永生”,但我们之所以能免于死亡与“天谴”,乃是由于上帝所行的神迹之故,并非由于我们自身的努力或先天的能力。
   秉持着这种信念,早期的基督徒开始传扬相信耶稣基督即可得救的“福音”。他们宣称,在耶稣居间努力之下,“天国”即将实现。
   他们想使全世界归于基督的名下。(Christ"基督”这个字是希腊文救世主”的意思。在希伯来文中,此字为messlah,即“弥赛亚”。)耶稣去世数年后,法利赛人保罗改信基督教。他在希腊罗马各地游历布道,使基督教义传遍世界各地。我们在圣经使徒行传中可以读到有关的记载。从他写给早期教会会众的多封使徒书信中,我们可以了解保罗传扬的教义。
   后来,保罗来到了雅典。他直接前往这个哲学首府的市中心广场,据说当时他“看见满城都是偶像,就心里着急”。他拜访了雅典城内的犹太教会堂,并与伊比鸠鲁学派和斯多葛学派的哲学家谈话。他们带他到最高法院所在的一座小丘上,问他:
   “你所讲的这新道,我们也可以知道吗?因为你有些奇怪的事传到我们耳中,我们愿意知道这些事是什么意思。”
   苏菲,你可以想象吗?一个犹太人突然出现在雅典的市集,并开始谈到一个被钉在十字架上而后从坟墓里复活的救星。从保罗这次造访雅典,我们便可察觉到希腊哲学与基督教救赎的教义间即将发生的冲突。不过保罗显然办到了一件事:
   他使得雅典人倾听他的言论。在最高法院小丘——卫城的宏伟神殿下——他发表了以下演讲:
   众位雅典人哪,我看你们凡事很敬畏鬼神。我游行的时候,观看你们所敬拜的,遇见一座坛,上面写着未识之神。你们所不认识而敬拜的,我现在告诉你们。
   创造宇宙和其中万物的神,既是天地的主,就不住人手所造的殿,也不用人手服侍,好像缺少什么,自己倒将生命、气息、万物赐给万人。他从一本造出万族的人,住在全地上,并且预先定准他们的年限和所住的疆界。要叫他们寻求神,或者可以揣摩而得,其实他离我们各人不远。我们生活、动作、存留都在乎他。就如你们作诗的,有人说,我们也是他所生的。我们既是神所生的,就不当以为神的神性像人用手艺、心思所雕刻的金、银、石。世人蒙昧无知的时候,神并不监察,如今却吩咐各处的人都要悔改。
   因为他已经定了日子,要借着他所设立的人,按公义审判天下。并且叫他从死里复活,给万人作可信的凭据。
   从保罗到雅典传教开始,基督教会就逐渐渗透希腊罗马地区。
   它虽不同于希腊原有的伊比鸠鲁学派、斯多葛学派或新柏拉图哲学,但保罗仍然在两者间找到了共同点。他强调世人皆试图寻找上帝。对希腊人而言这并非新的概念,但是保罗声称上帝已经向人类显现他自己,并且实际上已经把手伸给人类,因此他不再是一位人们可用理性来了解的“哲学的上帝”,也不是“金、银、石雕刻的偶像”(这两者在希腊的卫城与市集中到处都是),而是一位“不住人手所造殿”的神,也是一位会干预历史发展方向,并为世人而死在十字架上的人形的神。
   根据使徒行传的记载,保罗在最高法院小丘发表演讲,提到耶稣死而复活的事时,有人就讥笑他,但也有人说:
   “我们再听你讲这个吧。”有些人后来追随保罗,开始信奉基督教,其中有一个女人名叫大马哩(Damaris)。这件事之所以特别值得一提,是因为妇女是最热切信奉基督教的族群之一。
   就这样,保罗继续他的传教活动。耶稣受难数十年后,雅典、罗马、亚力山卓、以弗所(Ephesus)与哥林多(Corinth)等重要的希腊罗马城市都成立了基督教会。在后来的三四百年之间,整个希腊文化地区都成为基督教的世界。
   教义保罗对基督教的贡献不仅是做一个传教士而已,他对基督教的教会也有很大的影响。因为当时的教徒普遍需要灵性上的指引。
   耶稣受难后的最初几年中,基督教面临一个很重要的问题是:
   非犹太人(外邦人)是否可以成为基督徒?还是一定要先归化为犹太人才可以?又,外邦人——如希腊人——应该遵守十诫吗?保罗认为,外邦人不一定要成为犹太人才可以信奉基督教,因为基督教不只是犹太人的宗教。它的目标在拯救全体世人。上帝与以色列订的“旧约”已经由耶稣代表上帝与人类订的“新约”所取代。
   无论如何,基督教并非当时唯一的宗教。我们已经看到希腊文化如何受到各种宗教的影响,因此,为了显示与其他宗教有别,也为了防止教会内部分裂,基督教会认为有必要提出一套简明扼要的教义。因此他们写成了第一部《使徒信经》(Creed),总结基督徒教义的中心“信条”或主要教义。
   其中一条是:
   耶稣是神,也是人。他不仅是凭借上帝之力的“上帝之子”,他也是上帝本身。然而,他同时也是一个为人类分担灾祸并因此在十字架上受苦的“真人”。
   乍听之下,这话也许有自相矛盾之嫌,但教会的意思正是:
   上帝已经变成了人,耶稣不是一位“半人半神”(当时希腊与地中海东岸的许多宗教都相信宇宙有此类“半人半神”的存在),教会宣称耶稣乃是“完全的神,完全的人”。
   后记亲爱的苏菲,让我再描述一下当时的整个情况。当基督教进入希腊罗马地区后,两种文化于是浩浩荡荡地交会融合,形成了历史上的一大文化革命。
   此时,距早期希腊哲学家的年代已经大约有一千年了。古代时期就要过去,历史将进入以基督教为重心的中世纪。这段期间同样维持了将近一千年之久。
   德国诗人歌德曾经说过:
   “不能汲取三千年历史经验的人没有未来可言。”我不希望你成为这些人当中之一。我将尽我所能,让你熟悉你在历史上的根。这是人之所以为人(而不仅是一只赤身露体的猿猴)的唯一方式,也是我们避免在虚空中飘浮的唯一方式。
   “这是人之所以为人(而不仅仅是一只赤身露体的猿猴)的唯一方式……”
   苏菲坐了一会儿,从树篱的小洞中凝视着花园。她开始了解为何人必须要了解自己在历史上的根。对于以色列的子民来说,这当然是很重要的。
   她只是一个平凡的人而已。不过,如果她了解自己在历史上的根,她就不至于如此平凡了。
   同时,她生活在地球上的时间也不会只有几年而已。如果人类的历史就是她的历史,那么从某方面来说,她已经有好几千岁了。
   苏菲拿着所有的信纸,爬出密洞,蹦蹦跳跳地穿过花园,回到楼上的房间。





暮辞朝

ZxID:15103679


等级: 内阁元老
配偶: 清风雅乐
这一段开心的日子请你勿忘
举报 只看该作者 15楼  发表于: 2013-10-26 0
英文原文
The Middle Ages
... going only part of the way is not the same as going the wrong way
A week passed without Sophie hearing from Alberto Knox. There were no more postcards from Lebanon either, although she and Joanna still talked about the cards they found in the major's cabin. Joanna had had the fright of her life, but as nothing further seemed to hap-pen, the immediate terror faded and was submerged in homework and badminton.
Sophie read Alberto's letters over and over, looking for some clue that would throw light on the Hilde mystery. Doing so also gave her plenty of opportunity to digest the classical philosophy. She no longer had difficulty in distinguishing Democritus and Socrates, or Plato and Aristotle, from each other.
On Friday, May 25, she was in the kitchen fixing dinner before her mother got home. It was their regular Friday agreement. Today she was making fish soup with fish balls and carrots. Plain and simple.
Outside it was becoming windy. As Sophie stood stirring the casserole she turned toward the window. The birch trees were waving like cornstalks.
Suddenly something smacked against the window-pane. Sophie turned around again and discovered a card sticking to the window.
It was a postcard. She could read it through the glass: "Hilde Moller Knag, c/o Sophie Amundsen."
She thought as much! She opened the window and took the card. It could hardly have blown all the way from Lebanon!
This card was also dated June 15. Sophie removed the casserole from the stove and sat down at the kitchen table. The card read:
Dear Hilde, I don't know whether it will still be your birthday when you read this card. I hope so, in a way; or at least that not too many days have gone by. A week or two for Sophie does not have to mean just as long for us. I shall be coming home for Midsummer Eve, so we can sit together for hours in the glider, looking out over the sea, Hilde. We have so much to talk about. Love from Dad, who sometimes gets very depressed about the thousand-year-long strife between Jews, Christians, and Muslims. I have to keep reminding myself that all three religions stem from Abraham. So I suppose they all pray to the same God. Down here, Cain and Abel have not finished killing each other.
P.S. Please say hello to Sophie. Poor child, she still doesn't know how this whole thing hangs together. But perhaps you do?
Sophie put her head down on the table, exhausted. One thing was certain--she had no idea how this thing hung together. But Hilde did, presumably.
If Hilde's father asked her to say hello to Sophie, it had to mean that Hilde knew more about Sophie than Sophie did about Hilde. It was all so complicated that Sophie went back to fixing dinner.
A postcard that smacked against the kitchen window all by itself! You could call that airmail!
As soon as she had set the casserole on the stove again, the telephone rang.
Suppose it was Dad! She wished desperately that he would come home so she could tell him everything that had happened in these last weeks. But it was probably only Joanna or Mom. Sophie snatched up the phone.
"Sophie Amundsen," she said.
"It's me," said a voice.
Sophie was sure of three things: it was not her father. But it was a man's voice, and a voice she knew she had heard before.
"Who is this?"
"It's Alberto."
"Ohhh!"
Sophie was at a loss for words. It was the voice from the Acropolis video that she had recognized.
"Are you all right?"
"Sure."
"From now on there will be no more letters."
"But I didn't send you a frog!"
"We must meet in person. It's beginning to be urgent, you see."
"Why?"
"Hilde's father is closing in on us."
"Closing in how?"
"On all sides, Sophie. We have to work together now."
"How...?"
"But you can't help much before I have told you about the Middle Ages. We ought to cover the Renaissance and the seventeenth century as well. Berkeley is a key figure..."
"Wasn't he the man in the picture at the major's cabin?"
"That very same. Maybe the actual struggle will be waged over his philosophy."
"You make it sound like a war."
"I would rather call it a battle of wills. We have to attract Hilde's attention and get her over on our side before her father comes home to Lillesand."
"I don't get it at all."
"Perhaps the philosophers can open your eyes. Meet me at St. Mary's Church at eight o'clock tomorrow morning. But come alone, my child."
"So early in the morning?"
The telephone clicked.
"Hello?"
He had hung up! Sophie rushed back to the stove just before the fish soup boiled over.
St. Mary's Church? That was an old stone church from the Middle Ages. It was only used for concerts and very special ceremonies. And in the summer it was sometimes open to tourists. But surely it wasn't open in the middle of the night?
When her mother got home, Sophie had put the card from Lebanon with everything else from Alberto and Hilde. After dinner she went over to Joanna's place.
"We have to make a very special arrangement," she said as soon as her friend opened the door.
She said no more until Joanna had closed her bedroom door.
"It's rather problematic," Sophie went on.
"Spit it out!"
"I'm going to have to tell Mom that I'm staying the night here."
"Great!"
"But it's only something I'm saying, you see. I've got to go somewhere else."
"That's bad. Is it a guy?"
"No, it's to do with Hilde."
Joanna whistled softly, and Sophie looked her severely in the eye.
"I'm coming over this evening," she said, "but at seven o'clock I've got to sneak out again. You've got to cover for me until I get back."
"But where are you going? What is it you have to do?"
"Sorry. My lips are sealed."
Sleepovers were never a problem. On the contrary, almost. Sometimes Sophie got the impression that her mother enjoyed having the house to herself.
"You'll be home for breakfast, I suppose?" was her mother's only remark as Sophie left the house.
"If I'm not, you know where I am."
What on earth made her say that? It was the one weak spot.
Sophie's visit began like any other sleepover, with talk until late into the night. The only difference was that when they finally settled down to sleep at about two o'clock, Sophie set the alarm clock to a quarter to seven.
Five hours later, Joanna woke briefly as Sophie switched off the buzzer.
"Take care," she mumbled.
Then Sophie was on her way. St. Mary's Church lay on the outskirts of the old part of town. It was several miles walk away, but even though she had only slept for a few hours she felt wide awake.
It was almost eight o'clock when she stood at the entrance to the old stone church. Sophie tried the massive door. It was unlocked!
Inside the church it was as deserted and silent as the church was old. A bluish light filtered in through the stained-glass windows revealing a myriad of tiny particles of dust hovering in the air. The dust seemed to gather in thick beams this way and that inside the church. Sophie sat on one of the benches in the center of the nave, staring toward the altar at an old crucifix painted with muted colors.
Some minutes passed. Suddenly the organ began to play. Sophie dared not look around. It sounded like an ancient hymn, probably from the Middle Ages.
There was silence again. Then she heard footsteps approaching from behind her. Should she look around? She chose instead to fix her eyes on the Cross.
The footsteps passed her on their way up the aisle and she saw a figure dressed in a brown monk's habit. Sophie could have sworn it was a monk right out of the Middle Ages.
She was nervous, but not scared out of her wits. In front of the altar the monk turned in a half-circle and then climbed up into the pulpit. He leaned over the edge, looked down at Sophie, and addressed her in Latin:
"Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper et in saecula saeculorum. Amen."
"Talk sense, silly!" Sophie burst out.
Her voice resounded all around the old stone church.
Although she realized that the monk had to be Alberto Knox, she regretted her outburst in this venerable place of worship. But she had been nervous, and when you're nervous its comforting to break all taboos.
"Shhh!" Alberto held up one hand as priests do when they want the congregation to be seated. "Middle Ages began at four," he said. "Middle Ages began at four?" asked Sophie, feeling stupid but no longer nervous. "About four o'clock, yes. And then it was five and six and seven. But it was as if time stood still. And it got to be eight and nine and ten. But it was still the Middle Ages, you see. Time to get up to a new day, you may think. Yes, I see what you mean. But it is still Sunday, one long endless row of Sundays. And it got to be eleven and twelve and thirteen. This was the period we call the High Gothic, when the great cathedrals of Europe were built. And then, some time around fourteen hours, at two in the afternoon, a cock crowed--and the Middle Ages began to ebb away." "So the Middle Ages lasted for ten hours then," said Sophie. Alberto thrust his head forward out of the brown monk's cowl and surveyed his congregation, which consisted of a fourteen-year-old girl.
"If each hour was a hundred years, yes. We can pretend that Jesus was born at midnight. Paul began his missionary journeys just before half past one in the morning and died in Rome a quarter of an hour later. Around three in the morning the Christian church was more or less banned, but by A.D. 313 it was an accepted religion in the Roman Empire. That was in the reign of the Emperor Constantine. The holy emperor himself was first baptized on his deathbed many years later. From the year 380 Christianity was the official religion throughout the entire Roman Empire."
"Didn't the Roman Empire fall?" "It was just beginning to crumble. We are standing before one of the greatest changes in the history of culture. Rome in the fourth century was being threatened both by barbarians pressing in from the north and by disintegration from within. In A.D. 330 Constantine the Great moved the capital of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople, the city he had founded at the approach to the Black Sea. Many people considered the new city the "second Rome." In 395 the Roman Empire was divided in two--a Western Empire with Rome as its center, and an Eastern Empire with the new city of Constantinople as its capital. Rome was plundered by bar-barians in 410, and in 476 the whole of the Western Empire was destroyed. The Eastern Empire continued to exist as a state right up until 1453 when the Turks conquered Constantinople."
"And its name got changed to Istanbul?"
"That's right! Istanbul is its latest name. Another date we should notice is 529. That was the year when the church closed Plato's Academy in Athens. In the same year, the Benedictine order, the first of the great monastic orders, was founded. The year 529 thus became a symbol of the way the Christian Church put the lid on Greek philosophy. From then on, monasteries had the monopoly of education, reflection, and meditation. The clock was ticking toward half past five ..."
Sophie saw what Alberto meant by all these times. Midnight was 0, one o'clock was 100 years after Christ, six o'clock was 600 years after Christ, and 14 hours was 1,400 years after Christ...
Alberto continued: "The Middle Ages actually means the period between two other epochs. The expression arose during the Renaissance. The Dark Ages, as they were also called, were seen then as one interminable thousand-year-long night which had settled over Europe between antiquity and the Renaissance. The word 'medieval' is used negatively nowadays about anything that is over-authoritative and inflexible. But many historians now consider the Middle Ages to have been a thousand-year period of germination and growth. The school system, for instance, was developed in the Middle Ages. The first convent schools were opened quite early on in the period, and cathedral schools followed in the twelfth century. Around the year 1200 the first universities were founded, and the subjects to be studied were grouped into various 'faculties,' just as they are today."
"A thousand years is a really long time."
"Yes, but Christianity took time to reach the masses. Moreover, in the course of the Middle Ages the various nation-states established themselves, with cities and citizens, folk music and folktales. What would fairy tales and folk songs have been without the Middle Ages? What would Europe have been, even? A Roman province, perhaps. Yet the resonance in such names as England, France, or Germany is the very same boundless deep we call the Middle Ages. There are many shining fish swimming around in those depths, although we do not always catch sight of them. Snorri lived in the Middle Ages. So did Saint Olaf and Charlemagne, to say nothing of Romeo and Juliet, Joan of Arc, Ivanhoe, the Pied Piper of Hamelin, and many mighty princes and majestic kings, chivalrous knights and fair damsels, anonymous stained-glass window makers and ingenious organ builders. And I haven't even mentioned friars, crusaders, or witches."
"You haven't mentioned the clergy, either."
"Correct. Christianity didn't come to Norway, by the way, until the eleventh century. It would be an exaggeration to say that the Nordic countries converted to Christianity at one fell swoop. Ancient heathen beliefs persisted under the surface of Christianity, and many of these pre-Christian elements became integrated with Christianity. In Scandinavian Christmas celebrations, for example, Christian and Old Norse customs are wedded even to this day. And here the old saying applies, that married folk grow to resemble each other. Yuletide cookies, Yuletide piglets, and Yuletide ale begin to resemble the Three Wise Men from the Orient and the manger in Bethlehem. But without doubt, Christianity gradually became the predominant philosophy of life. Therefore we usually speak of the Middle Ages as being a unifying force of Christian culture."
"So it wasn't all gloom, then?"
"The first centuries after the year 400 really were a cultural decline. The Roman period had been a high culture, with big cities that had sewers, public baths, and libraries, not to mention proud architecture. In the early centuries of the Middle Ages this entire culture crum-bled. So did its trade and economy. In the Middle Ages people returned to payment in kind and bartering. The economy was now characterized by feudalism, which meant that a few powerful nobles owned the land, which the serfs had to toil on in order to live. The population also declined steeply in the first centuries. Rome had over a million inhabitants in antiquity. But by 600, the population of the old Roman capital had fallen to 40,000, a mere fraction of what it had been. Thus a relatively small population was left to wander among what remained of the majestic edifices of the city's former glory. When they needed building materials, there were plenty of ruins to supply them. This is naturally a source of great sorrow to present-day archeologists, who would rather have seen medieval man leave the ancient monuments untouched."
"It's easy to know better after the fact."
"From a political point of view, the Roman period was already over by the end of the fourth century. However, the Bishop of Rome became the supreme head of the Roman Catholic Church. He was given the title 'Pope'--in Latin 'papa,' which means what it says-- and gradually became looked upon as Christ's deputy on earth. Rome was thus the Christian capital throughout most of the medieval period. But as the kings and bishops of the new nation-states became more and more powerful, some of them were bold enough to stand up to the might of the church."
"You said the church closed Plato's Academy in Athens. Does that mean that all the Greek philosophers were forgotten?"
"Not entirely. Some of the writings of Aristotle and Plato were known. But the old Roman Empire was gradually divided into three different cultures. In Western Europe we had a Latinized Christian culture with Rome as its capital. In Eastern Europe we had a Greek Christian culture with Constantinople as its capital. This city began to be called by its Greek name, Byzantium. We therefore speak of the Byzantine Middle Ages as opposed to the Roman Catholic Middle Ages. However, North Africa and the Middle East had also been part of the Roman Empire. This area developed during the Middle Ages into an Arabic-speaking Muslim culture. After the death of Muhammad in 632, both the Middle East and North Africa were won over to Islam. Shortly thereafter, Spain also became part of the world of Islamic culture. Islam adopted Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, and Bagdad as holy cities. From the point of view of cultural history, it is interesting to note that the Arabs also took over the ancient Hellenistic city of Alexandria. Thus much of the old Greek science was inherited by the Arabs. All through the Middle Ages, the Arabs were predominant hi sciences such as mathematics, chemistry, astronomy, and medicine. Nowadays we still use Arabic figures. In a number of areas Arabic culture was superior to Christian culture."
"I wanted to know what happened to Greek philosophy."
"Can you imagine a broad river that divides for a while into three different streams before it once again becomes one great wide river?"
"Yes."
"Then you can also see how the Greco-Roman culture was divided, but survived through the three cultures: the Roman Catholic in the west, the Byzantine in the east, and the Arabic in the south. Although it's greatly oversimplified, we could say that Neoplatonism was handed down in the west, Plato in the east, and Aristotle to the Arabs in the south. But there was also something of them all in all three streams. The point is that at the end of the Middle Ages, all three streams came together in Northern Italy. The Arabic influence came from the Arabs in Spain, the Greek influence from Greece and the Byzantine Empire. And now we see the beginning of the Renaissance, the 'rebirth' of antique culture. In one sense, antique culture had survived the Dark Ages."
"I see."
"But let us not anticipate the course of events. We mast first talk a little about medieval philosophy. I shall not speak from this pulpit any more. I'm coming down."
Sophie's eyes were heavy from too little sleep. When she saw the strange monk descending from the pulpit of St. Mary's Church, she felt as if she were dreaming.
Alberto walked toward the altar rail. He looked up at the altar with its ancient crucifix, then he walked slowly toward Sophie. He sat down beside her on the bench of the pew.
It was a strange feeling, being so close to him. Under his cowl Sophie saw a pair of deep brown eyes. They belonged to a middle-aged man with dark hair and a little pointed beard. Who are you, she wondered. Why have you turned my life upside down?
"We shall become better acquainted by and by," he said, as if he had read her thoughts.
As they sat there together, with the light that filtered into the church through the stained-glass windows becoming sharper and sharper, Alberto Knox began to talk about medieval philosophy.
"The medieval philosophers took it almost for granted that Christianity was true," he began. "The question was whether we must simply believe the Christian revelation or whether we can approach the Christian truths with the help of reason. What was the relationship between the Greek philosophers and what the Bible said? Was there a contradiction between the Bible and reason, or were belief and knowledge compatible? Almost all medieval philosophy centered on this one question."
Sophie nodded impatiently. She had been through this in her religion class.
"We shall see how the two most prominent medieval philosophers dealt with this question, and we might as well begin with St. Augustine, who lived from 354 to 430. In this one person's life we can observe the actual transition from late antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. Augustine was born in the little town of Tagaste in North Africa. At the age of sixteen he went to Carthage to study. Later he traveled to Rome and Milan, and lived the last years of his life in the town of Hippo, a few miles west of Carthage. However, he was not a Christian all his life. Augustine examined several different religions and philosophies before he became a Christian."
"Could you give some examples?"
"For a time he was a Manichaean. The Manichaeans were a religious sect that was extremely characteristic of late antiquity. Their doctrine was half religion and half philosophy, asserting that the world consisted of a dualism of good and evil, light and darkness, spirit and matter. With his spirit, mankind could rise above the world of matter and thus prepare for the salvation of his soul. But this sharp division between good and evil gave the young Augustine no peace of mind. He was completely preoccupied with what we like to call the 'problem of evil.' By this we mean the question of where evil comes from. For a time he was influenced by Stoic philosophy, and according to the Stoics, there was no sharp division between good and evil. However, his principal leanings were toward the other significant philosophy of late antiquity, Neoplatonism. Here he came across the idea that all existence is divine in nature."
"So he became a Neoplatonic bishop?"
"Yes, you could say that. He became a Christian first, but the Christianity of St. Augustine is largely influenced by Platonic ideas. And therefore, Sophie, therefore you have to understand that there is no dramatic break with Greek philosophy the minute we enter the Christian Middle Ages. Much of Greek philosophy was carried over to the new age through Fathers of the Church like St. Augustine."
"Do you mean that St. Augustine was half Christian and half Neoplatonist?"
"He himself believed he was a hundred-percent Christian although he saw no real contradiction between Christianity and the philosophy of Plato. For him, the similarity between Plato and the Christian doctrine was so apparent that he thought Plato must have had knowl-edge of the Old Testament. This, of course, is highly improbable. Let us rather say that it was St. Augustine who 'christianized' Plato."
"So he didn't turn his back on everything that had to do with philosophy when he started believing in Christianity?"
"No, but he pointed out that there are limits to how far reason can get you in religious questions. Christianity is a divine mystery that we can only perceive through faith. But if we believe in Christianity, God will 'illuminate' the soul so that we experience a sort of supernatural knowledge of God. St. Augustine had felt within himself that there was a limit to how far philosophy could go. Not before he became a Christian did he find peace in his own soul. 'Our heart is not quiet until it rests in Thee,' he writes."
"I don't quite understand how Plato's ideas could go together with Christianity," Sophie objected. "What about the eternal ideas?"
"Well, St. Augustine certainly maintains that God created the world out of the void, and that was a Biblical idea. The Greeks preferred the idea that the world had always existed. But St. Augustine believed that before God created the world, the 'ideas' were in the Divine mind. So he located the Platonic ideas in God and in that way preserved the Platonic view of eternal ideas."
"That was smart."
"But it indicates how not only St. Augustine but many of the other Church Fathers bent over backward to bring Greek and Jewish thought together. In a sense they were of two cultures. Augustine also inclined to Neoplatonism in his view of evil. He believed, like Plotinus, that evil is the 'absence of God.' Evil has no independent existence, it is something that is not, for God's creation is in fact only good. Evil comes from mankind's disobedience, Augustine believed. Or, in his own words, 'The good will is God's work; the evil will is the falling away from God's work.' "
"Did he also believe that man has a divine soul?"
"Yes and no. St. Augustine maintained that there is an insurmountable barrier between God and the world. In this he stands firmly on Biblical ground, rejecting the doctrine of Plotinus that everything is one. But he nevertheless emphasizes that man is a spiritual being. He has a material body--which belongs to the physical world which 'moth and rust doth corrupt'--but he also has a soul which can know God."
"What happens to the soul when we die?"
"According to St. Augustine, the entire human race was lost after the Fall of Man. But God nevertheless decided that certain people should be saved from perdition."
"In that case, God could just as well have decided that everybody should be saved."
"As far as that goes, St. Augustine denied that man has any right to criticize God, referring to Paul's Epistle to the Romans: 'O Man, who art thou that replies! against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it; why hast thou made me thus? or Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?' "
"So God sits up in his Heaven playing with people? And as soon as he is dissatisfied with one of his creations, he just throws it away."
"St. Augustine's point was that no man deserves God's redemption. And yet God has chosen some to be saved from damnation, so for him there was nothing secret about who will be saved and who damned. It is preordained. We are entirely at his mercy."
"So in a way, he returned to the old belief in fate."
"Perhaps. But St. Augustine did not renounce man's responsibility for his own life. He taught that we must live in awareness of being among the chosen. He did not deny that we have free will. But God has 'foreseen' how we will live."
"Isn't that rather unfair?" asked Sophie. "Socrates said that we all had the same chances because we all had the same common sense. But St. Augustine divides people into two groups. One group gets saved and the other gets damned."
"You are right in that St. Augustine's theology is considerably removed from the humanism of Athens. But St. Augustine wasn't dividing humanity into two groups. He was merely expounding the Biblical doctrine of salvation and damnation. He explained this in a learned work called the City of God."
"Tell me about that."
"The expression 'City of God,' or 'Kingdom of God,' comes from the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. St. Augustine believed that all human history is a struggle between the 'Kingdom of God' and the 'Kingdom of the World.' The two 'kingdoms' are not political kingdoms distinct from each other. They struggle for mastery inside every single person. Nevertheless, the Kingdom of God is more or less clearly present in the Church, and the Kingdom of the World is present in the State--for example, in the Roman Empire, which was in decline at the time of St. Augustine. This conception became increasingly clear as Church and State fought for supremacy throughout the Middle Ages. There is no salvation outside the Church,' it was now said. St. Augustine's 'City of God' eventually became identical with the es-tablished Church. Not until the Reformation in the sixteenth century was there any protest against the idea that people could only obtain salvation through the Church."
"It was about time!"
"We can also observe that St. Augustine was the first philosopher we have come across to draw history into his philosophy. The struggle between good and evil was by no means new. What was new was that for Augustine the struggle was played out in history. There is not much of Plato in this aspect of St. Augustine's work. He was more influenced by the linear view of history as we meet it in the Old Testament: the idea that God needs all of history in order to realize his Kingdom of God. History is necessary for the enlightenment of man and the de-struction of evil. Or, as St. Augustine put it, 'Divine foresight directs the history of mankind from Adam to the end of time as if it were the story of one man who gradually develops from childhood to old age.' "
Sophie looked at her watch. "It's ten o'clock," she said. "I'll have to go soon."
"But first I must tell you about the other great medieval philosopher. Shall we sit outside?"
Alberto stood up. He placed the palms of his hands together and began to stride down the aisle. He looked as if he was praying or meditating deeply on some spiritual truth. Sophie followed him; she felt she had no choice.
The sun had not yet broken through the morning clouds. Alberto seated himself on a bench outside the church. Sophie wondered what people would think if anyone came by. Sitting on a church bench at ten in the morning was odd in itself, and sitting with a medieval monk wouldn't make things look any better.
"It is eight o'clock," he began. "About four hundred years have elapsed since St. Augustine, and now school starts. From now until ten o'clock, convent schools will have the monopoly on education. Between ten and eleven o'clock the first cathedral schools will be founded, followed at noon by the first universities. The great Gothic cathedrals will be built at the same time. This church, too, dates from the 1200s--or what we call the High Gothic period. In this town they couldn't afford a large cathedral."
"They didn't need one," Sophie said. "I hate empty churches."
"Ah, but the great cathedrals were not built only for large congregations. They were built to the glory of God and were in themselves a kind of religious celebration. However, something else happened during this period which has special significance for philosophers like us."
Alberto continued: "The influence of the Arabs of Spain began to make itself felt. Throughout the Middle Ages, the Arabs had kept the Aristotelian tradition alive, and from the end of the twelfth century, Arab scholars began to arrive in Northern Italy at the invitation of the nobles. Many of Aristotle's writings thus became known and were translated from Greek and Arabic into Latin. This created a new interest in the natural sciences and infused new life into the question of the Christian revelation's relationship to Greek philosophy. Aristotle could obviously no longer be ignored in matters of science, but when should one attend to Aristotle the phi-losopher, and when should one stick to the Bible? Do you see?"
Sophie nodded, and the monk went on:
"The greatest and most significant philosopher of this period was St. Thomas Aquinas, who lived from 1225 to 1274. He came from the little town of Aquino, between Rome and Naples, but he also worked as a teacher at the University of Paris. I call him a philosopher but he was just as much a theologian. There was no great difference between philosophy and theology at that time. Briefly, we can say that Aquinas christianized Aristotle in the same way that St. Augustine christianized Plato in early medieval times."
"Wasn't it rather an odd thing to do, christianizing philosophers who had lived several hundred years before Christ?"
"You could say so. But by 'christianizing' these two great Greek philosophers, we only mean that they were interpreted and explained in such a way that they were no longer considered a threat to Christian dogma. Aquinas was among those who tried to make Aristotle's philosophy compatible with Christianity. We say that he created the great synthesis between faith and knowledge. He did this by entering the philosophy of Aristotle and taking him at his word."
"I'm sorry, but I had hardly any sleep last night. I'm afraid you'll have to explain it more clearly."
"Aquinas believed that there need be no conflict between what philosophy or reason teaches us and what the Christian Revelation or faith teaches us. Christendom and philosophy often say the same thing. So we can frequently reason ourselves to the same truths that we can read in the Bible."
"How come? Can reason tell us that God created the world in six days or that Jesus was the Son of God?"
"No, those so-called verities of faith are only accessible through belief and the Christian Revelation. But Aquinas believed in the existence of a number of 'natural theological truths.' By that he meant truths that could be reached both through Christian faith and through our innate or natural reason. For example, the truth that there is a God. Aquinas believed that there are two paths to God. One path goes through faith and the Christian Revelation, and the other goes through reason and the senses. Of these two, the path of faith and revelation is certainly the surest, because it is easy to lose one's way by trusting to reason alone. But Aquinas's point was that there need not be any conflict between a philosopher like Aristotle and the Christian doctrine."
"So we can take our choice between believing Aristotle and believing the Bible?"
"Not at all. Aristotle goes only part of the way because he didn't know of the Christian revelation. But going only part of the way is not the same as going the wrong way. For example, it is not wrong to say that Athens is in Europe. But neither is it particularly precise. If a book only tells you that Athens is a city in Europe, it would be wise to look it up in a geography book as well. There you would find the whole truth that Athens is the capital of Greece, a small country in southeastern Europe. If you are lucky you might be told a little about the Acropolis as well. Not to mention Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle."
"But the first bit of information about Athens was true."
"Exactly! Aquinas wanted to prove that there is only one truth. So when Aristotle shows us something our reason tells us is true, it is not in conflict with Christian teaching. We can arrive successfully at one aspect of the truth with the aid of reason and the evidence of our senses. For example, the kind of truths Aristotle refers to when he describes the plant and the animal kingdom. Another aspect of the truth is revealed to us by God through the Bible. But the two aspects of the truth overlap at significant points. There are many questions about which the Bible and reason tell us exactly the same thing."
"Like there being a God?"
"Exactly. Aristotle's philosophy also presumed the existence of a God--or a formal cause--which sets all natural processes going. But he gives no further description of God. For this we must rely solely on the Bible and the teachings of Jesus."
"Is it so absolutely certain that there is a God?"
"It can be disputed, obviously. But even in our day most people will agree that human reason is certainly not capable of disproving the existence of God. Aquinas went further. He believed that he could prove God's existence on the basis of Aristotle's philosophy."
"Not bad!"
"With our reason we can recognize that everything around us must have a 'formal cause,' he believed. God has revealed himself to mankind both through the Bible and through reason. There is thus both a 'theology of faith' and a 'natural theology.' The same is true of the moral aspect. The Bible teaches us how God wants us to live. But God has also given us a conscience which enables us to distinguish between right and wrong on a 'natural' basis. There are thus also 'two paths' to a moral life. We know that it is wrong to harm people even if we haven't read in the Bible that we must 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' Here, too, the surest guide is to follow the Bible's commandment."
"I think I understand," said Sophie now. "It's almost like how we know there's a thunderstorm, by seeing the lightning and by hearing the thunder."
"That's right! We can hear the thunder even if we are blind, and we can see the lightning even if we are deaf. It's best if we can both see and hear, of course. But there is no contradiction between what we see and what we hear. On the contrary--the two impressions reinforce each other."
"I see."
"Let me add another picture. If you read a novel-- John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men, for example ..."
"I've read that, actually."
"Don't you feel you know something about the author just by reading his book?"
"I realize there is a person who wrote it."
"Is that all you know about him?"
"He seems to care about outsiders."
"When you read this book--which is Steinbeck's creation--you get to know something about Steinbeck's nature as well. But you cannot expect to get any personal information about the author. Could you tell from reading Of Mice and Men how old the author was when he wrote it, where he lived, or how many children he had?"
"Of course not."
"But you can find this information in a biography of John Steinbeck. Only in a biography--or an autobiography--can you get better acquainted with Steinbeck, the person."
"That's true."
"That's more or less how it is with God's Creation and the Bible. We can recognize that there is a God just by walking around in the natural world. We can easily see that He loves flowers and animals, otherwise He would not have made them. But information about God, the person, is only found in the Bible--or in God's 'autobiography,' if you like."
"You're good at finding examples."
"Mmmm..."
For the first time Alberto just sat there thinking-- without answering.
"Does all this have anything to do with Hilde?" Sophie could not help asking.
"We don't know whether there is a 'Hilde' at all."
"But we know someone is planting evidence of her all over the place. Postcards, a silk scarf, a green wallet, a stocking ..."
Alberto nodded. "And it seems as if it is Hilde's father who is deciding how many clues he will plant," he said. "For now, all we know is that someone is sending us a lot of postcards. I wish he would write something about himself too. But we shall return to that later."
"It's a quarter to eleven. I'll have to get home before the end of the Middle Ages."
"I shall just conclude with a few words about how Aquinas adopted Aristotle's philosophy in all the areas where it did not collide with the Church's theology. These included his logic, his theory of knowledge, and not least his natural philosophy. Do you recall, for ex-ample, how Aristotle described the progressive scale of life from plants and animals to humans?"
Sophie nodded.
"Aristotle believed that this scale indicated a God that constituted a sort of maximum of existence. This scheme of things was not difficult to align with Christian theology. According to Aquinas, there was a progressive degree of existence from plants and animals to man, from man to angels, and from angels to God. Man, like animals, has a body and sensory organs, but man also has intelligence which enables him to reason things out.
Angels have no such body with sensory organs, which is why they have spontaneous and immediate intelligence. They have no need to 'ponder,' like humans; they have no need to reason out conclusions. They know everything that man can know without having to learn it step by step like us. And since angels have no body, they can never die. They are not everlasting like God, because they were once created by God. But they have no body that they must one day depart from, and so they will never die."
"That sounds lovely!"
"But up above the angels, God rules, Sophie. He can see and know everything in one single coherent vision."
"So he can see us now."
"Yes, perhaps he can. But not 'now.' For God, time does not exist as it does for us. Our 'now' is not God's 'now.' Because many weeks pass for us, they do not necessarily pass for God."
"That's creepy!" Sophie exclaimed. She put her hand over her mouth. Alberto looked down at her, and Sophie continued: "I got another card from Hilde's father yesterday. He wrote something like--even if it takes a week or two for Sophie, that doesn't have to mean it will be that long for us. That's almost the same as what you said about God!"
Sophie could see a sudden frown flash across Alberto's face beneath the brown cowl.
"He ought to be ashamed of himself!"
Sophie didn't quite understand what Alberto meant. He went on: "Unfortunately, Aquinas also adopted Aristotle's view of women. You may perhaps recall that Aristotle thought a woman was more or less an incomplete man. He also thought that children only inherit the father's characteristics, since a woman was passive and receptive while the man was active and creative. According to Aquinas, these views harmonized with the message of the Bible--which, for example, tells us that woman was made out of Adam's rib."
"Nonsense!"
"It's interesting to note that the eggs of mammals were not discovered until 1827. It was therefore perhaps not so surprising that people thought it was the man who was the creative and lifegiving force in reproduction. We can moreover note that, according to Aquinas, it is only as nature-being that woman is inferior to man. Woman's soul is equal to man's soul. In Heaven there is complete equality of the sexes because all physical gender differences cease to exist."
"That's cold comfort. Weren't there any women philosophers in the Middle Ages?"
"The life of the church in the Middle Ages was heavily dominated by men. But that did not mean that there were no women thinkers. One of them was Hildegard of Bingen..."
Sophie's eyes widened:
"Does she have anything to do with Hilde?"
"What a question! Hildegard lived as a nun in the Rhine Valley from 1098 to 1179. In spite of being a woman, she worked as preacher, author, physician, botanist, and naturalist. She is an example of the fact that women were often more practical, more scientific even, in the Middle Ages."
"But what about Hilde?"
"It was an ancient Christian and Jewish belief that God was not only a man. He also had a female side, or 'mother nature.' Women, too, are created in God's likeness. In Greek, this female side of God is called Sophia. 'Sophia' or 'Sophie' means wisdom."
Sophie shook her head resignedly. Why had nobody ever told her that? And why had she never asked?
Alberto continued: "Sophia, or God's mother nature, had a certain significance both for Jews and in the Greek Orthodox Church throughout the Middle Ages. In the west she was forgotten. But along comes Hildegard. Sophia appeared to her in a vision, dressed in a golden tunic adorned with costly jewels ..."
Sophie stood up. Sophia had revealed herself to Hildegard in a vision ...
"Maybe I will appear to Hilde."
She sat down again. For the third time Alberto laid his hand on her shoulder.
"That is something we must look into. But now it is past eleven o'clock. You must go home, and we are approaching a new era. I shall summon you to a meeting on the Renaissance. Hermes will come get you in the garden."
With that the strange monk rose and began to walk toward the church. Sophie stayed where she was, thinking about Hildegard and Sophia, Hilde and Sophie. Suddenly she jumped up and ran after the monk-robed philosopher, calling:
"Was there also an Alberto in the Middle Ages?"
Alberto slowed his pace somewhat, turned his head slightly and said, "Aquinas had a famous philosophy teacher called Albert the Great..."
With that he bowed his head and disappeared through the door of St. Mary's Church.
Sophie was not satisfied with his answer. She followed him into the church. But now it was completely empty. Did he go through the floor?
Just as she was leaving the church she noticed a picture of the Madonna. She went up to it and studied it closely. Suddenly she discovered a little drop of water under one of the Madonna's eyes. Was it a tear?
Sophie rushed out of the church and hurried back to Joanna's.





中文翻译
   中世纪
   ……对了一部分并不等于错……
   一个星期过去了,艾伯特并没有来信,苏菲也没有再接到从黎巴嫩寄来的明信片。不过,她和乔安倒是还时常谈到她们在少校的小木屋中发现的那些明信片。那次乔安真的是被吓到了。不过由于后来也没有再发生什么事,于是当时的恐怖感就慢慢消退在功课与羽球之中了。
   苏菲一遍遍重读艾伯特的来信,试图寻找一些线索以解答有关席德的谜,她因此有许多机会消化古典哲学。现在她已经能够轻易地辨别德谟克里特斯与苏格拉底的不同,以及柏拉图与亚理斯多德的差异了。
   五月二十五日星期五那天,妈妈还没有回家。苏菲站在炉子前准备晚餐。这是他们母女订的协议。今天苏菲煮的是鱼丸萝卜汤,再简单不过了。
   屋外的风愈来愈大。苏菲站在那儿搅拌着汤时,转身朝窗户看。窗外的桦树正像玉蜀黍茎一般地摇摆不定。
   突然间,有个东西“啪”一声碰到窗框。苏菲再度转身来看,发现有一张卡片贴在窗户上。
   那是一张明信片。即使透过玻璃,她也可以看清楚,上面写着:“请苏菲代转席德”。
   她早料到了。她打开窗户取下那张明信片,它总不会是被风一路从黎巴嫩吹到这里来的吧?这张明信片的日期也是六月十五日。
   苏菲把汤从炉子上端下来,然后坐在餐桌旁。明信片上写着:
   亲爱的席德:
   我不知道你看到这张卡片时,你的生日过了没有。我希望还没有,至少不要过大久。对于苏菲来说,一两个星期也许不像我们认为的那么漫长。我将回家过仲夏节。到时,我们就可以一起坐在秋汗上看海看几个小时。我有好多话要跟你说。对了,爸爸我有时对一千年来犹太人、基督徒与伊斯兰教徒之间的纷争感到非常沮丧。
   我必须时常提醒自己,这三个宗教事实上都是从亚伯拉罕而来的。
   因此,我想,他们应该都向同一个上帝祷告吧!在这里,该隐与亚伯仍然还未停止互相残杀。
   P.S:请替我向苏菲打招呼。可怜的孩子,她还是不知道这到卜是怎么回事。不过我想你大概知道吧!苏菲把头趴在桌子上,觉得好累。她的确不知道这究竟是怎么回事。不过席德却好像知道。
   如果席德的父亲要她向苏菲打招呼,这表示席德对苏菲的了解比苏菲对她的了解多。这件事情实在太复杂了。苏菲决定回去继续做晚饭。
   居然有明信片会自己飞到厨房的窗户上来!这应该可以算是航空邮件了吧!她刚把汤锅放在炉子上,电话就响了起来。
   如果是爸爸打来的该多好j她急切希望他赶快回家,她就可以告诉他这几个礼拜以来发生的事。不过她想很可能只是乔安或妈妈打来的……苏菲赶快拿起话筒。
   “我是苏菲。”她说。
   “是我。”电话里的声音说。
   是一个男人的声音。苏菲可以确定这人不是她爸爸,而且这个声音她以前听过。
   “你是哪一位?”
   “我是艾伯特。”
   “哦!”
   苏菲讲不出话来。她这才想到原来自己是在高城的录影带上听过这个声音。
   “你还好吗?”
   “我没事。”
   “从现在起,我不会再寄信给你了。”
   “不过,我并没有寄一只青蛙给你呀]”
   “我们必须见面。因为,情况开始变得比较急迫了“为什么?”
   “因为席德的爸爸正在向我们逼近。”
   “怎么逼近?”
   “从四面八方逼近。现在我们必须一起努力。”
   “怎么做呢?”
   “在我告诉你有关中世纪的事以前,你是帮不上什么忙的。还有,我们也应该谈一谈文艺复兴时期和十七世纪。柏克莱是最重要的人物……”
   “他不是少校的小木屋里那幅肖像画中的人吗?”
   “没错。也许这场对抗就是和他的哲学有关。”
   “听起来好像在打仗一样。”
   “我宁可说这是一场意志之战。我们必须吸引席德的注意力,并且设法使她在她父亲回到黎乐桑之前站在我们这边。”
   “我还是不懂。”
   “也许那些哲学家们能够让你明白。早上四点你到圣玛莉教堂来找我,不过你只能一个人来。”
   中世纪“半夜去呀?”
   电话“卡!”的响了一声。
   “喂?”
   电话里传来嗡嗡的声音。他把电话挂上了!苏菲冲回炉子旁,汤已经沸腾,差点溢了出来。
   她把鱼丸和萝卜放进汤锅中,然后开小火。
   圣玛莉教堂?那是一座中世纪的古老教堂,以石材建成,现在只有在开音乐会及特殊场合时才使用,夏天有时也会开放给游客参观。不过,半夜里它不可能会开门吧?午夜约会当妈妈进门时,苏菲已经把那张黎巴嫩寄来的明信片放在与艾伯特和席德有关的档案里。晚饭后,她便前往乔安家。
   乔安刚开门,苏菲便对她说:“我们必须做一个很特别的安排”
   然后她便不再作声,直到乔安把卧室的门关上为止。
   “这问题有点麻烦。”苏菲说。
   “你就说吧尸“我必须告诉我妈,我今天晚上要睡在你这里。”
   “好极了。”
   “但这只是一个借口而已,你懂吗?我必须到别的地方去。”
   “你好坏喔!要跟男生出去呀?”
   “才不是,这件事和席德有关。”
   乔安轻轻地吹了一声口哨。苏菲严肃地看着她的眼睛。
   “我今天晚上会过来,”她说。“不过明天凌晨三点时,我必须溜出去。你得帮我掩护,直到我回来为止。”
   “可是你要到哪里去呢?有什么事你非做不可?”
   “抱歉,不能告诉你。”
   对于苏菲要在同学家过夜的事,妈妈一向不曾反对。事实上有{时苏菲觉得妈妈好像满喜欢一个人在家的样子。
   当苏菲出门时,妈妈只问了一句:“你会回家吃早饭吧?”
   “如果没回来,那就是在乔安家。”
   她为什么要这样说呢?这样可能会有破绽。
   苏菲到了乔安家后,她俩就像一般的女孩一样,叽叽喳喳聊到深夜。只不过,到了晚上一点左右他们终于准备要睡觉时,苏菲把闹钟上到三点十五分。
   两个小时后,苏菲把闹钟按掉,这时乔安醒了一下。
   “你要小心。”她含含糊糊地说。
   然后苏菲便上路了。到圣玛莉教堂要走好几英里路。不过虽然她晚上只睡了两三个小时,此刻她仍觉得自己很清醒。这时,东方的地平线上已经有一抹微红。
   她到达圣玛莉教堂的入口时,已经快要四点了。苏菲推了一下那扇巨大的门,竟然没有上锁。
   教堂里面安静而荒凉。一道淡蓝色的光透过彩色玻璃照进来。
   照见了无数个在空中游移不定的细小尘粒。在光的照射下,这些尘粒在教堂内各处形成一道又一道粗大的光束。苏菲坐在本堂中央的一张木椅上,视线穿过祭坛,落在一个古老、已经褪色的耶稣受难像上。
   几分钟过去了。突然间管风琴开始演奏,苏菲不敢环顾四周。
   风琴奏出的曲调听起来颇为古老,也许是中世纪的乐曲。
   不久,教堂内又恢复一片静寂,然后苏菲听到有脚步声从后面走来。她应不应该回头看呢?她决定把目光集中在十字架上的耶稣身上。
   脚步声经过她,沿着侧廊前行。苏菲看到一个穿着棕色僧袍的身影乍看之下仿佛是直接从中世纪走来的一个僧侣。
   她有点紧张但不很害怕。这个僧侣在祭坛前转了半圈,然后便爬上讲坛。他把身子前倾,俯视着苏菲,开始用拉丁文向她说话:“Gloria PatrietFilio etSpiritui sancto.Sicut eratin principio etnuncetsemperetinsaeculasaeculorum.Amen.”
   “谁听得懂嘛!呆子!”她忍不住脱口而出。
   她的声音在整座教堂内回响。
   虽然她确定这个僧侣就是艾伯特,但她还是很后悔自己在如此庄严神圣的地方说出这样不恭敬的话。不过,这都是因为她太紧张的缘故。一个人紧张时,如果能打破一些禁忌就会觉得比较自在些。
   黑暗时代“嘘!”艾伯特举起一只手,就像神父要群众坐好时所做的动作。
   “现在几点了,孩子?”他问。
   “四点五分。”苏菲回答。她不再紧张了。
   “时候到了,中世纪已经开始了。”
   “中世纪在四点钟开始呀?”苏菲问,觉得自己好蠢。
   “是的,大约在四点钟时,然后是五点、六点、七点。不过时间就就好像静止不动一样。然后时间到了八点、九点与十点,但还是在中世纪。你也许会想,这是一个人起床展开新的一天的时刻。是的,我懂你的意思。不过,现在仍然是星期天,一长串无休无止的星期天。然后,时钟会走到十一点、十二点与十三点。这是我们所称的高歌德(HighGothic)的时期,也是欧洲各大教堂开始兴建的时候。然后,大约在十四点时,有一只公鸡开始啼叫,于是漫长的中世纪就逐渐消逝了。”
   “这么说中世纪维持了十个小时啰?”苏菲说。
   艾伯特把头探出棕色僧袍的头罩,打量着他面前的听众(这时只有一个十四岁的女孩而已)。
   “是的,如果每一个小时代表一百年的话。我们可以假装耶稣是在午夜诞生的,快到凌晨一点半时,保罗开始四处游历传教广刻钟后死于罗马。在接近凌晨三点时,基督教教会大致上仍遭到禁止,但到了公元后三一三年时,基督教已经被罗马帝国接受。这是在君士坦丁大帝统治的时候。许多年后,这位伟大的君主在临死前受洗成为基督徒。从公元三八O年起,基督教成为罗马帝国的国教。”
   “罗马帝国最后不是衰亡了吗?”
   “这时它才刚开始瓦解而已。这段时期是文化史上变动最大的时期之一。第四世纪时,罗马不但外有北方蛮族进攻的威胁,内部也处于分崩离析的状态。公元三三O午时,君士坦丁大帝将罗马帝国的首都由罗马迁到他在通往黑海之处所兴建的一个城市——君士坦丁堡。许多人把这座新城市当成‘第二个罗马’。三九五年时;罗马帝国一分为二:西方帝国以罗马为中心,东方帝国则以君士坦丁堡为首都。四一O年时,罗马遭蛮族劫掠。到四七六年,整个西方帝国都被摧毁了。东方帝国则继续存在,一直到一四五三年土耳其人征服君士坦丁堡为止。”
   “那时君士坦丁堡就改名为伊斯坦堡吗?”
   “没错!另外一个值得注意的年代是公元五二九年,也就是教会关闭雅典的柏拉图学园那一年。同年,圣本笃修会成立,成为历史上第一个大修会。这一年、因此成为基督教会箝制希腊哲学的一个象征。从此以后,修道院垄断了所有的教育与思想。这时,时钟正滴答走向五点半……”
   苏菲很快便了解艾伯特的意思。午夜是零,一点钟是公元后一百年,六点钟是公元后六百年,十四点钟则是公元后一四00年。
   艾伯特继续说:“中世纪事实上指的是界于两个时代之间的一个时期。这个名词是在文艺复兴时期出现的。另外,这个时期又被称为‘黑暗时代’,因为它是古代与文艺复兴时期之间笼罩欧洲的漫长的‘一千年的夜晚’。如今英文‘medieval’(中世纪)这个字仍被用来指那些过度权威、缺乏弹性的事物,具有贬意。不过,也有些人认为中世纪泥是各项体制萌芽成长的时期。例如,学校制度就是在中世纪建立韵。历史上第一批修道院学校在中世纪初期成立,教会学校则在十仁世纪成立。在公元一二OO年左右,历史上最早的几所大学成立了。当时学校研习的科目也像今天一样分成几个不同的‘学院’。”
   “一千年真的是很漫长的一段时间。”
   “是的,不过基督教也需要这样的一段时间来招揽信徒。此外,许多民族也在这段时间内相继建国,拥有自己的城市、公民、民俗音乐与民俗故事。如果没有中世纪,哪来的这些民俗故事与民俗音乐呢?甚至,没有中世纪,欧洲又会变成什么模样呢?也许仍然会是罗马的一个省份吧!英国、法国或德国这些名词就是在中世纪出现的。在中世纪这个浩瀚汪洋的深处,有许多闪闪发亮的鱼儿游来游去,只是我们不见得都能看到。史特卢森就是中世纪的人,圣欧雪夫(SaintOlaf)与查里曼大帝也是,更不用提罗密欧与朱丽叶、圣女贞德、艾文豪、穿花衣服的吹笛手以及那些强大的王侯与君主、侠义的骑士、美丽的少女、不知名的彩色玻璃工匠与灵巧的管风琴师傅了。再说,我还没提到那些修道士、十字军与女巫哩!”
   “你也没提到那些牧师和教士呀!”
   “对。基督教直到十一世纪才来到挪威。如果说北欧马上就信奉了基督教,那是过于夸大其辞了。那时在基督教的表面之下,一些古代异教徒的信仰仍然存在,而这些早期的信仰有许多后来融入了基督教。举例来说,在斯堪地那维亚半岛上,圣诞节的庆典中至今仍可以看到基督教与古代北欧风俗结合的痕迹。俗话说,夫妻结合之后会愈来愈彼此相像。这两种文化结合后也是如此。于是我们看到耶诞饼干、耶诞小猪与耶诞麦酒等风俗,开始愈来愈像东方三智者与伯利恒的马槽。无论如何,基督教逐渐成为北欧人主要的生活哲学。因此我们通常认为中世纪是一股以基督教文化来统一欧洲的力量。”
   “那么,中世纪也不算太糟啰?”
   “公元四OO年以后的第一个一百年间确实是一段文化式微的时期。你要知道,在此之前的罗马时期是一个‘高等文化’,有许多大城市,城市里有大型的排水沟、公共澡堂与图书馆等,还有许多宏伟的建筑。然而,到了中世纪最初的几百年间,这整个文化都;瓦解了,贸易与经济也崩溃了。中世纪的人们又回到以物易物的交易方式。当时的经济是以‘封建制度’为特色。所谓‘封建制度’就:是所有的田产都由少数势力强大的贵族拥有,农奴必须要辛勤耕:种才能生活。除此之外,在中世纪最初的数百年间,欧洲人口大量减少。举个例子,在古代时期,罗马的人口繁盛,一度超过一百万,但到了公元六OO年时,却减少到四万人左右,真是天壤之别。当时,这些人生活在这个曾经繁华一时、建筑宏伟的城市中,需要建材时,就从到处可见的废墟中取用。对于现代的考古学家而言,这是很可悲的现象。他们多希望中世纪的人们不曾破坏这些古迹。”
   “这都是后见之明呀!”
   “从政治方面来说,罗马时期在第四世纪末时就结束了。不过,当时罗马主教已经成为罗马天主教教会的最高领袖。他被称为‘教宗’或‘父’,并逐渐被视为基督在世上的代理人。因此,在中世纪的大多数时间里,罗马一直是基督教的首府。不过,当各新兴民族国家的君主与主教势力愈来愈强大时,有些人就开始反抗教会的势力。”
   “你说过教会关闭了雅典的柏拉图学园。那是不是从此以后希腊哲学就统统被遗忘了?”
   “这倒没有。亚理斯多德与柏拉图的部分著作仍然流传下来,但古罗马帝国却逐渐分裂成三种不同的文化。其中在西欧的是拉丁式的基督文化,以罗马为首都。在东欧则是希腊式的基督文化,以君士坦丁堡为首都。君士坦丁堡后来又改为希腊名‘拜占庭’。因此我们现在一般都将欧洲的中世纪文化分成‘拜占庭的中世纪’与‘罗天主教的中世纪’。除此之外,北非与中东地区过去也曾是罗马帝国的一部分。这个地区在中世纪期间发展成为讲阿拉伯语的伊斯兰教文化。公元六三二年穆罕默德去世后,中东与北非成了伊斯兰教地区。不久后,西班牙也成为伊斯兰教世界的一部分。伊斯兰教将麦加、麦地那、耶路撒冷与巴格达视为‘圣城’。从文化史的观点来看,还有一件值得注意的事:当时阿拉伯人也占据了古代希罗马地区的城市亚力山卓。因此,古希腊科学文明有一大部分为阿拉伯人所继承。在整个中世纪期间,阿拉伯人在数学、化学、天文学与医学等方面都居于领先的地位。直到今天,我们仍然使用所谓的‘阿拉伯数字’。我们可以说,当时在若干领域中,阿拉伯文化确实是优于基督教文化。”
   “我想知道后来希腊哲学怎么了。”
   “你能想象一条大河一下子分成三股支流,过了一段时间后又再度汇集成一条大河吗?”
   “嗯,可以。”
   “那么你也应该可以了解希腊罗马文化如何分裂成三种文化,并分别在其中存活。这三种文化分别是:西边的罗马天主教文化、东边的东罗马帝国文化与南边的阿拉伯文化。大致上,我们可以说新柏拉图派哲学在西边承传了下来。柏拉图与亚理斯多德的哲学则分别在东边与南边承传了下来。不过,我们可以说,在这三种文化中,每种成分都各有一些。重要的是,在中世纪末期,这三种文化在意大利北部交会融合。阿拉伯文化的影响力来自于在西班牙的阿拉伯人,希腊文化的影响力来自于希腊和拜占庭帝国。这时,‘文艺复兴时期’(古代文化的‘再生’)就逐渐开始了。从某个角度来看,古代文化在中世纪期间可说并未消亡。”
   “原来如此。”
   “不过,我们还是不要先谈这个。我们应该先谈学。我不想继续站在讲坛上说话了,我要下来。”
   点中世纪哲由于睡得太少,苏菲的眼皮已经渐渐沉重。现在,当她看到这个奇怪的僧侣从圣玛莉教堂的讲坛走下来时,她感觉好像在作梦一般。
   艾伯特走向祭坛的栏杆。他先抬起头看着竖着古老的耶稣受难像的祭坛,而后眼光朝下看着苏菲,并慢慢走向她。最后他与她并排坐在木椅上。
   苏菲头一遭如此靠近他,感觉很奇特。他的头罩下面是一双深蓝色的眼睛。这双眼睛的主人是一个中年男子,有着黑色的头发,蓄着有点削尖的胡子。
   你到底是谁呢?苏菲心想。你为何要把我的生活弄得秩序大乱?“我们将会慢慢彼此了解。”他说,仿佛能够看穿她的心思。
   当他们坐在一起时,透过彩色玻璃窗照进教堂的光线变得愈来愈强。艾伯特开始谈论中世纪的哲学:“中世纪的哲学家几乎认定基督教义就是真理。”他一开始时说。
   “他们的问题在于:我们是否一定要相信基督教的启示?还是我们可以借助理性来探索基督教的真理?希腊哲学家与圣经的记载有何关系?圣经与理性之间有抵触吗?还是信仰与知识是可以相容的?几乎所有的中世纪哲学都围绕在这些问题上打转。”
   苏菲不耐烦地点点头。她在宗教课考试时已经都谈过这些了。
   圣奥古斯丁“我们将谈一谈最著名的两大中世纪哲学家如何处理这个问题。我们还是从圣奥古斯丁(St.Augustine)开始好了。他生于公元三五四年,死于四三O年。在他的一生中我们可以看到古代末期到中世纪初期的变迁。圣奥古斯丁出生于北非一个名叫塔加斯特(Tagaste)的小镇。十六岁时,他前往迦太基求学。稍后,他转往罗马与米兰,最后在迦太基西边几英里一个名叫西波(Hippo)的小镇度过他的余年。不过,他并非一生都是基督徒。他是在仔细研究各种不同的宗教与哲学后才决定信教。”
   “你可以举一些例子吗?”
   “有一段时间他信奉摩尼教。那是古代末期很典型的一个教派一半是宗教,一半是哲学。他们宣称宇宙由善与恶、光与暗、精神与物质等二元的事物所组成。人类可运用精神来超脱于物质世界之上,并借此为灵魂的救赎做好准备。不过,这种将善与恶一分为二的理论并不能使年轻的圣奥古斯丁完全信服。他全心思考着我们所谓的‘恶的问题’,也就是恶从何而来的问题。有一段时间他受到斯多葛派哲学的影响。斯多葛派认为,善与恶之间并没有明显的分界。然而,大致上奥古斯丁还是比较倾向于古代末期的另一派重要哲学,就是新柏拉图派的哲学。他在其间发现了神圣的大自然整体存在的概念。”
   “所以他成了一位信奉新柏拉图派哲学的主教?”
   “是的,可以这么说。他成为基督徒在先,不过他的基督教理念大部分是受到柏拉图派哲学观的影响。因此,苏菲,你必须了解,并非一进入基督教的中世纪,人们就与希腊哲学完全脱离了关系。希腊哲学有一大部分被像圣奥古斯丁这样的教会领袖带到这个新时代。”
   “你的意思是说圣奥古斯丁一半是基督徒,一半是新柏拉图派的哲学家吗?”
   “他认为他自己是百分之百的基督徒,因为他并不以为基督教的教义与柏拉图的哲学之间有所矛盾。对他而言,柏拉图哲学与天主教教义的相似之处是很明显的,以至于他认为柏拉图一定知道旧约的故事。这点当然很不可能。我们不妨说是圣奥古斯丁将柏拉图加以‘基督教化’的。”
   “这么说,他开始信仰基督教以后,并没有把哲学完全抛到脑后是吗?”
   “是的,但他指出,在宗教问题上理性能做的事有限。基督教是一个神圣的奥秘,我们只能透过信仰来领会。如果我们相信基督,则上帝将会‘照亮’我们的灵魂,使我们能够对上帝有一种神奇的体悟。圣奥古斯丁内心深处一直觉得哲学能做的有限。他的灵魂一直无法获得平静,直到他决定成为基督徒为止。他写道:‘我们的心无法平静,直到在你(天主)中安息。”’“我不太明白柏拉图的哲学怎能与基督教并存,”苏菲有点意见,“那关于永恒的理型又怎么办呢?”
   “圣奥古斯丁当然认为上帝自虚空中创造了世界,这是圣经中的说法。希腊人则比较相信世界是一向都存在的。不过,圣奥古斯丁相信,在上帝创造世界之前,那些‘理型’乃是存在于神的心中。
   因此他把柏拉图所说的理型放在上帝的心中,借此保存了柏拉图有关永恒理型的看法。”
   “他很聪明。”
   “这显示圣奥古斯丁与其他许多教会领袖是如何努力将希腊与犹太思想融合在一起。就某一方面来说,他们是同时属于两种文化的。在有关恶的问题上,圣奥古斯丁也比较倾向新柏拉图派哲学韵看法。他和普罗汀一样相信邪恶是由于‘上帝不在’的结果。邪恶本身并不存在。因为实际上,上帝创造的事物只有好的,没有坏韵。圣奥古斯丁认为,邪恶是来自于人类的不服从。或者,用他的话来说:‘善的意念是上帝的事功,恶的意念是远离上帝的事功。,”
   “他也相信人有一个神圣的灵魂吗?”
   “可以说是,也可以说不是。圣奥古斯丁主张上帝与世界之间有一道不可跨越的距离。在这方面他坚决支持圣经的说法,反对普罗汀所说‘万物皆为上帝的一部分’的主张。不过他仍然强调人是有灵性的生物。他认为人有一具由物质造成的躯体,这个躯体属于何为虫蛾铁锈所腐’的物质世界,但同时人也有灵魂,可以认识上帝。”
   “我们死了以后,灵魂会怎样呢?”
   “根据圣奥古斯丁的说法,自从亚当、夏娃被逐出伊甸园后,全人类都迷失了,不过上帝仍然决定要让某些人免于毁灭。”
   “如果是这样,他大可以拯救所有的人呀!”
   。“就这点来说,圣奥古斯丁否认人有权批评上帝,他引述保罗所写的《罗马书》中的一段句子:‘你这个人哪,你是谁?竟敢向神强嘴呢?受造之物岂能对造他的神说:你为什么这样造我呢?窑匠难道没有权柄,从一团泥里拿一块做成贵重的器皿,又拿一块做成卑贱的器皿吗?’”
   “这么说上帝是高高坐在天堂里,把人类当成玩具,一旦他不满意一件造物,就把它丢掉。”
   “圣奥古斯丁的观点是:没有人值得上帝的救赎。然而上帝到底还是决定拯救某些人,使他们免下地狱。因此,对他而言,谁会获救,谁会受罚,并不是秘密。这都是事先注定的。我们完全任凭他处置。”
   “这样说来,从某个方面来看,他又回归到古老的迷信去了。”
   “也许吧。不过圣奥古斯丁并不认为人类应该放弃对自己生命的责任。他教导众人要有自己就是少数选民之一的自觉。他并不否认人有自由意志,只不过上帝已经‘预见’我们将如何生活。”
   “这不是很不公平吗?”苏菲问。“苏格拉底说我们都有同样的机会,因为我们都有同样的知识。但圣奥古斯丁却把人分成两种,一种会得救,一种会受罚。”
   “在这方面你说对了。一般认为,圣奥古斯丁的神学脱离了雅典的人本主义。但是,将人类分成两种人的并非圣奥古斯丁。他只是解释圣经中有关救赎与惩罚的教义罢了。他在《上帝之城》(TheCity ofGod)这本著作中就这点做了说明。”
   “书里说些什么?”
   “‘上帝之城’或‘天国’这个名称来自圣经和耶稣的教诲。圣奥古斯丁相信,一部人类史就是‘天国’与‘世俗之国’之间奋战的历史。这两‘国’并非以政治区分,它们互相争夺对个人的控制权。
   ‘天国’或多或少存在于教会中,而‘世俗之国’则存在于各个国家,例如当时已渐趋没落的罗马帝国中,这个观念在中世纪期间变得更加清晰,因为当时教会与各国不断互争主控权。当时有一个说法是:‘除在教会之外,别无救赎。’圣奥古斯丁所说的‘上帝之城’后来成为教会的同义字。一直要到第十六世纪的宗教改革运动,才有人敢驳斥‘人们只能经由教会得救’的观念。”
   “的确是应该抗议了。”
   “除此之外,圣奥古斯丁也是我们迄今所谈到的第一个将历史纳入哲学理论的哲学家。他所说的善恶之争并无新意,新鲜的是他说这场战争一直在历史上演出。在这方面,圣奥古斯丁的理念并没有太多柏拉图的影子。事实上,对圣奥古斯丁影响较大的是旧约中的线性历史观,也就是‘上帝要借历史来实现天国理想’的说法。圣奥古斯丁认为,为了使人类获得启蒙,也为了摧毁邪恶,历史是有必要存在的。或者,就像圣奥古斯丁所说的;‘神以其先知先觉导引人类的历史,从亚当一直到世界末日。历史就像一个人从童年逐渐成长、衰老的故事。”’苏菲看了看手表。
   “已经八点了。”她说。“我很快就得走了。”
   “在此之前,我还要和你谈谈中世纪另外一个大哲学家。我们到外面去坐好吗?”
   艾伯特站起身来,双掌合十,然后便大步沿着侧廊走出去,看来仿佛正在祈祷,或正深思某个关于性灵的真理。苏菲别无选择,只好跟随着他。
   教堂外的地上仍然笼罩着一层薄薄的雾气。旭日早已东升,但仍躲在云层中。教堂所在的地区属于旧市区的边缘。
   艾伯特在教堂外的一张长椅上坐下来。苏菲心想,如果有人打这儿经过,看见他们,不知道会怎么想呢。早上八点就坐在长椅上已经够奇怪了,再加上身边还有一个中世纪的僧侣,那更是怪上加怪了。
   “已经八点了。”艾伯特开始说。“从圣奥古斯丁的时代到现在已经过了四百年了。现在,学校开始成立了。从现在起到十点钟为止,道院所办的学校将会垄断所有教育工作。在十点和十一点之间,第—所。由教堂创办的学校将会成立。到正午时,最早的几所大学将会出现,几座宏伟的歌德式大教堂也将在此时建成。这座圣玛莉教堂也是在十三世纪(或称‘高歌德时期’)兴建的。这个镇没钱盖大一点的教堂。”
   “他们也不需要太大的教堂啊!”苏菲插嘴。“我讨厌空空荡荡的教堂。”
   “可是兴建大教堂并不只是为了供一大群人做礼拜,另外也是为了彰显上帝的荣耀。大教堂本身就是一种宗教庆典。话说回来,这段时期内发生了一件事,对像我们这样的哲学家别具意义。”
   艾伯特继续说:“在这个时期,西班牙的阿拉伯人所带来的影响开始显现。整个中世纪期间,阿拉伯人维系了亚理斯多德的传统。后来,从十二世纪末起,阿拉伯学者陆续在各王公贵族的邀请之下抵达意大利北部。许多亚理斯多德的著作因此传扬开来,并且被人从希腊文与阿拉伯文译成拉丁文。此举使得人们对于自然科学重新燃起兴趣,并为基督教教义与希腊哲学的关系注入了新生命。在科学方面,亚理斯多德的理论此时显然又再度受到重视,但是,在哲学方面,人们何时应该听从亚理斯多德的话,何时又应该谨守圣经的教诲呢?你明白问题所在吗?”
   圣多玛斯苏菲点点头。艾伯特继续说:“这段时期最伟大、最重要的哲学家是圣多玛斯(ThomasAquinas)。他生于一二二五到一二七四年间,家住罗马与那不勒斯之间一个名叫阿奎诺(Aquino)的小镇,后来他在巴黎大学教书。我称他为哲学家,但事实上他也是一位神学家。当时,哲学与神学并没有明显的区分。简而言之,我们可以说圣多玛斯将亚理斯多德加以‘基督教化’,就像中世纪初期的圣奥古斯丁将柏拉图‘基督教化’一样。”
   “把活在基督降生前好几百年的哲学家加以基督教化。这不是很奇怪吗?”
   “你可以这么说。不过,所谓‘基督教化’的意思只是把这两位希腊大哲学家的观念,用一种不至于对基督教教义造成威胁的方式加以诠释。圣多玛斯就是那些试图使亚里斯多德的哲学与基督教教义相容共存的人之一。我们可以说他把信仰与知识巧妙的融合在一起。他采取的方式是进入亚里斯多德的哲学世界,并以他的话来诠释圣经。”.“对不起,我昨晚几乎都没睡,因此恐怕你得讲清楚一些。”
   “圣多玛斯认为,哲学、理性这两者和基督教的启示与信仰之间并不一定有冲突。基督教的教义和哲学的道理,其实往往是相通的。所以我们透过理性推断的真理时常和圣经上所说的真理相同。”
   “怎么会呢?难道我们可以透过理性得知上帝在六天内创造了世界,或耶稣是上帝之子吗?”.“不,这些所谓的‘信仰的事实’只能透过信仰与基督的启示得知。但圣多玛斯认为世间有若干‘自然的神学真理’。所谓‘自然的神学真理’指的是一些既可以透过基督教的信仰,也可以透过我们与生俱来的理性得知的真理,例如‘上帝确实存在’这个真理。圣多玛斯指出,我们可以透过两条途径接近上帝。一条是经由信仰和基督的启示,一条是经由理性和感官。其中,透过信仰和启示这条是比较确实可靠的,因为我们如果光依靠理性的话,会很容易迷失方向。不过他的重点还是在于像亚里斯多德这样的哲学理论和基督教的教义之间并不一定有冲突。”
   “这么说我们可以在亚里斯多德的话和圣经这两者当中做一个选择啰?”
   “不,绝不是这样。亚里斯多德的学说只对了一部分,因为他不曾受到基督的启示。可是对了一半并不等于错。举个例子,如果我说雅典位于欧洲,这句话并没有错,但也不算准确。如果一本书只告诉你雅典是欧洲的一个城市,那么你最好查一下地理书。书上会告诉你雅典是欧洲东南部小国希腊的首都。运气好的话,它还会告诉你有关高城的一些事情,还有苏格拉底、柏拉图和亚里斯多德等人的事迹。”
   “可是那最初有关雅典的资料是正确的。”
   “没错。圣多玛斯想要证明世间只有一个真理,而亚里斯多德所说的真理并未与基督教教义冲突。他指出,我们可以透过理性的思考与感官的证据推知一部分的真理,例如亚里斯多德对植物与动物王国的叙述。但另外一部分真理则是由上帝透过圣经对我们加以启示。这两方面的真理在一些重要的点上是互相重叠的。事实上,在许多问题上,圣经和理性所告诉我们的事情是一样的。”
   “譬如说上帝确实存在之类的?”
   “一点没错。亚里斯多德的哲学也认定上帝(或‘目的因’)是造成各种自然现象的力量。但是他对上帝并没有进一步的描述,因此,圣多玛斯认为在这方面我们只能仰赖圣经和耶稣的教诲。”
   “上帝真的确实存在吗?”
   “这当然是一个很值得讨论的问题。但即使在今天,大多数人仍然认为人无法凭理性证明上帝并不存在。圣多玛斯则更进一步指出,他可以用亚里斯多德的哲学来证明天主确实存在。”
   “不坏嘛!”
   “他认为,我们用理性可以体认到我们周遭的事物必然有个‘目的因’。这是因为上帝既透过圣经,也透过理性向人类显现,所以世上既有‘信仰神学’也有‘自然神学’。在道德方面也是如此,圣经教导我们上帝希望人类如何生活,但上帝同时也赋予我们良心,使我们自然而然会分辨是非善恶。因此,我们要过道德的生活,也有两条路可走。即使我们从来没有在圣经上读过‘己所欲者施于人’的道理,我们也知道伤害人是不对的,在这方面,比较可靠的道路仍然是遵守圣经中的十诫。”
   “我懂了。”苏菲说。“这有点像是我们无论看到闪电或听到雷声,都可以知道有雷雨来临一样。”
   “对,就是这样。即使我们瞎了,也可以听到雷声,即使我们聋了,也可看见闪电。当然如果我们能同时看到、听到是最好的。可是我们所听到和看到的事物两者之间并不抵触。相反的,这两种印象具有彼此增强的作用。”
   “我明白了。”
   “我可以再举一个例子。如果你读一本小说,例如史坦贝克(JohnSteinbeck)的《人鼠之间》.....”
   “我真的读过啦。”
   “你难道不觉得你可以透过这本书了解作者的一些背景吗?”
   “我知道这本书一定是有人写的。”
   “你就只知道这点吗?”
   “你好像很关心弱者。”
   “当你读这本史坦贝克的‘创作’时,应该可以约略了解史坦贝克这个人的性情。可是你无法从书中获取任何有关作者的个人资料。例如,你读了《人鼠之间》这本书后,可以知道作者在写这本书时年纪多大、住在哪里或有多少个孩子吗?”
   “当然不能。”
   “但是你可以在一本史坦贝克的传记里得知这些资料。唯有透过传记(或自传)你才能够更加了解史坦贝克这个人。”
   “没错。”
   “这多少就像是上帝的‘创作’与圣经的关系一样。我们只要在大自然中走动便可以体认到世间确实有上帝存在。我们很容易可以看出他喜欢花儿与动物,否则他不会创造它们。但有关上帝的资料,我们只能透过圣经得知。你可以说圣经就是天主的‘自传’。”
   “你还真会举例子。”
   “嗯……”
   这是第一次艾伯特坐在那儿想事情,没有回答苏菲的话。
   “这些事情和席德有关吗?”苏菲忍不住问。
   “我们不知道世上是否有‘席德’这个人。”
   “可是我们知道有人到处留下与她有关的证据,像明信片、丝巾、绿皮夹、袜子什么的。”
   艾伯特点点头。“而且到底要留下多少线索似乎是由席德的父亲来决定的。”他说。“到目前为止,我们只知道有一个人寄给我们很多张明信片。我希望他也能够在信上写一些关于他自己的事。不过这点我们待会儿还会谈到。”
   “已经十点四十五分了。我等不及谈完中世纪就得回家了。”
   “我只想再谈一下圣多玛斯如何在各个不与基督教神学抵触的领域内采纳亚里斯多德的哲学。这些领域包括他的逻辑学、知识理论与自然哲学。举个例子,你是否还记得亚里斯多德如何描述从植物到动物到人类的生命层级?”
   苏菲点点头。
   “亚里斯多德认为,这个生命的层级显示上帝乃是最高的存在。这个理论并不难与基督教的神学取得共识。圣多玛斯认为,万物的存在分成若干渐进的层次。最低的是植物,其次是动物,再其次是人类,再其次是天使,最上面则是上帝。人像动物一样有身体和感官,但也有理性可以思考。天使既没有身体也没有感官,因此他们具有自发的、直接的智慧。他们不需要像人类一样的‘思索’,也不需要靠推理来获致结论。他们不需要像我们一样逐步学习,就可以拥有人类所有的智慧。而且由于没有身体的缘故,他们也不会死亡。他们虽然无法像上帝一样永远存在(因为他们也是天主的造物),但由于他们没有一个终有一天必须离开的身躯,因此他们也永远不会死亡。”
   “这倒挺不错的。”
   “高居天使之上的是掌管世间万物的天主,他可以看见、知道每一件事物。”
   “所以他现在也可以看见我们哼?”
   “是的,也许是这样的,但不是‘现在’。上帝的时间和人类的时间不同;我们的‘现在’不一定是天主的‘现在’,人间的几个星期并不等于天上的几个星期。”
   “真恐怖!”苏菲用手掩住嘴巴。艾伯特俯视着她。她说:“我昨天接到席德的父亲寄来的一张明信片,上面也说什么‘对苏菲来说是一两星期的时间,对我们而言不见得这么长。’这几乎和你说的上帝一样。”
   苏菲看到艾伯特在棕色头罩下面的脸闪过一抹不悦的神色。
   “他真应该觉得惭愧尸苏菲并不完全了解艾伯特的意思。他继续说:“令人遗憾的是,圣多玛斯也采取了亚里斯多德对于女人的观点。你可能还记得亚里斯多德认为女人是一个不完整的男人。他并认为小孩子只继承父亲的特征,因为妇女是被动的、只能接受的,而男人则是积极的、具有创造力的。圣多玛斯认为这些观点与圣经的话语一致。例如,圣经上就告诉我们女人是由亚当的肋骨所造的。”
   “胡说八道!”
   “事实上,人类是一直到一八二七年才发现哺乳类有卵子,因此难怪人们会认为男人是生殖过程中创造生命、赋予生命的力量。
   不过,圣多玛斯认为,女人只有在身体的构造上比不上男人,但在灵魂上则与男人相当。此外,在天堂里,两性是完全平等的,因为在那里所有身体上的性别差异都不存在了。”
   “这点并不让人觉得好过多少。中世纪难道没有女哲学家吗?”
   “中世纪的教会大部分是男人的天下,不过这并不表示当时没有女思想家。其中一位名叫席德佳(HildegardofBingen)…”
   苏菲睁大了眼睛:“她和席德有什么关系吗?”
   “怎么会问这种问题呢?席德佳是一O九八到一一七九年间一位住在莱茵河谷的修女。她虽然是个女人,却身兼传教士、作家、医生、植物学家与博物学者等几种头衔。通常中世纪的妇女要比男人更实际,甚至可能更有科学头脑,在这方面席德佳也许是一个象征。”
   “我问她到底和席德有没有关系?”
   “古代的基督徒和犹太人相信上帝不只是个男人而已。他也有女性化——或所谓‘母性’——的一面。他们认为女人也是依照上帝的形象创造的。在希腊文中,上帝女性化的那一面被称为‘苏菲亚’(Sophia)。‘苏菲亚’或‘苏菲’(Sophie)就是智慧的意思。”
   苏菲无奈的摇摇头。为什么以前没有人告诉她这件事呢?她又为什么从来没问过呢?艾伯特继续说:“在中世纪期间,上帝的母性对于犹太人和希腊正教的教会而言别具意义,但在西方她则被人们所遗忘。所幸后来席德佳出现了。她宣称她在幻象中看到了苏菲亚,穿着一袭缀满华贵珠宝的金色袍子……”
   苏菲从椅子上站了起来。苏菲亚在梦境中向席德佳显灵…“也许我也会向席德现身。”
   她再度坐了下来。艾伯特第三次把手放在苏菲的肩膀上。
   “这事我们必须好好谈一谈,不过现在已经快十一点钟,你得回家了。我们很快就要讲到一个新的纪元。下一次要讲文艺复兴时,我会通知你来。汉密士会到花园去接你。”
   说完了,这位奇怪的僧侣就站了起来,开始向教堂走去。苏菲留在原地,想着有关“席德佳和苏菲亚、席德和苏菲”的事。突然间她跳了起来,追赶穿着僧侣服的艾伯特,在他身后喊道:“中世纪是不是也有一位艾伯特?”
   他稍稍减缓了速度,偏了偏头说道:“圣多玛斯有一位著名的哲学老师,名叫大艾勃特(A1berttheGreat)……”
   说完了,他便颔了颔首,跨进圣玛莉教堂的门,消失无踪了。
   苏菲对他的回答并不满意。她也紧跟着回到教堂内,然而现在里面却空无一人。难道他钻进地板去了吗?她正要离开教堂时,看见一幅圣母像。她走近画像,仔细审视。
   突然间她发现圣母的一只眼睛下面有一小滴水。那是眼泪吗?苏菲冲出教堂,跑回乔安家。





暮辞朝

ZxID:15103679


等级: 内阁元老
配偶: 清风雅乐
这一段开心的日子请你勿忘
举报 只看该作者 16楼  发表于: 2013-10-26 0
英文原文
The Renaissance
O divine lineage in mortal guise
It was just twelve when Sophie reached Joanna's front gate, out of breath with running. Joanna was standing in the front yard outside her family's yellow house.
"You've been gone for five hours!" Joanna said sharply.
Sophie shook her head.
"No, I've been gone for more than a thousand years."
"Where on earth have you been? You're crazy. Your mom called half an hour ago."
"What did you tell her?"
"I said you were at the drugstore. She said would you call her when you got back. But you should have seen my mom and dad when they came in with hot chocolate and rolls at ten this morning ... and your bed was empty."
"What did you say to them?"
"It was really embarrassing. I told them you went home because we got mad at each other."
"So we'd better hurry up and be friends again. And we have to make sure your parents don't talk to my mom for a few days. Do you think we can do that?"
Joanna shrugged. Just then her father came around the corner with a wheelbarrow. He had a pair of coveralls on and was busy clearing up last year's leaves and twigs.
"Aha--so you're friends again, I see. Well, there's not so much as a single leaf left on the basement steps now."
"Fine," said Sophie. "So perhaps we can have our hot chocolate there instead of in bed."
Joanna's dad gave a forced laugh, but Joanna gasped. Verbal exchanges had always been more robust in Sophie's family than at the more well-to-do home of Mr. Ingebrigtsen, the financial adviser, and his wife.
"I'm sorry, Joanna, but I felt I ought to take part in this cover-up operation as well."
"Are you going to tell me about it?"
"Sure, if you walk home with me. Because it's not for the ears of financial advisers or overgrown Barbie dolls."
"That's a rotten thing to say! I suppose you think a rocky marriage that drives one of the partners away to sea is better?"
"Probably not. But I hardly slept last night. And another thing, I've begun to wonder whether Hilde can see everything we do."
They began to walk toward Clover Close.
"You mean she might have second sight?"
"Maybe. Maybe not."
Joanna was clearly not enthusiastic about all this secrecy.
"But that doesn't explain why her father sent a lot of crazy postcards to an empty cabin in the woods."
"I admit that is a weak spot."
"Do you want to tell me where you have been?"
So she did. Sophie told her everything, about the mysterious philosophy course as well. She made Joanna swear to keep everything secret.
They walked for a long time without speaking. As they approached Clover Close, Joanna said, "I don't like it."
She stopped at Sophie's gate and turned to go home again.
"Nobody asked you to like it. But philosophy is not a harmless party game. It's about who we are and where we come from. Do you think we learn enough about that at school?"
"Nobody can answer questions like that anyway."
"Yes, but we don't even learn to ask them!"
Lunch was on the table when Sophie walked into the kitchen. Nothing was said about her not having called from Joanna's.
After lunch Sophie announced that she was going to take a nap. She admitted she had hardly slept at Joanna's house, which was not at all unusual at a sleepover.
Before getting into bed she stood in front of the big brass mirror which now hung on her wall. At first she only saw her own white and exhausted face. But then-- behind her own face, the faintest suggestion of another face seemed to appear. Sophie took one or two deep breaths. It was no good starting to imagine things.
She studied the sharp contours of her own pale face framed by that impossible hair which defied any style but nature's own. But beyond that face was the apparition of another girl. Suddenly the other girl began to wink frantically with both eyes, as if to signal that she was really in there on the other side. The apparition lasted only a few seconds. Then she was gone.
Sophie sat down on the edge of the bed. She had absolutely no doubt that it was Hilde she had seen in the mirror. She had caught a glimpse of her picture on a school I.D. in the major's cabin. It must have been the same girl she had seen in the mirror.
Wasn't it odd, how she always experienced mysterious things like this when she was dead tired. It meant that afterward she always had to ask herself whether it really had happened.
Sophie laid her clothes on the chair and crawled into bed. She fell asleep at once and had a strangely vivid dream.
She dreamed she was standing in a large garden that sloped down to a red boathouse. On the dock behind it sat a young fair-haired girl gazing out over the water. Sophie walked down and sat beside her. But the girl seemed not to notice her. Sophie introduced herself. "I'm Sophie," she said. But the other girl could apparently neither see nor hear her. Suddenly Sophie heard a voice calling, "Hilde!" At once the girl jumped up from where she was sitting and ran as fast as she could up to the house. She couldn't have been deaf or blind after all. A middle-aged man came striding from the house toward her. He was wearing a khaki uniform and a blue beret. The girl threw her arms around his neck and he swung her around a few times. Sophie noticed a little gold crucifix on a chain lying on the dock where the girl had been sitting. She picked it up and held it in her hand. Then she woke up.
Sophie looked at the clock. She had been asleep for two hours. She sat up in bed, thinking about the strange dream. It was so real that she felt as if she had actually lived the experience. She was equally sure that the house and the dock really existed somewhere. Surely it resembled the picture she had seen hanging in the major's cabin? Anyway, there was no doubt at all that the girl in her dream was Hilde Moller Knag and that the man was her father, home from Lebanon. In her dream he had looked a lot like Alberto Knox ...
As Sophie stood up and began to tidy her bed, she found a gold crucifix on a chain under her pillow. On the back of the crucifix there were three letters engraved: HMK.
This was not the first time Sophie had dreamed she found a treasure. But this was definitely the first time she had brought it back from the dream.
"Damn!" she said aloud.
She was so mad that she opened the closet door and hurled the delicate crucifix up onto the top shelf with the silk scarf, the white stocking, and the postcards from Lebanon.
The next morning Sophie woke up to a big breakfast of hot rolls, orange juice, eggs, and vegetable salad. It was not often that her mother was up before Sophie on a Sunday morning. When she was, she liked to fix a solid meal for Sophie.
While they were eating, Mom said, "There's a strange dog in the garden. It's been sniffing round the old hedge all morning. I can't imagine what it's doing here, can you?"
"Yes!" Sophie burst out, and at once regretted it.
"Has it been here before?"
Sophie had already left the table and gone into the living room to look out of the window facing the large garden. It was just as she thought.
Hermes was lying in front of the secret entrance to her den.
What should she say? She had no time to think of anything before her mother came and stood beside her.
"Did you say it had been here before?" she asked.
"I expect it buried a bone there and now it's come to fetch its treasure. Dogs have memories too ..."
"Maybe you're right, Sophie. You're the animal psychologist in the family."
Sophie thought feverishly.
"I'll take it home," she said.
"You know where it lives, then?"
Sophie shrugged her shoulders.
"It's probably got an address on its collar."
A couple of minutes later Sophie was on her way down the garden. When Hermes caught sight of her he came lolloping toward her, wagging his tail and jumping up to her.
"Good boy, Hermes!" said Sophie.
She knew her mother was watching from the window. She prayed he would not go through the hedge. But the dog dashed toward the gravel path in front of the house, streaked across the front yard, and jumped up to the gate.
When they had shut the gate behind them, Hermes continued to run a few yards in front of Sophie. It was a long way. Sophie and Hermes were not the only ones out for a Sunday walk. Whole families were setting off for the day. Sophie felt a pang of envy.
From time to time Hermes would run off and sniff at another dog or at something interesting by a garden hedge, but as soon as Sophie called "Here, boy!" he would come back to her at once.
They crossed an old pasture, a large playing field, and a playground, and emerged into an area with more traffic. They continued toward the town center along a broad street with cobbled stones and streetcars. Hermes led the way across the town square and up Church Street. They came out into the Old Town, with its massive staid town houses from the turn of the century. It was almost half past one.
Now they were on the other side of town. Sophie had not been there very often. Once when she was little, she remembered, she had been taken to visit an old aunt in one of these streets.
Eventually they reached a little square between several old houses. It was called New Square, although it all looked very old. But then the whole town was old; it had been founded way back in the Middle Ages.
Hermes walked toward No. 14, where he stood still and waited for Sophie to open the door. Her heart began to beat faster.
Inside the front door there were a number of green mailboxes attached to a panel. Sophie noticed a postcard hanging from one of the mailboxes in the top row. It had a stamped message from the mailman across it to the effect that the addressee was unknown.
The addressee was Hilde Moller Knag, 14 New Square. It was postmarked June 15. That was not for two weeks, but the mailman had obviously not noticed that.
Sophie took the card down and read it:
Dear Hilde, Now Sophie is coming to the philosopher's house. She will soon be fifteen, but you were fifteen yesterday. Or is it today, Hilde? If it is today, it must be late, then. But our watches do not always agree. One generation ages while another generation is brought forth. In the meantime history takes its course. Have you ever thought that the history of Europe is like a human life? Antiquity is like the childhood of Europe. Then come the interminable Middle Ages--Europe's schoolday. But at last comes the Renaissance; the long school-day is over. Europe comes of age in a burst of exuberance and a thirst for life. We could say that the Renaissance is Europe's fifteenth birthday! It is mid-June, my child, and it is wonderful to be alive!
P.S. Sorry to hear you lost your gold crucifix. You must learn to take better care of your things. Love, Dad--who is just around the corner.
Hermes was already on his way up the stairs. Sophie took the postcard with her and followed. She had to run to keep up with him; he was wagging his tail delightedly. They passed the second, third, and fourth stories. From then on there was only an attic staircase. Were they going up to the roof? Hermes clambered on up the stairs and stopped outside a narrow door, which he scratched at with his paw.
Sophie heard footsteps approaching from inside. The door opened, and there stood Alberto Knox. He had changed his clothes and was now wearing another costume. It consisted of white hose, red knee-breeches, and a yellow jacket with padded shoulders. He reminded Sophie of a joker in a deck of cards. If she was not much mistaken, this was a typical Renaissance costume.
"What a clown!" Sophie exclaimed, giving him a little push so that she could go inside the apartment.
Once again she had taken out her fear and shyness on the unfortunate philosophy teacher. Sophie's thoughts were in a turmoil because of the postcard she had found down in the hallway.
"Be calm, my child," said Alberto, closing the door behind her.
"And here's the mail," she said, handing him the postcard as if she held him responsible for it.
Alberto read it and shook his head.
"He gets more and more audacious. I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't using us as a kind of birthday diversion for his daughter."
With that he tore the postcard into small pieces and threw them into the wastepaper basket.
"It said that Hilde has lost her crucifix," said Sophie.
"So I read."
"And I found it, the same one, under my pillow at home. Can you understand how it got there?"
Alberto looked gravely into her eyes.
"It may seem alluring. But it's just a cheap trick that costs him no effort whatsoever. Let us rather concentrate on the big white rabbit that is pulled out of the universe's top hat."
They went into the living room. It was one of the most extraordinary rooms Sophie had ever seen.
Alberto lived in a spacious attic apartment with sloping walls. A sharp light directly from the sky flooded the room from a skylight set into one of the walls. There was also another window facing the town. Through this window Sophie could look over all the roofs in the Old Town.
But what amazed Sophie most was all the stuff the room was filled with--furniture and objects from various historical periods. There was a sofa from the thirties, an old desk from the beginning of the century, and a chair that had to be hundreds of years old. But it wasn't just the furniture. Old objects, either useful or decorative, were jumbled together on shelves and cupboards. There were old clocks and vases, mortars and retorts, knives and dolls, quill pens and bookends, octants and sextants, compasses and barometers. One entire wall was covered with books, but not the sort of books found in most bookstores. The book collection itself was a cross section of the production of many hundreds of years. On the other walls hung drawings and paintings, some from recent decades, but most of them also very old. There were a lot of old charts and maps on the walls too, and as far as Norway was concerned, they were not very accurate.
Sophie stood for several minutes without speaking and took everything in.
"What a lot of old junk you've collected," she said.
"Now then! Just think of how many centuries of history I have preserved in this room. I wouldn't exactly call it junk."
"Do you manage an antique shop or something?"
Alberto looked almost pained.
"We can't all let ourselves be washed away by the tide of history, Sophie. Some of us must tarry in order to gather up what has been left along the river banks."
"What an odd thing to say."
"Yes, but none the less true, child. We do not live in our own time alone; we carry our history within us. Don't forget that everything you see in this room was once brand new. That old sixteenth-century wooden doll might have been made for a five-year-old girl's birthday. By her old grandfather, maybe... then she became a teenager, then an adult, and then she married. Maybe she had a daughter of her own and gave the doll to her. She grew old, and one day she died. Although she had lived for a very long time, one day she was dead and gone. And she will never return. Actually she was only here for a short visit. But her doll--well, there it is on the shelf."
"Everything sounds so sad and solemn when you talk like that."
"Life is both sad and solemn. We are let into a wonderful world, we meet one another here, greet each other--and wander together for a brief moment. Then we lose each other and disappear as suddenly and unreasonably as we arrived."
"May I ask you something?"
"We're not playing hide-and-seek any more."
"Why did you move into the major's cabin?"
"So that we would not be so far from each other, when we were only talking by letter. I knew the old cabin would be empty."
"So you just moved in?"
"That's right. I moved in."
"Then maybe you can also explain how Hilde's father knew you were there."
"If I am right, he knows practically everything."
"But I still can't understand at all how you get a mailman to deliver mail in the middle of the woods!"
Alberto smiled archly.
"Even things like that are a pure bagatelle for Hilde's father. Cheap hocus-pocus, simple sleight of hand. We are living under what is possibly the world's closest surveillance."
Sophie could feel herself getting angry.
"If I ever meet him, I'll scratch his eyes out!"
Alberto walked over and sat down on the sofa. Sophie followed and sank into a deep armchair.
"Only philosophy can bring us closer to Hilde's father," Alberto said at last. "Today I shall tell you about the Renaissance."
"Shoot."
"Not very long after St. Thomas Aquinas, cracks began to appear in the unifying culture of Christianity. Philosophy and science broke away more and more from the theology of the Church, thus enabling religious life to attain a freer relationship to reasoning. More people now emphasized that we cannot reach God through rationalism because God is in all ways unknowable. The important thing for a man was not to understand the divine mystery but to submit to God's will.
"As religion and science could now relate more freely to each other, the way was open both to new scientific methods and a new religious fervor. Thus the basis was created for two powerful upheavals in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, namely, the Renaissance and the Reformation."
"Can we take them one at a time?"
"By the Renaissance we mean the rich cultural development that began in the late fourteenth century. It started in Northern Italy and spread rapidly northward during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries."
"Didn't you tell me that the word 'renaissance' meant rebirth?"
"I did indeed, and that which was to be reborn was the art and culture of antiquity. We also speak of Renaissance humanism, since now, after the long Dark Ages in which every aspect of life was seen through divine light, everything once again revolved around man. 'Go to the source' was the motto, and that meant the humanism of antiquity first and foremost.
"It almost became a popular pastime to dig up ancient sculptures and scrolls, just as it became fashionable to learn Greek. The study of Greek humanism also had a pedagogical aim. Reading humanistic subjects provided a 'classical education' and developed what may be called human qualities. 'Horses are born,' it was said, 'but human beings are not born--they are formed.' "
"Do we have to be educated to be human beings?"
"Yes, that was the thought. But before we take a closer look at the ideas of Renaissance humanism, we must say a little about the political and cultural background of the Renaissance."
Alberto rose from the sofa and began to wander about the room. After a while he paused and pointed to an antique instrument on one of the shelves.
"What is that?" he asked.
"It looks like an old compass."
"Quite right."
He then pointed to an ancient firearm hanging on the wall above the sofa.
"And that?"
"An old-fashioned rifle."
"Exactly--and this?"
Alberto pulled a large book off one of the bookshelves.
"It's an old book."
"To be absolutely precise, it is an incunabulum."
"An incunabulum?"
"Actually, it means 'cradle.' The word is used about books printed in the cradle days of printing. That is, before 1500."
"Is it really that old?"
"That old, yes. And these three discoveries--the compass, firearms, and the printing press--were essential preconditions for this new period we call the Renaissance."
"You'll have to explain that a bit more clearly."
"The compass made it easier to navigate. In other words, it was the basis for the great voyages of discovery. So were firearms in a way. The new weapons gave the Europeans military superiority over American and Asiatic cultures, although firearms were also an important factor in Europe. Printing played an important part in spreading the Renaissance humanists' new ideas. And the art of printing was, not least, one of the factors that forced the Church to relinquish its former position as sole disseminator of knowledge. New inventions and instruments began to follow thick and fast. One important instrument, for example, was the telescope, which resulted in a completely new basis for astronomy." "And finally came rockets and space probes." "Now you're going too fast. But you could say that a process started in the Renaissance finally brought people to the moon. Or for that matter to Hiroshima and Chernobyl. However, it all began with changes on the cultural and economic front. An important condition was the transition from a subsistence economy to a monetary economy. Toward the end of the Middle Ages, cities had developed, with effective trades and a lively commerce of new goods, a monetary economy and banking. A middle class arose which developed a certain freedom with regard to the basic conditions of life. Necessities became something that could be bought for money. This state of affairs rewarded people's diligence, imagination, and ingenuity. New demands were made on the individual."
"It's a bit like the way Greek cities developed two thousand years earlier."
"Not altogether untrue. I told you how Greek philosophy broke away from the mythological world picture that was linked to peasant culture. In the same way, the Renaissance middle class began to break away from the feudal lords and the power of the church. As this was happening, Greek culture was being rediscovered through a closer contact with the Arabs in Spain and the Byzantine culture in the east."
"The three diverging streams from antiquity joined into one great river."
"You are an attentive pupil. That gives you some background on the Renaissance. I shall now tell you about the new ideas."
"Okay, but I'll have to go home and eat."
Alberto sat down on the sofa again. He looked at Sophie.
"Above all else, the Renaissance resulted in a new view of mankind. The humanism of the Renaissance brought a new belief in man and his worth, in striking contrast to the biased medieval emphasis on the sinful nature of man. Man was now considered infinitely great and valuable. One of the central figures of the Renaissance was Marsilio Ficino, who exclaimed: 'Know thyself, O divine lineage in mortal guise!' Another central figure, Pica della Mirandola, wrote the Oration on the Dignity of Man, something that would have been unthinkable in the Middle Ages.
"Throughout the whole medieval period, the point of departure had always been God. The humanists of the Renaissance took as their point of departure man himself."
"But so did the Greek philosophers."
"That is precisely why we speak of a 'rebirth' of antiquity's humanism. But Renaissance humanism was to an even greater extent characterized by individualism. We are not only human beings, we are unique individuals. This idea could then lead to an almost unrestrained worship of genius. The ideal became what we call the Renaissance man, a man of universal genius embracing all aspects of life, art, and science. The new view of man also manifested itself in an interest in the human anatomy. As in ancient times, people once again began to dissect the dead to discover how the body was constructed. It was imperative both for medical science and for art. Once again it became usual for works of art to depict the nude. High time, after a thousand years of prudery. Man was bold enough to be himself again. There was no longer anything to be ashamed of."
"It sounds intoxicating," said Sophie, leaning her arms on the little table that stood between her and the philosopher.
"Undeniably. The new view of mankind led to a whole new outlook. Man did not exist purely for God's sake. Man could therefore delight in life here and now. And with this new freedom to develop, the possibilities were limitless. The aim was now to exceed all boundaries. This was also a new idea, seen from the Greek humanistic point of view; the humanists of antiquity had emphasized the importance of tranquility, moderation, and restraint."
"And the Renaissance humanists lost their restraint?"
"They were certainly not especially moderate. They behaved as if the whole world had been reawakened.
They became intensely conscious of their epoch, which is what led them to introduce the term 'Middle Ages' to cover the centuries between antiquity and their own time. There was an unrivaled development in all spheres of life. Art and architecture, literature, music, philosophy, and science flourished as never before. I will mention one concrete example. We have spoken of Ancient Rome, which gloried in titles such as the 'city of cities' and the 'hub of the universe.' During the Middle Ages the city declined, and by 1417 the old metropolis had only 17,000 inhabitants."
"Not much more than Lillesand, where Hilde lives."
"The Renaissance humanists saw it as their cultural duty to restore Rome: first and foremost, to begin the construction of the great St. Peter's Church over the grave of Peter the Apostle. And St. Peter's Church can boast neither of moderation nor restraint. Many great artists of the Renaissance took part in this building project, the greatest in the world. It began in 1506 and lasted for a hundred and twenty years, and it took another fifty before the huge St. Peter's Square was completed."
"It must be a gigantic church!"
"It is over 200 meters long and 130 meters high, and it covers an area of more than 16,000 square meters. But enough about the boldness of Renaissance man. It was also significant that the Renaissance brought with it a new view of nature. The fact that man felt at home in the world and did not consider life solely as a preparation for the hereafter, created a whole new approach to the physical world. Nature was now regarded as a positive thing. Many held the view that God was also present in his creation. If he is indeed infinite, he must be present in everything. This idea is called pantheism. The medieval philosophers had insisted that there is an insurmountable barrier between God and the Creation. It could now be said that nature is divine--and even that it is 'God's blossoming.' Ideas of this kind were not always looked kindly on by the church. The fate of Gior-dano Bruno was a dramatic example of this. Not only did he claim that God was present in nature, he also believed that the universe was infinite in scope. He was punished very severely for his ideas."
"How?"
"He was burned at the stake in Rome's Flower Market in the year 1600."
"How horrible ... and stupid. And you call that humanism?"
"No, not at all. Bruno was the humanist, not his executioners. During the Renaissance, what we call anti-humanism flourished as well. By this I mean the authoritarian power of State and Church. During the Renaissance there was a tremendous thirst for trying witches, burning heretics, magic and superstition, bloody religious wars--and not least, the brutal conquest of America. But humanism has always had a shadow side. No epoch is either purely good or purely evil. Good and evil are twin threads that run through the history of mankind. And often they intertwine. This is not least true of our next key phrase, a new scientific method, another Renaissance innovation which I will tell you about."
"Was that when they built the first factories?"
"No, not yet. But a precondition for all the technical development that took place after the Renaissance was the new scientific method. By that I mean the completely new approach to what science was. The technical fruits of this method only became apparent later on."
"What was this new method?"
"Mainly it was a process of investigating nature with our own senses. Since the fourteenth century there had been an increasing number of thinkers who warned against blind faith in old authority, be it religious doctrine or the natural philosophy of Aristotle. There were also warnings against the belief that problems can be solved purely by thinking. An exaggerated belief in the importance of reason had been valid all through the Middle Ages. Now it was said that every investigation of natural phenomena must be based on observation, experience, and experiment. We call this the empirical method."
"Which means?"
"It only means that one bases one's knowledge of things on one's own experience--and not on dusty parchments or figments of the imagination. Empirical science was known in antiquity, but systematic experiments were something quite new."
"I guess they didn't have any of the technical apparatus we have today."
"Of course they had neither calculators nor electronic scales. But they had mathematics and they had scales. And it was now above all imperative to express scientific observations in precise mathematical terms. 'Measure what can be measured, and make measurable what can-not be measured,' said the Italian Galileo Galilei, who was one of the most important scientists of the seventeenth century. He also said that the book of nature is written in the language of mathematics."
"And all these experiments and measurements made new inventions possible."
"The first phase was a new scientific method. This made the technical revolution itself possible, and the technical breakthrough opened the way for every invention since. You could say that man had begun to break away from his natural condition. Nature was no longer something man was simply a part of. 'Knowledge is power,' said the English philosopher Francis Bacon, thereby underlining the practical value of knowledge-- and this was indeed new. Man was seriously starting to intervene in nature and beginning to control it."
"But not only in a good way?"
"No, this is what I was referring to before when I spoke of the good and the evil threads that are constantly intertwined in everything we do. The technical revolution that began in the Renaissance led to the spinning jenny and to unemployment, to medicines and new diseases, to the improved efficiency of agriculture and the impoverishment of the environment, to practical appliances such as the washing machine and the refrigerator and pollution and industrial waste. The serious threat to the environment we are facing today has made many people see the technical revolution itself as a perilous maladjustment to natural conditions. It has been pointed out that we have started something we can no longer control. More optimistic spirits think we are still living in the cradle of technology, and that although the scientific age has certainly had its teething troubles, we will gradually learn to control nature without at the same time threatening its very existence and thus our own."
"Which do you think?"
"I think perhaps there may be some truth in both views. In some areas we must stop interfering with nature, but in others we can succeed. One thing is certain: There is no way back to the Middle Ages. Ever since the Renaissance, mankind has been more than just part of creation. Man has begun to intervene in nature and form it after his own image. In truth, 'what a piece of work is man!' "
"We have already been to the moon. What medieval person would have believed such a thing possible?"
"No, that's for sure. Which brings us to the new world view. All through the Middle Ages people had stood beneath the sky and gazed up at the sun, the moon, the stars, and the planets. But nobody had doubted that the earth was the center of the universe. No observations had sown any doubt that the earth remained still while the 'heavenly bodies' traveled in their orbits around it. We call this the geocentric world picture, or in other words, the belief that everything revolves around the earth. The Christian belief that God ruled from on high, up above all the heavenly bodies, also contributed to maintaining this world picture."
"I wish it were that simple!"
"But in 1543 a little book was published entitled On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres. It was written by the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus, who died on the day the book was published. Copernicus claimed that it was not the sun that moved round the earth, it was vice versa. He thought this was completely possible from the observations of the heavenly bodies that existed. The reason people had always believed that the sun went round the earth was that the earth turns on its own axis, he said. He pointed out that all observations of heavenly bodies were far easier to understand if one assumed that both the earth and the other planets circle around the sun. We call this the heliocentric world picture, which means that everything centers around the sun."
"And that world picture was the right one?"
"Not entirely. His main point--that the earth moves round the sun--is of course correct. But he claimed that the sun was the center of the universe. Today we know that the sun is only one of an infinite number of stars, and that all the stars around us make up only one of many billions of galaxies. Copernicus also believed that the earth and the other planets moved in circular orbits around the sun."
"Don't they?"
"No. He had nothing on which to base his belief in the circular orbits other than the ancient idea that heavenly bodies were round and moved in circles simply because they were 'heavenly.' Since the time of Plato the sphere and the circle had been considered the most per-fect geometrical figures. But in the early 1600s, the German astronomer Johannes Kepler presented the results of comprehensive observations which showed that the planets move in elliptical--or oval--orbits with the sun at one focus. He also pointed out that the speed of a planet is greatest when it is closest to the sun, and that the farther a planet's orbit is from the sun the slower it moves. Not until Kepler's time was it actually stated that the earth was a planet just like other planets. Kepler also emphasized that the same physical laws apply everywhere throughout the universe."
"How could he know that?"
"Because he had investigated the movements of the planets with his own senses instead of blindly trusting ancient superstitions. Galileo Galilei, who was roughly contemporary with Kepler, also used a telescope to observe the heavenly bodies. He studied the moon's craters and said that the moon had mountains and valleys similar to those on earth. Moreover, he discovered that the planet Jupiter had four moons. So the earth was not alone in having a moon. But the greatest significance of Galileo was that he first formulated the so-called Law of Inertia."
"And that is?"
"Galileo formulated it thus: A body remains in the state which it is in, at rest or in motion, as long as no external force compels it to change its state."
"If you say so."
"But this was a significant observation. Since antiquity, one of the central arguments against the earth moving round its own axis was that the earth would then move so quickly that a stone hurled straight into the air would fall yards away from the spot it was hurled from."
"So why doesn't it?"
"If you're sitting in a train and you drop an apple, it doesn't fall backward because the train is moving. It falls straight down. That is because of the law of inertia. The apple retains exactly the same speed it had before you dropped it."
"I think I understand."
"Now in Galileo's time there were no trains. But if you roll a ball along the ground--and suddenly let go..."
"... it goes on rolling ..."
"... because it retains its speed after you let go."
"But it will stop eventually, if the room is long enough."
"That's because other forces slow it down. First, the floor, especially if it is a rough wooden floor. Then the force of gravity will sooner or later bring it to a halt. But wait, I'll show you something."
Alberto Knox got up and went over to the old desk. He took something out of one of the drawers. When he returned to his place he put it on the coffee table. It was just a wooden board, a few millimeters thick at one end and thin at the other. Beside the board, which almost covered the whole table, he laid a green marble.
"This is called an inclined plane," he said. "What do you think will happen if I let go the marble up here, where the plane is thickest?"
Sophie sighed resignedly.
"I bet you ten crowns it rolls down onto the table and ends on the floor."
"Let's see."
Alberto let go of the marble and it behaved exactly as Sophie had said. It rolled onto the table, over the tabletop, hit the floor with a little thud and finally bumped into the wall.
"Impressive," said Sophie.
"Yes, wasn't it! This was the kind of experiment Galileo did, you see."
"Was he really that stupid?"
"Patience! He wanted to investigate things with all his senses, so we have only just begun. Tell me first why the marble rolled down the inclined plane."
"It began to roll because it was heavy."
"All right. And what is weight actually, child?"
"That's a silly question."
"It's not a silly question if you can't answer it. Why did the marble roll onto the floor?"
"Because of gravity."
"Exactly--or gravitation, as we also say. Weight has something to do with gravity. That was the force that set the marble in motion."
Alberto had already picked the marble up from the floor. He stood bowed over the inclined plane with the marble again.
"Now I shall try to roll the marble across the plane," he said. "Watch carefully how it moves."
Sophie watched as the marble gradually curved away and was drawn down the incline.
"What happened?" asked Alberto.
"It rolled sloping because the board is sloping."
"Now I'm going to brush the marble with ink ... then perhaps we can study exactly what you mean by sloping."
He dug out an ink brush and painted the whole marble black. Then he rolled it again. Now Sophie could see exactly where on the plane the marble had rolled because it had left a black line on the board.
"How would you describe the marble's path?"
"It's curved ... it looks like part of a circle."
"Precisely."
Alberto looked up at her and raised his eyebrows.
"However, it is not quite a circle. This figure is called a parabola."
"That's fine with me."
"Ah, but why did the marble travel in precisely that way?"
Sophie thought deeply. Then she said, "Because the board was sloping, the marble was drawn toward the floor by the force of gravity."-"Yes, yes! This is nothing less than a sensation! Here I go, dragging a girl who's not yet fifteen up to my attic, and she realizes exactly the same thing Galileo did after one single experiment!"
He clapped his hands. For a moment Sophie was afraid he had gone mad. He continued: "You saw what happened when two forces worked simultaneously on the same object. Galileo discovered that the same thing applied, for instance, to a cannonball. It is propelled into the air, it continues its path over the earth, but will eventually be drawn toward the earth. So it will have described a trajectory corresponding to the marble's path across the inclined plane. And this was actually a new discovery at the time of Galileo. Aristotle thought that a projectile hurled obliquely into the air would first describe a gentle curve and then fall vertically to the earth. This was not so, but nobody could know Aristotle was wrong before it had been demonstrated."
"Does all this really matter?"
"Does it matter? You bet it matters! This has cosmic significance, my child. Of all the scientific discoveries in the history of mankind, this is positively the most important."
"I'm sure you are going to tell me why."
"Then along came the English physicist Isaac Newton, who lived from 1642 to 1727. He was the one who provided the final description of the solar system and the planetary orbits. Not only could he describe how the planets moved round the sun, he could also explain why they did so. He was able to do so partly by referring to what we call Galileo's dynamics."
"Are the planets marbles on an inclined plane then?"
"Something like that, yes. But wait a bit, Sophie."
"Do I have a choice?"
"Kepler had already pointed out that there had to be a force that caused the heavenly bodies to attract each other. There had to be, for example, a solar force which held the planets fast in their orbits. Such a force would moreover explain why the planets moved more slowly in their orbit the further away from the sun they traveled. Kepler also believed that the ebb and flow of the tides-- the rise and fall in sea level--must be the result of a lunar force."
"And that's true."
"Yes, it's true. But it was a theory Galileo rejected. He mocked Kepler, who he said had given his approval to the idea that the moon rules the water. That was because Galileo rejected the idea that the forces of gravitation could work over great distances, and also between the heavenly bodies."
"He was wrong there."
"Yes. On that particular point he was wrong. And that was funny, really, because he was very preoccupied with the earth's gravity and falling bodies. He had even indicated how increased force can control the movement of a body."
"But you were talking about Newton."
"Yes, along came Newton. He formulated what we call the Law of Universal Gravitation. This law states that every object attracts every other object with a force that increases in proportion to the size of the objects and decreases in proportion to the distance between the objects."
"I think I understand. For example, there is greater attraction between two elephants than there is between two mice. And there is greater attraction between two elephants in the same zoo than there is between an Indian elephant in India and an African elephant in Africa."
"Then you have understood it. And now comes the central point. Newton proved that this attraction--or gravitation--is universal, which means it is operative everywhere, also in space between heavenly bodies. He is said to have gotten this idea while he was sitting under an apple tree. When he saw an apple fall from the tree he had to ask himself if the moon was drawn to earth with the same force, and if this was the reason why the moon continued to orbit the earth to all eternity."
"Smart. But not so smart really."
"Why not, Sophie?"
"Well, if the moon was drawn to the earth with the same force that causes the apple to fall, one day the moon would come crashing to earth instead of going round and round it for ever."
"Which brings us to Newton's law on planetary orbits. In the case of how the earth attracts the moon, you are fifty percent right but fifty percent wrong. Why doesn't the moon fall to earth? Because it really is true that the earth's gravitational force attracting the moon is tremendous. Just think of the force required to lift sea level a meter or two at high tide."
"I don't think I understand."
"Remember Galileo's inclined plane. What happened when I rolled the marble across it?"
"Are there two different forces working on the moon?"
"Exactly. Once upon a time when the solar system began, the moon was hurled outward--outward from the earth, that is--with tremendous force. This force will remain in effect forever because it moves in a vacuum without resistance..."
"But it is also attracted to the earth because of earth's gravitational force, isn't it?"
"Exactly. Both forces are constant, and both work simultaneously. Therefore the moon will continue to orbit the earth."
"Is it really as simple as that?"
"As simple as that, and this very same simplicity was Newton's whole point. He demonstrated that a few natural laws apply to the whole universe. In calculating the planetary orbits he had merely applied two natural laws which Galileo had already proposed. One was the law of inertia, which Newton expressed thus: 'A body remains in its state of rest or rectilinear motion until it is compelled to change that state by a force impressed on it.' The other law had been demonstrated by Galileo on an inclined plane: When two forces work on a body simultaneously, the body will move on an elliptical path."
"And that's how Newton could explain why all the planets go round the sun."
"Yes. All the planets travel in elliptical orbits round the sun as the result of two unequal movements: first, the rectilinear movement they had when the solar system was formed, and second, the movement toward the sun due to gravitation."
"Very clever."
"Very. Newton demonstrated that the same laws of moving bodies apply everywhere in the entire universe. He thus did away with the medieval belief that there is one set of laws for heaven and another here on earth. The heliocentric world view had found its final confirmation and its final explanation."
Alberto got up and put the inclined plane away again. He picked up the marble and placed it on the table between them.
Sophie thought it was amazing how much they had gotten out of a bit of slanting wood and a marble. As she looked at the green marble, which was still smudged with ink, she couldn't help thinking of the earth's globe. She said, "And people just had to accept that they were living on a random planet somewhere in space?"
"Yes--the new world view was in many ways a great burden. The situation was comparable to what happened later on when Darwin proved that mankind had developed from animals. In both cases mankind lost some of its special status in creation. And in both cases the Church put up a massive resistance."
"I can well understand that. Because where was God in all this new stuff? It was simpler when the earth was the center and God and the planets were upstairs."
"But that was not the greatest challenge. When Newton had proved that the same natural laws applied everywhere in the universe, one might think that he thereby undermined people's faith in God's omnipotence. But Newton's own faith was never shaken. He regarded the natural laws as proof of the existence of the great and almighty God. It's possible that man's picture of himself fared worse."
"How do you mean?"
"Since the Renaissance, people have had to get used to living their life on a random planet in the vast galaxy. I am not sure we have wholly accepted it even now. But there were those even in the Renaissance who said that every single one of us now had a more central position than before."
"I don't quite understand."
"Formerly, the earth was the center of the world. But since astronomers now said that there was no absolute center to the universe, it came to be thought that there were just as many centers as there were people. Each person could be the center of a universe."
"Ah, I think I see."
"The Renaissance resulted in a new religiosity. As philosophy and science gradually broke away from theology, a new Christian piety developed. Then the Renaissance arrived with its new view of man. This had its effect on religious life. The individual's personal relationship to God was now more important than his relationship to the church as an organization."
"Like saying one's prayers at night, for instance?"
"Yes, that too. In the medieval Catholic Church, the church's liturgy in Latin and the church's ritual prayers had been the backbone of the religious service. Only priests and monks read the Bible because it only existed in Latin. But during the Renaissance, the Bible was translated from Hebrew and Greek into national languages. It was central to what we call the Reformation."
"Martin Luther..."
"Yes, Martin Luther was important, but he was not the only reformer. There were also ecclesiastical reformers who chose to remain within the Roman Catholic church. One of them was Erasmus of Rotterdam."
"Luther broke with the Catholic Church because he wouldn't buy indulgences, didn't he?"
"Yes, that was one of the reasons. But there was a more important reason. According to Luther, people did not need the intercession of the church or its priests in order to receive God's forgiveness. Neither was God's forgiveness dependent on the buying of 'indulgences' from the church. Trading in these so-called letters of indulgence was forbidden by the Catholic Church from the middle of the sixteenth century." "God was probably glad of that." "In general, Luther distanced himself from many of the religious customs and dogmas that had become rooted in ecclesiastical history during the Middle Ages. He wanted to return to early Christianity as it was in the New Testament. The Scripture alone,' he said. With this slogan Luther wished to return to the 'source' of Christianity, just as the Renaissance humanists had wanted to turn to the ancient sources of art and culture. Luther translated the Bible into German, thereby founding the German written language. He believed every man should be able to read the Bible and thus in a sense become his own priest."
"His own priest? Wasn't that taking it a bit far?" "What he meant was that priests had no preferential position in relation to God. The Lutheran congregations employed priests for practical reasons, such as conducting services and attending to the daily clerical tasks, but Luther did not believe that anyone received God's for-giveness and redemption from sin through church rituals. Man received 'free' redemption through faith alone, he said. This was a belief he arrived at by reading the Bible."
"So Luther was also a typical Renaissance man?" "Yes and no. A characteristic Renaissance feature was his emphasis on the individual and the individual's personal relationship to God. So he taught himself Greek at the age of thirty-five and began the laborious job of translating the Bible from the ancient Greek version into German. Allowing the language of the people to take precedence over Latin was also a characteristic Renaissance feature. But Luther was not a humanist like Ficino or Leonardo da Vinci. He was also opposed by humanists such as Erasmus of Rotterdam because they thought his view of man was far too negative; Luther had proclaimed that mankind was totally depraved after the Fall from Grace. Only through the grace of God could mankind be 'justified,' he believed. For the wages of sin is death."
"That sounds very gloomy."
Alberto Knox rose. He picked up the little green and black marble and put it in his top pocket.
"It's after four!" Sophie exclaimed in horror.
"And the next great epoch in the history of mankind is the Baroque. But we shall have to keep that for another day, my dear Hilde."
"What did you say?" Sophie shot up from the chair she had been sitting in. "You called me Hilde!"
"That was a serious slip of the tongue."
"But a slip of the tongue is never wholly accidental."
"You may be right. You'll notice that Hilde's father has begun to put words in our mouths. I think he is exploiting the fact that we are getting weary and are not defending ourselves very well."
"You said once that you are not Hilde's father. Is that really true?"
Alberto nodded.
"But am I Hilde?"
"I'm tired now, Sophie. You have to understand that. We have been sitting here for over two hours, and I have been doing most of the talking. Don't you have to go home to eat?"
Sophie felt almost as if he was trying to throw her out. As she went into the little hall, she thought intensely about why he had made that slip. Alberto came out after her.
Hermes was lying asleep under a small row of pegs on which hung several strange-looking garments that could have been theatrical costumes. Alberto nodded toward the dog and said, "He will come and fetch you."
"Thank you for my lesson," said Sophie.
She gave Alberto an impulsive hug. "You're the best and kindest philosophy teacher I've ever had," she said.
With that she opened the door to the staircase. As the door closed, Alberto said, "It won't be long before we meet again, Hilde."
Sophie was left with those words.
Another slip of the tongue, the villain! Sophie had a strong desire to turn around and hammer on the door but something held her back.
On reaching the street she remembered that she had no money on her. She would have to walk all the long way home. How annoying! Her mother would be both angry and worried if she didn't get back by six, that was for sure.
She had not gone more than a few yards when she suddenly noticed a coin on the sidewalk. It was ten crowns, exactly the price of a bus ticket.
Sophie found her way to the bus stop and waited for a bus to the Main Square. From there she could take a bus on the same ticket and ride almost to her door.
Not until she was standing at the Main Square waiting for the second bus did she begin to wonder why she had been lucky enough to find the coin just when she needed it.
Could Hilde's father have left it there? He was a master at leaving things in the most convenient places.
How could he, if he was in Lebanon?
And why had Alberto made that slip? Not once but twice!
Sophie shivered. She felt a chill run down her spine.





中文翻译
   文艺复兴
   ……啊!藏在凡俗身躯里的神明子孙哪……
   苏菲喘吁吁地跑到乔安家的前门时,刚好过了十二点。乔安正站在他们那栋小黄屋前面的院子里。
   “你去了快十个小时了!”乔安提高了嗓门。
   苏菲摇摇头。
   “不,我去了一千多年了。”
   “你究竟到哪里去了?”
   “.....”
   “你疯了吗?你妈妈半小时前打电话来。”
   “你怎么跟她说?”
   “我说你到药局去了,她说请你回来时打个电话给她。不过今天早上十点我爸和我妈端着热巧克力和面包进房里来,却发现你的床是空的。你真该看看他们脸上的表情。”
   “你怎么跟他们说?”
   “我很尴尬。我告诉他们说我们吵了一架,你就跑回家了。”
   “这么说,我们最好赶快言归于好,而且这几天内我们不能让你爸妈和我妈说话。你想我们能不能办得到?”
   乔安耸耸肩。就在这个时候,乔安的爸爸从角落里走过来,手里推着一辆独轮车。他身穿工人装,正忙着清扫去年掉下来的最后一些落叶和树枝。
   “哈,你们和好了,你们看,我把地下室台阶上的落叶扫得干干净净,一片也不剩。”
   “不错。”苏菲答道:“现在我们是不是可以在这边喝热巧克力了?”
   乔安的爸爸勉强笑了一下,乔安则吓了一跳。乔安的爸爸是一位财务顾问,因此乔安的家境比苏菲好,而他们家人彼此之间讲话是不像苏菲家那样直来直往的。
   “对不起,乔安,我只是想我该帮你圆谎才对。”
   “你要不要告诉我发生了什么事?”
   “当然要啦!如果你陪我回家的话。因为这些事是不能让什么财务顾问呀、超龄的芭比娃娃呀之类的人听的。”
   “说这种烂话!有的人结了婚,另外一半只好去出海,这种不稳定的婚姻我看也不见得比较好吧!”
   “也许是吧!不管怎么说,我昨晚几乎都没睡。还有,我开始好奇席德是不是能看到我们所做的每一件事情。”
   她们开始朝苜蓿巷走去。
   “你的意思是说她也许有第三只眼睛?”
   “也许是,也许不是。”
   很明显的,乔安对这个谜团并不热中。
   “不过这并不能解释她爸爸为什么会寄那么多莫名其妙的明信片到树林里一座空着的木屋去呀!”
   “我承认这一点是不太能说得通。”
   “你要告诉我你到哪里去了吗?”
   于是,苏菲就一五一十地告诉了乔安,连同那神秘哲学课程的事。她要乔安发誓绝对不能把这个秘密告诉别人。
   她们继续向前走,有很长一段时间都没有说话。
   当他们走到苜蓿巷时,乔安说:“我不怎么喜欢这件事。”
   她在苏菲家的门口停下来,转身准备回家。
   “没有人要你喜欢。不过哲学不是一个无伤大雅的团体游戏,它跟我们是谁、从何而来这些问题有关。你认为这方面我们在学校学的够多吗?”
   “可是不管怎样都没有人能回答那些问题呀!”
   “没错,但甚至没有人告诉我们应该提出这些问题!”
   苏菲走进厨房时,午饭已经摆在桌上了。关于她没有从乔安家打电话回家这件事,妈妈也没说什么。
   梦境午饭后,苏菲宣布她要上楼睡午觉,她老实跟妈妈说她在乔安家几乎都没睡。不过话说回来,女孩子在一起过夜时,一整个晚上不睡觉也是常有的事。
   在上床前,她站在墙上那面大铜镜前看着,起先只看到自己苍白疲倦的脸,但后来,在她的脸后面,似乎隐隐约约有另外一张浮现,苏菲做了一两下深呼吸。她已经开始有幻觉了,这可不大妙。
   她仔细审视着自己那张轮廓分明苍白的脸,以及脸四周那一头做不出任何发型的难缠的头发。但在那张脸之外却浮现了另外一个女孩的幽灵。
   突然间,那个女孩疯狂地眨着双眼,仿佛是在向苏菲做信号,说她的确在那儿。这个幽灵出现的时间只有几秒钟,然后便消失了。
   苏菲坐在床沿。她万分确信镜子里的女孩就是席德。她曾经在少校的小木屋内放着的一份成绩单上看过席德的照片,刚才她在镜子里看到的一定就是她。
   为什么她总是在疲倦至极的时候遇见这类令人毛骨悚然的事呢?这不是很奇怪吗?所以,每次事情发生后,她总得问问自己那是否是真的。
   苏菲把衣服放在椅子上,便爬上了床。她立刻睡着了,并且作了一个栩栩如生的梦。
   她梦见自己站在一座大花园中。园里有一道山坡向下通往一座船库。船库后面的平台上坐着一个年轻的金发女孩,正在眺望着大海。苏菲走下去,坐在她身旁,但那女孩却似乎没有察觉她的到来。苏菲开始自我介绍:“我叫苏菲,”她说。但这个女孩显然既没看到她的人,也没听到她说话。“你显然又聋又瞎。”苏菲说。那女孩还是充耳不闻。突然间苏菲听到一个声音在喊:“席德!”那女孩立刻跳起来,向船库的方向飞奔。看来她既不聋也不瞎。此时一名中年男子从船库大步向她走来。他身穿卡其布制服,头戴蓝扁帽。
   女孩展开双臂抱住他的脖子,他则将她抱起,转了几圈。这时,苏菲在女孩原先所坐之处看到一条小小的金色十字架链子。她将它捡起来,拿在手中,然后便醒了。
   苏菲看看时钟,她已经睡子两个小时。
   她坐起来,想着这个奇怪的梦。梦境里的一切是如此栩栩如生,她觉得自己好像确实到过那里一样,她也很确定那座船库和平台确实存在于某个地方。当然,它们看起来很像是她在少校的小木屋中见过的那幅风景画。无论如何,她梦中的那个女孩无疑必是席德,而那个男人则是她的爸爸,刚从黎巴嫩回来。在梦中,他的样子看起来很像艾伯特。
   苏菲起床开始整理床铺时,在枕头下发现一条金色的十字架链子。十字架的背面刻着席德几个字。
   这并不是苏菲第一次梦见自己捡到贵重的东西,但毫无疑问这是第一次那样东西从梦里跑了出来。
   “去你的!”她大声说。
   她生气地打开橱柜的门,把那条精致的十字架链子丢到最上面一格,跟丝巾、白袜子和从黎巴嫩寄来的明信片放在一起。
   面授课程第二天早晨,苏菲醒来时,妈妈已经弄好了一顿可口的早餐,有热面包、橘子汁、蛋和蔬菜沙拉。通常星期天早晨妈妈很少比苏菲先起床,而每次她先起床时,总是会弄好一顿丰盛的早餐再叫醒苏菲。
   她们吃着早餐时,妈妈说:“花园里有一只很奇怪的狗,整个早上都在老树篱旁边嗅来嗅去。我实在不知道它在那儿干什么,你呢?”
   “我知道!”苏菲脱口而出,随即又后悔了。
   “它以前来过吗?”
   这时苏菲已经离开餐桌,走到客厅向着花园的那扇窗户往外看。果然不出她所料。
   汉密士正躺在密洞的人口前。
   她该怎么跟妈妈说呢?她还来不及想出什么借口时,妈妈已经走过来,站在她身边。
   “你刚才说它以前来过这儿?”
   “我想它大概是以前在那里埋了一根骨头,现在想把它挖出来。你知道,狗也有记性的……”
   “大概是吧,苏菲。你是我们家的动物心理学家。”
   苏菲急切的搜寻着借口。
   “我带它回家好了尸她说。
   “你知道它住哪里吗?”
   苏菲耸耸肩。
   “项圈上也许会有地址吧!”
   两三分钟后,苏菲已经走到了花园。汉密士一看到她两步跑了过来,摇了摇尾巴,扑向苏菲。
   “乖狗狗!”
   她知道妈妈正在窗户那边看着他们。她内心暗自祈祷汉密士不要钻进树篱。还好,它只是冲向屋前的石子路,飞快地跑过前院,奔向大门。
   大门关上后,汉密士继续在苏菲前面跑了几码。这段路程颇远。由于是星期天的上午,路上有一些人在散步。眼看别人全家一起共度周末,苏菲真是羡慕极了。
   一路上,汉密士不时跑去嗅嗅别的狗或别人家花园篱笆旁边的有趣玩意儿。不过只要苏菲一叫,“狗狗,过来尸它就立刻回来。
   不一会儿,他们已经走过了一座老旧的牧场、一座大运动场和一个游乐场,进入了人车较多的地区。他们继续沿着一条铺着圆石并有电车往来的大街向市中心走。到了市中心时,汉密士引导苏菲穿越市中心广场,走到教会街上。这里属于旧市区,四周都是十九世纪末、二十世纪初时兴建的平凡单调的大宅子。时间已经将近下午一点半了。
   现在他们已经到了市区的另外一边。这里苏菲并不常来。她记得小时候有一次爸妈曾带她到这里的一条街上拜访一位年老的姨妈。
   最后他们走到位于几栋旧宅子之间的一座小广场。这座广场虽然看起来非常古老,但却名为“新广场”。不过话说回来,这整座城镇历史已经很悠久了,它兴建的年代可以远溯到中世纪。
   汉密士走向第十四号房屋,然后便停下来不动,等着苏菲开门。苏菲心跳开始加快。
   进了前门,苏菲看到一块嵌板上钉着几个绿色的信箱,最上面一排有一个信箱口露出—张明信片。上面有邮局所盖的“地址详”的印章。
   明信片上的地址写着“新广场十四号,席德收”,日期是六月十五日。事实上还有两个星期才到六月十五日,但邮差显然没有注意到。
   苏菲把明信片取下来看:
   亲爱的席德:
   现在苏菲已经到哲学家的家里来了。她很快就要满十五岁了,但你昨天就满十五了。还是今天呢?如果是今天的话,那么信到的大迟了。不过我们两个的时间并不一定一致。下一代出来后,上一代就老了。历史就这样发展下去。你有没有想过欧洲的历史就像一个人的一生?古代就像欧洲的童年,然后到了漫长的中世纪,这是欧洲的学生时期。最后终于到了文艺复兴时期,此时,漫长的求学时期结束了。欧洲成年了,充满了旺盛的活力以及对生命的渴望。我们可以说文艺复兴时期是欧洲的十五岁生日!现在是六月中旬了,我的孩子,活着的感觉真好,不是吗?
   P.S:很遗憾你丢了那条金十字架链子。你得学习照管自己的东西才行。爸爸就在你的身旁。
   爱你的老爸
   汉密士已经开始上楼了。苏菲拿了明信片,跟着它走。她必须跑才能赶上它。它一直快活地摇着尾巴。他们走上了二楼、三楼,到四楼后只有一道通往阁楼的楼梯。难道要上屋顶吗?汉密士沿着楼梯上去,在一扇窄门前停下来,并用爪子抓门。
   苏菲听到脚步声从里面走来。门开了,艾伯特站在那儿。他已经换了服装,现在穿着另外一套衣服,包括白长袜、红膝马裤和黄色垫肩的紧身上衣。他使苏菲想起扑克牌里的小丑。如果她没记错的话,这是文艺复兴时期典型的服装。
   “你这个小丑!”苏菲喊,轻轻地推了他一把,以便走进屋里。
   在恐怖、害羞的情绪交集之下,苏菲又不期然地拿她可怜的哲学老师当靶子。由于刚才在玄关处发现那张明信片,苏菲现在的思绪是一片混乱。
   “不要这么容易激动,孩子。”艾伯特说,一面把门关上。
   “你看这张明信片!她说,一面把信交给他,好像他应该负责似的。
   艾伯特看完信后摇摇头。
   “他愈来愈无所忌惮了。说不定他是利用我们做为他女儿的生日娱乐。”
   说完后他将明信片撕成碎片,丢进字纸篓中。
   “信上说席德丢了她的十字架。”苏菲说。
   “我看到了。”
   “那个十字架被我发现了,就是那一个,放在我家的枕头下面。
   你知道它怎么会在那里吗?”
   艾伯特严肃地看着她的眼睛,“这件事看起来也许很吸引入,但只是他不费一点力气就能玩的小把戏罢了。我们还是集中精神来看那只被魔术师从宇宙的礼帽中拉出来的大白兔吧!”
   他们进入客厅。那是苏菲所见过的最不寻常的房间之一。
   这是一间宽敞的阁楼,四边的墙壁略微倾斜。强烈的阳光透过其中一面的窗户泻满了整个房间。另外一扇窗户则开向市区,苏菲可以从这里看到旧市区里所有房子的屋顶。
   但是最让苏菲惊讶的还是房间里摆满了各种年代的家具器物。有一张三十年代的沙发,一张二十世纪初期的旧书桌和一把看起来有几百年历史的椅子。除了家具之外,还有各式各样古董,不管是实用的还是装饰的,统统凌乱地放在架子上或柜子里,包括古老的时钟与花瓶、研钵和蒸馏器、刀子和娃娃、羽毛笔和书挡、八分仪和六分仪、罗盘和气压计等。有一整面墙放满了书,而且都不是那些可以在书店里看到的书,出版的年代横跨数百年。另外一面墙则挂满了素描与图画,有些是最近几十年的,但大多数都是非常古老的作品。此外,每面墙上都挂有很多古老的图表与地图。从图上挪威的大小与位置看来,这些地图并不很精确。
   有好几分钟的时间,苏菲只是站在那儿,没有说话。她东张西望了一阵子,直到她从各个角度把这个房间看过为止。
   “你这里搜集的旧垃圾可真多!”
   “你又来了。这个房间里保存的是几百年的历史文物。应该不算是垃圾吧?”
   “你是开古董店的吗?”
   艾伯特的表情几乎有点痛苦。
   “我们不能让自己被历史的浪潮冲走,总得有人收拾河岸边留下来的东西。”
   “这话很奇怪。”
   “是很奇怪,但却一点不假。孩子,我们并不只活在我们所属的时代里,我们身上也扛着历史。不要忘记你在这个房间内看到的每一样东西都曾经是崭新的。那个十六世纪的木娃娃也许是为了某个五岁女孩的生日做的,而制造的人也许就是她年老的祖母……然后小女孩长成了青少年,然后成年了,结婚了,也许也生了一个女儿,后来她把木娃娃传给女儿,自己则渐渐老去,有一天就死了。
   虽然她活了很久,但总还是难免一死,从此一去不返。事实上她只是来到人间短暂一游罢了。但是她的娃娃——你看,现在却放在那个架子上。”
   “经过你这么一说,每一件事情都显得悲伤而严肃。”
   “生命本来就是悲伤而严肃的。我们来到这个美好的世界里,彼此相逢,彼此问候,并结伴同游一段短暂的时间。然后我们就失去了对方,并且莫名其妙就消失了,就像我们突然莫名其妙的来到世上一般。”
   “我可以问你一件事吗?”
   “我们不再玩捉迷藏的游戏了。”
   “你为什么会搬到少校的小木屋?”;“为了缩短我们之间的距离呀!因为那个时候我们全凭通信联络。我知道那时小木屋刚好是空的。”
   “所以你就搬进去了!”
   “没错。”
   “那或许你也可以告诉我席德的爸爸是如何知道你在那里的。”
   “如果我说的没错,每一件事情他都知道。”
   “但我还是不懂你怎么有办法让邮差跑到森林里面去送信!”
   艾伯特淘气地笑了一下。
   “即使那样的事情,对席德的父亲来说也算不了什么,只不过是个小把戏,妙手一挥就成了。我们现在可能正受到全世界最严密的监视。”
   苏菲顿时觉得一股怒气往上升。
   “要是让我碰上他,一定把他的眼珠子挖出来。”
   艾伯特走到房间的另外一边,坐在沙发上。苏菲跟着他,也坐在一张宽大的扶手椅上。
   “只有哲学可以使我们更接近席德的父亲。”他终于说。“今天我要跟你谈文艺复兴时期。”
   “快说吧!”
   文艺复兴
   “在圣多玛斯的时代过后不久,原本团结一致的天主教文化开始出现分裂的现象。哲学与科学逐渐脱离教会的神学,使得宗教生活与理性思考之间的关系变得比较自由。当时有愈来愈多人强调人们不能透过理性与天主沟通,因为天主绝对是不可知的。对人来说,最重要的事不是去了解神的奥秘,而是服从神的旨意。”
   “嗯。”
   “既然宗教与科学的关系已经变得较为自由,新的科学方法与新的宗教狂热于是逐渐产生。在这种环境下,十五与十六世纪发生了两大变动,就是文艺复兴运动与宗教改革运动。”
   “我们可不可以一个一个来?”
   “所谓文艺复兴运动是指十四世纪末期起文化蓬勃发展的现象,最先开始于意大利北部,并在十五与十六世纪期间迅速向北蔓延。”
   “你不是告诉我‘文艺复兴’这个字是表示‘重生’的意思吗?”
   “没错。它是指古代艺术与文化的再生。另外我们也说它是‘人道主义的复兴’,因为在漫长的中世纪,生命中的一切都是从神的观点来解释,但到了文艺复兴时期,一切又重新以人为中心。当时的口号是‘回归本源’,所谓本源主要是指古代的人文主义。
   “在文艺复兴时期,发掘古代的经卷典籍几乎成为一种大众休闲活动,学习希腊文也变成时髦的玩意。当时的人认为,修习希腊的人文主义有教导与启发的功能,它除了可以使人了解古代的思想文化之外,也可以发展他们所谓的‘人的特质’。他们认为:‘马生下来就是马,但人要做为一个人,还需要靠后天慢慢的培养。’”
   “我们一定要受教育才可以成为一个人吗?”
   “是的,当时的人观念确是如此。不过在我们详谈文艺复兴时期的人文理念之前,我们必须大略了解一下文艺复兴时期的政治与文化背景。”
   艾伯特从沙发上起身,开始在房间里踱步。过了一会,他停下来,指着架子上放着的一件古代仪器。
   “这是什么?”他问。
   “看起来像是一个很旧的罗盘。”
   “没错。”
   然后他又指着沙发后面的墙壁上挂着的一件古代火器。
   “那又是什么?”
   “一支老式的步熗。”
   “没错。这个呢?”
   艾伯特从书架上抽出一本大书。
   “是一本古书。”
   “严格地说,这是一本古版书。”
   “古版书?”
   “是的,就是公元一五OO年前印制的古书。当时印刷业仍处于襁褓阶段。”
   “这本书真的有那么古老吗?”
   “是的。罗盘、火器与印刷术这三大发明,乃是文艺复兴时期所以形成的重要因素。”
   “请你说详细一些。”
   “有了罗盘,航海就比较容易了,这为后来一些伟大的探险航程奠定了基础。火器也是一样,这种新式的武器使得欧洲军队的军力要比美洲和亚洲的军队强大。在欧洲内部,是否拥有火器也成为一个国家强大与否的关键因素。印刷术则在散布文艺复兴时期的人本理念方面有很重要的贡献,同时印刷术的发明也使得教会不再是唯一能够散播知识的机构。在这段时期,各项新的发明与仪器接踵而来,速度既快,数量也多。其中很重要的一项就是望远镜的发明,它使得天文学迈人了新的纪元。”
   “所以现在才会有火箭和太空探险之旅。”
   “你的速度未免太快了吧。不过文艺复兴时期所发生的一项转变,最后倒是把人类送上了月球,也间接导致广岛事件与切尔诺贝利核电厂爆炸事件。最初只是文化与经济上的一些改变。其中很重要的一个现象是;自给自足式的经济逐渐转型为货币经济体系。
   在中世纪末期时,由于贸易制度成功、新商品交易蓬勃,再加上已经建立货币经济与银行体系,于是各城市不断发展,造成了一个新的中产阶级。他们拥有决定自己生活环境的自由,可以用钱买到各种必需晶。在这个时期,只要肯吃苦耐劳、有想像力、脑筋灵活,便可以获得报偿。因此,社会对个人的要求已经改变。”
   “这和两千年前希腊各城邦发展的情况有些类似。”
   “你说对了几分。我曾经说过,希腊哲学脱离了属于农民文化的神话世界观。同样的,文艺复兴时期的中产阶级也开始脱离封建贵族与教会的势力。这段期间,欧洲与西班牙的阿拉伯人和东方的拜占庭文化接触日益密切,于是欧洲人又开始注意到希腊文化的存在。”
   “于是古代的三条支流又汇集成一条大河。”
   “你很用心。有关文艺复兴时期的背景就讲到这里。现在我们要谈这个时期一些新的理念。”
   “好,不过我很快得回家吃饭了。”
   艾伯特再度坐在沙发上,眼睛看着苏菲。
   “文艺复兴运动最重要的影响是改变了大家对人类的看法。文艺复兴时期的人文主义精神使得大家对人本身和人的价值重新产生了信心,这和中世纪时强调人性本恶的观点截然不同。这个时期的哲学家认为人是极其崇高可贵的。其中最主要的人物之一是费其诺(MarsilioFicino)。他告诉人们:“认识自己,呵,你这藏在凡俗身躯内的神明子孙啊!”另外一个主要人物是米兰多拉(PieodellaMirandola),他写了《颂扬人的尊贵》这篇文章,这在中世纪简直是无法想象的。
   “在中世纪期间,上帝是一切事物的出发点。文艺复兴时期的人文主义则以人为出发点。”
   “希腊哲学家也是一样啊!”
   “这正是为什么我们会说文艺复兴时期是古代人文主义‘重生’的缘故。但文艺复兴时期的人文主义更强调个人主义。当时人的观念是:我们不仅是人,更是独一无二的个体。这种理念导致人们无限崇拜天才。理想中的人是我们所谓的‘文艺复兴人’,就是艺术、科学等十八般武艺样样精通的人。由于对人的观点改变了,于是人们开始对人体的构造产生兴趣。就像在古代一般,人们又开始解剖尸体以了解人体的结构。这对医学和艺术而言都是很有必要的。同时,这个时期也再度出现许多描绘人体的艺术作品。在历经一千年的假道学之后,这也该是时候了。人又有了胆量表现自己,不再以自己为耻。”
   “太好了。”苏菲说,一边把双臂靠在她和哲学家中间的小茶几上。
   “的确如此。这种对人的新观念创造了一个全新的视野。人并不只是为神而存在的,因此人也不妨及时行乐。有了这种新的自由之后,任何事情都是可能的。这个时期人们的目标是要打破所有的藩篱与禁忌。从希腊人文主义的观点来说,这倒是一个新的想法,因为古代的人文主义强调的是宁静、中庸与节制。”
   “结果文艺复兴时期的人文主义者就变得很放纵了吗?”
   “他们当然不是很节制的。他们的所作所为就好像整个世界重新复苏了一般。他们强烈地感受到时代的精神,这是为何他们将介于古代与文艺复兴时期之间的几百年称为‘中世纪’的缘故。在文艺复兴时期,各个领域都有无可比拟的进展。无论艺术、建筑、文学、音乐、哲学与科学都以空前的速度蓬勃发展。举一个具体的例子:我们曾经谈到古代的罗马曾有‘城市中的城市’与‘宇宙的中枢’等美称,但在中世纪期间,罗马渐渐衰微,到公元一四一七年时,人口只剩下一万七千人。”
   “比席德住的黎乐桑市多不了多少嘛。”
   “文艺复兴时期的人文主义者认为重建罗马是他们的文化责任,而最重要的一项工作就是在圣彼得的坟墓上建一座圣彼得大教堂。这座教堂号称世界第一,极尽富丽与堂皇之能事。许多文艺复兴时期的伟大艺术家都参与了兴建工作。这项工程从一五(•)六年开始,进行了一百二十年之久。后来,又花了五十年的时间兴建宏伟的圣彼得广场。”
   “这座教堂一定很大尸“它共有两百多米长、一百三十米宽,占地二万六千平方米以上。有关文艺复兴时期人们大胆自信的心理我们就讲到这里了。还有很重要的一点是:文艺复兴运动也使得人们对大自然有了新的看法。这时候的人们比较能够尽情享受生活,不再认为人活着只是为死后的世界做准备,因此他们对物质世界的看法也完全改观了。
   在人们眼中,大自然如今有了正面的意义。许多人认为上帝也存在于他所创造的事物中。因为,如果神真的是无穷无限的,他就会存在于万事万物中。这种观念称为泛神论。中世纪的哲学家一直坚持神与他的造物之间有一道不可跨越的距离。文艺复兴时期的人则认为大自然是神圣的,甚至是‘神的花朵’。这类观念有时会遭到教会的反对。布鲁诺(GiordanoBruo)的命运就是一个很极端的例子。他不仅宣称神存在于大自然中,而且相信宇宙是无限大的。结果他受到了非常严厉的惩罚。”
   “什么惩罚?”
   “他在一六OO午时被绑在罗马花市的一根柱子上活活烧死。”
   “真是太烂了……太蠢了。这还叫人文主义吗?”
   “不,绝不是。布鲁诺是人文主义者,但将他处决的人则不是。
   不过在文艺复兴时期,所谓的‘反人文主义’也同样盛行。我所谓的‘反人文主义’指的是各国政府与教会的威权。在文艺复兴时期,审判女巫、烧死异教徒的风气非常盛行。魔法、迷信充斥,而且不时有人发动血腥的宗教战争。美洲也是在这段时期被欧洲人用蛮横的手段征服了。这些都是人文主义阴暗的一面。不过话说回来,没有任何一个时代是完全好或完全坏的。善恶乃是人类历史中不时交织在一起的两股线。在我们下面要讲到的另外一个文艺复兴时期的新产物‘新科学方法’方面也是如此。”
   “当时的人是否兴建了人类史上最早的一些工厂?”
   “还没有。不过多亏文艺复兴时期发明的新科学方法,才会有后来那些科技发展。所谓新科学方法是指以崭新的角度来看待科学,这种方法到后来才结出明显的科技果实。”
   “那是什么样的新方法?”
   “它最主要的一点是用我们的感官来调查研究大自然,自从十四世纪以来,愈来愈多思想家警告人们不要盲目相信权威,无论是宗教教条或亚理斯多德的自然哲学。但也有人劝告大众不要相信纯粹凭思考就可以解决问题。在整个中世纪期间,人们过度迷信理性思考的重要性。到了文艺复兴时期,则认为研究大自然现象必须以观察、经验与实验为基础。我们称之为‘实证法’。”
   “意思是?”
   “就是以亲身经验,而不是以古人的著作或凭空想象之物,来做为知识的基础。古代也有实证科学,但从来不曾以有系统的方式做过实验。”
   “我猜他们大概没有现代这些仪器设备。”
   “当然,他们没有计算机或电子尺这类工具,但是他们可以凭借数学计算和普通的尺。对他们而言,最重要的一件事就是把科学观察所得的结果用准确的数学辞汇表达出来。十七世纪的大科学家伽利略(GalileoGalilei)说:‘我们要测量那些可以测量的东西,至于那些无法测量的,也要想办法加以测量。’他并表示:‘大自然这本书是用数学的语言写的。”’“有了这些实验与测量结果之后,就自然会有新发明了。”
   “新科学方法的出现促成了技术革命,这是第一个阶段。而技术革命又为后来的每一项发明打下了基础。可以说人类这时已经开始脱离自然环境了,人类不再仅仅是大自然的一部分。英国哲学家培根(FrancisBacon)表示:‘知识即力量。’这句话强调了知识的实用价值,在当时也是一个很新的观念。人们开始认真干预大自然并加以控制。”
   “但这并不一定是好的,不是吗?”
   “对。我曾经提到过,我们所做的每一件事情都有正反两面的作用。文艺复兴时期展开的技术革命虽然带来了纺织机,但也造成了失业;虽然带来了新的药物,但也带来了新的疾病;虽然提高了农业效率,但也榨取了许多自然资源;虽然带来了洗衣机、电冰箱等实用的器具,但也导致了污染与工业废弃物处理的问题。今天我们面临严重的环境污染问题已经使得许多人认为,技术革命乃是人类尝试调整自然环境的一种危险做法,而且已经失败,有人指出,这场革命最终将会走向失控的局面。比较乐观的人士则认为我们目前仍处于科技的襁褓阶段,同时,尽管在科学发展的过程中不免会有阵痛,但人类终将逐渐学习到如何控制大自然,而不致对环境构成威胁。”
   “你觉得谁说的比较对?”
   “我觉得双方的说法或许都有点道理。在某些领域内我们必须停止干预自然,但在其他领域内我们则不妨更进一步。但有一件事情是可以确定的:我们绝不可能再走中世纪的老路。自从文艺复兴时期以来,人类就不再只是创造物的一部分,而开始干预自然,并按照自己的心意来改造大自然。说真的,‘人是多么了不起呀!”
   “人类已经登陆月球了。在中世纪,谁会相信人能跑到月亮上;去呀!”
   新世界观“他们当然无法想象。说到这里,我们要谈谈所谓的‘新世界观’。中世纪的人虽然也会坐在天空下,看着太阳、月亮与星球。但他们从不曾怀疑‘地球是宇宙中心’的说法。他们认为地球是静止不动的,而各个‘天体’则在轨道上环绕着地球运行。这种观念被称为‘以地球为中心的世界观’,也就是‘万物皆以地球为中心’的意思。基督教相信上帝高居各天体之上,主宰宇宙,这也是当时人抱持这种观念的原因之一。”
   “世界真有这么简单就好了!”
   “然而,在一五四三年,有一本名叫《天体运行论》(OntheRevolutions OFtheCelestialSpheres)的小书出版了。作者是波兰天文学家哥白尼(NicolausCopernicus)。他在这本书出版当天就去世了。哥白尼在书中宣称,太阳并未绕地球运行,而是地球绕太阳运行。他根据观察各星球的心得,认为这种可能性很高。他说,人们之所以相信太阳绕着地球转,是因为地球绕着自己的轴心转的缘故。他指出,如果我们假设地球和其他星球都绕着太阳转,则我们所看到的天体运转现象将会变得容易理解得多。我们称这种观念为‘以太阳为中心的世界观’,也就是相信万物以太阳为中心的意思。”
   “这个世界观应该是正确的啰?”
   “也不全然。哥白尼的主要论点—一地球围绕着太阳转——当然是正确的。不过他宣称太阳是宇宙中心的说法可就错了。我们现在已经知道太阳系只是宇宙中无数个星系之一。宇宙中共有数十亿个银河系,围绕太阳的星系只是其中之一罢了。哥白尼并且相信地球和其他星球都在圆形的轨道上运转。”
   “难道不是吗?”
   “不。他之所以相信轨道是圆形的,只是根据‘天体是圆形的,且绕着圈圈转’这个古老的观念。自从柏拉图的时代以来,球体与圆形就被认为是最完美的几何图形。但在十七世纪初期,德国天文学家克卜勒(JohannesKepler)发表了他广泛观察的结果,显示各星球实际上是以太阳为中心,绕着椭圆形的轨道运转。他并且指出,一个星球在轨道上愈接近太阳的地方,运转的速度愈快,离太阳愈远则愈慢。在此之前从来没有人明白提出‘地球只是众多行星之一’的说法。克卜勒同时强调宇宙每个地方都适用同样的物理法则。”
   “他怎么知道呢?”
   伽利略“因为他用自己的感官来观察、研究星球运转的现象,而不盲目地接受古代的迷信。大约与克卜勒同一时代的还有一位意大利科学家伽利略。他也用天文望远镜来观察天体的运转。他在研究月球的表面后,宣称月球像地球一样有高山、有深谷。更重要的是,他发现木星有四个卫星。因此地球并非唯一拥有卫星的星球。然而,伽利略最伟大的成就还是他首度提出所谓的(‘惯性定律’。”
   “那是什么意思?”
   “伽利略的说法是:‘如果没有外力强迫一个物体改变它所处的状态,则这个物体将会一直维持它原来静止或移动的状态。”
   “这谁都知道呀!”
   “但这个观察很有意义。自从古代以来,反对‘地球绕着自己的轴心转’这个说法的人士所持的主要理由之一就是:地球果真绕着自己的轴心转的话,则它的速度会很快,以至于当你垂直丢一块石头到空中时,它会掉落在好几码之外。”
   “那这种现象为什么不会发生呢?”
   “如果你坐在火车里,把一个苹果丢在地上。苹果并不会因为火车正在移动而向后掉落,而是垂直落地。这是由于(‘惯性定律’作用所致。苹果维持在你将它丢下以前同样的速度。”
   “我懂了。”
   “伽利略的时代并没有火车。不过如果一个人一直向前运球一旦突然放手后……”
   “……球会一直滚动……”
   “……因为在你放手后球仍然维持原来的速度“不过它最后还是会停下来,如果房间够大的话。”
   “那是因为有其他外力迫使它停下来。第一种力来自于地板,尤其是那种粗糙不平的木头地板。然后则是重力。在重力的作用下,球迟早会停下来,不过,请等一下,我先让你看一样东西。”
   艾伯特站起身来,走到那张古老的书桌前。他从抽屉里拿出一样东西,走回原来的地方,并把那样东西放在茶几上。那是一块木头板子,一端有三、四公分厚,另一端则极薄,整张板子几乎就把茶几占满了。艾伯特在板子旁放了一个绿色的弹珠。
   “这叫做斜面,”他说。“如果我在比较厚的这一端把弹珠放掉,你想会发生什么事?”
   苏菲无可奈何地叹了口气。
   “我跟你赌十块钱,它会一直滚到茶几上,最后掉在地板上。”
   “我们试试看。”.艾伯特放掉弹珠。它果真像所说的那样滚到茶几上,然后啪一声掉在地板上,最后碰到了通往走廊的门槛。
   “真了不起呀!”苏菲说。
   “可不是嘛]这就是伽利略所做的实验。”
   “他真的有那么笨吗?”
   “别急,他是想透过各种感官来观察事物的原理。我们现在只不过刚开始而已。请你先告诉我弹珠为何会沿着斜面滚下去?”
   “因为它有重量。”
   “好,那么请你告诉我重量是什么。”
   “这个问题问得太逊了。”
   “如果你不能回答,它就不算逊。到底弹珠为什么会滚落到地板上?”
   “因为重力的缘故。”
   “答对了,你也可以说是地心引力。重量与重力有关,而重力就是使得弹珠移动的那个力量。”
   此时艾伯特已经把弹珠从地板上捡起来了。他再度俯身站在那块斜面上方,手里仍拿着弹珠。
   “现在我要试着让弹珠滚过斜面。”他说。“你注意看它怎样移动。”
   他把腰弯得更低,瞄准目标,试着让弹珠滚过斜面。苏菲看到弹珠逐渐沿着坡面斜斜的滚了下来。
   “发生了什么事?”艾伯特问。
   “它斜斜地滚,因为板子有坡度。”
   “现在我要在弹珠上涂墨汁……然后我们就可以看看到底你所谓的‘斜斜地滚’是什么意思。”
   他找出一只墨水刷,把整个弹珠涂黑,然后再度使它滚动。这次苏菲很明显看到弹珠在斜面上滚动的路径,因为它滚过之处留下了一条黑线。
   “现在你可不可以描述一下弹珠移动的路线?”
   “是弧形的……看起来好像是一个圆圈的一部分。”
   “一点也没错。”
   艾伯特抬头看着苏菲,眉毛抬得高高的。
   “不过那并不完全是圆形。这种图案叫做抛物线。”
   “哦?”
   “嗯。可是弹珠为什么会这样滚动呢?”
   苏菲用心地想了一下,然后说;“因为板于有坡度,所以弹珠被重力拉往地板的方向。”
   “对了!这岂不是太让人兴奋了吗?我随便拉了一个小女孩到我的阁楼来,做一个实验,她就可以领悟到伽利略所发现的原理!”
   他拍拍手。有一阵子,苏菲很担心他已经疯了。他继续说:“你刚才看到的是两种力量同时作用在一个物体上时所产生的效果。伽利略发现这个原理同样也适用在炮弹等的物体上。炮弹被推入空中后在一段时间内会继续飞行,但迟早会被牵引到地面上,所以它会形成像弹珠滚过斜面一样的轨线,这是伽利略那个时代的新发现。亚理斯多德认为一个斜斜向空中抛出的抛射体会先呈微微的弧形,然后垂直地向地面降落。但实际情况并非如此。
   不过没有人知道亚理斯多德的错误,除非用实验来证明。”
   “这个定律有什么重要性吗?”
   “当然!孩子,这件事意义非凡,而且肯定是人类史上最重要的一项科学发现。”
   “为什么呢?”
   牛顿“后来,在一六四二到一七二七年间,有一个名叫牛顿(IsaacNewton)的英国物理学家,他是将太阳系与星球轨道描述得最完整的一个科学家。他不但能说出各星球如何绕太阳运转,而且可以解释它们为何会如此运转。其中一部分原因就是因为他参考了我们所称的‘伽利略动力学’。”
   “那些星球是不是就像滚过斜面的弹珠一样?”
   “是的,有点像。不过不要急,苏菲。”
   “急也没有用,是不是?”
   “克卜勒曾经指出,各星球之间一定有某种力量使它们相互吸引。举例来说,太阳一定有某种力量使得太阳系内的各星球都固定在轨道上绕着它运转,这也是为何那些星球在离太阳愈远的地方移动得愈慢的缘故。克卜勒并且相信潮汐的涨落一定是受到月亮引力的影响。”
   “的确是这样,不是吗?”
   “没错,是这样。不过伽利略反对这种说法。他嘲笑克卜勒,说他居然赞同‘月亮掌管海洋河流’的说法。这是因为伽利略不相信别重力能够在很远的距离外或各星球之间发挥作用。”
   “这回他可错了。”
   “嗯。在这一点上他是错了。这事说来也满奇怪的,因为伽利略一直专心研究地球引力与落体的原理。他甚至发现在引力增强时物体的移动会如何受到影响。”
   “你刚才不是已经开始谈到牛顿了吗?”
   “是的。然后牛顿出现了。他提出我们所谓的‘万有引力定律’,就是说宇宙间两个物体相互吸引的力量随物体的大小而递I增,并随两物体之间的距离而递减。”
   “我懂了。例如,两只大象之间的引力要比两只老鼠之间的引;力要大。而同样一座动物园内的两只大象之间的引力,又比在印度的一只印度象与在非洲的一只非洲象两者之间的引力要大。”
   “没错,你的确懂了。现在我们要谈到最重要的一点。牛顿证明这种引力是存在于宇宙各处的。也就是说,它在宇宙每个地方都发生作用,包括太空中的各个星球之间。据说他是坐在一棵苹果树下悟出这个道理的。当时他看到一个苹果从树上掉下来,他便问自己:月球是否同样也受到地球力量的牵引,才会恒久绕着地球旋转?”
   “聪明。不过也不算真的很聪明。”
   “为什么呢?”
   “这个嘛……如果月球是受到促使苹果落地的同样一种引力的影响,那么总有一天月球会撞到地球,而不会一直绕着地球转了。”
   “这个我们就要谈到牛顿的行星轨道定律了。在这个问题上,你只对了一半。月球为什么不会撞到地球呢?因为地球的重力的确以强大的力量牵引着月球。你想想看涨潮的情景,要将海平面提高一两公尺需要多大的力量呀尸“这个我不太懂。”
   “你还记得伽利略的斜面吗?当我让弹珠滚过斜面时会有什么现象?”
   “是不是同时有两种力量在影响月球?”
   “一点没错。很久以前,当太阳系形成时,月球被一股很大的力量抛离地球。由于它在真空中移动,没有阻力,因此这股力量会永远不停地产生作用……”
   “但它同时也受到地球引力的影响,被拉向地球,对吗?”
   “对。这两股力量都是持续不停的,而且同时发生作用,所以月球才会一直绕着地球旋转。”
   “它的原理真的就这么简单吗?”
   “就是这么简单。而这种‘简单性’正是牛顿学说的重点。他说明少数几种自然法则可以适用于整个宇宙。在计算行星轨道时,他只应用了伽利略所提出的两个自然法则。一个是惯性定律。牛顿说明所谓惯性定律就是‘一个物体除非受到外力的作用使它改变状态,否则它会一直处在静止或呈直线进行的状态’。另外一项定律是伽利略利用斜面证明的定律,就是:当两股力量同时作用于一个物体上时,这个物体会循椭圆形的路径移动。”
   “而牛顿就以此来解释为何所有行星都围绕太阳旋转?”
   “没错。由于受到两种强弱不同的力量的影响,所有的行星都在椭圆形的轨道上绕太阳旋转。其中一种是在太阳系形成时,他们呈直线进行的力量,另外一种则是他们受到太阳重力牵引的力量。”
   “聪明。”
   “很聪明。牛顿证明了若干关于物体移动的定律可以适用于宇宙每一个地方,他因此推翻了中世纪人们认为天上与人间分别适用两套不同法则的看法。这时候,以太阳为宇宙中心的世界观终于得到了彻底的证实以及完整的解释。”
   艾伯特站起身来,把斜面放回原来的抽屉里。然后他弯腰从地上捡起那颗弹珠,把它放在他和苏菲间的茶几上。
   苏菲心想,这一切居然都是科学家们从一小块斜面的木板和一个弹珠推论出来的,这是多么神奇呀!当她看着那颗仍然沾有墨水的绿色弹珠时,不禁想起地球来。她说:“于是当时的人们就不得不接受人类其实是生活在太空中某处一个偶然形成的星球上啰?”
   “是的。这个新的世界观在许多方面都对人造成了很大的冲击,这个情况和后来达尔文证明人类是从禽兽进化而来时所造成的影响相当。这两个新发现都使人类失去他们在造物中的一部分特殊地位,于是也都遭遇到教会的强大阻力。”
   “这是可以理解的。因为,在这些新观念中,上帝被放在哪里呢?从前人相信地球是宇宙中心,而上帝与各星球就在地球之上的想法倒是比较单纯些。”
   “但这还不是当时人面临的最大挑战。当牛顿证明宇宙各处适用同样的法则时,有人可能会认为他破坏了人们心目中的上帝无所不能的形象,但是牛顿本人的信仰却从未动摇。他认为自然法则的存在正足以证明宇宙间确有一位伟大、万能的上帝。事实上,受到更大冲击的乃是人对自我的观念。”
   “怎么说呢?”
   “自从文艺复兴时期以来,人们就不得不逐渐接受他们所居住的地球乃是浩瀚银河中一个偶然形成的星球的说法。即使到现在,我看还是不见得大家都能够完全接受这种想法。不过,即使在文艺复兴时期,也有一些人认为,随着新世界观的产生,我们每一个人所处的地位也变得比以前更加重要。”
   “我还是不太明白。”
   “在此之前,世界的中心是地球。但天文学家却告诉人们,宇宙根本没有绝对的中心,因此,每一个人都是中心。”
   “喔,是这个意思!”.“文艺复兴运动造成了新的宗教情感(狂热)。随着哲学与科学逐渐脱离神学的范畴,基督徒变得更加虔诚。到了文艺复兴时期,由于人类对自己有了新的看法,使得宗教生活也受到了影响。个人与上帝之间的关系变得比个人与教会组织之间的关系更加重要。”
   “比如说在晚上自行祷告之类的吗?”
   宗教的改革“这也包括在内。在中世纪的天主教教会中,以拉丁文念的祈祷文和教会例行祷告一直是宗教仪式的骨干。只有教士和僧侣能看得懂圣经,因为当时的圣经都是拉丁文写的。但是到了文艺复兴时期,圣经被人从希伯来文与希腊文翻译成各国语言。这是导致所谓‘宗教革命’的主要因素。”
   “马丁路德……”
   “是的,马丁路德是一个很重要的人物,但他并不是当时唯一的宗教改革家。另有一些改革人士选择留在罗马天主教会中。其中之一是荷兰的伊拉斯莫斯(ErasmusofRotterdam)。”
   “马丁路德之所以和天主教会决裂是因为他不肯购买赎罪券,是吗?”
   “是的,但这只是其中原因之一。另外还有一个更重要的原因是:马丁路德认为人们并不需要教会或教士居中代祷才能获得上帝的赦免。同时,要取得上帝的赦免也不是靠购买教会所售的‘赎罪券’。从十六世纪中期起,天主教教会就禁止买这些所谓的‘赎罪券’。”
   “天主应该很乐于见到这个情况。”
   “总而言之,马丁路德摒斥了教会中许多从中世纪起就形成的宗教习惯与教条。他希望回到新约中所描述的早期基督教的面貌。
   他说:‘我们只信靠经文。’他希望以这个口号将基督教带回它的‘源头’,就像文艺复兴时期的人文主义者希望回到艺术与文化的古老源头一般。马丁路德将圣经译成德文,因此创造了德文的文字。他认为应该让每一个人都读得懂圣经,并从某一个意义上来说,成为自己的教士。”
   “自己的教士?这不是有点太过分了吗?”
   “他的意思是:教士与上帝的关系并不比一般人亲近。路德派教会之所以雇用教士,乃是因为他们需要有人做一些实际的工作,如主持礼拜或料理日常事务等。但马丁路德并不相信任何人能够透过教会举行的仪式,获得上帝的赦免与宽宥。他说,人只能透过信仰得救,这是‘无法用金钱交换的’。这些都是他在研读圣经以后的心得。”
   “这么说马丁路德也是典型的文艺复兴人士啰?”
   “也不尽然。马丁路德重视个人,强调个人与上帝之间的关系。
   在这一点上他算是典型的文艺复兴人士。也因此他从三十五岁开始自修希腊文,并进行将圣经翻译成德文的繁重工作。他使得一般大众使用的语言取代了拉丁文的地位,这也是他与典型文艺复兴人士相像的另外一个特征。然而,马丁路德并不像费其诺或达文西一样是人文主义者。同时,他也受到伊拉斯莫斯等人文主义者的批评,因为他们认为他对人的观点太过消极了。马丁路德曾经宣称,自从亚当与夏娃被逐出伊甸园后,人类就彻底腐化了,他相信唯有透过上帝的恩典,人类才能免于罪孽。因为罪恶的代价就是死亡。”
   “听起来满灰暗的。”
   艾伯特起身,捡起绿黑相间的小弹珠,放在上衣的口袋内。
   “天哪!已经过四点了!”苏菲惊叫。
   “下一个人类史上的伟大时期叫做巴洛克时期。不过,我们只好等到下一次再谈了,亲爱的席德。”
   “你说什么?”苏菲从椅子上跳了起来。“你叫我席德!”
   “是我一时不小心,喊错了。”
   “可是,无心之言或多或少都是有原因的。”
   “也许你说得对。你可以注意到席德的父亲已经开始透过我们的嘴巴讲话了,我想他是故意趁我们渐渐疲倦,不太能为自己辩护的时候才这样做。”
   “你曾经说过你不是席德的爸爸。你可以保证这是真话吗?”
   艾伯特点点头。
   “但我是席德吗?”
   “我累了,苏菲,请你谅解。我们坐在一起已经两个多小时了,大部分的时间都是我在说话。你不是要回家吃饭吗?”
   苏菲觉得艾伯特几乎像是要赶她走似的。当她走进小小的走廊时,心里一直想着他为何会喊错她的名字。艾伯特也跟着她走出来。
   汉密士正躺在壁上一排衣钩的下面睡觉。衣钩上挂着几件很像是戏服的怪异服装。艾伯特朝汉密士的方向点点头说:“下次它还是会去接你。”
   “谢谢你为我上课。”苏菲说。
   她突然冲动地拥抱了艾伯特一下。“你是我所见过的最好、最亲切的哲学老师。”她说。
   然后她把通往楼梯的门打开。在关门之际,艾伯特说:“我们不久就会再见面的,席德!”
   之后门就关上了。
   又喊错名字了,这个坏蛋!苏菲有一股强烈的冲动想要跑回去敲门,不过她还是没有这样做。
   走到街上时,她突然想起自己身上没钱,必须一路走回家。真气人!如果她在六点前还没回到家,妈妈一定会又生气又着急的。
   苏菲走了几码路后,突然看到人行道上有一枚十元的钱币,正好可以买一张公车票。
   苏菲找到了公车站,等候开往大广场的公;车。从大广场那儿,她可以换车,一路坐回家门口,不必再买票。
   一直到她站在大广场等候下一辆公车时,她才开始纳闷自己为何如此幸运,刚好捡到一个十块钱的铜板。
   难道是席德的爸爸放在那儿的吗?他真是个高手,每次都把东西放得恰到好处。
   但是这怎么可能呢?他不是还在黎巴嫩吗?艾伯特又为什么老是喊错她的名字呢?不只一次哦!苏菲打了个冷战。她觉得有一股寒气沿着她的脊梁骨一路窜下来。





暮辞朝

ZxID:15103679


等级: 内阁元老
配偶: 清风雅乐
这一段开心的日子请你勿忘
举报 只看该作者 17楼  发表于: 2013-10-26 0
英文原文
The Baroque
such stuff as dreams are made on
Sophie heard nothing more from Alberto for several days, but she glanced frequently into the garden hoping to catch sight of Hermes. She told her mother that the dog had found its own way home and that she had been invited in by its owner, a former physics teacher. He had told Sophie about the solar system and the new science that developed in the sixteenth century.
She told Joanna more. She told her all about her visit to Alberto, the postcard in the mailbox, and the ten-crown piece she had found on the way home. She kept the dream about Hilde and the gold crucifix to herself.
On Tuesday, May 29, Sophie was standing in the kitchen doing the dishes. Her mother had gone into the living room to watch the TV news. When the opening theme faded out she heard from the kitchen that a major in the Norwegian UN Battalion had been killed by a shell.
Sophie threw the dish towel on the table and rushed into the living room. She was just in time to catch a glimpse of the UN officer's face for a few seconds before they switched to the next item.
"Oh no!" she cried.
Her mother turned to her.
"Yes, war is a terrible thing!"
Sophie burst into tears.
"But Sophie, it's not that bad!"
"Did they say his name?"
"Yes, but I don't remember it. He was from Grimstad, I think."
"Isn't that the same as Lillesand?"
"No, you're being silly."
"But if you come from Grimstad, you might go to school in Lillesand."
She had stopped crying, but now it was her mother's turn to react. She got out of her chair and switched off the TV.
"What's going on, Sophie?"
"Nothing."
"Yes, there is. You have a boyfriend, and I'm beginning to think he's much older than you. Answer me now: Do you know a man in Lebanon?"
"No, not exactly..."
"Have you met the son of someone in Lebanon?"
"No, I haven't. I haven't even met his daughter."
"Whose daughter?"
"It's none of your business."
"I think it is."
"Maybe I should start asking some questions instead. Why is Dad never home? Is it because you haven't got the guts to get a divorce? Maybe you've got a boyfriend you don't want Dad and me to know about and so on and so on. I've got plenty of questions of my own."
"I think we need to talk."
"That may be. But right now I'm so worn out I'm going to bed. And I'm getting my period."
Sophie ran up to her room; she felt like crying.
As soon as she was through in the bathroom and had curled up under the covers, her mother came into the bedroom.
Sophie pretended to be asleep even though she knew her mother wouldn't believe it. She knew her mother knew that Sophie knew her mother wouldn't believe it either. Nevertheless her mother pretended to believe that Sophie was asleep. She sat on the edge of Sophie's bed and stroked her hair.
Sophie was thinking how complicated it was to live two lives at the same time. She began to look forward to the end of the philosophy course. Maybe it would be over by her birthday--or at least by Midsummer Eve, when Hilde's father would be home from Lebanon ...
"I want to have a birthday party," she said suddenly.
"That sounds great. Who will you invite?"
"Lots of people ... Can I?"
"Of course. We have a big garden. Hopefully the good weather will continue."
"Most of all I'd like to have it on Midsummer Eve."
"All right, that's what we'll do."
"It's a very important day," Sophie said, thinking not only of her birthday.
"It is, indeed."
"I feel I've grown up a lot lately."
"That's good, isn't it?"
"I don't know."
Sophie had been talking with her head almost buried in her pillow. Now her mother said, "Sophie--you must tell me why you seem so out of balance at the moment."
"Weren't you like this when you were fifteen?"
"Probably. But you know what I am talking about."
Sophie suddenly turned to face her mother. "The dog's name is Hermes," she said.
"It is?"
"It belongs to a man called Alberto."
"I see."
"He lives down in the Old Town."
"You went all that way with the dog?"
"There's nothing dangerous about that."
"You said that the dog had often been here."
"Did I say that?"
She had to think now. She wanted to tell as much as possible, but she couldn't tell everything.
"You're hardly ever at home," she ventured.
"No, I'm much too busy."
"Alberto and Hermes have been here lots of times."
"What for? Were they in the house as well?"
"Can't you at least ask one question at a time? They haven't been in the house. But they often go for walks in the woods. Is that so mysterious?"
"No, not in the least."
"They walk past our gate like everyone else when they go for a walk. One day when I got home from school I talked to the dog. That's how I got to know Alberto."
"What about the white rabbit and all that stuff?"
"That was something Alberto said. He is a real philosopher, you see. He has told me about all the philosophers."
"Just like that, over the hedge?"
"He has also written letters to me, lots of times, actually. Sometimes he has sent them by mail and other times he has just dropped them in the mailbox on his way out for a walk."
"So that was the 'love letter' we talked about."
"Except that it wasn't a love letter."
"And he only wrote about philosophy?"
"Yes, can you imagine! And I've learned more from him than I have learned in eight years of school. For instance, have you ever heard of Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake in 1600? Or of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation?"
"No, there's a lot I don't know."
"I bet you don't even know why the earth orbits the sun--and it's your own planet!"
"About how old is this man?"
"I have no idea--about fifty, probably."
"But what is his connection with Lebanon?"
This was a tough one. Sophie thought hard. She chose the most likely story.
"Alberto has a brother who's a major in the UN Battalion. And he's from Lillesand. Maybe he's the major who once lived in the major's cabin."
"Alberto's a funny kind of name, isn't it?"
"Perhaps."
"It sounds Italian."
"Well, nearly everything that's important comes either from Greece or from Italy."
"But he speaks Norwegian?"
"Oh yes, fluently."
"You know what, Sophie--I think you should inviteAlberto home one day. I have never met a real philosopher."
"We'll see."
"Maybe we could invite him to your birthday party? It could be such fun to mix the generations. Then maybe I could come too. At least, I could help with the serving. Wouldn't that be a good idea?"
"If he will. At any rate, he's more interesting to talk to than the boys in my class. It's just that..."
"What?"
"They'd probably flip and think Alberto was my new boyfriend."
"Then you just tell them he isn't."
"Well, we'll have to see."
"Yes, we shall. And Sophie--it is true that things haven't always been easy between Dad and me. But there was never anyone else ..."
"I have to sleep now. I've got such awful cramps."
"Do you want an aspirin?" /'Yes, please."
When her mother returned with the pill and a glass of water Sophie had fallen asleep.
May 31 was a Thursday. Sophie agonized through the afternoon classes at school. She was doing better in some subjects since she started on the philosophy course. Usually her grades were good in most subjects, but lately they were even better, except in math.
In the last class they got an essay handed back. Sophie had written on "Man and Technology." She had written reams on the Renaissance and the scientific breakthrough, the new view of nature and Francis Bacon, who had said that knowledge was power. She had been very careful to point out that the empirical method came before the technological discoveries. Then she had written about some of the things she could think of about technology that were not so good for society. She ended with a paragraph on the fact that everything people do can be used for good or evil. Good and evil are like a white and a black thread that make up a single strand.
Sometimes they are so closely intertwined that it is impossible to untangle them.
As the teacher gave out the exercise books he looked down at Sophie and winked.
She got an A and the comment: "Where do you get all this from?" As he stood there, she took out a pen and wrote with block letters in the margin of her exercise book: I'M STUDYING PHILOSOPHY.
As she was closing the exercise book again, something fell out of it. It was a postcard from Lebanon:
Dear Hilde, When you read this we shall already have spoken together by phone about the tragic death down here. Sometimes I ask myself if war could have been avoided if people had been a bit better at thinking. Perhaps the best remedy against violence would be a short course in philosophy. What about "the UN's little philosophy book"-- which all new citizens of the world could be given a copy of in their own language. I'll propose the idea to the UN General Secretary.
You said on the phone that you were getting better at looking after your things. I'm glad, because you're the untidiest creature I've ever met. Then you said the only thing you'd lost since we last spoke was ten crowns. I'll do what I can to help you find it. Although I am far away, I have a helping hand back home. (If I find the money I'll put it in with your birthday present.) Love, Dad, who feels as if he's already started the long trip home.
Sophie had just managed to finish reading the card when the last bell rang. Once again her thoughts were in turmoil.
Joanna was waiting in the playground. On the way home Sophie opened her schoolbag and showed Joanna the latest card.
"When is it postmarked?" asked Joanna.
"Probably June 15 ..."
"No, look ... 5/30/90, it says."
"That was yesterday ... the day after the death of the major in Lebanon."
"I doubt if a postcard from Lebanon can get to Norway in one day," said Joanna.
"Especially not considering the rather unusual address: Hilde Moller Knag, c/o Sophie Amundsen, Fu-rulia Junior High School..."
"Do you think it could have come by mail? And the teacher just popped it in your exercise book?"
"No idea. I don't know whether I dare ask either."
No more was said about the postcard.
"I'm going to have a garden party on Midsummer Eve," said Sophie.
"With boys?"
Sophie shrugged her shoulders. "We don't have to invite the worst idiots."
"But you are going to invite Jeremy?"
"If you want. By the way, I might invite Alberto Knox."
"You must be crazy!"
"I know."
That was as far as the conversation got before their ways parted at the supermarket.
The first thing Sophie did when she got home was to see if Hermes was in the garden. Sure enough, there he was, sniffing around the apple trees.
"Hermes!"
The dog stood motionless for a second. Sophie knew exactly what was going on in that second: the dog heard her call, recognized her voice, and decided to see if she was there. Then, discovering her, he began to run toward her. Finally all four legs came pattering like drumsticks.
That was actually quite a lot in the space of one second.
He dashed up to her, wagged his tail wildly, and jumped up to lick her face.
"Hermes, clever boy! Down, down. No, stop slobbering all over me. Heel, boy! That's it!"
Sophie let herself into the house. Sherekan came jumping out from the bushes. He was rather wary of the stranger. Sophie put his cat food out, poured birdseed in the budgerigars' cup, got out a salad leaf for the tortoise, and wrote a note to her mother.
She wrote that she was going to take Hermes home and would be back by seven.
They set off through the town. Sophie had remembered to take some money with her this time. She wondered whether she ought to take the bus with Hermes, but decided she had better wait and ask Alberto about it.
While she walked on and on behind Hermes she thought about what an animal really is.
What was the difference between a dog and a person? She recalled Aristotle's words. He said that people and animals are both natural living creatures with a lot of characteristics in common. But there was one distinct difference between people and animals, and that was hu-man reasoning.
How could he have been so sure?
Democritus, on the other hand, thought people and animals were really rather alike because both were made up of atoms. And he didn't think that either people or animals had immortal souls. According to him, souls were built up of atoms that are spread to the winds when people die. He was the one who thought a person's soul was inseparably bound to the brain.
But how could the soul be made of atoms? The soul wasn't anything you could touch like the rest of the body. It was something "spiritual."
They were already beyond Main Square and were approaching the Old Town. When they got to the sidewalk where Sophie had found the ten crowns, she looked automatically down at the asphalt. And there, on exactly the same spot where she had bent down and picked up the money, lay a postcard with the picture side up. The picture showed a garden with palms and orange trees.
Sophie bent down and picked up the card. Hermes started growling as if he didn't like Sophie touching it.
The card read:
Dear Hilde, Life consists of a long chain of coincidences. It is not altogether unlikely that the ten crowns you lost turned up right here. Maybe it was found on the square in Lillesand by an old lady who was waiting for the bus to Kristiansand. From Kris-tiansand she took the train to visit her grandchildren, and many, many hours later she lost the coin here on New Square. It is then perfectly possible that the very same coin was picked up later on that day by a girl who really needed it to get home by bus. You never can tell, Hilde, but if it is truly so, then one must certainly ask whether or not God's providence is behind everything. Love, Dad, who in spirit is sitting on the dock at home in Lillesand. P.S. I said I would help you find the ten crowns.
On the address side it said: "Hilde Moller Knag, c/o a casual passer-by..." The postmark was stamped 6/15/90.
Sophie ran up the stairs after Hermes. As soon as Alberto opened the door, she said:
"Out of my way. Here comes the mailman."
She felt she had every reason to be annoyed. Alberto stood aside as she barged in. Hermes laid himself down under the coat pegs as before.
"Has the major presented another visiting card, my child?"
Sophie looked up at him and discovered that he was wearing a different costume. He had put on a long curled wig and a wide, baggy suit with a mass of lace. He wore a loud silk scarf at his throat, and on top of the suit he had thrown a red cape. He also wore white stockings and thin patent leather shoes with bows. The whole costume reminded Sophie of pictures she had seen of the court of Louis XIV.
"You clown!" she said and handed him the card.
"Hm ... and you really found ten crowns on the same spot where he planted the card?"
"Exactly."
"He gets ruder all the time. But maybe it's just as well."
"Why?"
"It'll make it easier to unmask him. But this trick was both pompous and tasteless. It almost stinks of cheap perfume."
"Perfume?"
"It tries to be elegant but is really a sham. Can't you see how he has the effrontery to compare his own shabby surveillance of us with God's providence?"
He held up the card. Then he tore it to pieces. So as not to make his mood worse she refrained from mentioning the card that fell out of her exercise book at school.
"Let's go in and sit down. What time is it?"
"Four o'clock."
"And today we are going to talk about the seventeenth century."
They went into the living room with the sloping walls and the skylight. Sophie noticed that Alberto had put different objects out in place of some of those she had seen last time.
On the coffee table was a small antique casket containing an assorted collection of lenses for eyeglasses. Beside it lay an open book. It looked really old.
"What is that?" Sophie asked.
"It is a first edition of the book of Descartes's philosophical essays published in 1637 in which his famous Discourse on Method originally appeared, and one of my most treasured possessions."
"And the casket?"
"It holds an exclusive collection of lenses--or optical glass. They were polished by the Dutch philosopher Spinoza sometime during the mid-1600s. They were extremely costly and are also among my most valued treasures."
"I would probably understand better how valuable these things are if I knew who Spinoza and Descartes were."
"Of course. But first let us try to familiarize ourselves with the period they lived in. Have a seat."
They sat in the same places as before, Sophie in the big armchair and Alberto Knox on the sofa. Between them was the coffee table with the book and the casket. Alberto removed his wig and laid it on the writing desk.
"We are going to talk about the seventeenth century--or what we generally refer to as the Baroque period."
"The Baroque period? What a strange name."
"The word 'baroque' comes from a word that was first used to describe a pearl of irregular shape. Irregularity was typical of Baroque art, which was much richer in highly contrastive forms than the plainer and more harmonious Renaissance art. The seventeenth century was on the whole characterized by tensions between irreconcilable contrasts. On the one hand there was the Renaissance's unremitting optimism--and on the other hand there were the many who sought the opposite extreme in a life of religious seclusion and self-denial. Both in art and in real life, we meet pompous and flamboyant forms of self-expression, while at the same time there arose a monastic movement, turning away from the world."
"Both proud palaces and remote monasteries, in other words."
"Yes, you could certainly say that. One of the Baroque period's favorite sayings was the Latin expression 'carpe diem'--'seize the day.' Another Latin expression that was widely quoted was 'memento mori,' which means 'Remember that you must die.' In art, a painting could depict an extremely luxurious lifestyle, with a little skull painted in one corner.
"In many senses, the Baroque period was characterized by vanity or affectation. But at the same time a lot of people were concerned with the other side of the coin; they were concerned with the ephemeral nature of things. That is, the fact that all the beauty that surrounds us must one day perish."
"It's true. It is sad to realize that nothing lasts."
"You think exactly as many people did in the seventeenth century. The Baroque period was also an age of conflict in a political sense. Europe was ravaged by wars. The worst was the Thirty Years' War which raged over most of the continent from 1618 to 1648. In reality it was a series of wars which took a particular toll on Germany. Not least as a result of the Thirty Years' War,France gradually became the dominant power in Europe."
"What were the wars about?"
"To a great extent they were wars between Protestants and Catholics. But they were also about political power."
"More or less like in Lebanon."
"Apart from wars, the seventeenth century was a time of great class differences. I'm sure you have heard of the French aristocracy and the Court of Versailles. I don't know whether you have heard much about the poverty of the French people. But any display of magnificence presupposes a display of power. It has often been said that the political situation in the Baroque period was not unlike its art and architecture. Baroque buildings were typified by a lot of ornate nooks and crannies. In a somewhat similar fashion the political situation was typified by intrigue, plotting, and assassinations."
"Wasn't a Swedish king shot in a theater?"
"You're thinking of Gustav III, a good example of the sort of thing I mean. The assassination of Gustav III wasn't until 1792, but the circumstances were quite baroque. He was murdered while attending a huge masked ball."
"I thought he was at the theater."
"The great masked ball was held at the Opera. We could say that the Baroque period in Sweden came to an end with the murder of Gustav III. During his time there had been a rule of 'enlightened despotism,' similar to that in the reign of Louis XIV almost a hundred years earlier. Gustav III was also an extremely vain person who adored all French ceremony and courtesies. He also loved the theater..."
"... and that was the death of him."
"Yes, but the theater of the Baroque period was more than an art form. It was the most commonly employed symbol of the time."
"A symbol of what?"
"Of life, Sophie. I don't know how many times during the seventeenth century it was said that 'Life is a theater.' It was very often, anyway. The Baroque period gave birth to modern theater--with all its forms of scenery and theatrical machinery. In the theater one built up an illusion on stage--to expose ultimately that the stage play was just an illusion. The theater thus became a reflection of human life in general. The theater could show that 'pride comes before a fall,' and present a merciless portrait of human frailty."
"Did Shakespeare live in the Baroque period?"
"He wrote his greatest plays around the year 1600, so he stands with one foot in the Renaissance and the other in the Baroque. Shakespeare's work is full of passages about life as a theater. Would you like to hear some of them?"
"Yes."
"In As You Like It, he says:
All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts.
"And in Macbeth, he says:
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more; it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."
"How very pessimistic."
"He was preoccupied with the brevity of life. You must have heard Shakespeare's most famous line?"
"To be or not to be--that is the question."
"Yes, spoken by Hamlet. One day we are walking around on the earth--and the next day we are dead and gone."
"Thanks, I got the message."
"When they were not comparing life to a stage, the Baroque poets were comparing life to a dream. Shakespeare says, for example: We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep..."
"That was very poetic."
"The Spanish dramatist Calderon de la Barca, who was bom in the year 1600, wrote a play called Life Is a Dream, in which he says: 'What is life? A madness. What is life? An illusion, a shadow, a story, and the greatest good is little enough, for all life is a dream ...' "
"He may be right. We read a play at school. It was called Jeppe on the Mount."
"By Ludvig Holberg, yes. He was a gigantic figure here in Scandinavia, marking the transition from the Baroque period to the Age of Enlightenment."
"Jeppe falls asleep in a ditch ... and wakes up in the Baron's bed. So he thinks he only dreamed that he was a poor farmhand. Then when he falls asleep again they carry him back to the ditch, and he wakes up again. This time he thinks he only dreamed he was lying in the Baron's bed."
"Holberg borrowed this theme from Calderon, and Calderon had borrowed it from the old Arabian tales, A Thousand and One Nights. Comparing life to a dream, though, is a theme we find even farther back in history, not least in India and China. The old Chinese sage Chuang-tzu, for example, said: Once I dreamed I was a butterfly, and now I no longer know whether I am Chuang-tzu, who dreamed I was a butterfly, or whether I am a butterfly dreaming that I am Chuang-tzu."
"Well, it was impossible to prove either way."
"We had in Norway a genuine Baroque poet called Fetter Dass, who lived from 1647 to 1707. On the one hand he was concerned with describing life as it is here and now, and on the other hand he emphasized that only God is eternal and constant."
"God is God if every land was waste, God is God if every man were dead."
"But in the same hymn he writes about rural life in Northern Norway--and about lumpfish, cod, and coal-fish. This is a typical Baroque feature, describing in the same text the earthly and the here and now--and the celestial and the hereafter. It is all very reminiscent of Plato's distinction between the concrete world of the senses and the immutable world of ideas."
"What about their philosophy?"
"That too was characterized by powerful struggles between diametrically opposed modes of thought. As I have already mentioned, some philosophers believed that what exists is at bottom spiritual in nature. This standpoint is called idealism. The opposite viewpoint is called materialism. By this is meant a philosophy which holds that all real things derive from concrete material substances. Materialism also had many advocates in the seventeenth century. Perhaps the most influential was the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. He believed that all phenomena, including man and animals, consist exclusively of particles of matter. Even human consciousness--or the soul--derives from the movement of tiny particles in the brain."
"So he agreed with what Democritus said two thousand years before?"
"Both idealism and materialism are themes you will find all through the history of philosophy. But seldom have both views been so clearly present at the same time as in the Baroque. Materialism was constantly nourished by the new sciences. Newton showed that the same laws of motion applied to the whole universe, and that all changes in the natural world--both on earth and in space--were explained by the principles of universal gravitation and the motion of bodies.
"Everything was thus governed by the same unbreakable laws--or by the same mechanisms. It is therefore possible in principle to calculate every natural change with mathematical precision. And thus Newton completed what we call the mechanistic world view."
"Did he imagine the world as one big machine?"
"He did indeed. The word 'mechanic' comes from the Greek word 'mechane,' which means machine. It is remarkable that neither Hobbes nor Newton saw any contradiction between the mechanistic world picture and belief in God. But this was not the case for all eighteenth- and nineteenth-century materialists. The French physician and philosopher La Mettrie wrote a book in the eighteenth century called L 'homme machine, which means 'Man--the machine.' Just as the leg has muscles to walk with, so has the brain 'muscles' to think with. Later on, the French mathematician Laplace expressed an extreme mechanistic view with this idea: If an intelligence at a given time had known the position of all particles of matter, 'nothing would be unknown, and both future and past would lie open before their eyes.' The idea here was that everything that happens is predetermined. 'It's written in the stars' that something will happen. This view is called determinism." "So there was no such thing as free will."
"No, everything was a product of mechanical processes--also our thoughts and dreams. German materialists in the nineteenth century claimed that the relationship of thought to the brain was like the relationship of urine to the kidneys and gall to the liver." "But urine and gall are material. Thoughts aren't." "You've got hold of something central there. I can tell you a story about the same thing. A Russian astronaut and a Russian brain surgeon were once discussing religion. The brain surgeon was a Christian but the astronaut was not. The astronaut said, 'I've been out in space many times but I've never seen God or angels.' And the brain surgeon said, 'And I've operated on many clever brains but I've never seen a single thought.' " "But that doesn't prove that thoughts don't exist."
"No, but it does underline the fact that thoughts are not things that can be operated on or broken down into ever smaller parts. It is not easy, for example, to surgically remove a delusion. It grows too deep, as it were, for surgery. An important seventeenth-century philosopher named Leibniz pointed out that the difference between the material and the spiritual is precisely that the material can be broken up into smaller and smaller bits, but the soul cannot even be divided into two."
"No, what kind of scalpel would you use for that?" Alberto simply shook his head. After a while he pointed down at the table between them and said:
"The two greatest philosophers in the seventeenth century were Descartes and Spinoza. They too struggled with questions like the relationship between 'soul' and 'body,' and we are now going to study them more closely."
"Go ahead. But I'm supposed to be home by seven."





中文翻译
   巴洛克时期
   ……宛如梦中的事物……
   苏菲已经有好几天没有接到艾伯特的消息了。她不时留意花园里的动静,希望能看到汉密士的影踪。她告诉妈妈那只狗已经自己找到路回家了,后来它的主人——一个退休的哲学老师一一请她进屋里去坐。他告诉苏菲有关太阳系的构造和十六世纪发展出来的新科学。
   她对乔安说得更多。她告诉她上次去找艾伯特的情形、信箱里的明信片以及她在回家途中捡到十块钱的事。但她没有告诉乔安她梦见席德,并发现那条金十字架链子。
   失控五月二十九日星期二那天,苏菲正在厨房里洗碗。妈妈已经到客厅里去看电视新闻了。当新闻节目的片头音乐渐弱后,她从厨房里听到主播报道挪威联合国部队的某个少校被炮弹击中毙命的消息。
   苏菲把擦碗布扔在桌上,冲进客厅,刚好在荧屏上看到那名丧生少校的脸。两三秒钟后主播就开始播报其他新闻了。
   “天哪!”她叫了出来。
   妈妈转过身来看着她。
   “是啊,战争真是一件很可怕的事!”
   苏菲开始哭泣。
   “可是,苏菲,事情并没有那么糟呀!”
   “他们有没有报出他的名字?”
   “有,不过我不记得了。只知道他好像是葛林史达那里的人。”
   “那不是和黎乐桑一样吗?”
   “怎么会呢?傻孩子。”
   “可是如果你住在葛林史达,你不是也可能到黎乐桑来上学吗?”
   苏菲已经停止哭泣,但现在轮到妈妈有反应了。她从椅子上站起来,关掉电视,问道:“苏菲,这到底是怎么回事?”
   “没什么。”
   “我看一定有事。你有一个男朋友对不对?我猜他的年纪比你大很多。我要你现在就回答我:你认识一个在黎巴嫩的男人吗?”
   “不,不完全是……”
   “你是不是认识某个在黎巴嫩的男人的儿子?”
   “我没有。我甚至连他的女儿都没见过。”
   “谁的女儿?”
   “这件事跟你没有关系。”
   “我看大有关系。”
   “我看问问题的人应该是我。为什么爸爸老是不在家?是不是因为你们没有胆量离婚?也许你交了男朋友,不希望让爸爸和我知道……还有很多很多。要问就大家一起来问嘛!”
   “我想我们需要好好谈一谈。”
   “也许吧!不过我已经累了,我要睡觉了;我的月经来了。”
   苏菲几乎是一边饮泣一边上楼。
   她上完厕所,钻进被窝后,妈妈就进房里来了。
   苏菲假装睡着了,虽然她知道妈妈不会相信的。她也知道妈妈知道。尽管如此,妈妈还是假装相信她已经睡着了。她坐在苏菲的床边,抚摸着她的头发。
   苏菲心想一个人同时过两种生活是多么复杂呀!她开始期待哲学课程早点结束。也许在她生日时就可以上完吧。至少在仲夏节席德的父亲从黎巴嫩回来时……“我想开一个生日宴会。”她突然说。
   “好啊!你想请谁呢?”
   “很多人……可以吗?”
   “当然可以。我们的花园很大……希望现在的好天气会一直持续下去。”
   “最重要的是我希望能在仲夏节那天举行。”
   “好,就这么办。”
   “这是很重要的日子。”苏菲说,心里想的不只是她的生日而已。
   “确实是。”
   “我觉得我最近好像长大了不少。”
   “很好呀!不是吗?”
   “我也不知道。”
   到目前为止,苏菲一直把头半蒙在枕头里讲话。现在妈妈说话了:“苏菲,你一定要告诉我你刚才为什么……为什么好像……失去控制的样子?”
   “你十五岁的时候不是有时也会这样吗?”
   “也许吧。可是你知道我在说什么。”
   苏菲突然翻身面对着妈妈。“那只狗的名字叫汉密士。”她说。
   “是吗?”
   “它的主人是一个名叫艾伯特的男人。”
   “原来如此。”
   “他住在旧城区。”
   “你那天一直跟着那只狗走到那儿去?”
   “那里并不危险。”
   “你说过那只狗常常到这儿来。”
   “我说过吗?”
   她现在得好好想一想了。她想尽可能把一切事情都告诉妈妈,但又不能全部吐露。
   “你总是不在家。”她试探着。
   “没错,我太忙了。”
   “艾伯特和汉密士曾经到过这儿来很多次。”
   “来干什么呢?他们曾经进屋子里来吗?”
   “你就不能一次问一个问题吗?他们从来没有进屋里来,不过他们经常到林子里散步。这有什么神秘吗?”
   “不,一点也不神秘。”
   “他们散步时,就像其他人一样,会经过我们的门口。有一天我放学回家后跟那只狗说了几句话,就这样认识了艾伯特。”
   “那有关白兔子和你说的那些话又是怎么回事呢?”
   “那是艾伯特告诉我的。他是一个真正的哲学家,他告诉我所有哲学家的事。”
   “你们只是站在树篱旁边谈吗?”
   “他也写信给我。事实上,他写了很多封。有时寄来,有时他会在散步途中把信放在我们家的信箱里。”
   “那就是我们说的‘情书’啰?”
   “嗯,只不过那不是真正的情书。”
   “他在信上只谈哲学吗?”
   “是的。你能想象吗?我从他那儿学到的比我这八年来在学校里学的更多,比方说,你听说过布鲁诺吗?他在一六OO年被烧死在火刑柱上。或者,你有没有听说过牛顿的万有引力定律呢?”
   “没有。有很多东西是我不知道的。”
   “我敢说你一定不知道地球为什么绕着太阳转,对不对?——你看,你还住在地球上呢!”
   “这个男人年纪多大?”
   “不知道——大概有五十岁吧!”
   “他跟黎巴嫩有什么关系呢?”
   这可不容易回答。苏菲很快想了一下,决定选择一个听起来最可信的说法。
   “艾伯特有一个弟弟是驻黎巴嫩联合国部队的少校,他住在黎乐桑。也许他就是从前住在小木屋里的那个少校吧。”
   “艾伯特这个名字有点奇怪,是不是?”
   “大概吧!”
   “听起来像是意大利名字。”
   “这个嘛……几乎所有重要的东西好像都来自希腊或意大利。”
   “可是他会说挪威话吧?”
   “当然,说得才流利呢!”
   “你知道吗?苏菲,我想你应该找一天请这个艾伯特到我们家来。我从来没有遇见过真正的哲学家。”
   “再说吧。”
   “我们请他参加你的生日宴会,你看怎样?请各种不同年纪的人来会很好玩的。说不定我也可以参加呀!至少,我可以帮你招待客人。你说这样好不好?”
   “如果他肯来的话,跟他说话比跟我们班上那些男生讲话要有意思多了。只不过……”
   “怎样?”
   “他们搞不好会起哄,说艾伯特是我新交的男朋友。”
   “那你就告诉他们他不是呀!”
   “嗯,再说吧!”
   “好吧。还有,苏菲,我和你爸爸有时确实不是处得很好,但我们之间从来没有第三者……”
   “我想睡了。我经痛得很厉害。”
   “你要不要吃一片阿斯匹灵?”
   “好。”
   当妈妈拿着药片和水回到房里时,苏菲已经睡着了。
   神秘的书信
   五月三十一日是星期四。整个下午苏菲在学校上课时都觉得时间很难挨。自从开始上哲学课后,她在某些科目上的成绩进步了。通常她大多数科目的成绩不是A就是B,但上个月她在公民课与作文课上都拿A。不过她的数学成绩则远远落后。
   最后一堂课时,老师发回上次写的一篇作文。苏菲选的题目是《人与科技》。她长篇大论地谈到文艺复兴时期的种种和当时在科技方面的突破、对大自然的新观念,以及培根所说的“知识就是力量”。她特别指出是因为有了实证法才有种种科技的发明,然后她谈了一些她认为对社会未必有利的科技发明。在最后一段,她写道:人们做的每一件事都有利有弊。善恶好坏就像一股黑线与一股白线相互交织,有时甚至紧密得无法分开。
   当老师把作业本发回时,他从讲台上看着苏菲,戏谑似地向她点点头。
   苏菲得了一个A。老师的评语是:“你从哪里学到这些的?”
   她拿出一枝笔,在作业本旁边的空白处写:因为我正在研究哲学。
   当她把作业本合上时,有一个东西从里面掉了出来。那是一张从黎巴嫩寄来的明信片。
   苏菲俯身在课桌前看着信中的内容:
   亲爱的席德:
   当你看到这封信时,我们大概已经在电话中谈过这里发生的死亡悲剧。有时候我会问自己:如果人类的思想比较清楚的话,是否就能够避免战争与暴力?也许消除战争与暴力最好的方法,就是为人们上一门简单的哲学课程。也许我们应该出版一本《联合国哲学小册》,译咸各国语言,分发给未来每一位世界公民。我将向联合国主席提出这个建议。
   你在电话上说你愈来愈会收拾照管自己的东西了。我很高兴,因为你是我所见过最会丢三落四的人。然后你又说自从我们上次通话后你只掉过一个十块钱的铜板,我会尽量帮你找回来。虽然我还在千里之外,可是我在家乡有一个帮手(如果我找到那十块钱,我会把它跟你的生日礼物放在一起)。我感觉自己好像已经开始走上漫长的归乡路了。
   爱你的老爸苏菲刚看完明信片,最后一堂课的下课铃就响了。她的思绪再度陷入一团混乱。
   乔安像往常一样在游乐场等她。在回家的路上,苏菲打开书包,拿明信片给乔安看。
   “邮戳上的日期是几月几号?”
   “大概是六月十五日吧……”
   “不,你看……上面写的是5/30/90。”
   “那是昨天呀……就是黎巴嫩那位少校死掉的第二天。”
   “我怀疑从黎巴嫩寄来的明信片能够在一天之内寄到挪威。”
   乔安继续说。
   “再加上地址又很特别:请富理亚初中的苏菲代转席德…”
   “你认为它会是寄来的吗?然后老师把它夹在你的作业本里?”
   “我不知道。我也不知道自己敢不敢跑去问老师。”
   然后,他们换了一个话题。
   “仲夏节那天,我要在我家花园里举行一个宴会。”苏菲说。
   “你会请男生来吗?”
   苏菲耸耸肩。
   “我们不一定要请那些笨蛋来。”
   “可是你会请杰瑞米吧?”
   “如果你想的话。还有,我可能会请艾伯特来。”
   “你疯子!”
   “我知道。”
   谈到这里,他们已经走到超市,只好分道扬镳了。
   苏菲回家后的第一件事就是看看汉密士是否在花园里。果然没错,它就站在那里,在苹果树旁边嗅来嗅去。
   “汉密士]”
   有一秒钟的时间,汉密士并没有动。苏菲知道为什么:它听到她的叫声、认出她的声音,决定看看她是否在声音传来的地方。然后,它看到了她,便开始向她跑来。它愈跑愈快,最后四只脚像鼓锤般地疾疾点地。
   在这一秒钟的时间里,发生的事情还真不少。
   汉密士冲向苏菲,忙不迭地摇着尾巴,然后跳起来舔她的脸。
   “汉密士,你真聪明。下去……下去……不要,不要把口水弄得我满脸……好了,好了!够了!”
   苏菲走进屋里。雪儿又从树丛里跳了出来。它对汉密士这位陌生访客相当提防。苏菲拿出猫食,在鹦哥的杯子里倒一些饲料,拿一片生菜叶子给乌龟吃,然后便留一张纸条给妈妈。
   她说她要带汉密士回家。如果到七点她还没回来的话,她会打电话。
   然后他们便开始穿越市区。这次苏菲特别在身上带了点钱。她本来考虑带汉密士一起坐公车,但后来决定还是问过艾伯特的意思再说。
   当她跟着汉密士走的时候,脑海里一直想着动物到底是什么。
   狗和猫有什么不同呢?她记得亚理斯多德说:人与动物都是自然的生物,有许多相同的特征。但是人与动物之间却有一个明显不同的地方,那就是:人会思考。
   他凭什么如此确定呢?相反的,德谟克里特斯则认为人与动物事实上很相似,因为两者都由原子组成。他并不认为人或动物拥有不朽的灵魂。他的说法是:人的灵魂是由原子组成的,人一死,这些原子也就随风四散。
   他认为人的灵魂与他的脑子是紧紧相连,密不可分的。
   不过,灵魂怎么可能是原子做的呢?灵魂不像身体其他部位一样是可以碰触到的。它是“精神性”的东西。
   他们已经走过大广场,接近旧城区了。当他们走到苏菲那天捡到十块钱的人行道上时,她自然而然的看着脚下的柏油路面。就在她那天弯腰捡钱的同一个地方,她看到了一张明信片,有风景的那面朝上。照片里是一个种有棕榈树与橘子树的花园。
   苏菲弯腰捡起明信片。汉密士开始低声怒吼,仿佛不愿意苏菲碰那张明信片一般。
   明信片的内容如下:
   亲爱的席德;
   生命是由一长串的巧合组成的。你所遗失的十块钱并非没有可能在这里出现。也许它是在黎乐桑的广场上被一位预备前往基督山的老太太捡到,她从基督山搭乘火车去探视她的孙儿。很久以后也许她在新广场这里又把那枚铜板给丢了。因此那枚铜板非常可能在当天被一名急需要钱坐公车回家的女孩捡到了。这很难说,席德,但如果真是这样,我们就必须问一问是否每一件事都是天意。现在,就精神上而言,我已经坐在咱家旁边的船坞上了。
   P.S:我说过我会帮你找回那十块钱的。
   爱你的爸爸地址栏上写着:“请过路人代转席德”。邮戳的日期是六月十五日。
   苏菲跟在汉密士的身后跳上台阶。艾伯特一打开门,她便说:“闪开,老爹,邮差来了。”
   她觉得自己现在有十足的理由生气。
   苏菲进门时,艾伯特便让到旁边。汉密士像从前那样躺在衣帽钩架下面。
   “少校是不是又给你一张明信片了,孩子?”
   苏菲抬眼看着他,发现他今天又穿了另外一套衣服。她最先注意到的是他戴了一顶长长鬈鬈的假发,穿了一套宽松、镶有许多花边的衣服,脖子上围了一条颜色异常鲜艳的丝巾。在衣服之上还披了一件红色的披肩。另外他还穿着白色的长袜和显然是皮制的薄薄的鞋子,鞋面上还有蝴蝶结。这一整套服装使苏菲想起她在电影上看到的路易十四的宫廷。
   “你这个呆子!”她说,一边把明信片递给他。
   “嗯……你真的在他放这张明信片的地方捡到了十块钱吗?”
   “没错。”
   “他愈来愈没礼貌了。不过这样也好。”
   “为什么?”
   “这使我们比较容易拆穿他的面具。不过他这个把戏既夸张又不高明,几乎像是廉价香水一样。”
   “香水?”
   “因为他努力要显得很高雅,但实际上却虚有其表。你难道看不出来他居然厚脸皮的把他监视我们的卑鄙行为比做天意吗?”
   他指着那张明信片,然后就像以前那样把它撕成碎片。为了不让他更生气,苏菲就没有再提在学校时从她作业本里掉出来的那张明信片。
   “我们进房里坐吧。现在几点了?”
   “四点。”
   “今天我们要谈十七世纪。”
   他们走进那间四面斜墙、开有天窗的客厅。苏菲发现这次房里的摆设和上次不同。
   茶几上有一个小小的古董珠宝箱,里面放着各式各样的镜片。
   珠宝箱旁边摆着一本摊开来的书,样子看来颇为古老。
   “那是什么?”苏菲问。
   “那是笛卡尔著名的《方法论》,是第—一版,印制于公元一六三七年,是我最宝贝的收藏之一。”
   “那个箱子呢……?”
   “……是我独家收藏的镜片,也叫做光学玻璃。它们是在十七世纪中由荷兰哲学家史宾诺莎(Spinoza)所打磨的。这些镜片价格都非常昂贵,也是我最珍贵的收藏之一。”
   “如果我知道史宾诺莎和笛卡尔是谁的话,也许比较能了解这些东西到底有多珍贵。”
   “当然。不过还是先让我们熟悉一下他们的时代背景好了。我们坐下来吧!”
   理想与唯物主义他们坐在跟上次一样的地方。苏菲坐在大扶手椅里,艾伯特则坐在沙发上。那张放着书和珠宝箱的茶几就在他们两人中间。当他们坐下来时,艾伯特拿下他的假发。放在书桌上。
   “我们今天要谈的是十七世纪,也就是我们一般所说的‘巴洛克时期(BaroquePeriod)’。”
   “巴洛克时期?好奇怪的名字。”
   “‘巴洛克’这个名词原来的意思是‘形状不规则的珍珠’。这是巴洛克艺术的典型特征。它比文艺复兴时期的艺术要更充满了对照鲜明的形式,相形之下,后者则显得较为平实而和谐。整体来说,十七世纪的主要特色就是在各种相互矛盾的对比中呈现的张力。
   当时有许多人抱持文艺复兴时期持续不坠的乐观精神,另一方面又有许多人过着退隐山林、禁欲苦修的宗教生活。无论在艺术还是现实生活上,我们都可以看到夸张华丽的自我表达形式,但另外一方面也有一股退隐避世的潮流逐渐兴起。”
   “你是说,当时既有宏伟华丽的宫廷,也有僻静的修道院?”
   “是的。一点没错。巴洛克时期的口头禅之一是拉丁谚语carpediem,也就是‘把握今天’的意思。另外一句也很流行的拉丁谚语则是mementomori,就是‘不要忘记你将会死亡’。
   “在艺术方面,当时的绘画可能一方面描绘极其繁华奢靡的生活,但在角落里却画了一个骷髅头。从很多方面来说,巴洛克时期的特色是浮华而矫饰的。但在同一时期,也有许多人意识到世事无常,明白我们周遭的美好事物终有一天会消殒凋零。”
   “没错。我想意识到生命无常的确是一件令人伤感的事。”
   “你的想法就和十七世纪的许多人一样。在政治方面,巴洛克时期也是一个充满冲突的年代。当时的欧洲可说是烽火遍地。其中最惨烈的是从一六一八年打到一六四八年的‘三十年战争’,欧洲大部分地区都卷入其中。事实上,所谓‘三十年战争’指的是一连串战役,而受害最深的是德国。由于这些战争,法国逐渐成为欧洲象强大的国家。”
   “他们为什么要打仗呢?”
   “有一大部分是由于基督新教与天主教之间的冲突。但也有一些是为了争夺政权。”
   “就像黎巴嫩的情况。”
   “除此之外,十七世纪也是阶级差距很大的时代。你一定听过法国的贵族和凡尔赛宫。但我不知道你对法国人民穷困的生活知道多少。不过财富往往建立于权力之上。人们常说巴洛克时期的政治情势与当时的艺术与建筑有几分相似。巴洛克时期的建筑特色在于屋角与隙缝有许多细部装饰。同样的,当时政治情势的特色就是各种阴谋与暗杀充斥。”
   “不是有一位瑞典国王在戏院里遇刺吗?”
   “你说的是古斯塔夫三世(GustavⅢ)。这是一个很好的例子。
   古斯塔夫三世遇刺的时间其实是在一七九二年,但当时的情况却与巴洛克时期很像。他是在一场化装舞会中遇害的。”
   “我还以为他是在戏院里被杀的。”
   “那场化装舞会是在一座歌剧院举行的。我们可以说瑞典的巴洛克时期随着古斯塔夫三世的遇刺而结束。在古斯塔夫的时代已经开始有所谓的‘开明专制’政治,与近一百年前路易十四统治的时期颇为相似。古斯塔夫三世本身也是一个非常虚荣的人,他崇尚所有的法国仪式与礼节。不过,他也很喜爱戏剧……”
   “……他就是因此而死的对不对?”
   “是的,不过巴洛克时期的戏剧不只是一种艺术形式而已,也是当时最常使用的象征。”
   “什么东西的象征?”
   “生活的象征。我不知道十七世纪的人究竟说过多少次‘人生如戏’之类的话。总之,很多次就是了。现代戏剧一—包括各种布景与舞台机关——就是在巴洛克时期诞生的。演戏的人在舞台上创造一种假象,最终目的就是要显示舞台上的戏剧不过是一种假象而已。戏剧因此成为整个人生的缩影。它可以告诉人们‘骄者必败’,也可以无情的呈现出人类的软弱。”
   “莎士比亚是不是巴洛克时期的人?”
   “他最伟大的几出剧作是在一六OO年写成的。因此可以说,他横跨了文艺复兴时期与巴洛克时期。莎士比亚的剧本中有许多片段讲到人生如戏。你想不想听我念几段?”
   “当然想。”
   “在《皆大欢喜》中,他说:世界是一座舞台,所有的男男女女不过是演员:有上场的时候,也有下场的时候;每个人在一生中都扮演着好几种角色。”
   “在《马克白》中,他说:人生不过是一个行走的影子,一个在舞台上高谈阔步的可怜演员,无声无息地悄然退下;这只是一个傻子说的故事,说得慷慨激昂,却无意义。”
   “好悲观哪!”
   “那是因为他时常想到生命的短暂。你一定听过莎士比亚最著名的一句台词吧!”
   “存在或不存在,这是问题所在。”(Tobeornottobe——thatisthequestion.)“对,是哈姆雷特说的。今天我们还在世上到处行走,明天我们就死了,消失了。”
   “谢啦j我明白了!”
   “除了将生命比喻为舞台之外,巴洛克时期的诗人也将生命比喻为梦境。例如,莎士比亚就说:我们的本质原来也和梦一般,短短的一生就在睡梦中度过……”
   “很有诗意。”
   “公元一六OO年出生的西班牙剧作家卡德隆(Calder6ndelaBarca)写了一出名为《人生如梦》的戏。其中有一句台词是:‘生命是什么?是疯狂的。生命是什么?是幻象、是影子、是虚构之物。生命中至美至善者亦微不足道,因为生命只是一场梦境……,”
   “他说的也许没错。我们在学校里也念过一个剧本,名叫《杰普大梦》(JeppeOntheMount)。”
   “没错,是由侯柏格(LudvigHolberg)写的。他是北欧的大作家,是巴洛克时期过渡到开明时期的一个重要人物。”
   “杰普在一个壕沟里睡着了……醒来时发现自己躺在男爵的床上。因此他以为他梦见自己是一个贫穷的农场工人。后来当他再度睡着时,他们把他抬回壕沟去,然后他又醒过来了。这次他以为他刚才只是梦见自己躺在男爵的床上罢了。”
   “侯柏格是从卡德隆那儿借用了这个主题,而卡德隆则是借用古代阿拉伯的民间故事《一千零一夜》中的主题。不过,在此之前,早已有人将生命比喻为梦境,包括印度与中国的作家。比方说,中国古代的智者庄子就曾经说过:‘昔者庄周梦为蝴蝶,栩栩然蝴蝶也……俄然觉,则蘧蘧然周也。不知周之梦为蝴蝶欤,蝴蝶之梦为周欤?”’“这个嘛,我想我们实在不可能证明究竟哪一种情况才是真的。”
   “挪威有一个巴洛克时期的天才诗人名叫达斯(PetterDass),生于一六四七年到一七O七年间。他一方面着意描写人世间的现实生活,另一方面则强调唯有上帝才是永恒不变的。
   “上帝仍为上帝,即便天地尽荒;上帝仍为上帝,纵使人人皆亡。
   “但他在同一首赞美诗中也描写挪威北部的乡村生活,描写鲂鱼、鳕鱼和黑鳕鱼等。这是巴洛克时期作品的典型特征,一方面描写今生与现实人间的生活,另一方面也描写天上与来世的情景。这使人想起柏拉图将宇宙分成具体的感官世界与不变的概念世界的理论。”
   “这些巴洛克时期的人又有什么样的哲学呢?”
   “他们的哲学特色同样也是两种完全相反的思想模式并存,而且两者之中充满了强烈的冲突。我说过,有许多人认为生命基本上具有一种崇高的特质。我们称之为‘理想主义’。另一种迥然相异的看法则被称为‘唯物主义’,就是指一种相信生命中所有的自然现象都是从肉体感官而来的哲学。十七世纪时也有许多人信奉物质主义。其中影响最大的可能是英国的哲学家霍布士(ThomasHobbes)。他相信自然界所有的现象——包括人与动物——都完全是由物质的分子所组成的。就连人类的意识(也就是灵魂)也是由人脑中微小分子的运动而产生的。”
   “这么说,他赞同两千年前德谟克里特斯的说法啰?”
   “在整部哲学史上你都可以看到理想主义与唯物主义的影踪。
   不过两者很少像在巴洛克时期这般明显共存。由于受到各种新科学的影响,唯物主义日益盛行。牛顿证明整个宇宙适用同样的运动定律,也证明自然界(包括地理和太空)的所有变化都可以用宇宙重力与物体移动等定律来加以说明。因此,一切事物都受到同样的不变法则或同样的机转所左右。所以在理论上,所有自然界的变化都可以用数学精确地计算。就这样,牛顿成就了我们所谓的‘机械论的世界观’。”.“他是否认为整个世界就是一部很大的机器?”
   “是的。mechanic(机械论的)这个字是从希腊文mechane而来的,意思就是机器。值得注意的是:无论霍布士或牛顿都不认为机械论的世界观与他们对上帝的信仰有何抵触。但十八、十九世纪的唯物主义者则不然。十八世纪的法国物理学家兼哲学家拉美特利(LaMettrie)写了一本名为《人这部机器》(L’hommemachine)的书,他认为,就像人腿有肌肉可以行走一般,人脑也有‘肌肉’可以用来思考。后来,法国的数学家拉普拉斯(Laplace)也表达了极端机械论的观点。他的想法是:如果某些神祗在某个时刻能知道所有物质分子的位置,则‘没有任何事情是他们所不知道的,同时他们也能够看到所有过去及未来的事情’。他认为所有事情都命中注定。一件事情会不会发生,都是冥冥中早有定数。这个观点被称为决定论’。”
   “这么说,他们认为世间没有所谓自由意志这回事啰?”
   “是的。他们认为一切事物都是机械过程的产物,包括我们的思想与梦境在内。十九世纪德国的唯物主义者宣称,思想与脑袋的关系就像尿液与肾脏、胆汁与肝的关系。”
   “可是尿液和胆汁都是物质,但思想却不是。”
   “你说到重点了。我可以告诉你一个类似的故事。有一次,一位俄罗斯太空人与一位脑外科医生讨论宗教方面的问题。脑外科医生是个基督徒,那位太空人不是。太空人说:‘我到过太空许多次,但却从来没有见过上帝或天使。’脑外科医生答道:‘我开过很多聪明的脑袋,也没有看过一个思想呀!”’“可是这并不代表思想并不存在。”
   “没错。它强调了一个事实,那就是:思想并不是可以被开刀或被分解成较小单位的东西。举例来说,如果一个人满脑子幻想,你很难开刀将它去除。我们可以说,它生长的部位太深人了,无法动手术。十七世纪一位重要的哲学家莱布尼兹指出:物质与精神不同的地方在于物质可以不断被分割成更小的单位,但灵魂却连分割成一半也不可能。”
   “是呀!要用什么样的手术刀才能分割灵魂呢?”
   艾伯特只是摇头。过了一会,他向下指着他们两人中间的桌子说:“十七世纪最伟大的两位哲学家笛卡尔和史宾诺莎也曾绞尽脑汁思考灵魂与肉体的关系,我们会更详细地讨论他们的思想。”
   “好吧,不过如果我们到七点钟还没结束的话,我就得借你的电话用一用。”





暮辞朝

ZxID:15103679


等级: 内阁元老
配偶: 清风雅乐
这一段开心的日子请你勿忘
举报 只看该作者 18楼  发表于: 2013-10-26 0
英文原文
Descartes
... he wanted to clear all the rubble off the site
Alberto stood up, took off the red cloak, and laid it over a chair. Then he settled himself once again in the corner of the sofa.
"Rene Descartes was born in 1596 and lived in a number of different European countries at various periods of his life. Even as a young man he had a strong desire to achieve insight into the nature of man and the universe. But after studying philosophy he became increasingly convinced of his own ignorance."
"Like Socrates?"
"More or less like him, yes. Like Socrates, he was convinced that certain knowledge is only attainable through reason. We can never trust what the old books tell us. We cannot even trust what our senses tell us."
"Plato thought that too. He believed that only reason can give us certain knowledge."
"Exactly. There is a direct line of descent from Socrates and Plato via St. Augustine to Descartes. They were all typical rationalists, convinced that reason was the only path to knowledge. After comprehensive studies, Descartes came to the conclusion that the body of knowledge handed down from the Middle Ages was not necessarily reliable. You can compare him to Socrates, who did not trust the general views he encountered in the central square of Athens. So what does one do, Sophie? Can you tell me that?"
"You begin to work out your own philosophy."
"Right! Descartes decided to travel around Europe, the way Socrates spent his life talking to people in Athens. He relates that from then on he meant to confine himself to seeking the wisdom that was to be found, either within himself or in the 'great book of the world.' So he joined the army and went to war, which enabled him to spend periods of time in different parts of Central Europe. Later he lived for some years in Paris, but in 1629 he went to Holland, where he remained for nearly twenty years working on his mathematical and philosophic writings.
"In 1649 he was invited to Sweden by Queen Christina. But his sojourn in what he called 'the land of bears, ice, and rocks' brought on an attack of pneumonia and he died in the winter of 1650."
"So he was only 54 when he died."
"Yes, but he was to have enormous influence on philosophy, even after his death. One can say without exaggeration that Descartes was the father of modern philosophy. Following the heady rediscovery of man and nature in the Renaissance, the need to assemble contemporary thought into one coherent philosophical system again presented itself. The first significant system-builder was Descartes, and he was followed by Spinoza and Leibniz, Locke and Berkeley, Hume and Kant."
"What do you mean by a philosophical system?"
"I mean a philosophy that is constructed from the ground up and that is concerned with finding explanations for all the central questions of philosophy. Antiquity had its great system-constructors in Plato and Aristotle. The Middle Ages had St. Thomas Aquinas, who tried to build a bridge between Aristotle's philosophy and Christian theology. Then came the Renais-sance, with a welter of old and new beliefs about nature and science, God and man. Not until the seventeenth century did philosophers make any attempt to assemble the new ideas into a clarified philosophical system, and the first to attempt it was Descartes. His work was the forerunner of what was to be philosophy's most important project in the coming generations. His main concern was with what we can know, or in other words, certain knowledge. The other great question that preoccupied him was the relationship between body and mind. Both these questions were the substance of philosophical argument for the next hundred and fifty years."
"He must have been ahead of his time."
"Ah, but the question belonged to the age. When it came to acquiring certain knowledge, many of his contemporaries voiced a total philosophic skepticism. They thought that man should accept that he knew nothing. But Descartes would not. Had he done so he would not have been a real philosopher. We can again draw a parallel with Socrates, who did not accept the skepticism of the Sophists. And it was in Descartes's lifetime that the new natural sciences were developing a method by which to provide certain and exact descriptions of natural processes.
"Descartes was obliged to ask himself if there was a similar certain and exact method of philosophic reflection."
"That I can understand."
"But that was only part of it. The new physics had also raised the question of the nature of matter, and thus what determines the physical processes of nature. More and more people argued in favor of a mechanistic view of nature. But the more mechanistic the physical world was seen to be, the more pressing became the question of the relationship between body and soul. Until the seventeenth century, the soul had commonly been considered as a sort of 'breath of life' that pervaded all living creatures. The original meaning of the words 'soul' and 'spirit' is, in fact, 'breath' and 'breathing.' This is the case for almost all European languages. To Aristotle, the soul was something that was present everywhere in the organism as its 'life principle'--and therefore could not be conceived as separate from the body. So he was able to speak of a plant soul or an animal soul. Philosophers did not introduce any radical division of soul and body until the seventeenth century. The reason was that the motions of all material objects--including the body, animal or human--were explained as involving mechanical processes. But man's soul could surely not be part of this body machinery, could it? What of the soul, then? An explanation was required not least of how something 'spiritual' could start a mechanical process."
"It's a strange thought, actually."
"What is?"
"I decide to lift my arm--and then, well, the arm lifts itself. Or I decide to run for a bus, and the next second my legs are moving. Or I'm thinking about something sad, and suddenly I'm crying. So there must be some mysterious connection between body and consciousness."
"That was exactly the problem that set Descartes's thoughts going. Like Plato, he was convinced that there was a sharp division between 'spirit' and 'matter.' But as to how the mind influences the body--or the soul the body--Plato could not provide an answer."
"Neither have I, so I am looking forward to hearing what Descartes's theory was."
"Let us follow his own line of reasoning."
Albert pointed to the book that lay on the table between them.
"In his Discourse on Method, Descartes raises the question of the method the philosopher must use to solve a philosophical problem. Science already had its new method..."
"So you said."
"Descartes maintains that we cannot accept anything as being true unless we can clearly and distinctly perceive it. To achieve this can require the breaking down of a compound problem into as many single factors as possible. Then we can take our point of departure in the simplest idea of all. You could say that every single thought must be weighed and measured, rather in the way Galileo wanted everything to be measured and everything immeasurable to be made measurable. Descartes believed that philosophy should go from the simple to the complex. Only then would it be possible to construct a new insight. And finally it would be necessary to ensure by constant enumeration and control that nothing was left out. Then, a philosophical conclusion would be within reach."
"It sounds almost like a math test."
"Yes. Descartes was a mathematician; he is considered the father of analytical geometry, and he made important contributions to the science of algebra. Descartes wanted to use the 'mathematical method' even for philosophizing. He set out to prove philosophical truths in the way one proves a mathematical theorem. In other words, he wanted to use exactly the same instrument that we use when we work with figures, namely, reason, since only reason can give us certainty. It is far from certain that we can rely on our senses. We have already noted Descartes's affinity with Plato, who also observed that mathematics and numerical ratio give us more certainty than the evidence of our senses."
"But can one solve philosophical problems that way?"
"We had better go back to Descartes's own reasoning. His aim is to reach certainty about the nature of life, and he starts by maintaining that at first one should doubt everything. He didn't want to build on sand, you see."
"No, because if the foundations give way, the whole house collapses."
"As you so neatly put it, my child. Now, Descartes did not think it reasonable to doubt everything, but he thought it was possible in principle to doubt everything. For one thing, it is by no means certain that we advance our philosophical quest by reading Plato or Aristotle. It may increase our knowledge of history but not of the world. It was important for Descartes to rid himself of all handed down, or received, learning before beginning his own philosophical construction."
"He wanted to clear all the rubble off the site before starting to build his new house ..."
"Thank you. He wanted to use only fresh new materials in order to be sure that his new thought construction would hold. But Descartes's doubts went even deeper. We cannot even trust what our senses tell us, he said. Maybe they are deceiving us."
"How come?"
"When we dream, we feel we are experiencing reality. What separates our waking feelings from our dream feelings?
" 'When I consider this carefully, I find not a single property which with certainty separates the waking state from the dream,' writes Descartes. And he goes on: 'How can you be certain that your whole life is not a dream?' "
"Jeppe thought he had only been dreaming when he had slept in the Baron's bed."
"And when he was lying in the Baron's bed, he thought his life as a poor peasant was only a dream. So in the same way, Descartes ends up doubting absolutely everything. Many philosophers before him had reached the end of the road at that very point."
"So they didn't get very far."
"But Descartes tried to work forward from this zero point. He doubted everything, and that was the only thing he was certain of. But now something struck him: one thing had to be true, and that was that he doubted. When he doubted, he had to be thinking, and because he was thinking, it had to be certain that he was a thinking being. Or, as he himself expressed it: Cogito, ergo sum."
"Which means?"
"I think, therefore I am."
"I'm not surprised he realized that."
"Fair enough. But notice the intuitive certainty with which he suddenly perceives himself as a thinking being. Perhaps you now recall what Plato said, that what we grasp with our reason is more real than what we grasp with our senses. That's the way it was for Descartes. He perceived not only that he was a thinking /, he realized at the same time that this thinking / was more real than the material world which we perceive with our senses. And he went on. He was by no means through with his philosophical quest."
"What came next?"
"Descartes now asked himself if there was anything more he could perceive with the same intuitive certainty.
He came to the conclusion that in his mind he had a clear and distinct idea of a perfect entity. This was an idea he had always had, and it was thus self-evident to Descartes that such an idea could not possibly have come from himself. The idea of a perfect entity cannot have originated from one who was himself imperfect, he claimed. Therefore the idea of a perfect entity must have originated from that perfect entity itself, or in other words, from God. That God exists was therefore just as self-evident for Descartes as that a thinking being must exist."
"Now he was jumping to a conclusion. He was more cautious to begin with."
"You're right. Many people have called that his weak spot. But you say 'conclusion.' Actually it was not a question of proof. Descartes only meant that we all possess the idea of a perfect entity, and that inherent in that idea is the fact that this perfect entity must exist. Because a perfect entity wouldn't be perfect if it didn't exist. Neither would we possess the idea of a perfect entity if there were no perfect entity. For we are imperfect, so the idea of perfection cannot come from us. According to Descartes, the idea of God is innate, it is stamped on us from birth 'like the artisan's mark stamped on his product.' "
"Yes, but just because I possess the idea of a crocophant doesn't mean that the crocophant exists."
"Descartes would have said that it is not inherent in the concept of a crocophant that it exists. On the other hand, it is inherent in the concept of a perfect entity that such an entity exists. According to Descartes, this is just as certain as it is inherent in the idea of a circle that all points of the circle are equidistant from the center. You cannot have a circle that does not conform to this law. Nor can you have a perfect entity that lacks its most important property, namely, existence."
"That's an odd way of thinking."
"It is a decidedly rationalistic way of thinking. Descartes believed like Socrates and Plato that there is a connection between reason and being. The more self-evident a thing is to one's reason, the more certain it is that it exists."
"So far he has gotten to the fact that he is a thinking person and that there exists a perfect entity."
"Yes, and with this as his point of departure, he proceeds. In the question of all the ideas we have about outer reality--for example, the sun and the moon--there is the possibility that they are fantasies. But outer reality also has certain characteristics that we can perceive with our reason. These are the mathematical properties, or, in other words, the kinds of things that are measurable, such as length, breadth, and depth. Such 'quantitative' properties are just as clear and distinct to my reason as the fact that I am a thinking being. 'Qualitative' properties such as color, smell, and taste, on the other hand, are linked to our sense perception and as such do not describe outer reality."
"So nature is not a dream after all."
"No, and on that point Descartes once again draws upon our idea of the perfect entity. When our reason recognizes something clearly and distinctly--as is the case for the mathematical properties of outer reality--it must necessarily be so. Because a perfect God would not deceive us. Descartes claims 'God's guarantee' that whatever we perceive with our reason also corresponds to reality."
"Okay, so now he's found out he's a thinking being, God exists, and there is an outer reality."
"Ah, but the outer reality is essentially different from the reality of thought. Descartes now maintains that there are two different forms of reality--or two 'substances.' One substance is thought, or the 'mind,' the other is extension, or matter. The mind is purely conscious, it takes up no room in space and can therefore not be subdivided into smaller parts. Matter, however, is purely extension, it takes up room in space and can therefore always be subdivided into smaller and smaller parts-- but it has no consciousness. Descartes maintained that both substances originate from God, because only God himself exists independently of anything else. But al-though both thought and extension come from God, the two substances have no contact with each other. Thought is quite independent of matter, and conversely, the material processes are quite independent of thought."
"So he divided God's creation into two."
"Precisely. We say that Descartes is a dualist, which means that he effects a sharp division between the reality of thought and extended reality. For example, only man has a mind. Animals belong completely to extended reality. Their living and moving are accomplished me-chanically. Descartes considered an animal to be a kind of complicated automaton. As regards extended reality, he takes a thoroughly mechanistic view--exactly like the materialists."
"I doubt very much that Hermes is a machine or an automaton. Descartes couldn't have liked animals very much. And what about us? Are we automatons as well?"
"We are and we aren't. Descartes came to the conclusion that man is a dual creature that both thinks and takes up room in space. Man has thus both a mind and an extended body. St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas had already said something similar, namely, that man had a body like the animals and a soul like the angels. According to Descartes, the human body is a perfect machine. But man also has a mind which can operate quite independently of the body. The bodily processes do not have the same freedom, they obey their own laws. But what we think with our reason does not happen in the body--it happens in the mind, which is completely independent of extended reality. I should add, by the way, that Descartes did not reject the possibility that animals could think. But if they have that faculty, the same dualism between thought and extension must also apply to them."
"We have talked about this before. If I decide to run after a bus, the whole 'automaton' goes into action. And if I don't catch the bus, I start to cry."
"Even Descartes could not deny that there is a constant interaction between mind and body. As long as the mind is in the body, he believed, it is linked to the brain through a special brain organ which he called the pineal gland, where a constant interaction takes place between 'spirit' and 'matter.' Therefore the mind can constantly be affected by feelings and passions that are related to bodily needs. But the mind can also detach itself from such 'base' impulses and operate independently of the body. The aim is to get reason to assume command. Because even if I have the worst pain in my stomach, the sum of the angles in a triangle will still be 180 de-grees. Thus humans have the capacity to rise above bodily needs and behave rationally. In this sense the mind is superior to the body. Our legs can age and become weak, the back can become bowed and our teeth can fall out--but two and two will go on being four as long as there is reason left in us. Reason doesn't become bowed and weak. It is the body that ages. For Descartes, the mind is essentially thought. Baser passions and feelings such as desire and hate are more closely linked to our bodily functions--and therefore to extended reality."
"I can't get over the fact that Descartes compared the human body to a machine or an automaton."
"The comparison was based on the fact that people in his time were deeply fascinated by machines and the workings of clocks, which appeared to have the ability to function of their own accord. The word 'automaton' means precisely that--something that moves of its own accord. It was obviously only an illusion that they moved of their own accord. An astronomical clock, for instance, is both constructed and wound up by human hands. Descartes made a point of the fact that ingenious inventions of that kind were actually assembled very simply from a relatively small number of parts compared with the vast number of bones, muscles, nerves, veins, and arteries that the human and the animal body consists of. Why should God not be able to make an animal or a human body based on mechanical laws?"
"Nowadays there is a lot of talk about 'artificial intelligence.' "
"Yes, that is the automaton of our time. We have created machines that can sometimes deceive us into believing that they are intelligent. Machines like these would have terrified Descartes out of his wits. He might have begun to doubt whether human reason really was as free and independent as he had supposed. And there are philosophers who believe that man's spiritual life is no more free than the bodily processes. The human soul is naturally infinitely more complex than any data program, but some people think that in principle we are just as unfree as these data programs. But look, Sophie--I'll show you something."
Alberto pointed to a large writing table at the other end of the room. On it stood a small computer. He went over to it. Sophie followed him.
Alberto switched the computer on and soon the screen showed C: at the top. He wrote "Laila," explaining that this was an advanced conversation program.
A text soon appeared at the top of the screen:
"Hi, my name is Laila. Are you sitting comfortably?"
Sophie entered three letters:
"Yes," she wrote although she had not yet sat down. Alberto brought up a chair for her.
"What is your name?" appeared on the screen.
"Sophie Amundsen," wrote Sophie, and the computer answered:
"3 Clover Close. Nice to meet you, Sophie. Are you looking forward to your fifteenth birthday?"
Sophie was startled. Alberto laid a hand on her shoulder and said: "I have only given her your name, your address, and your date of birth. It's like when you are going to be introduced to a new friend. It's nice to know a little about them beforehand."
"Not bad," wrote Sophie.
"Oh dear, I hope you are not feeling bad, Sophie. You must try to talk in whole sentences."
"Thank you, I'm perfectly well. Can I ask you something?"
"I am glad you are well. Go ahead and ask me something."
"How old are you?" Sophie wrote.
"I was constructed in Atlanta on August 8, 1988, but I was translated into Norwegian at the Norwegian Polytechnic on March 28, 1990."
"Gosh!"
"I said you must talk in whole sentences."
"I only said gosh!"
"I do not understand slang. I have a vocabulary of over 100,000 words, but the nearest I can find to gosh is gospel."
"That means the story of Jesus."
"Are you a Christian, Sophie?"
"I don't know."
"As a rule not knowing is a step toward new knowledge."
"Socrates would most likely have said the same. Or Descartes, for that matter."
"Socrates was a Greek philosopher who lived from 470 to 399 B.C. If you wish to know more, press F7. Descartes was a French philosopher who lived from 1596 to 1650. If you wish to know more, press F7."
"Thank you, that will be quite enough. Can I ask you something else?"
"I am glad that this was enough. Go ahead and ask!"
Alberto laughed quietly. Sophie wrote:
"Who is Hilde Moller Knag?"
"Hilde Moller Knag lives in Lillesand and is exactly the same age as Sophie Amundsen."
"How do you know?"
"I don't know how. I found her on the hard disc."
Sophie felt a hand on her shoulder.
"I have fed the data program with the little information we have about Hilde," said Alberto.
"What else do you know about Hilde?" wrote Sophie.
"Hilde's father is a UN Observer in Lebanon. He has the rank of major and continually sends postcards to his daughter."
"I want you to find him!"
"I can't do that. He is not on any of my files and I am not coupled to any other data base."
"I said find him!!!!!!!!"
"Are you angry, Sophie? So many exclamation marks are a sign of violent feelings."
"I want to talk to Hilde's father!"
"You have difficulty controlling yourself. If you wish to talk about your childhood, press F9."
Alberto laid his hand on Sophie's shoulder again.
"She's right. This is not a crystal ball. Laila is only a data program."
"Shut up!" wrote Sophie.
"As you wish, Sophie. Our acquaintance lasted only 13 minutes and 52 seconds. I shall remember everything we have said. I shall now end the program."
The letter C: once again showed up on the screen.
"Now we can sit down again," said Alberto.
But Sophie had already pressed some other keys.
"Knag," she wrote.
Immediately the following message appeared on the screen:
"Here I am."
Now it was Alberto who jumped.
"Who are you?" wrote Sophie.
"Major Albert Knag at your service. I came straight from Lebanon. What is your command?"
"This beats everything!" breathed Alberto. "The rat has sneaked onto the hard disc."
He motioned for Sophie to move and sat down in front of the keyboard.
"How did you manage to get into my PC?" he wrote.
"A mere bagatelle, dear colleague. I am exactly where I choose to be."
"You loathsome data virus!"
"Now, now! At the moment I am here as a birthday virus. May I send a special greeting?"
"No thanks, we've had enough of them."
"But I'll be quick: all in your honor, dear Hilde. Once again, a very happy fifteenth birthday. Please excuse the circumstances, but I wanted my birthday greetings to spring up around you everywhere you go. Love from Dad, who is longing to give you a great big hug."
Before Alberto could write again, the sign C: had once again appeared on the screen.
Alberto wrote "dir knag*.*," which called up the following information on the screen:

***
22:34
Alberto wrote "erase knag*.*" and switched off the computer.
"There--now I have erased him," he said. "But it's impossible to say where he'll turn up next time."
He went on sitting there, staring at the screen. Then he added:
"The worst of it all was the name. Albert Knag ..."
For the first time Sophie was struck by the similarity between the two names. Albert Knag and Alberto Knox. But Alberto was so incensed that she dared not say a word. They went over and sat by the coffee table again.





中文翻译
   笛卡尔
   ……他希望清除工地上所有的瓦砾……
   艾伯特站起身来,脱下红色披风,搁在椅子上,然后再度坐在沙发的一角。
   “笛卡尔诞生于一五九六年,一生中曾住过几个欧洲国家。他在年轻时就已经有强烈的欲望要洞悉人与宇宙的本质。但在研习哲学之后,他逐渐体认到自己的无知。”
   “就像苏格拉底一样?”
   “是的,或多或少。他像苏格拉底一样,相信唯有透过理性才能获得确实的知识。他认为我们不能完全相信古籍的记载,也不能完全信任感官的知觉。”
   “柏拉图也这么想。他相信确实的知识只能经由理性获得。”
   “没错。苏格拉底、柏拉图、圣奥古斯丁与笛卡尔在这方面可说是一脉相传。他们都是典型的理性主义者,相信理性星通往知识的唯一途径。经过广泛研究后,笛卡尔得到了一个结论:中世纪以来的各哲学并不一定可靠。这和苏格拉底不全然相信他在雅典广场所听到的各家观点一样。在这种情况下该怎么办呢?苏菲,你能告诉我吗?”
   那就开始创立自己的哲学呀!现代的哲学之父“对!笛卡尔于是决定到欧洲各地游历,就像当年苏格拉底终其一生都在雅典与人谈话一样。笛卡尔说,今后他将专心致力寻求前所未有的智慧,包括自己内心的智慧与‘世界这本大书’中的智慧。因此他便从军打仗,也因此有机会客居中欧各地。后来,他在巴黎住了几年,并在一六二九年时前往荷兰,在那儿住了将近二十年,撰写哲学书籍。一六四九年时他应克丽思蒂娜皇后的邀请前往瑞典。然而他在这个他所谓的‘熊、冰雪与岩石的土地’上罹患了肺炎,终于在一六五O年的冬天与世长辞。”
   “这么说他去世时只有五十四岁。”
   “是的,但他死后对哲学界仍然具有重要的影响力。所以说,称笛卡尔为现代哲学之父是一点也不为过。在文艺复兴时期,人们重新发现了人与大自然的价值。在历经这样一个令人兴奋的年代之后,人们开始觉得有必要将现代的思想整理成一套哲学体系。而第一个创立一套重要的哲学体系的人正是笛卡尔。在他之后,又有史宾诺莎、莱布尼兹、洛克、柏克莱、休姆和康德等人。”
   “你所谓的哲学体系是什么意思?”
   “我指的是一套从基础开始创立,企图为所有重要的哲学性问题寻求解释的哲学。古代有柏拉图与亚理斯多德这几位伟大的哲学体系创立者。中世纪则有圣多玛斯努力为亚理斯多德的哲学与基督教的神学搭桥。到了文艺复兴时期,各种有关自然与科学、上帝与人等问题的思潮汹涌起伏,新旧杂陈。一直到十七世纪,哲学家们才开始尝试整理各种新思想,以综合成一个条理分明的哲学体系。第一位做这种尝试的人就是笛卡尔。他的努力成为后世各种重要哲学研究课题的先驱。他最感兴趣的题目,是我们所拥有的确实知识以及肉体与灵魂之间的关系。这两大问题成为后来一百五十年间哲学家争论的主要内容。”
   “他一定超越了他那个时代。”
   “嗯,不过这些问题却属于那个时代。在谈到如何获取确实的知识时,当时许多人持一种全然怀疑的论调,认为人应该接受自己一无所知事实。但笛卡尔却不愿如此。他如果接受这个事实,那他就不是一个真正的哲学家了。他的态度就像当年苏格拉底不肯接受诡辩学派的怀疑论调一样。在笛卡尔那个时代,新的自然科学已经开始发展出一种方法,以便精确地描述自然界的现象。同样的,笛卡尔也觉得有必要问自己是否有类似的精确方法可以从事哲学的思考。”
   “我想我可以理解。”
   “但这只是一部分而已。当时新兴的物理学也已经提出‘物质的性质为何’以及‘哪些因素影响自然界的物理变化’等问题。人们愈来愈倾向对自然采取机械论的观点。然而,人们愈是用机械论的观点来看物质世界,肉体与灵魂之间有何关系这个问题也就变得愈加重要。在十七世纪以前,人们普遍将灵魂视为某种遍布于所有生物的‘生命原理’。事实上,灵魂(sou1)与精神(spirit)这两个字原来的意思就是‘气息’与‘呼吸’。这在几乎所有的欧洲语言中都一样,亚理斯多德认为灵魂乃是生物体中无所不在的‘生命因素’(lifeprinciple),是不能与肉体分离的。因此,他有时说‘植物的灵魂’,有时也说‘动物的灵魂’。一直到十七世纪,哲学家才开始提出灵魂与肉体有所区分的论调。原因是他们将所有物质做的东西--包括动物与人的身体——视为一种机械过程。但人的灵魂却显然不是这个‘身体机器’的一部分。因此,灵魂又是什么呢?这时就必须对何以某种‘精神性’的事物可以启动一部机器这个问题做一个解释。”
   “想起来也真是奇怪。”
   “什么东西很奇怪?”
   “我决定要举起我的手臂,然后,手臂自己就举起来了。我决定要跑步赶公车,下一秒钟我的两腿就像发条一样跑起来了。有时刻坐在那儿想某件令我伤心的事,突然间我的眼泪就流出来了。因此,肉体与意识之间一定有某种神秘的关联。”
   “这正是笛卡尔所努力思考的问题。他像柏拉图一样,相信‘精神’与‘物质’有明显的不同。但是究竟身体如何影响灵魂或灵魂如何影响身体,柏拉图还没有找到答案。”
   我思故我在“我也没有。因此我很想知道笛卡尔在这方面的理论。”
   “让我们跟他思想的脉络走。”
   艾伯特指着他们两人中间的茶几上所放的那本书,继续说道:
   “在他的《方法论》中,笛卡尔提出哲学家必须使用特定的方法来解决哲学问题。在这方面科学界已经发展出一套自己的方法来……”
   “这你已经说过了。”
   “笛卡尔认为除非我们能够清楚分明地知道某件事情是真实的,否则我们就不能够认为它是真的。为了要做到这点,可能必须将一个复杂的问题尽可能细分为许多不同的因素。然后我们再从其中最简单的概念出发。也就是说每一种思想都必须加以‘斟酌与衡量’,就像伽利略主张每一件事物都必须加以测量,而每一件无法测量的事物都必须设法使它可以测量一样。笛卡尔主张哲学应该从最简单的到最复杂的。唯有如此才可能建立一个新观点。最后,我们还必须时时将各种因素加以列举与控制,以确定没有遗漏任何因素。如此才能获致一个结论。”
   “听起来几乎像是数学考试一样。”
   “是的。笛卡尔希望用‘数学方法’来进行哲学性的思考。他用一般人证明数学定理的方式来证明哲学上的真理。换句话说,他希望运用我们在计算数字时所有的同一种工具——理性——来解决哲学问题,因为唯有理性才能使我们得到确实的知识,而感官则并非如此确实可靠。我们曾经提过他与柏拉图相似的地方。柏拉图也说过数学与数字的比例要比感官的体验更加确实可靠。”
   “可是我们能用这种方式来解决哲学问题吗?”
   “我们还是回到笛卡尔的思维好了。他的目标是希望能在生命的本质这个问题上获得某种确定的答案。他的第一步是主张在一开始时我们应该对每一件事都加以怀疑,因为他不希望他的思想是建立在一个不确实的基础上。”
   “嗯,因为如果地基垮了的话,整栋房子也会倒塌。”
   “说得好。笛卡尔并不认为怀疑一切事物是合理的,但他以为从原则上来说怀疑一切事物是可能的。举个例子,我们在读了柏拉图或亚理斯多德的著作后,并不一定会增强我们研究哲学的欲望。
   这些理论固然可能增进我们对历史的认识,但并不一定能够使我们更加了解这个世界。笛卡尔认为,在他开始建构自己的哲学体系之前,必须先挣脱前人理论的影响。”
   “在兴建一栋属于自己的新房子以前,他想清除房屋地基上的所有旧瓦砾……”
   “说得好。他希望用全新的材料来建造这栋房屋,以便确定他所建构的新思想体系能够站得住脚。不过,笛卡尔所怀疑的还不止于前人的理论。他甚至认为我们不能信任自己的感官,因为感官可能会误导我们。”
   “怎么说呢?”
   “当我们做梦时,我们以为自己置身真实世界中。那么,我们清,醒时的感觉与我们做梦时的感觉之间有何区别呢?笛卡尔写道:
   ‘当我仔细思索这个问题时,我发现人清醒时的状态与做梦时的状态并不一定有所分别。’他并且说:‘你怎能确定你的生命不是一场梦呢?”’“杰普认为他躺在男爵床上的那段时间只不过是一场梦而已。”
   “而当他躺在男爵的床上时,他以为自己过去那段务农的贫穷生活只不过是个梦而已。所以,笛卡尔最终怀疑每一件事物。在他之前的许多哲学家走到这里就走不下去了。”
   “所以他们并没有走多远。”
   “可是笛卡尔却设法从这个零点开始出发。他怀疑每一件事,而这正是他唯一能够确定的事情。此时他悟出一个道理:有一件事情必定是真实的,那就是他怀疑。当他怀疑时,他必然是在思考,而由于他在思考,那么他必定是个会思考的存在者。用他自己的话来说,就是:Cogito,ergosum。”
   “什么意思?”
   “我思故我在。”
   “我一点都不奇怪他会悟出这点。”
   “不错。但请你注意他突然间视自己为会思考的存在者的那种直观的确定性。也许你还记得柏拉图说过:我们以理性所领会的知识要比我们以感官所领会的更加真实。对笛卡尔来说正是如此。他不仅察觉到自己是一个会思考的‘我’,也发现这个会思考的‘我’要比我们的感官所观察到的物质世界更加真实。同时,他的哲学探索并未到此为止。他仍旧继续追寻答案。”
   “我希望你也能继续下去。”
   “后来,笛卡尔开始问,自己是否能以同样直观的确定性来察知其他事物。他的结论是:在他的心灵中,他很清楚地知道何谓完美的实体,这种概念他一向就有。但是他认为这种概念显然不可能来自他本身,因为对于完美实体的概念不可能来自一个本身并不完美的人,所以它必定来自那个完美实体本身,也就是上帝。因此,对笛卡尔而言,上帝的存在是一件很明显的事实,就像一个会思考的存在者必定存在一样。”
   “他这个结论下得太早了一些。他一开始时似乎比较谨慎。”
   “你说得对。许多人认为这是笛卡尔的弱点。不过你刚才说‘结论’,事实上这个问题并不需要证明。笛卡尔的意思只是说我们都是具有对于完美实体的概念,由此可见这个完美实体的本身必定存在。因为一个完美的实体如果不存在,就不算完美了,此外,如果世上没有所谓的完美实体,我们也不会具有完美实体的概念。因为我们本身是不完美的,所以完美的概念不可能来自于我们。笛卡尔认为,上帝这个概念是与生俱来的,乃是我们出生时就烙印在我们身上的,‘就像工匠在他的作品上打上记号一般。”’“没错,可是我有‘鳄象’这个概念并不代表真的有‘鳄象’存在呀!”
   “笛卡尔会说,‘鳄象’这个概念中并不包含它必然存在的事实。但‘完美实体’这个概念中却包含它必然存在的事实。笛卡尔认为,这就像‘圆’这个概念的要素之一就是,圆上所有的点必须与圆心等长一样。如果不符合这点,圆就不成其为圆。同样的,如果缺少‘存在’这个最重要的特质,一个‘完美的实体’也就不成其为‘完美的实体’了。”
   “这种想法很奇怪。”
   “这就是典型的‘理性主义者’的思考模式。笛卡尔和苏格拉底与柏拉图一样,相信理性与存在之间有所关联。依理性看来愈是明显的事情,它的存在也就愈加可以肯定。”
   “到目前为止,他只讲到人是会思考的动物,以及宇宙间有一个完美的实体这两件事。”
   “是的。他从这两点出发,继续探讨。在谈到我们对外在现实世界(如太阳和月亮)的概念时,笛卡尔认为,这些概念可能都只是幻象。但是外在现实世界也有若干我们可以用理性察知的特点,这些特点就是它们的数学特质,也就是诸如宽、高等可以测量的特性。这些‘量’方面的特性对于我们的理性来说,就像人会思考这个事实一般显而易见。至于‘质’方面的特性,如颜色、气味和味道等,则与我们的感官经验有关,因此并不足以描述外在的真实世界。”
   “这么说大自然毕竟不是一场梦。”
   “没错。在这一点上,笛卡尔再度引用我们对完美实体的概念。
   当我们的理智很清楚地认知一件事物(例如外在真实世界的数学特性)时,那么这件事物必定是如同我们所认知的那样。因为一个完美的上帝是不会欺骗我们的。笛卡尔宣称‘上帝可以保证’我们用理智所认知到的一切事物必然会与现实世界相符。”
   二元论“那么,他到目前为止已经发现了三件事:一、人是会思考的生物,二、上帝是存在的,三、宇宙有一个外在的真实世界。”
   “嗯,但基本上这个外在的真实世界还是与我们思想的真实世界不同。笛卡尔宣称宇宙间共有两种不同形式的真实世界(或称‘实体’)。一种实体称为思想或‘灵魂’,另一种则称为‘扩延’(Ex—tension),或称物质。灵魂纯粹是属于意识的,不占空间,因此也不能再分解为更小的单位;而物质则纯粹是扩延,会占空间,因此可以一再被分解为更小的单位,但却没有意识。笛卡尔认为这两种本体都来自上帝,因为唯有上帝本身是独立存在的,不隶属任何事物。不过,‘思想’与‘扩延’虽然都来自上帝,但彼此却没有任何接触。思想不受物质的影响,反之,物质的变化也不受思想的影响。”
   “这么说他将上帝的造物一分为二。”
   “确实如此。所以我们说笛卡尔是二元论者,意思就是他将思想的真实世界与扩延的真实世界区分得一清二楚。比方说,他认为只有人才有灵魂,动物则完全属于扩延的真实世界,它们的生命和行为都是机械化的。他将动物当成是一种复杂的机械装置。在谈到扩延的真实世界时,他采取十足的机械论观点,就像是一个唯物论者。”
   “我不太相信汉密士只是一部机器或一种机械装置。我想笛卡尔一定不是很喜欢动物。那么我们人类又如何呢?我们难道也是一种机械装置吗?”
   “一部分是,一部分不是。笛卡尔的结论是:人是一种二元的存在物,既会思考,也会占空间。因此人既有灵魂,也有一个扩延的身体。圣奥古斯丁与圣多玛斯也曾经说过类似的话。他们同样认为人有一个像动物一般的身体,也有一个像天使一般的灵魂。在笛卡尔的想法中,人的身体十足是一部机器,但人也有一个灵魂可以独立运作,不受身体的影响。至于人体则没有这种自由,必须遵守一套适用于他们的法则。我们用理智所思考的事物并不发生于身体内,而是发生于灵魂中,因此完全不受扩延的真实世界左右。顺便一提的是,笛卡尔并不否认动物也可能有思想。不过,如果它们有这种能力,那么有关‘思想’与‘扩延’的二分法必定也适用于它们。”
   “我们曾经谈过这个。如果我决定要追赶一辆公车,那么我的身体这整部‘机械装置’都会开始运转。如果我没赶上,我的眼睛就开始流泪。”
   “连笛卡尔也不能否认灵魂与身体之间时常相互作用。他相信只要灵魂存在于身体内一天,它就与会透过一个他称为松桌腺的脑部器官与人脑连结。‘灵魂’与‘物质’就在松果腺内时时相互作用。因此,灵魂可能会时常受到与身体需要有关的种种感觉与冲引的影响。不过,灵魂也能够挣脱这种‘原始’冲动的控制,而独立于身体之运作。它的目标是使理性获得掌控权。因为,即使我肚子痛得很厉害,一个三角形内所有内角的总和仍然会是一百八十度。所以思想有能力超脱身体的需求,而做出‘合乎理性’的行为,从这个角度来看,灵魂要比身体高尚。我们的腿可能会衰老无力,我们的背可能变驼,我们的牙齿会掉,但只要我们的理性存在一天,二加二就永远是四。理性不会变驼、变弱。老化的是我们的身体。对笛卡尔而言,理性事实上就是灵魂。诸如欲望、憎恨等原始的冲动与感情与我们的身体功能关系较为密切,所以与扩延的真实世界的关系也较为密切。”
   “我还是没办法接受笛卡尔将人体比做一部机器或一种机械装置的说法。”
   “这是因为在他那个时代,人们对于那些似乎能够自行运转的机器及钟表非常着迷。‘机械装置’指的就是一种能够自行运转的东西。不过这显然只是一个幻觉,事实上他们并不是真的能够自行运转。举例来说,一座天文钟不但是由人类制造的,而且必须有人来上发条。笛卡尔强调,这类巧妙的发明事实上是由一些零件以简单的方式组合而成。而组成人类与动物身体的各种骨骼、肌肉、神经、静脉与动脉也可以说是一种零件,只是数量较为庞大而已。上帝为什么不可能依照机械定律来创造动物或人类的身体呢?”
   “现代有很多人谈到所谓的‘人工智慧’。”
   “没错。这些都是现代的机械装置。我们已经创造一些有时看起来似乎很有智慧的机器。类似这样的机器将会使笛卡尔吓破胆。
   他也许会开始怀疑人类的理性是否真的像他所说的那么独立自主。现代也有一些哲学认为人的精神生活并不比身体各官能要自由。当然人的灵魂确实是比任何数据程式都要复杂得多,但有些人认为基本上我们就像这些数据程式一样是不自由的。现在,苏菲,我要给你看一样东西。”
   艾伯特指着位于房间另一头的一张大书桌。上面放着一台小电脑。他走过去,苏菲也跟着他。
   会面艾伯特将电脑打开,荧屏的上方很快显示出一个C:符号。他键人“莱拉”这个字,并向苏菲解释这是一个很先进的对话程式。
   荧屏上方马上出现一行字:
   “嗨,我的名字叫莱拉。你现在坐得舒服吗?”
   虽然苏菲还没有坐下,但她仍键入:
   “是的。”这时,艾伯特拿了一张椅子给她。
   “你叫什么名字?”荧屏问道。
   “苏菲。”苏菲键入这几个字。电脑回答道:
   “苜蓿巷三号。很高兴见到你,苏菲。你是不是很盼望在十五日那天过生日?”
   苏菲吓了一跳。艾伯特将一双手放在她的肩膀上说道:
   “我只不过是输进你的姓名、地址和出生日期而已。就像你要被介绍给一个新朋友一样,能够事先对对方有点了解总是比较好。”
   “还好。”苏菲写道。
   “喔,苏菲,我希望你没有什么地方不舒服。你必须要写完整的句子才行。”
   “谢谢你,我很好,我可以问你一件事吗?”
   “我很高兴你没事。有什么事你就问吧!”
   “你几岁?”苏菲写道。
   “我是一九八八年八月八日在亚特兰大制造的,一九九O年三月二十八日被挪威理工学院译成挪威文。”
   “天哪(Gosh)!”
   “我说过你必须输进完整的句子。”
   “我只说天哪。”
   “我不懂俚语。我的字库里有十多万字,但我所能找到最接近‘Gosh'的字是Gospel(福音)。”
   “那是指有关耶稣的故事。”
   “你是一个基督徒吗?”
   “我也不知道。”
   “照道理,承认自己不知道乃是获得新知识的一步。”
   “苏格拉底很可能也会这样说,笛卡尔也是。”
   “苏格拉底是希腊哲学家,生于公元前四七O年到公元前三九九年。如果你希望知道得更多,请按F7键。笛卡尔是法国哲学家,生于公元一五九六年到一六五O年间。如果你希望知道得更多,请按F8键。”
   “谢谢你,这样就够了。我可以问你别的事吗?”
   “我很高兴这样就够了。请问吧!”
   艾伯特悄悄地笑了一下。苏菲写道:
   “席德是谁?”
   “席德住在黎乐桑,跟苏菲同年。”
   “你怎么知道?”
   “我不知道。我在硬碟上找到她的资料。”
   苏菲感觉有一双手放在她的肩膀上。
   “我已经把我们所知道的一点关于席德的资料输进这个程式。”艾伯特说。
   “关于席德,你还知道些什么?”
   “席德的父亲是一位联合国驻黎巴嫩的观察员。他的军阶是少校,并且不断寄明信片给他女儿。”
   “我希望你能找到关于他的资料。”
   “我不能。他不在我的档案里,而且我也没有和其他的资料库连线。”
   “我要你找到他!! !!!!”
   “你生气了吗?苏菲。这么多惊叹号是显示一种强烈感情的符号。”
   “我要和席德的父亲说话。”
   “你好像很难控制自己。如果你想谈谈你的童年,请按F9键。”
   艾伯特再度把手放在苏菲的肩上。
   “电脑说得没错。它不是一个水晶球,莱拉只是一个电脑程式。”
   “闭嘴!”苏菲写道。
   “好吧!苏菲。我们只认识了十三分五十二秒。我会记得我们所说的每一件事情。现在我要结束这个程式了。”
   之后,C这个符号再度出现于荧屏。
   “现在我们可以再坐下来了。”
   但苏菲已经按了其他几个键。
   “艾勃特。”她写。
   下面几行字立刻出现在荧屏上:
   “我在这里。”
   现在轮到艾伯特吓一跳了。
   ”“你是谁?”苏菲写道。
   “艾勃特少校向你报到。我直接从黎巴嫩来,请问我的女士有何命令?”
   “再没有比这个更过分的了!”艾伯特喘气道,“这个鬼鬼祟祟的东西居然偷溜到硬碟里来了!”
   他把苏菲推离椅子,并且坐到键盘前。
   “你是怎么跑进我的个人电脑里面的?”
   “小事一桩,我亲爱的同仁。我想在哪里,就在哪里。”
   “你这个可恶的电脑病毒!”
   “此时此刻我可是以生日病毒的身分来到这里。我可不可以说一些特别的贺词?”
   “不,谢了,我们已经看得够多了。”
   “我只花一点时间:亲爱的席德,这都是因为你的缘故。让我再说一次,祝你十五岁生日快乐。请你原谅我在这种场合出现。不过我只是希望无论你走到哪里,都可以看到我写给你的生日贺词,我很想好好地拥抱你一下。爱你的爸爸。”
   在艾伯特还没有来得及键入什么字之前,C这个符号已经再度出现在荧屏上。
   艾伯特键人"dir艾勃特,.x”,结果在荧屏上现出了下列资料:
   艾勃特1il147,64306/15—9012:47
   艾勃特lil326,43916—23—9022:34
   艾伯特键人“清除艾勃特x.x”,并关掉电脑。
   “现在我可把他给消除了。”他说。“不过很难说他下次会在什么地方出现。”
   他仍然坐在那儿,盯着电脑看。然后他说:
   “最糟糕的部分就是名字。艾勃特……”
   苏菲第一次发现艾勃特和艾伯特这两个名字是如此相像。可是看到艾伯特如此生气,她一句话也不敢说。他们一起走到茶几那儿,再度坐下来。





暮辞朝

ZxID:15103679


等级: 内阁元老
配偶: 清风雅乐
这一段开心的日子请你勿忘
举报 只看该作者 19楼  发表于: 2013-10-26 0
英文原文
Descartes
... he wanted to clear all the rubble off the site
Alberto stood up, took off the red cloak, and laid it over a chair. Then he settled himself once again in the corner of the sofa.
"Rene Descartes was born in 1596 and lived in a number of different European countries at various periods of his life. Even as a young man he had a strong desire to achieve insight into the nature of man and the universe. But after studying philosophy he became increasingly convinced of his own ignorance."
"Like Socrates?"
"More or less like him, yes. Like Socrates, he was convinced that certain knowledge is only attainable through reason. We can never trust what the old books tell us. We cannot even trust what our senses tell us."
"Plato thought that too. He believed that only reason can give us certain knowledge."
"Exactly. There is a direct line of descent from Socrates and Plato via St. Augustine to Descartes. They were all typical rationalists, convinced that reason was the only path to knowledge. After comprehensive studies, Descartes came to the conclusion that the body of knowledge handed down from the Middle Ages was not necessarily reliable. You can compare him to Socrates, who did not trust the general views he encountered in the central square of Athens. So what does one do, Sophie? Can you tell me that?"
"You begin to work out your own philosophy."
"Right! Descartes decided to travel around Europe, the way Socrates spent his life talking to people in Athens. He relates that from then on he meant to confine himself to seeking the wisdom that was to be found, either within himself or in the 'great book of the world.' So he joined the army and went to war, which enabled him to spend periods of time in different parts of Central Europe. Later he lived for some years in Paris, but in 1629 he went to Holland, where he remained for nearly twenty years working on his mathematical and philosophic writings.
"In 1649 he was invited to Sweden by Queen Christina. But his sojourn in what he called 'the land of bears, ice, and rocks' brought on an attack of pneumonia and he died in the winter of 1650."
"So he was only 54 when he died."
"Yes, but he was to have enormous influence on philosophy, even after his death. One can say without exaggeration that Descartes was the father of modern philosophy. Following the heady rediscovery of man and nature in the Renaissance, the need to assemble contemporary thought into one coherent philosophical system again presented itself. The first significant system-builder was Descartes, and he was followed by Spinoza and Leibniz, Locke and Berkeley, Hume and Kant."
"What do you mean by a philosophical system?"
"I mean a philosophy that is constructed from the ground up and that is concerned with finding explanations for all the central questions of philosophy. Antiquity had its great system-constructors in Plato and Aristotle. The Middle Ages had St. Thomas Aquinas, who tried to build a bridge between Aristotle's philosophy and Christian theology. Then came the Renais-sance, with a welter of old and new beliefs about nature and science, God and man. Not until the seventeenth century did philosophers make any attempt to assemble the new ideas into a clarified philosophical system, and the first to attempt it was Descartes. His work was the forerunner of what was to be philosophy's most important project in the coming generations. His main concern was with what we can know, or in other words, certain knowledge. The other great question that preoccupied him was the relationship between body and mind. Both these questions were the substance of philosophical argument for the next hundred and fifty years."
"He must have been ahead of his time."
"Ah, but the question belonged to the age. When it came to acquiring certain knowledge, many of his contemporaries voiced a total philosophic skepticism. They thought that man should accept that he knew nothing. But Descartes would not. Had he done so he would not have been a real philosopher. We can again draw a parallel with Socrates, who did not accept the skepticism of the Sophists. And it was in Descartes's lifetime that the new natural sciences were developing a method by which to provide certain and exact descriptions of natural processes.
"Descartes was obliged to ask himself if there was a similar certain and exact method of philosophic reflection."
"That I can understand."
"But that was only part of it. The new physics had also raised the question of the nature of matter, and thus what determines the physical processes of nature. More and more people argued in favor of a mechanistic view of nature. But the more mechanistic the physical world was seen to be, the more pressing became the question of the relationship between body and soul. Until the seventeenth century, the soul had commonly been considered as a sort of 'breath of life' that pervaded all living creatures. The original meaning of the words 'soul' and 'spirit' is, in fact, 'breath' and 'breathing.' This is the case for almost all European languages. To Aristotle, the soul was something that was present everywhere in the organism as its 'life principle'--and therefore could not be conceived as separate from the body. So he was able to speak of a plant soul or an animal soul. Philosophers did not introduce any radical division of soul and body until the seventeenth century. The reason was that the motions of all material objects--including the body, animal or human--were explained as involving mechanical processes. But man's soul could surely not be part of this body machinery, could it? What of the soul, then? An explanation was required not least of how something 'spiritual' could start a mechanical process."
"It's a strange thought, actually."
"What is?"
"I decide to lift my arm--and then, well, the arm lifts itself. Or I decide to run for a bus, and the next second my legs are moving. Or I'm thinking about something sad, and suddenly I'm crying. So there must be some mysterious connection between body and consciousness."
"That was exactly the problem that set Descartes's thoughts going. Like Plato, he was convinced that there was a sharp division between 'spirit' and 'matter.' But as to how the mind influences the body--or the soul the body--Plato could not provide an answer."
"Neither have I, so I am looking forward to hearing what Descartes's theory was."
"Let us follow his own line of reasoning."
Albert pointed to the book that lay on the table between them.
"In his Discourse on Method, Descartes raises the question of the method the philosopher must use to solve a philosophical problem. Science already had its new method..."
"So you said."
"Descartes maintains that we cannot accept anything as being true unless we can clearly and distinctly perceive it. To achieve this can require the breaking down of a compound problem into as many single factors as possible. Then we can take our point of departure in the simplest idea of all. You could say that every single thought must be weighed and measured, rather in the way Galileo wanted everything to be measured and everything immeasurable to be made measurable. Descartes believed that philosophy should go from the simple to the complex. Only then would it be possible to construct a new insight. And finally it would be necessary to ensure by constant enumeration and control that nothing was left out. Then, a philosophical conclusion would be within reach."
"It sounds almost like a math test."
"Yes. Descartes was a mathematician; he is considered the father of analytical geometry, and he made important contributions to the science of algebra. Descartes wanted to use the 'mathematical method' even for philosophizing. He set out to prove philosophical truths in the way one proves a mathematical theorem. In other words, he wanted to use exactly the same instrument that we use when we work with figures, namely, reason, since only reason can give us certainty. It is far from certain that we can rely on our senses. We have already noted Descartes's affinity with Plato, who also observed that mathematics and numerical ratio give us more certainty than the evidence of our senses."
"But can one solve philosophical problems that way?"
"We had better go back to Descartes's own reasoning. His aim is to reach certainty about the nature of life, and he starts by maintaining that at first one should doubt everything. He didn't want to build on sand, you see."
"No, because if the foundations give way, the whole house collapses."
"As you so neatly put it, my child. Now, Descartes did not think it reasonable to doubt everything, but he thought it was possible in principle to doubt everything. For one thing, it is by no means certain that we advance our philosophical quest by reading Plato or Aristotle. It may increase our knowledge of history but not of the world. It was important for Descartes to rid himself of all handed down, or received, learning before beginning his own philosophical construction."
"He wanted to clear all the rubble off the site before starting to build his new house ..."
"Thank you. He wanted to use only fresh new materials in order to be sure that his new thought construction would hold. But Descartes's doubts went even deeper. We cannot even trust what our senses tell us, he said. Maybe they are deceiving us."
"How come?"
"When we dream, we feel we are experiencing reality. What separates our waking feelings from our dream feelings?
" 'When I consider this carefully, I find not a single property which with certainty separates the waking state from the dream,' writes Descartes. And he goes on: 'How can you be certain that your whole life is not a dream?' "
"Jeppe thought he had only been dreaming when he had slept in the Baron's bed."
"And when he was lying in the Baron's bed, he thought his life as a poor peasant was only a dream. So in the same way, Descartes ends up doubting absolutely everything. Many philosophers before him had reached the end of the road at that very point."
"So they didn't get very far."
"But Descartes tried to work forward from this zero point. He doubted everything, and that was the only thing he was certain of. But now something struck him: one thing had to be true, and that was that he doubted. When he doubted, he had to be thinking, and because he was thinking, it had to be certain that he was a thinking being. Or, as he himself expressed it: Cogito, ergo sum."
"Which means?"
"I think, therefore I am."
"I'm not surprised he realized that."
"Fair enough. But notice the intuitive certainty with which he suddenly perceives himself as a thinking being. Perhaps you now recall what Plato said, that what we grasp with our reason is more real than what we grasp with our senses. That's the way it was for Descartes. He perceived not only that he was a thinking /, he realized at the same time that this thinking / was more real than the material world which we perceive with our senses. And he went on. He was by no means through with his philosophical quest."
"What came next?"
"Descartes now asked himself if there was anything more he could perceive with the same intuitive certainty.
He came to the conclusion that in his mind he had a clear and distinct idea of a perfect entity. This was an idea he had always had, and it was thus self-evident to Descartes that such an idea could not possibly have come from himself. The idea of a perfect entity cannot have originated from one who was himself imperfect, he claimed. Therefore the idea of a perfect entity must have originated from that perfect entity itself, or in other words, from God. That God exists was therefore just as self-evident for Descartes as that a thinking being must exist."
"Now he was jumping to a conclusion. He was more cautious to begin with."
"You're right. Many people have called that his weak spot. But you say 'conclusion.' Actually it was not a question of proof. Descartes only meant that we all possess the idea of a perfect entity, and that inherent in that idea is the fact that this perfect entity must exist. Because a perfect entity wouldn't be perfect if it didn't exist. Neither would we possess the idea of a perfect entity if there were no perfect entity. For we are imperfect, so the idea of perfection cannot come from us. According to Descartes, the idea of God is innate, it is stamped on us from birth 'like the artisan's mark stamped on his product.' "
"Yes, but just because I possess the idea of a crocophant doesn't mean that the crocophant exists."
"Descartes would have said that it is not inherent in the concept of a crocophant that it exists. On the other hand, it is inherent in the concept of a perfect entity that such an entity exists. According to Descartes, this is just as certain as it is inherent in the idea of a circle that all points of the circle are equidistant from the center. You cannot have a circle that does not conform to this law. Nor can you have a perfect entity that lacks its most important property, namely, existence."
"That's an odd way of thinking."
"It is a decidedly rationalistic way of thinking. Descartes believed like Socrates and Plato that there is a connection between reason and being. The more self-evident a thing is to one's reason, the more certain it is that it exists."
"So far he has gotten to the fact that he is a thinking person and that there exists a perfect entity."
"Yes, and with this as his point of departure, he proceeds. In the question of all the ideas we have about outer reality--for example, the sun and the moon--there is the possibility that they are fantasies. But outer reality also has certain characteristics that we can perceive with our reason. These are the mathematical properties, or, in other words, the kinds of things that are measurable, such as length, breadth, and depth. Such 'quantitative' properties are just as clear and distinct to my reason as the fact that I am a thinking being. 'Qualitative' properties such as color, smell, and taste, on the other hand, are linked to our sense perception and as such do not describe outer reality."
"So nature is not a dream after all."
"No, and on that point Descartes once again draws upon our idea of the perfect entity. When our reason recognizes something clearly and distinctly--as is the case for the mathematical properties of outer reality--it must necessarily be so. Because a perfect God would not deceive us. Descartes claims 'God's guarantee' that whatever we perceive with our reason also corresponds to reality."
"Okay, so now he's found out he's a thinking being, God exists, and there is an outer reality."
"Ah, but the outer reality is essentially different from the reality of thought. Descartes now maintains that there are two different forms of reality--or two 'substances.' One substance is thought, or the 'mind,' the other is extension, or matter. The mind is purely conscious, it takes up no room in space and can therefore not be subdivided into smaller parts. Matter, however, is purely extension, it takes up room in space and can therefore always be subdivided into smaller and smaller parts-- but it has no consciousness. Descartes maintained that both substances originate from God, because only God himself exists independently of anything else. But al-though both thought and extension come from God, the two substances have no contact with each other. Thought is quite independent of matter, and conversely, the material processes are quite independent of thought."
"So he divided God's creation into two."
"Precisely. We say that Descartes is a dualist, which means that he effects a sharp division between the reality of thought and extended reality. For example, only man has a mind. Animals belong completely to extended reality. Their living and moving are accomplished me-chanically. Descartes considered an animal to be a kind of complicated automaton. As regards extended reality, he takes a thoroughly mechanistic view--exactly like the materialists."
"I doubt very much that Hermes is a machine or an automaton. Descartes couldn't have liked animals very much. And what about us? Are we automatons as well?"
"We are and we aren't. Descartes came to the conclusion that man is a dual creature that both thinks and takes up room in space. Man has thus both a mind and an extended body. St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas had already said something similar, namely, that man had a body like the animals and a soul like the angels. According to Descartes, the human body is a perfect machine. But man also has a mind which can operate quite independently of the body. The bodily processes do not have the same freedom, they obey their own laws. But what we think with our reason does not happen in the body--it happens in the mind, which is completely independent of extended reality. I should add, by the way, that Descartes did not reject the possibility that animals could think. But if they have that faculty, the same dualism between thought and extension must also apply to them."
"We have talked about this before. If I decide to run after a bus, the whole 'automaton' goes into action. And if I don't catch the bus, I start to cry."
"Even Descartes could not deny that there is a constant interaction between mind and body. As long as the mind is in the body, he believed, it is linked to the brain through a special brain organ which he called the pineal gland, where a constant interaction takes place between 'spirit' and 'matter.' Therefore the mind can constantly be affected by feelings and passions that are related to bodily needs. But the mind can also detach itself from such 'base' impulses and operate independently of the body. The aim is to get reason to assume command. Because even if I have the worst pain in my stomach, the sum of the angles in a triangle will still be 180 de-grees. Thus humans have the capacity to rise above bodily needs and behave rationally. In this sense the mind is superior to the body. Our legs can age and become weak, the back can become bowed and our teeth can fall out--but two and two will go on being four as long as there is reason left in us. Reason doesn't become bowed and weak. It is the body that ages. For Descartes, the mind is essentially thought. Baser passions and feelings such as desire and hate are more closely linked to our bodily functions--and therefore to extended reality."
"I can't get over the fact that Descartes compared the human body to a machine or an automaton."
"The comparison was based on the fact that people in his time were deeply fascinated by machines and the workings of clocks, which appeared to have the ability to function of their own accord. The word 'automaton' means precisely that--something that moves of its own accord. It was obviously only an illusion that they moved of their own accord. An astronomical clock, for instance, is both constructed and wound up by human hands. Descartes made a point of the fact that ingenious inventions of that kind were actually assembled very simply from a relatively small number of parts compared with the vast number of bones, muscles, nerves, veins, and arteries that the human and the animal body consists of. Why should God not be able to make an animal or a human body based on mechanical laws?"
"Nowadays there is a lot of talk about 'artificial intelligence.' "
"Yes, that is the automaton of our time. We have created machines that can sometimes deceive us into believing that they are intelligent. Machines like these would have terrified Descartes out of his wits. He might have begun to doubt whether human reason really was as free and independent as he had supposed. And there are philosophers who believe that man's spiritual life is no more free than the bodily processes. The human soul is naturally infinitely more complex than any data program, but some people think that in principle we are just as unfree as these data programs. But look, Sophie--I'll show you something."
Alberto pointed to a large writing table at the other end of the room. On it stood a small computer. He went over to it. Sophie followed him.
Alberto switched the computer on and soon the screen showed C: at the top. He wrote "Laila," explaining that this was an advanced conversation program.
A text soon appeared at the top of the screen:
"Hi, my name is Laila. Are you sitting comfortably?"
Sophie entered three letters:
"Yes," she wrote although she had not yet sat down. Alberto brought up a chair for her.
"What is your name?" appeared on the screen.
"Sophie Amundsen," wrote Sophie, and the computer answered:
"3 Clover Close. Nice to meet you, Sophie. Are you looking forward to your fifteenth birthday?"
Sophie was startled. Alberto laid a hand on her shoulder and said: "I have only given her your name, your address, and your date of birth. It's like when you are going to be introduced to a new friend. It's nice to know a little about them beforehand."
"Not bad," wrote Sophie.
"Oh dear, I hope you are not feeling bad, Sophie. You must try to talk in whole sentences."
"Thank you, I'm perfectly well. Can I ask you something?"
"I am glad you are well. Go ahead and ask me something."
"How old are you?" Sophie wrote.
"I was constructed in Atlanta on August 8, 1988, but I was translated into Norwegian at the Norwegian Polytechnic on March 28, 1990."
"Gosh!"
"I said you must talk in whole sentences."
"I only said gosh!"
"I do not understand slang. I have a vocabulary of over 100,000 words, but the nearest I can find to gosh is gospel."
"That means the story of Jesus."
"Are you a Christian, Sophie?"
"I don't know."
"As a rule not knowing is a step toward new knowledge."
"Socrates would most likely have said the same. Or Descartes, for that matter."
"Socrates was a Greek philosopher who lived from 470 to 399 B.C. If you wish to know more, press F7. Descartes was a French philosopher who lived from 1596 to 1650. If you wish to know more, press F7."
"Thank you, that will be quite enough. Can I ask you something else?"
"I am glad that this was enough. Go ahead and ask!"
Alberto laughed quietly. Sophie wrote:
"Who is Hilde Moller Knag?"
"Hilde Moller Knag lives in Lillesand and is exactly the same age as Sophie Amundsen."
"How do you know?"
"I don't know how. I found her on the hard disc."
Sophie felt a hand on her shoulder.
"I have fed the data program with the little information we have about Hilde," said Alberto.
"What else do you know about Hilde?" wrote Sophie.
"Hilde's father is a UN Observer in Lebanon. He has the rank of major and continually sends postcards to his daughter."
"I want you to find him!"
"I can't do that. He is not on any of my files and I am not coupled to any other data base."
"I said find him!!!!!!!!"
"Are you angry, Sophie? So many exclamation marks are a sign of violent feelings."
"I want to talk to Hilde's father!"
"You have difficulty controlling yourself. If you wish to talk about your childhood, press F9."
Alberto laid his hand on Sophie's shoulder again.
"She's right. This is not a crystal ball. Laila is only a data program."
"Shut up!" wrote Sophie.
"As you wish, Sophie. Our acquaintance lasted only 13 minutes and 52 seconds. I shall remember everything we have said. I shall now end the program."
The letter C: once again showed up on the screen.
"Now we can sit down again," said Alberto.
But Sophie had already pressed some other keys.
"Knag," she wrote.
Immediately the following message appeared on the screen:
"Here I am."
Now it was Alberto who jumped.
"Who are you?" wrote Sophie.
"Major Albert Knag at your service. I came straight from Lebanon. What is your command?"
"This beats everything!" breathed Alberto. "The rat has sneaked onto the hard disc."
He motioned for Sophie to move and sat down in front of the keyboard.
"How did you manage to get into my PC?" he wrote.
"A mere bagatelle, dear colleague. I am exactly where I choose to be."
"You loathsome data virus!"
"Now, now! At the moment I am here as a birthday virus. May I send a special greeting?"
"No thanks, we've had enough of them."
"But I'll be quick: all in your honor, dear Hilde. Once again, a very happy fifteenth birthday. Please excuse the circumstances, but I wanted my birthday greetings to spring up around you everywhere you go. Love from Dad, who is longing to give you a great big hug."
Before Alberto could write again, the sign C: had once again appeared on the screen.
Alberto wrote "dir knag*.*," which called up the following information on the screen:

***
22:34
Alberto wrote "erase knag*.*" and switched off the computer.
"There--now I have erased him," he said. "But it's impossible to say where he'll turn up next time."
He went on sitting there, staring at the screen. Then he added:
"The worst of it all was the name. Albert Knag ..."
For the first time Sophie was struck by the similarity between the two names. Albert Knag and Alberto Knox. But Alberto was so incensed that she dared not say a word. They went over and sat by the coffee table again.





中文翻译
   笛卡尔
   ……他希望清除工地上所有的瓦砾……
   艾伯特站起身来,脱下红色披风,搁在椅子上,然后再度坐在沙发的一角。
   “笛卡尔诞生于一五九六年,一生中曾住过几个欧洲国家。他在年轻时就已经有强烈的欲望要洞悉人与宇宙的本质。但在研习哲学之后,他逐渐体认到自己的无知。”
   “就像苏格拉底一样?”
   “是的,或多或少。他像苏格拉底一样,相信唯有透过理性才能获得确实的知识。他认为我们不能完全相信古籍的记载,也不能完全信任感官的知觉。”
   “柏拉图也这么想。他相信确实的知识只能经由理性获得。”
   “没错。苏格拉底、柏拉图、圣奥古斯丁与笛卡尔在这方面可说是一脉相传。他们都是典型的理性主义者,相信理性星通往知识的唯一途径。经过广泛研究后,笛卡尔得到了一个结论:中世纪以来的各哲学并不一定可靠。这和苏格拉底不全然相信他在雅典广场所听到的各家观点一样。在这种情况下该怎么办呢?苏菲,你能告诉我吗?”
   那就开始创立自己的哲学呀!现代的哲学之父“对!笛卡尔于是决定到欧洲各地游历,就像当年苏格拉底终其一生都在雅典与人谈话一样。笛卡尔说,今后他将专心致力寻求前所未有的智慧,包括自己内心的智慧与‘世界这本大书’中的智慧。因此他便从军打仗,也因此有机会客居中欧各地。后来,他在巴黎住了几年,并在一六二九年时前往荷兰,在那儿住了将近二十年,撰写哲学书籍。一六四九年时他应克丽思蒂娜皇后的邀请前往瑞典。然而他在这个他所谓的‘熊、冰雪与岩石的土地’上罹患了肺炎,终于在一六五O年的冬天与世长辞。”
   “这么说他去世时只有五十四岁。”
   “是的,但他死后对哲学界仍然具有重要的影响力。所以说,称笛卡尔为现代哲学之父是一点也不为过。在文艺复兴时期,人们重新发现了人与大自然的价值。在历经这样一个令人兴奋的年代之后,人们开始觉得有必要将现代的思想整理成一套哲学体系。而第一个创立一套重要的哲学体系的人正是笛卡尔。在他之后,又有史宾诺莎、莱布尼兹、洛克、柏克莱、休姆和康德等人。”
   “你所谓的哲学体系是什么意思?”
   “我指的是一套从基础开始创立,企图为所有重要的哲学性问题寻求解释的哲学。古代有柏拉图与亚理斯多德这几位伟大的哲学体系创立者。中世纪则有圣多玛斯努力为亚理斯多德的哲学与基督教的神学搭桥。到了文艺复兴时期,各种有关自然与科学、上帝与人等问题的思潮汹涌起伏,新旧杂陈。一直到十七世纪,哲学家们才开始尝试整理各种新思想,以综合成一个条理分明的哲学体系。第一位做这种尝试的人就是笛卡尔。他的努力成为后世各种重要哲学研究课题的先驱。他最感兴趣的题目,是我们所拥有的确实知识以及肉体与灵魂之间的关系。这两大问题成为后来一百五十年间哲学家争论的主要内容。”
   “他一定超越了他那个时代。”
   “嗯,不过这些问题却属于那个时代。在谈到如何获取确实的知识时,当时许多人持一种全然怀疑的论调,认为人应该接受自己一无所知事实。但笛卡尔却不愿如此。他如果接受这个事实,那他就不是一个真正的哲学家了。他的态度就像当年苏格拉底不肯接受诡辩学派的怀疑论调一样。在笛卡尔那个时代,新的自然科学已经开始发展出一种方法,以便精确地描述自然界的现象。同样的,笛卡尔也觉得有必要问自己是否有类似的精确方法可以从事哲学的思考。”
   “我想我可以理解。”
   “但这只是一部分而已。当时新兴的物理学也已经提出‘物质的性质为何’以及‘哪些因素影响自然界的物理变化’等问题。人们愈来愈倾向对自然采取机械论的观点。然而,人们愈是用机械论的观点来看物质世界,肉体与灵魂之间有何关系这个问题也就变得愈加重要。在十七世纪以前,人们普遍将灵魂视为某种遍布于所有生物的‘生命原理’。事实上,灵魂(sou1)与精神(spirit)这两个字原来的意思就是‘气息’与‘呼吸’。这在几乎所有的欧洲语言中都一样,亚理斯多德认为灵魂乃是生物体中无所不在的‘生命因素’(lifeprinciple),是不能与肉体分离的。因此,他有时说‘植物的灵魂’,有时也说‘动物的灵魂’。一直到十七世纪,哲学家才开始提出灵魂与肉体有所区分的论调。原因是他们将所有物质做的东西--包括动物与人的身体——视为一种机械过程。但人的灵魂却显然不是这个‘身体机器’的一部分。因此,灵魂又是什么呢?这时就必须对何以某种‘精神性’的事物可以启动一部机器这个问题做一个解释。”
   “想起来也真是奇怪。”
   “什么东西很奇怪?”
   “我决定要举起我的手臂,然后,手臂自己就举起来了。我决定要跑步赶公车,下一秒钟我的两腿就像发条一样跑起来了。有时刻坐在那儿想某件令我伤心的事,突然间我的眼泪就流出来了。因此,肉体与意识之间一定有某种神秘的关联。”
   “这正是笛卡尔所努力思考的问题。他像柏拉图一样,相信‘精神’与‘物质’有明显的不同。但是究竟身体如何影响灵魂或灵魂如何影响身体,柏拉图还没有找到答案。”
   我思故我在“我也没有。因此我很想知道笛卡尔在这方面的理论。”
   “让我们跟他思想的脉络走。”
   艾伯特指着他们两人中间的茶几上所放的那本书,继续说道:
   “在他的《方法论》中,笛卡尔提出哲学家必须使用特定的方法来解决哲学问题。在这方面科学界已经发展出一套自己的方法来……”
   “这你已经说过了。”
   “笛卡尔认为除非我们能够清楚分明地知道某件事情是真实的,否则我们就不能够认为它是真的。为了要做到这点,可能必须将一个复杂的问题尽可能细分为许多不同的因素。然后我们再从其中最简单的概念出发。也就是说每一种思想都必须加以‘斟酌与衡量’,就像伽利略主张每一件事物都必须加以测量,而每一件无法测量的事物都必须设法使它可以测量一样。笛卡尔主张哲学应该从最简单的到最复杂的。唯有如此才可能建立一个新观点。最后,我们还必须时时将各种因素加以列举与控制,以确定没有遗漏任何因素。如此才能获致一个结论。”
   “听起来几乎像是数学考试一样。”
   “是的。笛卡尔希望用‘数学方法’来进行哲学性的思考。他用一般人证明数学定理的方式来证明哲学上的真理。换句话说,他希望运用我们在计算数字时所有的同一种工具——理性——来解决哲学问题,因为唯有理性才能使我们得到确实的知识,而感官则并非如此确实可靠。我们曾经提过他与柏拉图相似的地方。柏拉图也说过数学与数字的比例要比感官的体验更加确实可靠。”
   “可是我们能用这种方式来解决哲学问题吗?”
   “我们还是回到笛卡尔的思维好了。他的目标是希望能在生命的本质这个问题上获得某种确定的答案。他的第一步是主张在一开始时我们应该对每一件事都加以怀疑,因为他不希望他的思想是建立在一个不确实的基础上。”
   “嗯,因为如果地基垮了的话,整栋房子也会倒塌。”
   “说得好。笛卡尔并不认为怀疑一切事物是合理的,但他以为从原则上来说怀疑一切事物是可能的。举个例子,我们在读了柏拉图或亚理斯多德的著作后,并不一定会增强我们研究哲学的欲望。
   这些理论固然可能增进我们对历史的认识,但并不一定能够使我们更加了解这个世界。笛卡尔认为,在他开始建构自己的哲学体系之前,必须先挣脱前人理论的影响。”
   “在兴建一栋属于自己的新房子以前,他想清除房屋地基上的所有旧瓦砾……”
   “说得好。他希望用全新的材料来建造这栋房屋,以便确定他所建构的新思想体系能够站得住脚。不过,笛卡尔所怀疑的还不止于前人的理论。他甚至认为我们不能信任自己的感官,因为感官可能会误导我们。”
   “怎么说呢?”
   “当我们做梦时,我们以为自己置身真实世界中。那么,我们清,醒时的感觉与我们做梦时的感觉之间有何区别呢?笛卡尔写道:
   ‘当我仔细思索这个问题时,我发现人清醒时的状态与做梦时的状态并不一定有所分别。’他并且说:‘你怎能确定你的生命不是一场梦呢?”’“杰普认为他躺在男爵床上的那段时间只不过是一场梦而已。”
   “而当他躺在男爵的床上时,他以为自己过去那段务农的贫穷生活只不过是个梦而已。所以,笛卡尔最终怀疑每一件事物。在他之前的许多哲学家走到这里就走不下去了。”
   “所以他们并没有走多远。”
   “可是笛卡尔却设法从这个零点开始出发。他怀疑每一件事,而这正是他唯一能够确定的事情。此时他悟出一个道理:有一件事情必定是真实的,那就是他怀疑。当他怀疑时,他必然是在思考,而由于他在思考,那么他必定是个会思考的存在者。用他自己的话来说,就是:Cogito,ergosum。”
   “什么意思?”
   “我思故我在。”
   “我一点都不奇怪他会悟出这点。”
   “不错。但请你注意他突然间视自己为会思考的存在者的那种直观的确定性。也许你还记得柏拉图说过:我们以理性所领会的知识要比我们以感官所领会的更加真实。对笛卡尔来说正是如此。他不仅察觉到自己是一个会思考的‘我’,也发现这个会思考的‘我’要比我们的感官所观察到的物质世界更加真实。同时,他的哲学探索并未到此为止。他仍旧继续追寻答案。”
   “我希望你也能继续下去。”
   “后来,笛卡尔开始问,自己是否能以同样直观的确定性来察知其他事物。他的结论是:在他的心灵中,他很清楚地知道何谓完美的实体,这种概念他一向就有。但是他认为这种概念显然不可能来自他本身,因为对于完美实体的概念不可能来自一个本身并不完美的人,所以它必定来自那个完美实体本身,也就是上帝。因此,对笛卡尔而言,上帝的存在是一件很明显的事实,就像一个会思考的存在者必定存在一样。”
   “他这个结论下得太早了一些。他一开始时似乎比较谨慎。”
   “你说得对。许多人认为这是笛卡尔的弱点。不过你刚才说‘结论’,事实上这个问题并不需要证明。笛卡尔的意思只是说我们都是具有对于完美实体的概念,由此可见这个完美实体的本身必定存在。因为一个完美的实体如果不存在,就不算完美了,此外,如果世上没有所谓的完美实体,我们也不会具有完美实体的概念。因为我们本身是不完美的,所以完美的概念不可能来自于我们。笛卡尔认为,上帝这个概念是与生俱来的,乃是我们出生时就烙印在我们身上的,‘就像工匠在他的作品上打上记号一般。”’“没错,可是我有‘鳄象’这个概念并不代表真的有‘鳄象’存在呀!”
   “笛卡尔会说,‘鳄象’这个概念中并不包含它必然存在的事实。但‘完美实体’这个概念中却包含它必然存在的事实。笛卡尔认为,这就像‘圆’这个概念的要素之一就是,圆上所有的点必须与圆心等长一样。如果不符合这点,圆就不成其为圆。同样的,如果缺少‘存在’这个最重要的特质,一个‘完美的实体’也就不成其为‘完美的实体’了。”
   “这种想法很奇怪。”
   “这就是典型的‘理性主义者’的思考模式。笛卡尔和苏格拉底与柏拉图一样,相信理性与存在之间有所关联。依理性看来愈是明显的事情,它的存在也就愈加可以肯定。”
   “到目前为止,他只讲到人是会思考的动物,以及宇宙间有一个完美的实体这两件事。”
   “是的。他从这两点出发,继续探讨。在谈到我们对外在现实世界(如太阳和月亮)的概念时,笛卡尔认为,这些概念可能都只是幻象。但是外在现实世界也有若干我们可以用理性察知的特点,这些特点就是它们的数学特质,也就是诸如宽、高等可以测量的特性。这些‘量’方面的特性对于我们的理性来说,就像人会思考这个事实一般显而易见。至于‘质’方面的特性,如颜色、气味和味道等,则与我们的感官经验有关,因此并不足以描述外在的真实世界。”
   “这么说大自然毕竟不是一场梦。”
   “没错。在这一点上,笛卡尔再度引用我们对完美实体的概念。
   当我们的理智很清楚地认知一件事物(例如外在真实世界的数学特性)时,那么这件事物必定是如同我们所认知的那样。因为一个完美的上帝是不会欺骗我们的。笛卡尔宣称‘上帝可以保证’我们用理智所认知到的一切事物必然会与现实世界相符。”
   二元论“那么,他到目前为止已经发现了三件事:一、人是会思考的生物,二、上帝是存在的,三、宇宙有一个外在的真实世界。”
   “嗯,但基本上这个外在的真实世界还是与我们思想的真实世界不同。笛卡尔宣称宇宙间共有两种不同形式的真实世界(或称‘实体’)。一种实体称为思想或‘灵魂’,另一种则称为‘扩延’(Ex—tension),或称物质。灵魂纯粹是属于意识的,不占空间,因此也不能再分解为更小的单位;而物质则纯粹是扩延,会占空间,因此可以一再被分解为更小的单位,但却没有意识。笛卡尔认为这两种本体都来自上帝,因为唯有上帝本身是独立存在的,不隶属任何事物。不过,‘思想’与‘扩延’虽然都来自上帝,但彼此却没有任何接触。思想不受物质的影响,反之,物质的变化也不受思想的影响。”
   “这么说他将上帝的造物一分为二。”
   “确实如此。所以我们说笛卡尔是二元论者,意思就是他将思想的真实世界与扩延的真实世界区分得一清二楚。比方说,他认为只有人才有灵魂,动物则完全属于扩延的真实世界,它们的生命和行为都是机械化的。他将动物当成是一种复杂的机械装置。在谈到扩延的真实世界时,他采取十足的机械论观点,就像是一个唯物论者。”
   “我不太相信汉密士只是一部机器或一种机械装置。我想笛卡尔一定不是很喜欢动物。那么我们人类又如何呢?我们难道也是一种机械装置吗?”
   “一部分是,一部分不是。笛卡尔的结论是:人是一种二元的存在物,既会思考,也会占空间。因此人既有灵魂,也有一个扩延的身体。圣奥古斯丁与圣多玛斯也曾经说过类似的话。他们同样认为人有一个像动物一般的身体,也有一个像天使一般的灵魂。在笛卡尔的想法中,人的身体十足是一部机器,但人也有一个灵魂可以独立运作,不受身体的影响。至于人体则没有这种自由,必须遵守一套适用于他们的法则。我们用理智所思考的事物并不发生于身体内,而是发生于灵魂中,因此完全不受扩延的真实世界左右。顺便一提的是,笛卡尔并不否认动物也可能有思想。不过,如果它们有这种能力,那么有关‘思想’与‘扩延’的二分法必定也适用于它们。”
   “我们曾经谈过这个。如果我决定要追赶一辆公车,那么我的身体这整部‘机械装置’都会开始运转。如果我没赶上,我的眼睛就开始流泪。”
   “连笛卡尔也不能否认灵魂与身体之间时常相互作用。他相信只要灵魂存在于身体内一天,它就与会透过一个他称为松桌腺的脑部器官与人脑连结。‘灵魂’与‘物质’就在松果腺内时时相互作用。因此,灵魂可能会时常受到与身体需要有关的种种感觉与冲引的影响。不过,灵魂也能够挣脱这种‘原始’冲动的控制,而独立于身体之运作。它的目标是使理性获得掌控权。因为,即使我肚子痛得很厉害,一个三角形内所有内角的总和仍然会是一百八十度。所以思想有能力超脱身体的需求,而做出‘合乎理性’的行为,从这个角度来看,灵魂要比身体高尚。我们的腿可能会衰老无力,我们的背可能变驼,我们的牙齿会掉,但只要我们的理性存在一天,二加二就永远是四。理性不会变驼、变弱。老化的是我们的身体。对笛卡尔而言,理性事实上就是灵魂。诸如欲望、憎恨等原始的冲动与感情与我们的身体功能关系较为密切,所以与扩延的真实世界的关系也较为密切。”
   “我还是没办法接受笛卡尔将人体比做一部机器或一种机械装置的说法。”
   “这是因为在他那个时代,人们对于那些似乎能够自行运转的机器及钟表非常着迷。‘机械装置’指的就是一种能够自行运转的东西。不过这显然只是一个幻觉,事实上他们并不是真的能够自行运转。举例来说,一座天文钟不但是由人类制造的,而且必须有人来上发条。笛卡尔强调,这类巧妙的发明事实上是由一些零件以简单的方式组合而成。而组成人类与动物身体的各种骨骼、肌肉、神经、静脉与动脉也可以说是一种零件,只是数量较为庞大而已。上帝为什么不可能依照机械定律来创造动物或人类的身体呢?”
   “现代有很多人谈到所谓的‘人工智慧’。”
   “没错。这些都是现代的机械装置。我们已经创造一些有时看起来似乎很有智慧的机器。类似这样的机器将会使笛卡尔吓破胆。
   他也许会开始怀疑人类的理性是否真的像他所说的那么独立自主。现代也有一些哲学认为人的精神生活并不比身体各官能要自由。当然人的灵魂确实是比任何数据程式都要复杂得多,但有些人认为基本上我们就像这些数据程式一样是不自由的。现在,苏菲,我要给你看一样东西。”
   艾伯特指着位于房间另一头的一张大书桌。上面放着一台小电脑。他走过去,苏菲也跟着他。
   会面艾伯特将电脑打开,荧屏的上方很快显示出一个C:符号。他键人“莱拉”这个字,并向苏菲解释这是一个很先进的对话程式。
   荧屏上方马上出现一行字:
   “嗨,我的名字叫莱拉。你现在坐得舒服吗?”
   虽然苏菲还没有坐下,但她仍键入:
   “是的。”这时,艾伯特拿了一张椅子给她。
   “你叫什么名字?”荧屏问道。
   “苏菲。”苏菲键入这几个字。电脑回答道:
   “苜蓿巷三号。很高兴见到你,苏菲。你是不是很盼望在十五日那天过生日?”
   苏菲吓了一跳。艾伯特将一双手放在她的肩膀上说道:
   “我只不过是输进你的姓名、地址和出生日期而已。就像你要被介绍给一个新朋友一样,能够事先对对方有点了解总是比较好。”
   “还好。”苏菲写道。
   “喔,苏菲,我希望你没有什么地方不舒服。你必须要写完整的句子才行。”
   “谢谢你,我很好,我可以问你一件事吗?”
   “我很高兴你没事。有什么事你就问吧!”
   “你几岁?”苏菲写道。
   “我是一九八八年八月八日在亚特兰大制造的,一九九O年三月二十八日被挪威理工学院译成挪威文。”
   “天哪(Gosh)!”
   “我说过你必须输进完整的句子。”
   “我只说天哪。”
   “我不懂俚语。我的字库里有十多万字,但我所能找到最接近‘Gosh'的字是Gospel(福音)。”
   “那是指有关耶稣的故事。”
   “你是一个基督徒吗?”
   “我也不知道。”
   “照道理,承认自己不知道乃是获得新知识的一步。”
   “苏格拉底很可能也会这样说,笛卡尔也是。”
   “苏格拉底是希腊哲学家,生于公元前四七O年到公元前三九九年。如果你希望知道得更多,请按F7键。笛卡尔是法国哲学家,生于公元一五九六年到一六五O年间。如果你希望知道得更多,请按F8键。”
   “谢谢你,这样就够了。我可以问你别的事吗?”
   “我很高兴这样就够了。请问吧!”
   艾伯特悄悄地笑了一下。苏菲写道:
   “席德是谁?”
   “席德住在黎乐桑,跟苏菲同年。”
   “你怎么知道?”
   “我不知道。我在硬碟上找到她的资料。”
   苏菲感觉有一双手放在她的肩膀上。
   “我已经把我们所知道的一点关于席德的资料输进这个程式。”艾伯特说。
   “关于席德,你还知道些什么?”
   “席德的父亲是一位联合国驻黎巴嫩的观察员。他的军阶是少校,并且不断寄明信片给他女儿。”
   “我希望你能找到关于他的资料。”
   “我不能。他不在我的档案里,而且我也没有和其他的资料库连线。”
   “我要你找到他!! !!!!”
   “你生气了吗?苏菲。这么多惊叹号是显示一种强烈感情的符号。”
   “我要和席德的父亲说话。”
   “你好像很难控制自己。如果你想谈谈你的童年,请按F9键。”
   艾伯特再度把手放在苏菲的肩上。
   “电脑说得没错。它不是一个水晶球,莱拉只是一个电脑程式。”
   “闭嘴!”苏菲写道。
   “好吧!苏菲。我们只认识了十三分五十二秒。我会记得我们所说的每一件事情。现在我要结束这个程式了。”
   之后,C这个符号再度出现于荧屏。
   “现在我们可以再坐下来了。”
   但苏菲已经按了其他几个键。
   “艾勃特。”她写。
   下面几行字立刻出现在荧屏上:
   “我在这里。”
   现在轮到艾伯特吓一跳了。
   ”“你是谁?”苏菲写道。
   “艾勃特少校向你报到。我直接从黎巴嫩来,请问我的女士有何命令?”
   “再没有比这个更过分的了!”艾伯特喘气道,“这个鬼鬼祟祟的东西居然偷溜到硬碟里来了!”
   他把苏菲推离椅子,并且坐到键盘前。
   “你是怎么跑进我的个人电脑里面的?”
   “小事一桩,我亲爱的同仁。我想在哪里,就在哪里。”
   “你这个可恶的电脑病毒!”
   “此时此刻我可是以生日病毒的身分来到这里。我可不可以说一些特别的贺词?”
   “不,谢了,我们已经看得够多了。”
   “我只花一点时间:亲爱的席德,这都是因为你的缘故。让我再说一次,祝你十五岁生日快乐。请你原谅我在这种场合出现。不过我只是希望无论你走到哪里,都可以看到我写给你的生日贺词,我很想好好地拥抱你一下。爱你的爸爸。”
   在艾伯特还没有来得及键入什么字之前,C这个符号已经再度出现在荧屏上。
   艾伯特键人"dir艾勃特,.x”,结果在荧屏上现出了下列资料:
   艾勃特1il147,64306/15—9012:47
   艾勃特lil326,43916—23—9022:34
   艾伯特键人“清除艾勃特x.x”,并关掉电脑。
   “现在我可把他给消除了。”他说。“不过很难说他下次会在什么地方出现。”
   他仍然坐在那儿,盯着电脑看。然后他说:
   “最糟糕的部分就是名字。艾勃特……”
   苏菲第一次发现艾勃特和艾伯特这两个名字是如此相像。可是看到艾伯特如此生气,她一句话也不敢说。他们一起走到茶几那儿,再度坐下来。





发帖 回复