《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:10383 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 37楼  发表于: 2013-10-28 0
英文原文
The Big Bang
... we too are stardust. . .
Hilde settled herself comfortably in the glider beside her father. It was nearly midnight. They sat looking out across the bay. A few stars glimmered palely in the light sky. Gentle waves lapped over the stones under the dock.
Her father broke the silence.
"It's a strange thought that we live on a tiny little planet in the universe."
"Yes ..."
"Earth is only one of many planets orbiting the sun. Yet Earth is the only living planet."
"Perhaps the only one in the entire universe?"
"It's possible. But it's also possible that the universe is teeming with life. The universe is inconceivably huge. The distances are so great that we measure them in light-minutes and light-years."
"What are they, actually?"
"A light-minute is the distance light travels in one minute. And that's a long way, because light travels through space at 300,000 kilometers a second. That means that a light-minute is 60 times 300,000--or 18 million kilometers. A light-year is nearly ten trillion kilometers."
"How far away is the sun?"
"It's a little over eight light-minutes away. The rays of sunlight warming our faces on a hot June day have traveled for eight minutes through the universe before they reach us." "Go on..."
"Pluto, which is the planet farthest out in our solar system, is about five light-hours away from us. When an astronomer looks at Pluto through his telescope, he is in fact looking five hours back in time. We could also say that the picture of Pluto takes five hours to get here."
"It's a bit hard to visualize, but I think I understand."
"That's good, Hilde. But we here on Earth are only just beginning to orient ourselves. Our own sun is one of 400 billion other stars in the galaxy we call the Milky Way. This galaxy resembles a large discus, with our sun situated in one of its several spiral arms. When we look up at the sky on a clear winter's night, we see a broad band of stars. This is because we are looking toward the center of the Milky Way."
"I suppose that's why the Milky Way is called 'Winter Street' in Swedish."
"The distance to the star in the Milky Way that is our nearest neighbor is four light-years. Maybe that's it just above the island over there. If you could imagine that at this very moment a stargazer is sitting up there with a powerful telescope pointing at Bjerkely--he would see Bjerkely as it looked four years ago. He might see an eleven-year-old girl swinging her legs in the glider."
"Incredible."
"But that's only the nearest star. The whole galaxy-- or nebula, as we also call it--is 90,000 light-years wide. That is another way of describing the time it takes for light to travel from one end of the galaxy to the other. When we gaze at a star in the Milky Way which is 50,000 light-years away from our sun, we are looking back 50,000 years in time."
"The idea is much too big for my little head."
"The only way we can look out into space, then, is to look back in time. We can never know what the universe is like now. We only know what it was like then. When we look up at a star that is thousands of light-years away, we are really traveling thousands of years back in the history of space."
"It's completely incomprehensible." "But everything we see meets the eye in the form of light waves. And these light waves take time to travel through space. We could compare it to thunder. We always hear the thunder after we have seen the lightning. That's because sound waves travel slower than light waves. When I hear a peal of thunder, I'm hearing the sound of something that happened a little while ago. It's the same thing with the stars. When I look at a star that is thousands of light-years away, I'm seeing the 'peal of thunder' from an event that lies thousands of years back in time."
"Yes, I see."
"But so far, we've only been talking about our own galaxy. Astronomers say there are about a hundred billion of such galaxies in the universe, and each of these galaxies consists of about a hundred billion stars. We call the nearest galaxy to the Milky Way the Andromeda nebula. It lies two million light-years from our own galaxy. That means the light from that galaxy takes two million years to reach us. So we're looking two million years back in time when we see the Andromeda nebula high up in the sky. If there was a clever stargazer in this nebula--I can just imagine him pointing his telescope at Earth right now--he wouldn't be able to see us. If he was lucky, he'd see a few flat-faced Neanderthals."
"It's amazing."
"The most distant galaxies we know of today are about ten billion light-years away from us. When we receive signals from these galaxies, we are going ten billion years back in the history of the universe. That's about twice as long as our own solar system has existed."
"You're making me dizzy."
"Although it is hard enough to comprehend what it means to look so far back in time, astronomers have discovered something that has even greater significance for our world picture."
"What?"
"Apparently no galaxy in space remains where it is. All the galaxies in the universe are moving away from each other at colossal speeds. The further they are away from us, the quicker they move. That means that the distance between the galaxies is increasing all the time."
"I'm trying to picture it."
"If you have a balloon and you paint black spots on it, the spots will move away from each other as you blow up the balloon. That's what's happening with the galaxies in the universe. We say that the universe is expanding."
"What makes it do that?"
"Most astronomers agree that the expanding universe can only have one explanation: Once upon a time, about 15 billion years ago, all substance in the universe was assembled in a relatively small area. The substance was so dense that gravity made it terrifically hot. Finally it got so hot and so tightly packed that it exploded. We call this explosion the Big Bang."
"Just the thought of it makes me shudder."
"The Big Bang caused all the substance in the universe to be expelled in all directions, and as it gradually cooled, it formed stars and galaxies and moons and planets ..."
"But I thought you said the universe was still expanding?"
"Yes I did, and it's expanding precisely because of this explosion billions of years ago. The universe has no timeless geography. The universe is a happening. The universe is an explosion. Galaxies continue to fly through the universe away from each other at colossal speeds."
"Will they go on doing that for ever?"
"That's one possibility. But there is another. You may recall that Alberto told Sophie about the two forces that cause the planets to remain in constant orbit round the sun?"
"Weren't they gravity and inertia?"
"Right, and the same thing applies to the galaxies. Because even though the universe continues to expand, the force of gravity is working the other way. And one day, in a couple of billion years, gravity will perhaps cause the heavenly bodies to be packed together again as the force of the huge explosion begins to weaken. Then we would get a reverse explosion, a so-called implosion. But the distances are so great that it will happen like a movie that is run in slow motion. You might compare it with what happens when you release the air from a balloon."
"Will all the galaxies be drawn together in a tight nucleus again?"
"Yes, you've got it. But what will happen then?"
"There would be another Big Bang and the universe would start expanding again. Because the same natural laws are in operation. And so new stars and galaxies will form."
"Good thinking. Astronomers think there are two possible scenarios for the future of the universe. Either the universe will go on expanding forever so that the galaxies will draw further and further apart--or the universe will begin to contract again. How heavy and massive the universe is will determine what happens. And this is something astronomers have no way of knowing as yet."
"But if the universe is so heavy that it begins to contract again, perhaps it has expanded and contracted lots of times before."
"That would be an obvious conclusion. But on this point theory is divided. It may be that the expansion of the universe is something that will only happen this one time. But if it keeps on expanding for all eternity, the question of where it all began becomes even more pressing."
"Yes, where did it come from, all that stuff that suddenly exploded?"
"For a Christian, it would be obvious to see the Big Bang as the actual moment of creation. The Bible tells us that God said 'Let there be light!' You may possibly also remember that Alberto indicated Christianity's 'linear' view of history. From the point of view of a Chris-tian belief in the creation, it is better to imagine the universe continuing to expand."
"It is?"
"In the Orient they have a 'cyclic' view of history.
In other words, history repeats itself eternally. In India, for example, there is an ancient theory that the world continually unfolds and folds again, thus alternating between what Indians have called Brahman's Day and Brahman's Night. This idea harmonizes best, of course, with the universe expanding and contracting--in order to expand again--in an eternal cyclic process. I have a mental picture of a great cosmic heart that beats and beats and beats..."
"I think both theories are equally inconceivable and equally exciting."
"And they can compare with the great paradox of eternity that Sophie once sat pondering in her garden: either the universe has always been there--or it suddenly came into existence out of nothing ..."
"Ouch!"
Hilde clapped her hand to her forehead.
"What was that?"
"I think I've just been stung by a gadfly."
"It was probably Socrates trying to sting you into life."
Sophie and Alberto had been sitting in the red convertible listening to the major tell Hilde about the universe.
"Has it struck you that our roles are completely reversed?" asked Alberto after a while.
"In what sense?"
"Before it was they who listened to us, and we couldn't see them. Now we're listening to them and they can't see us."
"And that's not all."
"What are you referring to?"
"When we started, we didn't know about the other reality that Hilde and the major inhabited. Now they don't know about ours."
"Revenge is sweet."
"But the major could intervene in our world."
"Our world was nothing but his interventions."
"I haven't yet relinquished all hope that we may also intervene in their world."
"But you know that's impossible. Remember what happened in the Cinderella? I saw you trying to get out that bottle of Coke."
Sophie was silent. She gazed out over the garden while the major explained about the Big Bang. There was something about that term which started a train of thought in her mind.
She began to rummage around in the car.
"What are you doing?" asked Alberto.
"Nothing."
She opened the glove compartment and found a wrench. She grabbed it and jumped out of the car. She went over to the glider and stood right in front of Hilde and her father. First she tried to catch Hilde's eye but that was quite useless. Finally she raised the wrench above her head and crashed it down on Hilde's forehead.
"Ouch!" said Hilde.
Then Sophie hit the major on his forehead, but he didn't react at all.
"What was that?" he asked.
"I think I've just been stung by a gadfly."
"It was probably Socrates trying to sting you into life."
Sophie lay down on the grass and tried to push the glider. But it remained motionless. Or did she manage to get it to move a millimeter?
"There's a chilly breeze coming up," said Hilde.
"No, there isn't. It's very mild."
"It's not only that. There is something."
"Only the two of us and the cool summer night."
"No, there's something in the air."
"And what might that be?"
"You remember Alberto and his secret plan?"
"How could I forget!"
"They simply disappeared from the garden party. It was as if they had vanished into thin air . . ."
"Yes, but..."
"... into thin air."
"The story had to end somewhere. It was just something I wrote."
"That was, yes, but not what happened afterward. Suppose they were here . . ."
"Do you believe that?"
"I can feel it, Dad."
Sophie ran back to the car.
"Impressive," said Alberto grudgingly as she climbed on board clasping the wrench tightly in her hand. "You have unusual talents, Sophie. Just wait and see."
The major put his arm around Hilde.
"Do you hear the mysterious play of the waves?"
"Yes. We must get the boat in the water tomorrow."
"But do you hear the strange whispering of the wind? Look how the aspen leaves are trembling."
"The planet is alive, you know ..."
"You wrote that there was something between the lines."
"I did?"
"Perhaps there is something between the lines in this garden too."
"Nature is full of enigmas. But we are talking about stars in the sky."
"Soon there will be stars on the water."
"That's right. That's what you used to say about phosphorescence when you were little. And in a sense you were right. Phosphorescence and all other organisms are made of elements that were once blended together in a star."
"Us too?"
"Yes, we too are stardust."
"That was beautifully put."
"When radio telescopes can pick up light from distant galaxies billions of light-years away, they will be charting the universe as it looked in primeval times after the Big Bang. Everything we can see in the sky is a cosmic fossil from thousands and millions of years ago. The only thing an astrologer can do is predict the past."
"Because the stars in the constellations moved away from each other long before their light reached us, right?"
"Even two thousand years ago, the constellations looked considerably different from the way they look today."
"I never knew that."
"If it's a clear night, we can see millions, even billions of years back into the history of the universe. So in a way, we are going home."
"I don't know what you mean."
"You and I also began with the Big Bang, because all substance in the universe is an organic unity. Once in a primeval age all matter was gathered in a clump so enormously massive that a pinhead weighed many billions of tons. This 'primeval atom' exploded because of the enormous gravitation. It was as if something disintegrated. When we look up at the sky, we are trying to find the way back to ourselves."
"What an extraordinary thing to say."
"All the stars and galaxies in the universe are made of the same substance. Parts of it have lumped themselves together, some here, some there. There can be billions of light-years between one galaxy and the next. But they all have the same origin. All stars and all planets belong to the same family."
"Yes, I see."
"But what is this earthly substance? What was it that exploded that time billions of years ago? Where did it come from?"
"That is the big question."
"And a question that concerns us all very deeply. For we ourselves are of that substance. We are a spark from the great fire that was ignited many billions of years ago."
"That's a beautiful thought too."
"However, we must not exaggerate the importance of these figures. It is enough just to hold a stone in your hand. The universe would have been equally incomprehensible if it had only consisted of that one stone the size of an orange. The question would be just as impenetrable: where did this stone come from?"
Sophie suddenly stood up in the red convertible and pointed out over the bay.
"I want to try the rowboat," she said.
"It's tied up. And we would never be able to lift the oars."
"Shall we try? After all, it is Midsummer Eve."
"We can go down to the water, at any rate."
They jumped out of the car and ran down the garden.
They tried to loosen the rope that was made fast in a metal ring. But they could not even lift one end.
"It's as good as nailed down," said Alberto.
"We've got plenty of time."
"A true philosopher must never give up. If we could just... get it loose . . ."
"There are more stars now," said Hilde.
"Yes, when the summer night is darkest."
"But they sparkle more in winter. Do you remember the night before you left for Lebanon? It was New Year's Day."
"That was when I decided to write a book about philosophy for you. I had been to a large bookstore in Kris-tiansand and to the library too. But they had nothing suitable for young people."
"It's as if we are sitting at the very tip of the fine hairs in the white rabbit's fur."
"I wonder if there is anyone out there in the night of the light-years?"
"The rowboat has worked itself loose!"
"So it has!"
"I don't understand it. I went down and checked it just before you got here."
"Did you?"
"It reminds me of when Sophie borrowed Alberto's boat. Do you remember how it lay drifting out in the lake?"
"I bet it's her at work again."
"Go ahead and make fun of me. All evening, I've been able to feel someone here."
"One of us will have to swim out to it."
"We'll both go, Dad."

=======END=======





中文翻译
   那轰然一响
   ……我们也是星尘……
   席德舒服地坐在秋千上,靠在爸爸身旁。已经将近午夜了。他们坐在那儿眺望海湾,明亮的天空有几颗星星正闪烁着微弱的光芒。
   温柔的海浪一波波拍打在平台下的礁岩上。
   爸爸打破沉默。
   “想起来真是很奇怪,我们居然住在宇宙这样一个小小的星球上。”
   “嗯......”
   “地球只是许多围绕太阳运行的星球之一,但它却是唯一有生命的星球。”
   “会不会也是整个宇宙中唯一的一个?”
   “可能。但宇宙也可能到处充满了生命,因为宇宙之大是无法想象的。其间的距离如此遥远,因此我们只能以光分和光年来计算。”
   “什么薀外分和光年?”
   “一光分就薀外线在一分钟内可走的距离,这是非常长的距离,因为光线在太空每秒钟可以走三十万公里。这表示一光分就是三十万乘以六十,也就是一千八百万公里。一光年就是将近十兆公里。”
   “那太阳有多远呢?”
   “它距离地球有八光分多一点。炎热的六月天照在我们脸上的温暖太阳光,可是在太空中走了八分钟才到我们这儿来的。”
   “然后呢?”
   “地球到太阳系最远的一颗星球冥王星的距离大约有五光时。
   当天文学家透过天文望远镜观察冥王星的时候,事实上他看的是五个小时以前的冥王星。我们也可以说冥王星的画面要花五个小时才能传到这里。”
   “实在有点难以想象,但我想我可以了解。”
   “很好,席德,但是你要知道我们人类只是刚开始了解宇宙而已。我们的太阳只是银河里四千亿个星球当中的一个,这个银河有点像是一个很大的铁饼。我们的太阳刚好位于其中一个螺旋臂上。
   当我们在晴朗的冬日夜晚仰望星星时,会看见一条由星袩凸成的宽带子,那是因为我们正好看到银河的中心。”
   “大概是因为这样,所以瑞典文才把银河称为‘冬之街’吧。”
   。“在银河系中,离我们最近的一颗恒星距地球有四光年,也许它正在我们这个岛的上方。此时此刻,如果那颗星球上有一个人正用一具强力的天文望远镜对着柏客来山庄看的话,他看到的将是四年前的柏客来山庄。他也许会看到一个十一岁女孩正坐在秋千上晃动她的双腿。”
   “真不可思议。”
   “可是这还是最近的一颗。整个银河(或称星云)共有九万光年这么宽,也就是说光线从银河的一端传到另外一端要花九万年的时间。当我们注视着银河中一颗距离我们有五万光年的星星时,我们看到的是那颗星球在五万年以前的情形。”
   “这么大的空间实在是我这个小脑袋难以想象的。”
   “我们只要眺望太空,所看到的一定是从前的太空。我们永远无法知道现在的宇宙是什么模样。我们只知道它当时如何。当我们仰望一颗距我们有几千光年的星球时,我们事实上是回到了几千年前的太空。”
   “真是不可思议极了。”
   “因为我们眼中所见的一切事物都以光波的形式出现,这些光波需要时间才能传过太空。我们可以拿打雷来做比方。我们总是在看见闪电后才听见打雷的声音,这是因为声波传送的速度比光波慢。当我听到一阵雷鸣时,我听到的声音事实上已经发出了一会儿。各星球间的情况也是这样。当我看到一颗几千光年之外的星星时,就好像见到几千年前发出的‘雷声’一样。”
   “嗯,我明白了。”
   “但是到目前为止,我们谈的还只是我们的银河系。天文学家说,宇宙间大约有一千亿像这样的银河系,而每一个银河系都包含一千亿左右的星球。我们称距我们的银河最近的一个银河系为仙女座星云。它距我们的银河系约有两百万光年。就像我们刚才所说的,这表示那个银河系的光线要花两百万年才能到达我们这里。
   同时也表示当我们看见高空中的仙女座星云时,我们看到的是它在两百万年前的情形。如果在这个星云内有一个人正在观测星球——我可以想象那个鬼鬼祟祟的小家伙现在正用天文望远镜对准地球——他是看不到我们的。如果他运气好的话,倒是可以看见几个扁脸的尼安德原人。”
   “真是太令人吃惊了。”
   “我们今天所知的最远的银河系距我们大约有一百亿光年。当我们收到来自那些银河系的信号时,我们事实上是收到一百亿年前的人所发出的信号。这个时间大约是太阳系历史的两倍。”
   “我的头都昏了。”
   “虽然我们很难理解这是一种什么样的情形,但天文学家已经发现一种现象,它将对我们的世界观有很大的影响。”
   “什么现象?”
   “太空中的银河系显然没有一个留在固定的位置。宇宙中所有的银河系都以极快的速度彼此分开,愈离愈远。它们离我们愈远,移动的速度就愈快。这表示各银河系之间的距离在不断增加。”
   “我正试着想象这幅画面。”
   “如果你有一个气球,而你在它的表面画上许多黑点。然后你愈吹它,那些黑点就分得愈开。这就是宇宙间各银河系所发生的现象。我们说宇宙在扩张。”
   “怎么会这样呢?”
   “大多数天文学家都认为,宇宙扩张的现象只可能是一个原因造成的。那就是:在大约一百五十亿年以前,宇宙间所有的物质都集中在一个比较小的范围内。由于物质密度极高,再加上重力的作用,使得这些物质温度高得吓人。温度日趋上升的结果,这一团紧密的物质终于爆炸了。我们称这个现象为‘宇宙大爆炸’。”
   “挺吓人的。”
   “宇宙大爆炸使得宇宙中所有的物质都向四面扩散。当这些物质碎片逐渐冷却后,就形成各个星球、银河系、卫星与行星……”
   “你不是说宇宙还在继续扩张吗?”
   “是的。而它扩张的理由正是由于一百多亿年前的这次大爆炸。因此目前宇宙各星球并没有固定不变的位置,宇宙仍然在形成中。它是一次爆炸后的产物。各银河目前仍继续以极高的速度向宇宙的四面飞散。”
   “它们会永远这样下去吗?”
   “有可能,但还有另外一个可能性。你还记得艾伯特告诉过苏菲有两种力量使行星一直在固定的轨道上围绕恒星运行吗?”
   “是不是引力和惯性?”
   “对,同样的道理也适用于各银河系。因为即使宇宙仍继续扩张,引力的作用却刚好相反。也许几十亿年后有一天,当大爆炸的力量逐渐减弱后,重力会使得各星球重新凝聚,然后就会发生一种‘反爆炸’的现象,也就是所谓的‘内破裂’。不过,由于各银河系之间的距离过于遥远,所以情况会变得像是电影的慢动作,就像你把一个气球里的空气放掉以后的现象。”
   “那这些银河系会不会再度聚拢成一个紧密的核心呢?”
   “没错,你说对了。但到时候会发生什么事呢?”
   “又会有一次大爆炸,而宇宙也会再度开始扩张,因为到时同样的自然法则又会发生作用。所以会形成新的星球和新的银河系。”
   未来的宇宙“说得好。关于宇宙的未来,天文学家认为有两种可能。要不就是宇宙一直扩张下去,使得各银河系间的距离愈来愈远。要不就是宇宙会开始再度收缩。究竟会发生哪一种现象,要看宇宙有多重、多大而定。而这点天文学家目前还无法得知。”
   “但是如果宇宙重到使它开始收缩的程度,那么也许这种扩张、收缩又扩张的现象以前已经发生过好几次了。”
   “结论显然应该是这样。但在这一点上,各家理论不同。也许宇宙的扩张现象只会发生这么一次,但是如果它永远不断扩张下去,则这个现象是从何处开始的问题就变得更加迫切了。”
   “没错,因为这些突然间爆炸的物质最初是从哪里来的呢?”
   “对于一个基督徒来说,这次大爆炸显然就是创造过程开始的时刻。圣经告诉我们上帝说过:‘让世上有光吧!’你可能也还记得艾伯特说过基督教的历史观是‘直线式的’。从基督教相信上帝创造万物的观点来看,宇宙应该是会继续扩张下去的。”
   “真的吗?”
   “东方文化的历史观则是‘循环式的’。换句话说,他们认为历史会不断重复。举例来说,印度就有一个古老的理论,主张世界会不断开合,因此造成所谓的‘婆罗门日’(Brahman’sDay)和‘婆罗门夜’(Brahman’sNight)轮流交替的现象。这种观点自然比较符合宇宙会永远不断扩张、收缩的看法。在我的想象中,那就像是有一颗宇宙的心脏不断在跳动的情景……”
   “我认为这两种理论都同样令人无法想象,也同样令人兴奋。”
   “这就像是苏菲有一次坐在花园里思索永恒的矛盾:宇宙要不就是一向都存在着,要不就是突然无中生有……”
   “喔,好痛!”
   席德用手拍了一下额头。
   “怎么回事?”
   “我好像被牛蝇叮了一口。”
   “也许是苏格拉底在给你一些心灵的刺激呢。”
   苏菲和艾伯特坐在红色的敞篷车里听着少校对席德讲述宇宙的现象。过了一会儿,艾伯特问道:“你有没有想到现在我们的角色已经完全相反了呢?”
   “怎么说?”
   “以前是他们听我们说话,而我们看不见他们。现在是我们听他们讲话,而他们看不见我们。”
   “还不止于此呢。”
   “你是指什么?”
   “我们一开始时并不知道席德和少校生活的那个世界,而现在他们也不知道我们存在的这个世界。”
   “我们算是报了一箭之仇了。”
   “可是那时候少校可以介入我们的世界。”
   “我们的世界全是他一手造成的。”
   “我还不死心。我们应该也有办法介入他们的世界吧?”
   “可是你知道这是不可能的。还记得我们在灰姑娘餐馆里发生的事吗?无论你多费劲,还是拿不起那瓶可乐。”
   苏菲默默不语。当少校正在说明宇宙大爆炸的现象时,她看着这座花园。“大爆炸”这个名词牵动着她的思绪。
   她开始在车子里面四处翻寻。
   “你在干嘛?”
   “没事。”
   她打开手套箱,找到了一支扳钳。她拿着扳钳,跳出车外,走到秋千旁,站在席德和她父亲前面。她试着吸引席德的视线,但一直都没有成功。最后她举起扳钳敲在席德的额头上。
   “喔,好痛!”席德说。
   然后苏菲又用扳钳敲击少校的额头,可他动也不动。
   “怎么回事?”他问“我好像被牛蝇叮了一口。”
   “也许是苏格拉底在给你一些心灵的刺激呢。”
   苏菲躺在草地上,努力推动秋千。但是秋千仍静止不动。可是又好像稍动了一点点。
   “风挺凉的。”席德说。
   “不会呀,我倒觉得挺舒服的。”
   “不只是风。还有另1J的。”
   “这里只有我们两个,在这个凉爽的仲夏夜。”
   “不,空气里面有一种东西。”
   “会是什么呢?”
   “你还记得艾伯特拟的秘密计划吗?”
   “我怎么会忘记?”
   “他们就这样从花园宴会里消失了。就好像他们消失在空气中了。”
   “没错,可是……”
   “……消失在空气中了……”
   “故事总得结束呀。那不过是我编的。”
   “没错,那时候是你编的。可是后来就不是了。他们不知道会不会在这儿.....”
   “你相信吗?”
   “爸,我可以感觉到。”
   苏菲跑回车子里。
   “很不错嘛!”当她紧握着扳钳爬进车里时,艾伯特不太情愿的说。“你有很不寻常的本领。我们就等着瞧吧。”
   人生如星尘少校搂住席德。
   “你没有听到那神秘的海潮声?”
   “听到了。我们明天得让船下水。”
   “可是你有没有听见那奇异的风声呢?你看那白杨树的叶子都在颤动呢。”
   “这个星球是有生命的。不是吗……”
   “你在信里说书中的字里行间另有意思。”
   “我有吗?”
   “也许这座花园也有别的东西存在。”
   “大自然充满了谜题,不过我们现在谈的是天上的星星。”
   “水上很快也会有星星了。”
   “对。你小时候就把磷光称为水上的星星。从某个角度来看,你说的并没有错。磷光和其他所有的有机体都是由那些曾经融合为一个星球的各种元素所组成的。”
   “人也是吗?”
   “没错,我们也是星尘。”
   “说得很美。”
   “当无线电波天文望远镜可以接收到来自数十亿光年外的遥远银河系的光线时,它们就可以描绘出太初时期大爆炸后宇宙的形貌。我们现在在天空中所看到的一切,都是几千、几百万年前宇宙的化石,因此占星学家只能预测过去的事。”
   “因为在它们的光芒传到地球之前,这些星座里的星星早就已经彼此远离了,是吗?”
   “即使是在两千年前,这些星座的面貌也与今天大不相同。”
   “我以前从来不知道是这样。”
   “在晴天的夜晚,我们可以看见几百万、甚至几十亿年前宇宙的面貌。所以,我们可以说正在回家的路上。”
   “我不懂你的意思。”
   “你我也是在大爆炸时开始,因为宇宙所有的物质整个是一个有机体。在万古之前,所有的物质都聚合成一大块,质量极其紧密,因此即使是小如针头般的一块,也可以重达好几十亿吨。在这样大的重力作用下,这个‘原始原子’爆炸了,就好像某个东西解体一样。所以说当我们仰望天空时,我们其实是在试图找寻回到自我的路。”
   “这个说法好特别。”
   “宇宙中所有的星球和银河都是由同一种物质做成的。这种物质的各个部分分别又合成一块,这里一块,那里一块。一个银河系到另外一个银河系的距离可能有数十亿光年,可是它们都来自同样一个源头。所有的恒星和行星都属于同一个家庭。”
   “我懂了。”
   “但是这种物质又是什么呢?数十亿年前爆炸的那个东西究竟是怎样的一种物质?它是从哪里来的呢?”
   “这是个很大的问题。”
   “而与我们每个人都密切相关。因为我们本身就是这种物质。
   我们是几十亿年前熊熊燃烧的那场大火所爆出来的一点火花。”
   “这种想法也很美。”
   “然而,我们也不要太过强调这些数字的重要性。只要你在手中握着一块石头就够了。就算宇宙是由这样一块橘子般大小的石头做成的,我们也还是无法理解它。我们还是要问:这块石头是从哪里来的?”
   苏菲突然在红色敞篷车里站起来,指着海湾的方向。
   “我想去划那条船。”她说。
   “它被绑起来了,而且我们也不可能拿得动桨。”
   “我们试试看好不好?不管怎么说,现在可是仲夏耶!”
   “至少我们可以到海边去。”
   他们跳下车,沿着花园向下跑。
   他们试图解开牢牢系在一个铁圈里的缆绳,可是却连绳尾都举不起来。
   “跟钉牢了一样。”艾伯特说。
   “我们有很充裕的时间。”“一个真正的哲学家永远不能放弃。如果我们能够……松开它……”
   “现在星星更多了。”席德说。
   “是的,因为现在是夏夜里夜色最深的时候。”
   “可是在冬天里它们的光芒比较亮。你还记得你要动身去黎巴嫩的那个晚上吗?那天是元旦。”
   “就在那个时候,我决定为你写一本有关哲学的书。我也曾经去基督山的一家大书店和图书馆找过,可是他们都没有适合年轻人看的哲学书。”
   “感觉上现在我们好像正坐在白兔细毛的最顶端。”
   “我在想那些遥远的星球上是否也有人。”
   “你看,小船的绳子自己松开了!”
   “真的是这样!”
   “怎么会呢?在你回来前,我还到那里去检查过的。”
   “是吗?”
   “这使我想到苏菲借了艾伯特的船的时候。你还记得它当时在湖里漂浮的样子吗?”
   “我敢说现在也一定是她在搞鬼。”
   “你尽管取笑我吧。可是我还是觉得整个晚上都有人在这里。”
   “我们两人有一个必须游到那里去,把船划回来。”
   “我们两个都去,爸爸。”
——完结——





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 36楼  发表于: 2013-10-28 0
[content too large, truncated for display] [table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,4][tr][td]
英文原文
[table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,1][tr][td]Counterpoint two or more melodies sounding together Hilde sat up in bed. That was the end of the story of Sophie and Alberto. But what had actually happened? Why had her father written that last chapter? Was it just to demonstrate his power over Sophie's world? Deep in thought, she took a shower and got dressed. She ate a quick breakfast and then wandered down the garden and sat in the glider. She agreed with Alberto that the only sensible thing that had happened at the garden party was his speech. Surely her father didn't think Hilde's world was as chaotic as Sophie's garden party? Or that her world would also dissolve eventually? Then there was the matter of Sophie and Alberto. What had happened to the secret plan? Was it up to Hilde herself to continue the story? Or had they really managed to sneak out of it? And where were they now? A thought suddenly struck her. If Alberto and Sophie really had managed to sneak out of the story, there wouldn't be anything about it in the ring binder. Everything that was there, unfortunately, was clear to her father. Could there be anything written between the lines? There was more than a mere suggestion of it. Hilde realized that she would have to read the whole story again one or two more times. *** As the white Mercedes drove into the garden, Alberto dragged Sophie with him into the den. Then they ran into the woods in the direction of the major's cabin. "Quickly!" cried Alberto. "It's got to happen before he starts looking for us." "Are we beyond the major's reach now?" "We are in the borderland." They rowed across the water and ran into the cabin. Alberto opened a trapdoor in the floor. He pushed Sophie down into the cellar. Then everything went black. In the days that followed, Hilde worked on her plan. She sent several letters to Anne Kvamsdal in Copenhagen, and a couple of times she called her. She also enlisted the aid of friends and acquaintances, and recruited almost half of her class at school. In between, she read Sophie's World. It was not a story one could be done with after a single reading. New thoughts about what could have happened to Sophie and Alberto when they left the garden party were constantly occurring to her. On Saturday, June 23, she awoke with a start around nine o'clock. She knew her father had already left the camp in Lebanon. Now it was just a question of waiting. The last part of his day was planned down to the smallest detail. Later in the morning she began the preparations for Midsummer Eve with her mother. Hilde could not help thinking of how Sophie and her mother had arranged their Midsummer Eve party. But that was something they had done. It was over, finished. Or was it? Were they going around right now, decorating everywhere? Sophie and Alberto seated themselves on a lawn in front of two large buildings with ugly air vents and ventilation canals on the outside. A young couple came walking out of one of the buildings. He was carrying a brown briefcase and she had a red handbag slung over one shoulder. A car drove along a narrow road in the background. "What happened?" asked Sophie. "We made it!" "But where are we?" "This is Oslo." "Are you quite sure?" "Quite sure. One of these buildings is called Chateau Neuf, which means 'the new palace.' People study music there. The other is the Congregation Faculty. It's a school of theology. Further up the hill they study science and up at the top they study literature and philosophy." "Are we out of Hilde's book and beyond the major's control?" "Yes, both. He'll never find us here." "But where were we when we ran through the woods?" "While the major was busy crashing the financial adviser's car into an apple tree, we seized the chance to hide in the den. We were then at the embryo stage. We were of the old as well as of the new world. But concealing ourselves there was something the major cannot possibly have envisaged." "Why not?" "He would never have let us go so easily. As it was, it went like a dream. Of course, there's always the chance that he was in on it himself." "What do you mean?" "It was he who started the white Mercedes. He may have exerted himself to the utmost to lose sight of us. He was probably utterly exhausted after everything that had been going on . . ." By now the young couple were only a few yards away. Sophie felt a bit awkward, sitting on the grass with a man so much older than herself. Besides, she wanted someone to confirm what Alberto had said. She got up and went over to them"Excuse me, would you mind telling me the name of this street?" But they ignored her completely. Sophie was so provoked that she asked them again. "It's customary to answer a person, isn't it?" The young man was clearly engrossed in explaining something to his companion: "Contrapuntal form operates on two dimensions, horizontally, or melodically, and vertically, or harmonically. There will always be two or more melodies sounding together . . ." "Excuse me for interrupting, but. . ." "The melodies combine in such a way that they develop as much as possible, independently of how they sound against each other. But they have to be concordant. Actually it's note against note." How rude! They were neither deaf nor blind. Sophie tried a third time, standing ahead of them on the path blocking their way,She was simply brushed aside. "There's a wind coming up," said the woman. Sophie rushed back to Alberto. 'They can't hear me!" she said desperately--and just as she said it, she recalled her dream about Hilde and the gold crucifix. "It's the price we have to pay. Although we have sneaked out of a book, we can't expect to nave exactly the same status as its author. But we really are here. From now on, we will never be a day older than we were when we left the philosophical garden party." "Does that mean we'll never have any real contact with me people around us?" "A true philosopher never says 'never.' What time is it?" "Eight o'clock." "The same as when we left Captain's Bend, of course." "This is the day Hilde's father gets back from Lebanon." "That's why we must hurry." "Why--what do you mean?" "Aren't you anxious to know what happens when the major gets home to Bjerkely?" "Naturally, but. . ." "Come on, then!" They began to walk down toward the city. Several people passed them on the way, but they all walked right on by as if Sophie and Alberto were invisible. Cars were parked by the curbside all the way along the street. Alberto stopped by a small red convertible with the top down. "This will do," he said. "We must just make sure it's ours." "I have no idea what you mean." "I'd better explain then. We can't just take an ordinary car that belongs to someone here in the city. What do you think would happen when people noticed the car driving along without a driver? And anyway, we probably wouldn't be able to start it." "Then why the convertible?" "I think I recognize it from an old movie." "Look, I'm sorry, but I'm getting tired of all these cryptic remarks." "It's a make-believe car, Sophie. It's just like us. People here only see a vacant space. That's all we have to confirm before we're on our way." They stood by the car and waited. After a while, a boy came cycling along on the sidewalk. He turned suddenly and rode right through the red car and onto the road. "There, you see? It's ours!" Alberto opened the door to the passenger seat. "Be my guest!" he said, and Sophie got in. He got into the driver's seat. The key was in the ignition, he turned it, and the engine started. They drove southward out of the city, past Lysaker, Sandvika, Drammen, and down toward Lillesand. As they drove they saw more and more Midsummer bonfires, especially after they had passed Drammen. "It's Midsummer, Sophie. Isn't it wonderful?" "And there's such a lovely fresh breeze in an open car. Is it true that no one can see us?" "Only people of our own kind. We might meet some of them. What's the time now?" "Half past eight." "We'll have to take a few shortcuts. We can't stay behind this trailer, that's for sure." They turned off into a large wheatfield. Sophie looked back and saw that they had left a broad trail of flattened stalks. "Tomorrow they'll say a freak wind blew over the field," said Alberto. *** Major Albert Knag had just landed at Kastrup Airport outside Copenhagen. It was half past four on Saturday, June 23. It had already been a long day. This penultimate lap had been by plane from Rome. He went through passport control in his UN uniform, which he was proud to wear. He represented not only himself and his country. Albert Knag represented an international legal system--a century-old tradition that now embraced the entire planet. He carried only a flight bag. He had checked the rest of his baggage through from Rome. He just needed to hold up his red passport. "Nothing to declare." Major Albert Knag had a nearly three-hour wait in the airport before his plane left for Kristiansand. He would have time to buy a few presents for his family. He had sent the present of his life to Hilde two weeks ago. Marit, his wife, had put it on her bedside table for her to discover when she woke up on her birthday. He had not spoken with Hilde since that late night birthday call. Albert bought a couple of Norwegian newspapers, found himself a table in the bar, and ordered a cup of coffee. He had hardly had time to skim the headlines when he heard an announcement over the loudspeakers: "This is a personal call for Albert Knag. Albert Knag is requested to contact the SAS information desk." What now? He felt a chill down his spine. Surely he was not being ordered back to Lebanon? Could something be wrong at home? He quickly reached the SAS information desk. "I'm Albert Knag." "Here is a message for you. It is urgent." He opened the envelope at once. Inside lay a smaller envelope. It was addressed to Major Albert Knag, c/o SAS Information, Kastrup Airport, Copenhagen. Albert opened the little envelope nervously. It contained a short note: Dear Dad, Welcome home from Lebanon. As you can imagine, I can't even wait till you get home. Forgive me for having you paged over the loud-speakers. It was the easiest way. P.S. Unfortunately a claim for damages has arrived from financial adviser Ingebrigtsen regarding a stolen and wrecked Mercedes. P.S. P.S. I may be sitting in the garden when you get here. But you might also be hearing from me before that. P.S. P.S. P.S. I'm rather scared of staying in the garden too long at a time. It's so easy to sink into the ground in such places. Love from Hilde, who has had plenty of time to prepare your homecoming. Major Albert Knag's first impulse was to smile. But he did not appreciate being manipulated in this manner. He had always liked to be in charge of his own life. Now this little vixen in Lillesand was directing his movements in Kastrup Airport! How had she managed that? He put the envelope in his breast pocket and began to stroll toward the little shopping mall. He was just about to enter the Danish Food deli when he noticed a small envelope taped to the store window. It had MAJOR KNAG written on it with a thick marker pen. Albert took it down and opened it: Personal message for Major Albert Knag, c/o Danish Food, Kastrup Airport. Dear Dad, please buy a large Danish salami, preferably a two-pound one, and Mom would probably like a cognac sausage. P. S. Danish caviar is not bad either. Love, Hilde. Albert turned around. She wasn't here, was she? Had Mark given her a trip to Copenhagen so she could meet him here? It was Hilde's handwriting ... Suddenly the UN observer began to feel himself observed. It was as if someone was in remote control of everything he did. He felt like a doll in the hands of a child. He went into the shop and bought a two-pound salami, a cognac sausage, and three jars of Danish caviar. Then he continued down the row of stores. He had made up his mind to buy a proper present for Hilde. A calculator, maybe? Or a little radio--yes, that was what he would get. When he got to the store that sold electrical appliances, he saw that there was an envelope taped to the window there too. This one was addressed to "Major Albert Knag, c/o the most interesting store in Kastrup." Inside was the following note: Dear Dad, Sophie sends her greetings and thanks for the combined mini-TV and FM radio that she got for her birthday from her very generous father. It was great, but on the other hand it was a mere bagatelle. I must confess, though, that I share Sophie's liking for such bagatelles. P.S. In case you haven't been there yet, there are further instructions at the Danish Food store and the big Tax Free store that sells wines and tobacco. P.S. P.S. I got some money for my birthday, so I can contribute to the mini-TV with 350 crowns. Love, Hilde, who has already stuffed the turkey and made the Waldorf salad. A mini-TV cost 985 Danish crowns. That could certainly be called a bagatelle in comparison with how Albert Knag felt about being directed hither and thither by his daughter's sneaky tricks. Was she here--or was she not? From that moment on, he was constantly on guard wherever he went. He felt like a secret agent and a marionette rolled into one. Was he not being deprived of his basic human rights? He felt obliged to go into the Tax Free store as well. There hung a new envelope with his name on it. The whole airport was becoming a computer game with him as the cursor. He read the message: Major Knag, c/o the Tax Free store at Kastrup. All I need from here is a bag of gumdrops and some marzipan bars. Remember it's much more expensive in Norway. As far as I can recall, Mom is very fond of Campari. P.S. You must keep all your senses alert the whole way home. You wouldn't want to miss any important messages, would you? Love from your most teachable daughter, Hilde. Albert sighed despairingly, but he went into the store and shopped as instructed. With three plastic carriers and his flight bag he walked toward Gate 28 to wait for his flight. If there were any more messages they would have to stay there. However, at Gate 28 he caught sight of another white envelope taped to a pillar: "To Major Knag, c/o GATE 28, Kastrup Airport." This was also in Hilde's handwriting, but the gate number seemed to have been written by someone else. It was not easy to judge since there was no writing to compare it with, only block letters and digits. He took it down. This one said only "It won't be long now." He sat down on a chair with his back against the wall. He kept the shopping bags on his knees. Thus the proud major sat stiffly, eyes straight ahead, like a small child traveling alone for the first time. If Hilde was here, she was certainly not going to have the satisfaction of dis-covering him first. He glanced anxiously at each passenger that came in. For a while he felt like an enemy of the state under close surveillance. When the passengers were finally allowed to board the plane he breathed a sigh of relief. He was the last person to board. As he handed over his boarding pass he tore off another white envelope that had been taped to the check-in desk. Sophie and Alberto had passed Brevik, and a little later the exit to Kragera. "You're going awfully fasf," said Sophie. "It's almost nine o'clock. He'll soon be landing at Kjevik. But we won't be stopped for speeding." "Suppose we smash into another car?" "It makes no difference if it's just an ordinary car. But if it's one of our own . . ." "Then what?" "Then we'll have to be very careful. Didn't you notice that we passed the Bat Mobile." "No." "It was parked somewhere up in Vestfold." "This tourist bus won't be easy to pass. There are dense woods on each side of the road." "It makes no difference, Sophie. Can't you get it into your head?" So saying, he swung the car into the woods and drove straight through the trees. Sophie breathed a sigh of relief. "You scared me." "We wouldn't feel it if we drove into a brick wall." "That only means we're spirits of the air compared to our surroundings." "No, now you're putting the cart before the horse. It is the reality around us that's an airy adventure to us." "I don't get it." "Listen carefully, then. It is a widespread misunderstanding that spirit is a thing that is more 'airy' than vapor. On the contrary. Spirit is more solid than ice." "That never occurred to me." "And now I'll tell you a story. Once upon a time there was a man who didn't believe in angels. One day, while he was out working in the woods, he was visited by an angel." "And?" "They walked together for a while. Then the man turned to the angel and said, 'All right, now I have to admit that angels exist. But you don't exist in reality, like us."What do you mean by that?' asked the angel. So the man answered, 'When we came to that big rock, I had to go around it, but I noticed that you just glided through it. And when we came to that huge log that lay across the path, I had to climb over it while you walked straight through it.' The angel was very surprised, and said 'Didn't you also notice that we took a path that led through a marsh? We both walked right through the mist. That was because we were more solid than the mist.' "Ah." "It's the same with us, Sophie. Spirit can pass through steel doors. No tanks or bombers can crush anything that is of spirit." "That's a comfort." "We'll soon be passing Ris0r, and it's no more than an hour since we left the major's cabin. I could really use a cup of coffee." When they got to Fiane, just before S0ndeled, they passed a cafeteria on the lefthand side of the road. It was called Cinderella. Alberto swung the car around and parked on the grass in front of it. Inside, Sophie tried to take a bottle of Coke from the cooler, but she couldn't lift it. It seemed to be stuck. Further down the counter, Alberto was trying to tap coffee into a paper cup he had found in the car. He only had to press a lever, but even by exerting all his strength he could not press it down. This made him so mad that he turned to the cafeteria guests and asked for help. When no one reacted, he shouted so loudly that Sophie had to cover her ears: "I want some coffee!" His anger soon evaporated, and he doubled up with laughter. They were about to turn around and leave when an old woman got up from her chair and came toward them. She was wearing a garish red skirt, an ice-blue cardigan, and a white kerchief round her head. She seemed more sharply defined than anything else in the little cafeteria. She went up to Alberto and said, "My my, how you do yell, my boy!" "Excuse me." "You want some coffee, you said?" "Yes, but. . ." "We have a small establishment close by." They followed the old woman out of the cafeteria and down a path behind it. While they walked, she said, "You are new in these parts?" "We might as well admit it," answered Alberto. "That's all right. Welcome to eternity then, children." "And you?" "I'm out of one of Grimm's fairy tales. That was nearly two hundred years ago. And where are you from?" "We're out of a book on philosophy. I am the philosophy teacher and this is my student, Sophie." "Hee hee! That's a new one!" They came through the trees to a small clearing where there were several cozy-looking brown cottages. A large Midsummer bonfire was burning in a yard between the cottages, and around the bonfire danced a crowd of colorful figures. Sophie recognized many of them. There were Snow White and some of the seven dwarfs, Mary Poppins and Sherlock Holmes, Peter Pan and Pippi Longstocking, Little Red Ridinghood and Cinderella. A lot of familiar figures without names had also gathered around the bonfire--there were gnomes and elves, fauns and witches, angels and imps. Sophie also caught sight of a real live troll. "What a lot of noise!" exclaimed Alberto. "That's because it's Midsummer," said the old woman. "We haven't had a gathering like this since Valborg's Eve. That was when we were in Germany. I'm only here on a short visit. Was it coffee you wanted?" "Yes, please." Not until now did Sophie notice that all the buildings were made out of gingerbread, candy, and sugar icing. Several of the figures were eating directly off the facades. A baker was going around repairing the damage as it occurred. Sophie ventured to take a little bite off one corner. It tasted sweeter and better than anything she had ever tasted before. Presently the old woman returned with a cup of coffee. "Thank you very much indeed." "And what are the visitors going to pay for the coffee?" "To pay?" "We usually pay with a story. For coffee, an old wives' tale will suffice." "We could tell the whole incredible story of humanity," said Alberto, "but unfortunately we are in a hurry. Can we come back and pay some other day?" "Of course. And why are you in a hurry?" Alberto explained their errand, and the old woman commented: "I must say, you certainly are a pair of greenhorns. You'd better hurry up and cut the umbilical cord to your mortal progenitor. We no longer need their world. We belong to the invisible people." Alberto and Sophie hurried back to the Cinderella cafeteria and the red convertible. Right next to the car a busy mother was helping her little boy to pee. Racing along and taking shortcuts, they soon arrived in Lillesand. SK 876 from Copenhagen touched down at Kjevik on schedule at 9:35 p.m. While the plane was taxied out to the runway in Copenhagen, the.major had opened the envelope hanging from the check-in desk. The note inside read: To Major Knag, as he hands over his boarding pass at Kastrup on Midsummer Eve, 1990. Dear Dad, You probably thought I would turn up in Copenhagen. But my control over your movements is more ingenious than that. I can see you wherever you are, Dad. The fact is, I have been to visit a well-known Gypsy family which many, many years ago sold a magic brass mirror to Great-grandmother. I have also gotten myself a crystal ball. At this very moment, I can see that you have just sat down in your seat. May I remind you to fasten your seat belt and keep the back of your seat raised to an upright position until the Fasten Seat Belt sign has been switched off. As soon as the plane is in flight, you can lower the seat back and give yourself a well-earned rest. You will need to be rested when you get home. The weather in Lillesand is perfect, but the temperature is a few degrees lower than in Lebanon. I wish you a pleasant flight. Love, your own witch-daughter, Queen of the Mirror and the Highest Protector of Irony. Albert could not quite make out whether he was angry or merely tired and resigned. Then he started laughing. He laughed so loudly that his fellow passengers turned to stare at him. Then the plane took off. He had been given a taste of his own medicine. But with a significant difference, surely. His medicine had first and foremost affected Sophie and Alberto. And they--well, they were only imaginary. He did what Hilde had suggested. He lowered the back of his seat and nodded off. He was not fully awake again until he had gone through passport control and was standing in the arrival hall at Kjevik Airport. A demonstration was there to greet him. There were eight or ten young people of about Hilde's age. They were holding signs saying: WELCOME HOME, DAD -- HILDE IS WAITING IN THE GARDEN -- IRONY LIVES. The worst thing was that he could not just jump into a taxi. He had to wait for his baggage. And all the while, Hilde's classmates were swarming around him, forcing him to read the signs again and again. Then one of the girls came up and gave him a bunch of roses and he melted. He dug down into one of his shopping bags and gave each demonstrator a marzipan bar. Now there were only two left for Hilde. When he had reclaimed his baggage, a young man stepped forward and explained that he was under the command of the Queen of the Mirror, and that he had orders to drive him to Bjerkely. The other demonstrators dispersed into the crowd. They drove out onto the E 18. Every bridge and tunnel they passed was draped with banners saying: "Welcome home!", "The turkey is ready," "I can see you, Dad!" When he was dropped off outside the gate at Bjerkely, Albert Knag heaved a sigh of relief, and thanked the driver with a hundred crown note and three cans of Carlsberg Elephant beer. His wife was waiting for him outside the house. After a long embrace, he asked: "Where is she?" "She's sitting on the dock, Albert." Alberto and Sophie stopped the red convertible on the square in Lillesand outside the Hotel Norge. It was a quarter past ten. They could see a large bonfire out in the archipelago. "How do we find Bjerkely?" asked Sophie. "We'll just have to hunt around for it. You remember the painting in the major's cabin." "We'll have to hurry. I want to get there before he arrives." They started to drive around the minor roads and then over rocky mounds and slopes. A useful clue was that Bjerkely lay by the water. Suddenly Sophie shouted, "There it is! We've found it!" "I do believe you're right, but don't shout so loud." "Why? There's no one to hear us." "My dear Sophie--after a whole course in philosophy, I'm very disappointed to find you still jumping to conclusions." "Yes, but. . ." "Surely you don't believe this place is entirely devoid of trolls, pixies, wood nymphs, and good fairies?" "Oh, excuse me." They drove through the gate and up the gravel path to the house. Alberto parked the car on the lawn beside the glider. A little way down the garden a table was set for three. "I can see her!" whispered Sophie. "She's sitting down on the dock, just like in my dream." "Have you noticed how much the garden looks like your own garden in Clover Close?" "Yes, it does. With the glider and everything. Can I go down to her?" "Naturally. I'll stay here." Sophie ran down to the dock. She almost stumbled and fell over Hilde. But she sat down politely beside her. Hilde sat idly playing with the line that the rowboat was made fast with. In her left hand she held a slip of paper. She was clearly waiting. She glanced at her watch several times. Sophie thought she was very pretty. She had fair, curly hair and bright green eyes. She was wearing a yellow summer dress. She was not unlike Joanna. Sophie tried to talk to her even though she knew it was useless. "Hilde--it's Sophie!" Hilde gave no sign that she had heard. Sophie got onto her knees and tried to shout in her ear: "Can you hear me, Hilde? Or are you both deaf and blind?" Did she, or didn't she, open her eyes a little wider? Wasn't there a very slight sign that she had heard something--however faintly? She looked around. Then she turned her head sharply and stared right into Sophie's eyes. She did not focus on her properly; it was as if she was looking right through her. "Not so loud, Sophie," said Alberto from up in the car. "I don't want the garden filled with mermaids." Sophie sat still now. It felt good just to be close to Hilde. Then she heard the deep voice of a man: "Hilde!" It was the major--in uniform, with a blue beret. He stood at the top of the garden. Hilde jumped up and ran toward him. They met between the glider and the red convertible. He lifted her up in the air and swung her around and around. Hilde had been sitting on the dock waiting for her father. Since he had landed at Kastrup, she had thought of him every fifteen minutes, trying to imagine where he was now, and how he was taking it. She had noted all the times down on a slip of paper and kept it with her all day. What if it made him angry? But surely he couldn't expect that he would write a mysterious book for her-- and then everything would remain as before? She looked at her watch again. Now it was a quarter past ten. He could be arriving any minute. But what was that? She thought she heard a faint breath of something, exactly as in her dream about Sophie. She turned around quickly. There was something, she was sure of it. But what? Maybe it was only the summer night. For a few seconds she was afraid she was hearing things. "Hilde!" Now she turned the other way. It was Dad! He was standing at the top of the garden. Hilde jumped up and ran toward him. They met by the glider. He lifted her up in the air and swung her around and around. Hilde was crying, and her father had to hold back his tears as well. "You've become a grown woman, Hilde!" "And you've become a real writer." Hilde wiped away her tears. "Shall we say we're quits?" she asked. "We're quits." They sat down at the table. First of all Hilde had to have an exact description of everything that had happened at Kastrup and on the way home. They kept bursting out laughing. "Didn't you see the envelope in the cafeteria?" "I didn't get a chance to sit down and eat anything, you villain. Now I'm ravenous." "Poor Dad." "The stuff about the turkey was all bluff, then?" "It certainly was not! I have prepared everything. Mom's doing the serving." Then they had to go over the ring binder and the story of Sophie and Alberto from one end to the other and backwards and forwards. Mom brought out the turkey and the Waldorf salad, the rose wine and Hilde's homemade bread. Her father was just saying something about Plato when Hilde suddenly interrupted him: "Shh!" "What is it?" "Didn't you hear it? Something squeaking?" "No." "I'm sure I heard something. I guess it was just a field mouse." While her mother went to get another bottle of wine, her father said: "But the philosophy course isn't quite over." "It isn't?" "Tonight I'm going to tell you about the universe." Before they began to eat, he said to his wife, "Hilde is too big to sit on my knee any more. But you're not!" With that he caught Marit round the waist and drew her onto his lap. It was quite a while before she got anything to eat. "To think you'll soon be forty ..." When Hilde jumped up and ran toward her father, Sophie felt her tears welling up. She would never be able to reach her . . 
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 35楼  发表于: 2013-10-28 0
[content too large, truncated for display]
英文原文
[table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,1]
The Garden Party
... a white crow
Hilde sat on the bed, transfixed. She felt her arms and her hands tremble, as they gripped the heavy ring binder.
It was almost eleven o'clock. She had been reading for over two hours. From time to time she had raised her eyes from the text and laughed aloud, but she had also turned over on her side and gasped. It was a good thing she was alone in the house.
And what she had been through these last two hours! It started with Sophie trying to attract the major's attention on the way home from the cabin in the woods. She had finally climbed a tree and been rescued by Morten Goose, who had arrived like a guardian angel from Lebanon.
Although it was a long, long time ago, Hilde had never forgotten how her father had read The Wonderful Adventures of Nils to her. For many years after that, she and her father had had a secret language together that was connected with the book. Now he had dragged the old goose out again.
Then Sophie had her first experience as a lone customer in a cafe. Hilde had been especially taken with what Alberto said about Sartre and existentialism. He had almost managed to convert her--although he had done that many times before in the ring binder too.
Once, about a year ago, Hilde had bought a book on astrology. Another time she had come home with a set of tarot cards. Next time it was a book on spiritualism. Each time, her father had lectured her about "superstition" and her "critical faculty," but he had waited until now for the final blow. His counterattack was deadly accurate. Clearly, his daughter would not be allowed to grow up without a thorough warning against that kind of thing. To be absolutely sure, he had waved to her from a TV screen in a radio store. He could have saved himself the trouble ...
What she wondered about most of all was Sophie. Sophie--who are you? Where do you come from? Why have you come into my life?
Finally Sophie had been given a book about herself. Was it the same book that Hilde now had in her hands? This was only a ring binder. But even so--how could one find a book about oneself in a book about oneself? What would happen if Sophie began to read that book?
What was going to happen now? What could happen now? There were only a few pages left in her ring binder.
Sophie met her mother on the bus on her way home from town. Oh, no! What would her mother say when she saw the book in Sophie's hand?
Sophie tried to put it in the bag with all the streamers and balloons she had bought for the party but she didn't quite make it.
"Hi, Sophie! We caught the same bus! How nice!"
"Hi, Mom!"
"You bought a book?"
"No, not exactly."
"Sophie's World ... how curious."
Sophie knew she didn't have the slightest chance of lying to her mother.
"I got it from Alberto."
"Yes, I'm sure you did. As I said, I'm looking forward to meeting this man. May I see?"
"Would you mind very much waiting till we get home, at least. It is my book, Mom."
"Of course it's your book. I just want to take a peek at the first page, okay? ... '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 . . .'"
"Does it really say that?"
"Yes, it does, Sophie. It's written by someone called Albert Knag. He must be a newcomer. What's your Al-berto's name, by the way?"
"Knox."
"It'll probably turn out that this extraordinary person has written a whole book about you, Sophie. It's called using a pseudonym."
"It's not him, Mom. Why don't you just give up. You don't understand anything anyway."
"No, I don't suppose I do. The garden party is tomorrow, then everything will be all right again."
"Albert Knag lives in a completely different reality. That's why this book is a white crow."
"You really must stop all this! Wasn't it a white rabbit?"
"You stop it!"
That was as far as they got before they reached their stop at the end of Clover Close. They ran straight into a demonstration.
"My God!" exclaimed Helene Amundsen, "I really thought we would be spared street politics in this neighborhood."
There were no more than about ten or twelve people. Their banners read:
THE MAJOR IS AT HAND
YES TO YUMMY MIDSUMMER EATS
MORE POWER TO THE UN
Sophie almost felt sorry for her mother.
"Never mind," she said.
"But it was a peculiar demonstration, Sophie. Quite absurd, really."
"It was a mere bagatelle."
"The world changes more and more rapidly all the time. Actually, I'm not in the least surprised."
"You should be surprised that you're not surprised, at any rate."
"Not at all. They weren't violent, were they? I just hope they haven't trampled all over our rosebeds. Surely it can't be necessary to demonstrate in a garden. Let's hurry home and see."
"It was a philosophical demonstration, Mom. Real philosophers don't trample on rosebeds."
"I'll tell you what, Sophie. I don't think I believe in real philosophers any longer. Everything is synthetic nowadays."
They spent the afternoon and evening preparing. They continued the next morning, setting and decorating the table. Joanna came over to give them a hand.
"Good grief!" she said, "Mom and Dad are coming too. It's your fault, Sophie!"
Everything was ready half an hour before the guests were due. The trees were festooned with streamers and Japanese lanterns. The garden gate, the trees lining the path, and the front of the house were hung with balloons. Sophie and Joanna had spent most of the afternoon blowing them up.
The table was set with chicken, salad, and different kinds of homemade bread. In the kitchen there were raisin buns and layer cake, Danish pastry and chocolate cake. But from the start the place of honor in the center of the table was reserved for the birthday cake--a pyramid of almond-paste rings. On the top of the cake was the tiny figure of a girl in a confirmation dress. Sophie's mother had assured her that it could just as well represent an unconfirmed fifteen-year-old, but Sophie was certain her mother had only put it there because Sophie had told her she was not sure she wanted to be confirmed. Her mother seemed to think the cake embodied the confirmation itself.
"We haven't spared any expense," she repeated several times in the half hour before the party was due to start.
The guests began to arrive. First came three of the girls from Sophie's class, dressed in summer shirts and light cardigans, long skirts, and the barest suggestion of eye makeup. A bit later, Jeremy and David came strolling in through the gate, with a blend of shyness and boyish arrogance.
"Happy birthday!"
"You're an adult now, too!"
Sophie noticed that Joanna and Jeremy had already begun eyeing each other discreetly. There was something in the air. It was Midsummer Eve.
Everybody had brought birthday presents, and as it was a philosophical garden party, several of the guests had tried to find out what philosophy was. Although not all of them had managed to find philosophical presents, most of them had written something philosophical on their cards. Sophie received a philosophical dictionary as well as a diary with a lock; on the cover was written MY PERSONAL PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHTS. As the guests arrived they were served apple juice in long-stemmed wine glasses. Sophie's mother did the serving.
"Welcome ... And what is this young man's name? I don't believe we've met before ... So glad you could come, Cecilie . . ."
When all the younger guests had arrived and were strolling under the trees with their wine glasses, Joanna's parents drew up at the garden gate in a white Mercedes. The financial adviser was impeccably dressed in an expensively cut gray suit. His wife was wearing a red pants suit with dark red sequins. Sophie was sure she had bought a Barbie doll in a toy store dressed in that suit, and had a tailor make it up in her size. There was another possibility; the financial adviser could have bought the doll and given it to a magician to make into a live woman. But this possibility was unlikely, so Sophie rejected it.
They stepped out of the Mercedes and walked into the garden where younger guests looked at them with surprise. The financial adviser presented a long, narrow package from the Ingebrigtsen family. Sophie tried hard to maintain her composure when it turned out to be--yes, it was!--a Barbie doll. But Joanna made no such effort:
"Are you crazy? Sophie doesn't play with dolls!"
Mrs. Ingebrigtsen came hurrying over, with all her sequins clanking. "But it's only for decoration, you know."
"Well, thank you very much indeed." Sophie tried to smooth things over. "Now I can start ft collection."
People began to drift toward the table.
"We're only waiting for Alberto," said Sophie's mother to her in a somewhat brisk tone that was intended to hide her growing apprehension. Rumors of the special guest of honor had already spread among the other guests.
"He has promised to come, so he'll come."
"But we can't seat the guests before he arrives, can we?"
"Of course we can. Let's go ahead."
Helene Amundsen began to seat people around the long table. She made sure that the vacant chair was between her own and Sophie's place. She said a few words about the beautiful weather and the fact that Sophie was now a grownup.
They had been sitting at the table for half an hour when a middle-aged man with a black goatee and a beret came walking up Clover Close and in through the garden gate. He was carrying a bouquet of fifteen red roses.
"Alberto!"
Sophie left the table and ran to greet him. She threw her arms around his neck and took the bouquet from him. He responded to the welcome by rooting around in his jacket pocket and drawing out a couple of Chinese firecrackers which he lit and tossed into the yard. As. he approached the table, he lit a sparkler and set it on top of the almond pyramid. Then he went over and stood at the empty place between Sophie and her mother.
"I'm delighted to be here," he said.
The guests were dumbstruck. Mrs. Ingebrigtsen gave her husband a significant look. Sophie's mother was so relieved that the man had finally arrived, however, that she would have forgiven him anything. Sophie herself was struggling to suppress her laughter.
Helene Amundsen tapped on her glass and said:
"Let us also welcome Alberto Knox to this philosophical garden party. He is not my new boyfriend, because although my husband is so often away at sea, I don't have a new boyfriend for the time being. However, this astounding person is Sophie's new philosophy teacher. His prowess extends further than to setting off fireworks.
This man is able, for example, to draw a live rabbit out of a top hat. Or was it a crow, Sophie?"
"Many thanks," said Alberto. He sat down.
"Cheers!" said Sophie, and the guests raised their glasses and drank his health.
They sat for a long time over their chicken and salad. Suddenly Joanna got up, walked determinedly over to Jeremy, and gave him a resounding kiss on the lips. He responded by trying to topple her backward over the table so as to get a better grip as he returned her kiss.
"Well, I've never ..." exclaimed Mrs. Ingebrigtsen.
"Not on the table, children," was Mrs. Amundsen's only comment.
"Why not?" asked Alberto, turning toward her.
"That was an odd question."
"It's never wrong for a real philosopher to ask questions."
A couple of the other boys who had not been kissed started to throw chicken bones up on the roof. This, too, elicited only a mild comment from Sophie's mother:
"Would you mind not doing that. It's such a nuisance when there are chicken bones in the gutter."
"Sorry," said one of the boys, whereupon they started throwing chicken bones over the garden hedge instead.
"I think it's time to clear the plates away and serve the cake," said Mrs. Amundsen finally. "Sophie and Joanna, will you give me a hand?"
On their way to the kitchen there was only time for a brief discussion.
"What made you kiss him?" Sophie said to Joanna.
"I sat looking at his mouth and couldn't resist it. He is so cute!"
"How did it taste?"
"Not exactly like I'd imagined, but. . ."
"It was the first time, then?"
"But not the last!"
Coffee and cake were soon on the table. Alberto had started giving the boys some of his firecrackers when Sophie's mother tapped on her coffee cup.
"I am not going to make a long speech," she began, "but I only have this one daughter, and it is only this once that exactly one week and a day ago she reached the age of fifteen. As you see, we have spared no expense. There are twenty-four almond rings on the birthday cake, so there's at least one whole ring for each of you. Those who help themselves first can take two rings, because we start from the top and the rings get bigger and bigger as you go. That's the way it is in life too. When Sophie was a little girl, she went tripping around in tiny little rings. But as the years went by, the rings got bigger and bigger. Now they reach right over to the Old Town and back. And what is more, with a father who is at sea so much, she makes calls to all parts of the world. We congratulate you on your fifteenth birthday, Sophie!"
"Delightful!" exclaimed Mrs. Ingebrigtsen.
Sophie was not sure whether she was referring to her mother, the speech, the birthday cake, or Sophie herself.
The guests applauded, and one of the boys threw a firecracker up into the pear tree. Joanna left the table and pulled Jeremy up off his chair. They lay down on the grass and started kissing each other again. After a while they rolled in under the red-currant bushes.
"Nowadays it's the girl who takes the initiative," said Mr. Ingebrigtsen.
Having said that, he got up and went over to the red-currant bushes where he stood observing the phenomenon at close quarters. The rest of the guests followed suit. Only Sophie and Alberto remained sitting at the table. The other guests now stood in a semicircle around Joanna and Jeremy.
"They can't be stopped," said Mrs. Ingebrigtsen, not without a certain pride.
"No, generation follows generation," said her husband.
He looked around, expecting applause for his well-chosen words. When the only response was a few silent nods, he added: "It can't be helped."
Sophie saw from a distance that Jeremy was trying to unbutton Joanna's white shirt, which was already covered with green stains from the grass. She was fumbling with his belt.
"Don't catch cold!" said Mrs. Ingebrigtsen.
Sophie looked despairingly at Alberto.
"It's happening more quickly than I thought," he said. "We have to get away from here as soon as possible. I just have to make a short speech."
Sophie clapped her hands loudly.
"Could everyone please come back and sit down again? Alberto is going to make a speech."
Everyone except Joanna and Jeremy came drifting back to their places at the table.
"Are you really going to make a speech?" asked He-lene Amundsen. "How charming!"
"Thank you."
"And you like going for walks, I know. It is so important to stay in shape. And it's so much nicer when you have a dog to keep you company. Hermes, isn't that its name?"
Alberto stood up. "Dear Sophie," he began. "Since this is a philosophical garden party, I will make a philosophical speech."
This was greeted by a burst of applause.
"In this riotous company, a dose of reason might not be out of place. But whatever happens, let us not forget to congratulate Sophie on her fifteenth birthday."
He had hardly finished these sentences when they heard the drone of an approaching sports plane. It flew in low over the garden. Behind it streamed a long tail banner saying: "Happy 15th birthday!"
This led to renewed applause, even louder than before.
"There, you see?" Mrs. Amundsen cried joyfully. "This man can do more than set off fireworks!"
"Thank you. It was a mere bagatelle. During the past few weeks, Sophie and I have carried out a major philosophical investigation. We shall here and now reveal our findings. We shall reveal the innermost secrets of our existence."
The little gathering was now so quiet that the only sounds were the twittering of the birds and a few subdued noises from the red-currant bushes. "Go on," said Sophie.
"After a thorough philosophical study--which has led from the first Greek philosophers to the present day--we have discovered that we are living our lives in the mind of a major who is at this moment serving as a UN observer in Lebanon. He has also written a book about us for his daughter back in Lillesand. Her name is Hilde Mailer Knag, and she was fifteen years old on the same day as Sophie. The book about us lay on her bedside table when she woke up early on the morning of June 15. To be more precise, it was in the form of a ring binder. Even as we speak, she can feel the final pages of the ring binder under her index finger."
A feeling of apprehension had begun to spread around the table.
"Our existence is therefore neither more nor less than a kind of birthday diversion for Hilde Mailer Knag. We have all been invented as a framework for the major's philosophical education of his daughter. This means, for example, that the white Mercedes at the gate is not worth a cent. It's just a bagatelle. It's worth no more than the white Mercedes that drives around and around inside the head of a poor UN major, who has just this minute sat down in the shade of a palm tree to avoid getting sunstroke. The days are hot in Lebanon, my friends."
"Garbage!" exclaimed the financial adviser. "This is absolutely pure nonsense."
"You are welcome to your opinion," Alberto continued unabashed, "but the truth is that it is this garden party which is absolutely pure nonsense. The only dose of reason in the whole party is this speech."
At that, the financial adviser got up and said:
"Here we are, trying our best to run a business, and to make sure we have insurance coverage against every kind of risk. Then along comes this know-it-all who tries to destroy it all with his 'philosophical' allegations."
Alberto nodded in agreement.
"There is indeed no insurance to cover this kind of philosophical insight. We are talking of something worse than a natural catastrophe, sir. But as you are probably aware, insurance doesn't cover those either."
"This is not a natural catastrophe."
"No, it is an existential catastrophe. For example, just take a look under the currant bushes and you will see what I mean. You cannot insure yourself against the collapse of your whole life. Neither can you insure yourself against the sun going out."
"Do we have to put up with this?" asked Joanna's father, looking at his wife.
She shook her head, and so did Sophie's mother.
"What a shame," she said, "and after we had spared no expense."
The younger guests continued to look at Alberto. "We want to hear more," said a curly-haired boy with glasses.
"Thank you, but there is not much more to say. When you have realized that you are a dream image in another person's sleepy consciousness, then, in my opinion, it is wisest to be silent. But I can finish by recommending that you take a short course in the history of philosophy. It is important to be critical of the older generation's values. If I have tried to teach Sophie anything, it is precisely that, to think critically. Hegel called it thinking negatively."
The financial adviser was still standing, drumming his fingers on the table.
"This agitator is attempting to break down all the sound values which the school and the church and we ourselves are trying to instill in the younger generation. It is they who have the future before them and who one day will inherit everything we have built up. If this man is not immediately removed from this gathering I intend to call our lawyer. He will know how to deal with this situation."
"It makes little difference whether you deal with this situation or not, since you are nothing but a shadow. Anyway, Sophie and I are about to leave the party, since for us the philosophy course has not been purely theoretical. It has also had its practical side. When the time is ripe we will perform our disappearing act. That is how we are going to sneak our way out of the major's consciousness."
Helene Amundsen took hold of her daughter's arm.
"You are not leaving me, are you, Sophie?"
Sophie put her arms around her mother. She looked up at Alberto.
"Mom is so sad . . ."
"No, that's just ridiculous. Don't forget what you have learned. It's this sort of nonsense we must liberate ourselves from. Your mother is a sweet and kind lady, just as the Little Red Ridinghood who came to my door that day had a basket filled with food for her grandmother. Your mother is no more sad than the plane that just flew over needed fuel for its congratulation maneuvers."
"I think I see what you mean," said Sophie, and turned back to her mother. "That's why I have to do what he says, Mom. One day I had to leave you."
"I'm going to miss you," said her mother, "but if there is a heaven over this one, you'll just have to fly. I promise to take good care of Govinda. Does it eat one or two lettuce leaves a day?"
Alberto put his hand on her shoulder.
"Neither you nor anyone else here will miss us for the simple reason that you do not exist. You are no more than shadows."
"That is the worst insult I've ever heard," Mrs. Ingebrigtsen burst out.
Her husband nodded.
"If nothing else, we can always get him nailed for defamation of character. I'm sure he's a Communist. He wants to strip us of everything we hold dear. The man's a scoundrel."
With that, both Alberto and the financial adviser sat down. The letter's face was crimson with rage. Now Joanna and Jeremy also came and sat at the table. Their clothes were grubby and crumpled. Joanna's golden hair was caked with mud and earth.
"Mom, I'm going to have a baby," she announced.
"All right, but you'll have to wait till you get home."
She had immediate support from her husband. "She'll simply have to contain herself," he said. "And if there is to be a christening tonight, she'll have to arrange it herself."
Alberto looked down at Sophie with a somber expression.
"It's time."
"Can't you at least bring us a little more coffee before you go?" asked her mother.
"Of course, Mom, I'll do it right away."
Sophie took the thermos from the table. She had to make more coffee. While she stood waiting for it to brew, she fed the birds and the goldfish. She also went into the bathroom and put a lettuce leaf out for Govinda. She couldn't see the cat anywhere, but she opened a large can of cat food, emptied it into a bowl and set it out on the step. She felt her tears welling up.
When she returned with the coffee, the garden party looked more like a children's party than a young woman's philosophical celebration. Several soda bottles had been knocked over on the table, there was chocolate cake smeared all over the tablecloth and the dish of raisin buns lay upside down on the lawn. Just as Sophie arrived, one of the boys put a firecracker to the layer cake, which exploded all over the table and the guests. The worst casualty was Mrs. Ingebrigtsen's red pants suit. The curious thing was that both she and everybody else took it with the utmost calm. Joanna picked up a huge piece of chocolate cake, smeared it all over Jeremy's face, and proceeded to lick it off again.
Her mother and Alberto were sitting in the glider a little way away from the others. They waved to Sophie.
"So you finally had your confidential talk," said Sophie.
"And you were perfectly right," said her mother, quite elated now. "Alberto is a very altruistic person. I entrust you to his strong arms."
Sophie sat down between them.
Two of the boys had managed to climb onto the roof. One of the girls went around pricking holes in all the balloons with a hairpin. Then an uninvited guest arrived on a motorcycle with a crate of beer and bottles of aquavit strapped to the carrier. A few helpful souls welcomed him in.
At that, the financial adviser rose from the table. He clapped his hands and said:
"Do you want to play a game?"
He grabbed a bottle of beer, drank it down, and set the empty bottle in the middle of the lawn. Then he went to the table and fetched the last five rings of the birthday cake. He showed the other guests how to throw the rings so they landed over the neck of the bottle.
"The death throes," said Alberto. "We'd better get away before the major ends it all and Hilde closes the ring binder."
"You'll have to clear up alone, Mom."
"It doesn't matter, child. This was no life for you. If Alberto can give you a better one, nobody will be happier than I. Didn't you tell me he had a white horse?"
Sophie looked out across the garden. It was unrecognizable. Bottles, chicken bones, buns, and balloons were trampled into the grass.
"This was once my little Garden of Eden," she said.
"And now you're being driven out of it," said Alberto.
One of the boys was sitting in the white Mercedes. He revved the engine and the car smashed through the garden gate, up the gravel path, and down into the garden.
Sophie felt a hard grip on her arm as she was dragged into the den. Then she heard Alberto's voice:
"Now!"
At the same moment the white Mercedes crashed into an apple tree. Unripe fruit showered down onto the hood.
"That's going too far!" shouted the financial adviser. "I demand substantial compensation!"
His wife gave him her full support.
"It's that damned scoundrel's fault! Where is he?"
"They have vanished into thin air," said Helene Amundsen, not without a touch of pride.
She drew herself up to her full height, walked toward the long table and began to clear up after the philosophical garden party.
"More coffee, anyone?"



[/td][td=1,1,60%]
中文翻译
[table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,1][tr][td]   花园宴会    ……一只白色的乌鸦……    席德坐在床上,动也不动。她可以感觉到她双臂与双手绷得紧紧的,拿着那本沉重的讲义夹,颤抖着。    已经快十一点。她坐在那儿读了两个多小时了。这期间她不时抬头大笑,有时笑得她不得不翻身喘气。还好屋里只有她一个人。    这两个小时内发生的事可真多呀。最先是苏菲在从林间小木屋回家的路上努力要引起少校的注意力。最后她爬到一棵树上,然后被大雁莫通给救了。那只雁是从黎巴嫩飞来的,仿佛是她的守护天使一般。    虽然已经过了很久,但席德永远不会忘记从前爸爸念《尼尔奇遇记》(TheWonderfulAdventureofNils)给她听的情景。因为那之后有许多年,她和爸爸之间发展出了一种与那本书有关的秘密语言。现在他又把那只老雁给揪出来了。    后来苏菲第一次体验到独自一人上咖啡厅的滋味。席德对艾伯特讲的萨特和存在主义的事特别感兴趣。他几乎让她变成了一个存在主义者。不过,话说回来,他过去也有好几次曾经这样过。    大约一年前,席德买了一本占星学的书,还有一次她拿了一组意大利纸牌回家,后来又有一次她买了一本有关招魂术的书。每一次,爸爸总是跟她说一些什么“迷信”呀、“批判的能力”呀等等道理,但他一直等到现在才来“绝地大反攻”。他的反击可说是正中要害。很明显的,他想在他的女儿长大之前彻彻底底警告她那些东西的害处。为了安全起见,他安排了他从电器商店的电视屏幕上对她挥手的场面。其实他大可不必这样的……她最感到好奇的还是那个女孩。    苏菲,苏菲——你在哪里?你从何处来?你为什么进入我的生命?最后,艾伯特给了苏菲一本有关她自己的书。那本书是否就是席德现在手上拿的这一本呢?当然,这只是一个讲义夹。但即使是这样,一个人怎么可能在一本有关他自己的书里面发现一本有关他自己的书呢?如果苏菲开始读这本书,会有什么事发生呢?席德用手指摸一摸讲义夹,只剩下几页了。    苏菲从镇上回家时在公车上碰到了她妈妈。该死J她如果看见她手上拿的这本书,不知道会说什么呢!苏菲想把那本书放在装着宴会用彩带和气球的袋子里,但并没有成功。    “嗨,苏菲j我们居然坐同一辆公车!真好尸“嗨,妈!”    “你买了一本书呀?”    “没有,不是买的。”    “《苏菲的世界》……多奇怪呀。”    苏菲知道这时她是骗不了妈妈的。    “是艾伯特给我的。”“嗯,我想一定是的。我说过了,我一直在等着见这个人呢。我可以看看吗?”    “可不可以等到我们回家以后?妈,这是我的书耶!”    “这当然是你的书啦。我只想看看第一页。好吗?……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......”    “书里真的这么写吗?”    “没错。是一个名叫艾勃特的人写的。他一定是刚出道的。喔,对了,你那位哲学家叫什么名字?”    “艾伯特。”    “也许这个怪人写了一本关于你的书呢,苏菲。他用的可能是笔名。”    “那不是他。妈,你就别再说了吧。反正你什么都不懂。”    “是呀,我是不懂。明天我们就举行花园宴会了,然后一切又会恢复正常。”    “艾伯特活在一个完全不同的世界里,所以这本书是一只白乌鸦。”    “你真的不能再这样下去了2以前你说的不是白兔吗?”    “好了,别说了。”    她们说到这里,苜蓿巷就到了。她们刚下车就遇上了一次示威游行。    “天哪!”苏菲的妈妈喊,“我还以为我们这个社区不会发生这样的事呢!”    示威的人顶多只有十到十二个。他们乎里拿的布条上写着:“少校快来了!”    “支持美味的仲夏节大餐!”    “加强联合国!”    苏菲几乎替妈妈感到难过。    “别理他们。”她说。    “可是这个示威好奇怪呀,挺荒谬的。”    “只不过是个小把戏罢了!”    “世界改变得愈来愈快了。其实,我一点也不感到惊讶。”    “不管怎样,你应该对你不感到惊讶这件事感到惊讶。”    “一点也不。他们并不暴力呀,是不是?我只希望他们还没有把我们的玫瑰花床踩坏。我想他们一定不会在一座花园里示威吧。    我们赶快回家看看。”    “妈,这是一次哲学性的示威。真正的哲学家是不会践踏玫瑰花床的。”    “我告诉你吧,苏菲。我不相信世上还有真正的哲学家了。这年头什么都是合成的。”    生日宴会那天下午和晚上,他们一直忙着准备。第二天早上,他们仍继续未完的工作,铺桌子、装饰餐桌。乔安也过来帮忙。    “这下可好了!”她说,“我爸妈也打算要来。都是你,苏菲!”    在客人预定到达前半小时,一切都准备好了。树上挂满了彩带和日本灯笼。花园的门上、小径两旁的树上和屋子的前面都挂满了气球。那天下午大部分时间,苏菲和乔安都忙着吹气球。    餐桌上摆了鸡、沙拉和各式各样的自制面包。厨房里还有葡萄面包和双层蛋糕、丹麦酥和巧克力蛋糕。可是打从一开始,餐桌上最中央的位置就保留给生日蛋糕。那是一个由杏仁圈饼做成的金字塔。在蛋糕的尖顶,有一个穿着坚信礼服装的小女孩图案。苏菲的妈妈曾向她保证那个图案也可以代表一个没有受坚信礼的十五岁女孩,可是苏菲相信妈妈之所以把它放在那儿,是因为苏菲说她不确定自己是不是�
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 34楼  发表于: 2013-10-28 0
[content too large, truncated for display] [table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,4][tr][td]
英文原文
[table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,1][tr][td]Our Own Time ... man is condemned to be free The alarm clock showed 11:55 p.m. Hilde lay staring at the ceiling. She tried to let her associations flow freely. Each time she finished a chain of thoughts, she tried to ask herself why. Could there be something she was trying to repress? If only she could have set aside all censorship, she might have slid into a waking dream. A bit scary, she thought. The more she relaxed and opened herself to random thoughts and images, the more she felt as if she was in the major's cabin by the little lake in the woods. What could Alberto be planning? Of course, it was Hilde's father planning that Alberto was planning something. Did he already know what Alberto would do? Perhaps he was trying to give himself free rein, so that whatever happened in the end would come as a surprise to him too. There were not many pages left now. Should she take a peek at the last page? No, that would be cheating. And besides, Hilde was convinced that it was far from decided what was to happen on the last page. Wasn't that a curious thought? The ring binder was right here and her father could not possibly get back in time to add anything to it. Not unless Alberto did something on his own. A surprise ... Hilde had a few surprises up her own sleeve, in any case. Her father did not control her. But was she in full control of herself? What was consciousness? Wasn't it one of the greatest riddles of the universe? What was memory? What made us "remember" everything we had seen and experienced? What kind of mechanism made us create fabulous dreams night after night? She closed her eyes from time to time. Then she opened them and stared at the ceiling again. At last she forgot to open them. She was asleep. When the raucous scream of a seagull woke her, Hilde got out of bed. As usual, she crossed the room to the window and stood looking out across the bay. It had gotten to be a habit, summer and winter. As she stood there, she suddenly felt a myriad of colors exploding in her head. She remembered what she had dreamt. But it felt like more than an ordinary dream, with its vivid colors and shapes ... She had dreamt that her father came home from Lebanon, and the whole dream was an extension of Sophie's dream when she found the gold crucifix on the dock. Hilde was sitting on the edge of the dock--exactly as in Sophie's dream. Then she heard a very soft voice whispering, "My name is Sophie!" Hilde had stayed where she was, sitting very still, trying to hear where the voice was coming from. It continued, an almost inaudible rustling, as if an insect were speaking to her: "You must be both deaf and blind!" Just then her father had come into the garden in his UN uniform. "Hilde!" he shouted. Hilde ran up to him and threw her arms around his neck. That's where the dream ended. She remembered some lines of a poem by Arnulf 0verland: Wakened one night by a curious dreamand a voice that seemed to be speaking to melike a far-off subterranean stream,I rose and asked: What do you want of me? She was still standing at the window when her mother came in. "Hi there! Are you already awake?" "I'm not sure..." "I'll be home around four, as usual." "Okay, Mom." "Have a nice vacation day, Hilde!" "You have a good day too." When she heard her mother slam the front door, she slipped back into bed with the ring binder. "I'm going to dive down into the major's unconscious. That's where I'll be until we meet again." There, yes. Hilde started reading again. She could feel under her right index finger that there were only a few pages left. When Sophie left the major's cabin, she could still see some of the Disney figures at the water's edge, but they seemed to dissolve as she approached them. By the time she reached the boat they had all disappeared. While she was rowing she made faces, and after she had pulled the boat up into the reeds on the other side she waved her arms about. She was working desperately to hold the major's attention so that Alberto could sit undisturbed in the cabin. She danced along the path, hopping and skipping. Then she tried walking like a mechanical doll. To keep the major interested she began to sing as well. At one point she stood still, pondering what Alberta's plan could be. Catching herself, she got such a bad conscience that she started to climb a tree. Sophie climbed as high as she could. When she was nearly at the top, she realized she could not get down. She decided to wait a little before trying again. But meanwhile she could not just stay quietly where she was. Then the major would get tired of watching her and would begin to interest himself in what Alberto was doing. Sophie waved her arms, tried to crow like a rooster a couple of times, and finally began to yodel. It was the first time in her fifteen-year-old life that Sophie had yodeled. All things considered, she was quite pleased with the result. She tried once more to climb down but she was truly stuck. Suddenly a huge goose landed on one of the branches Sophie was clinging to. Having recently seen a whole swarm of Disney figures, Sophie was not in the least surprised when the goose began to speak. "My name is Morten," said the goose. "Actually, I'm a tame goose, but on this special occasion I have flown up from Lebanon with the wild geese. You look as if you could use some help getting down from this tree." "You are much too small to help me," said Sophie. "You are jumping to conclusions, young lady. It is you who are too big." "It's the same thing, isn't it?" "I would have you know I carried a peasant boy exactly your age all over Sweden. His name was Nils Hol-gersson." "I am fifteen." "And Nils was fourteen. A year one way or the other makes no difference to the freight." "How did you manage to lift him?" "I gave him a little slap and he passed out. When he woke up, he was no bigger than a thumb." "Perhaps you could give me a little slap too, because I can't sit up here forever. And I'm giving a philosophical garden party on Saturday." "That's interesting. I presume this is a philosophy book, then. When I was flying over Sweden with Nils Holgers-son, we touched down on Marbacka in Varmland, where Nils met an old woman who was planning to write a book about Sweden for schoolchildren. It was to be both instructive and true, she said. When she heard about Nils's adventures, she decided to write a book about all the things he had seen on gooseback." "That was very strange." "To tell you the truth it was rather ironic, because we were already in that book." Suddenly Sophie felt something slap her cheek and the next minute she had become no bigger than a thumb. The tree was like a whole forest and the goose was as big as a horse. "Come on, then," said the goose. Sophie walked along the branch and climbed up on the goose's back. Its feathers were soft, but now that she was so small, they pricked her more than they tickled. As soon as she had settled comfortably the goose took off. They flew high above the treetops. Sophie looked down at the lake and the major's cabin. Inside sat Al-berto, laying his devious plans. "A short sightseeing tour will have to be sufficient today," said the goose, flapping its wings again and again. With that, it flew in to land at the foot of the tree which Sophie had so recently begun to climb. As the goose touched down Sophie tumbled onto the ground. After rolling around in the heather a few times, she sat up. She realized with amazement that she was her full size again. The goose waddled around her a few times. "Thanks a lot for your help," said Sophie. "It was a mere bagatelle. Did you say this was a philosophy book?" "No, that's what you said." "Oh well, it's all the same. If it had been up to me, I would have liked to fly you through the whole history of philosophy just as I flew Nils Holgersson through Sweden. We could have circled over Miletus and Athens, Jerusalem and Alexandria, Rome and Florence, London and Paris, Jena and Heidelberg, Berlin and Copenhagen . . ." "Thanks, that's enough." "But flying across the centuries would have been a hefty job even for a very ironic goose. Crossing the Swedish provinces is far easier." So saying, the goose ran a few steps and flapped itself into the air. Sophie was exhausted, but when she crawled out of the den into the garden a little later she thought Alberto would have been well pleased with her diversionary maneuvers. The major could not have thought much about Alberto during the past hour. If he did, he had to have a severe case of split personality. Sophie had just walked in the front door when her mother came home from work. That saved her having to describe her rescue from a tall tree by a tame goose. After dinner they began to get everything ready for the garden party. They brought a four-meter-long table top and trestles from the attic and carried it into the garden. They had planned to set out the long table under the fruit trees. The last time they had used the trestle table had been on Sophie's parents' tenth anniversary. Sophie was only eight years old at the time, but she clearly remembered the big outdoor party with all their friends and relatives. The weather report was as good as it could be. There had not been as much as a drop of rain since that horrid thunderstorm the day before Sophie's birthday. Nevertheless they decided to leave the actual table setting and decorating until Saturday morning. Later that evening they baked two different kinds of bread. They were going to serve chicken and salad. And sodas. Sophie was worried that some of the boys in her class would bring beer. If there was one thing she was afraid of it was trouble. As Sophie was going to bed, her mother asked her once again if Alberto was coming to the party. "Of course he's coming. He has even promised to do a philosophical trick." "A philosophical trick? What kind of trick is that?" "No idea ... if he were a magician, he would have done a magic trick. He would probably have pulled a white rabbit out of a hat. . ." "What, again?" "But since he's a philosopher, he's going to do a philosophical trick instead. After all, it is a philosophical garden party. Are you planning to do something too?" "Actually, I am." "A speech?" "I'm not telling. Good night, Sophie!" Early the next morning Sophie was woken up by her mother, who came in to say goodbye before she went to work. She gave Sophie a list of last-minute things to buy in town for the garden party. The minute her mother had left the house, the telephone rang. It was Alberto. He had obviously found out exactly when Sophie was home alone. "How is your secret coming along?" "Ssh! Not a word. Don't even give him the chance to think about it." "I think I held his attention yesterday " "Good." "Is the philosophy course finished?" "That's why I'm calling. We're already in our own century. From now on you should be able to orient yourself on your own. The foundations were the most important. But we must nevertheless meet for a short talk about our own time " "But I have to go to town . . " "That's excellent. I said it was our own time we had to talk about." "Really?" "So it would be most practical to meet in town, I mean." "Shall I come to your place?" "No, no, not here Everything's a mess. I've been hunting for hidden microphones." "Ah!" "There's a cafe that's just opened at the Main Square. Cafe Pierre. Do you know it?" "Yes. When shall I be there?" "Can we meet at twelve?" "Okay. Bye!" At a couple of minutes past twelve Sophie walked into Cafe Pierre. It was one of those new fashionable places with little round tables and black chairs, upturned vermouth bottles in dispensers, baguettes, and sandwiches. The room was small, and the first thing Sophie noticed was that Alberto was not there. A lot of other people were sitting at the round tables, but Sophie saw only that Alberto was not among them. She was not in the habit of going into cafes on her own. Should she just turn around and leave, and come back later to see if he had arrived? She ordered a cup of lemon tea at the marble bar and sat down at one of the vacant tables. She stared at the door. People came and went all the time, but there was still no Alberto. If only she had a newspaper! As time passed, she started to look around. She got a couple of glances in return. For a moment Sophie felt like a young woman. She was only fifteen, but she could certainly have passed for seventeen--or at least, sixteen and a half. She wondered what all these people thought about being alive. They looked as though they had simply dropped in, as though they had just sat down here by chance. They were all talking away, gesticulating vehemently, but it didn't look as though they were talking about anything that mattered. She suddenly came to think of Kierkegaard, who had said that what characterized the crowd most was their idle chatter. Were all these people living at the aesthetic stage? Or was there something that was existentially important to them? In one of his early letters to her Alberto had talked about the similarity between children and philosophers. She realized again that she was afraid of becoming an adult. Suppose she too ended up crawling deep down into the fur of the white rabbit that was pulled out of the universe's top hat! She kept her eyes on the door. Suddenly Alberto walked in. Although it was midsummer, he was wearing a black beret and a gray hip-length coat of herringbone tweed. He hurried over to her. It felt very strange to meet him in public. "It's quarter past twelve!" "It's what is known as the academic quarter of an hour. Would you like a snack?" He sat down and looked into her eyes. Sophie shrugged. "Sure. A sandwich, maybe." Alberto went up to the counter. He soon returned with a cup of coffee and two baguette sandwiches with cheese and ham. "Was it expensive?" "A bagatelle, Sophie." "Do you have any excuse at all for being late?" "No. I did it on purpose. I'll explain why presently." He took a few large bites of his sandwich. Then he said: "Let's talk about our own century." "Has anything of philosophical interest happened?" "Lots ... movements are going off in all directions We'll start with one very important direction, and that is existentialism. This is a collective term for several philosophical currents that take man's existential situation as their point of departure. We generally talk of twentieth-century existential philosophy. Several of these existential philosophers, or existentialists, based their ideas not only on Kierkegaard, but on Hegel and Marx as well." "Uh-huh." "Another important philosopher who had a great influence on the twentieth century was the German Friedrich Nietzsche, who lived from 1844 to 1900. He, too, reacted against Hegel's philosophy and the German 'historicism.' He proposed life itself as a counterweight to the anemic interest in history and what he called the Christian 'slave morality.' He sought to effect a 'revaluation of all values,' so that the life force of the strongest should not be hampered by the weak. According to Nietzsche, both Christianity and traditional philosophy had turned away from the real world and pointed toward 'heaven' or 'the world of ideas.' But what had hitherto been considered the 'real' world was in fact a pseudo world. 'Be true to the world,' he said. 'Do not listen to those who offer you supernatural expectations.' " "So ... ?" "A man who was influenced by both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche was the German existential philosopher Martin Heidegger. But we are going to concentrate on the French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, who lived from 1905 to 1980. He was the leading light among the existentialists--at least, to the broader public. His existentialism became especially popular in the forties, just after the war. Later on he allied himself with the Marxist movement in France, but he never became a member of any party." "Is that why we are meeting in a French cafe?" "It was not quite accidental, I confess. Sartre himself spent a lot of time in cafes. He met his life-long companion Simone de Beauvoir in a cafe. She was also an existential philosopher." "A woman philosopher?" "That's right." "What a relief that humanity is finally becoming civilized." "Nevertheless, many new problems have arisen in our own time." "You were going to talk about existentialism." "Sartre said that 'existentialism is humanism.' By that he meant that the existentialists start from nothing but humanity itself. I might add that the humanism he was referring to took a far bleaker view of the human situation than the humanism we met in the Renaissance." "Why was that?" "Both Kierkegaard and some of this century's existential philosophers were Christian. But Sartre's allegiance was to what we might call an atheistic existentialism. His philosophy can be seen as a merciless analysis of the human situation when 'God is dead.' The expression 'God is dead' came from Nietzsche." "Go on." "The key word in Sartre's philosophy, as in Kierkegaard's, is 'existence.' But existence did not mean the same as being alive. Plants and animals are also alive, they exist, but they do not have to think about what it implies. Man is the only living creature that is conscious of its own existence. Sartre said that a material thing is simply 'in itself,' but mankind is 'for itself.' The being of man is therefore not the same as the being of things." "I can't disagree with that." "Sartre said that man's existence takes priority over whatever he might otherwise be. The fact that I exist takes priority over what I am. 'Existence takes priority over essence.' " "That was a very complicated statement." "By essence we mean that which something consists of--the nature, or being, of something. But according to Sartre, man has no such innate 'nature.' Man must therefore create himself. He must create his own nature or 'essence,' because it is not fixed in advance." "I think I see what you mean." "Throughout the entire history of philosophy, philosophers have sought to discover what man is--or what human nature is. But Sartre believed that man has no such eternal 'nature' to fall back on. It is therefore useless to search for the meaning of life in general. We are condemned to improvise. We are like actors dragged onto the stage without having learned our lines, with no script and no prompter to whisper stage directions to us. We must decide for ourselves how to live." "That's true, actually. If one could just look in the Bible--or in a philosophy book--to find out how to live, it would be very practical." "You've got the point. When people realize they are alive and will one day die--and there is no meaning to cling to--they experience angst, said Sartre. You may recall that angst, a sense of dread, was also characteristic of Kierkegaard's description of a person in an existential situation." "Yes." "Sartre says that man feels a//en in a world without meaning. When he describes man's 'alienation,' he is echoing the central ideas of Hegel and Marx. Man's feeling of alienation in the world creates a sense of despair, boredom, nausea, and absurdity." "It is quite normal to feel depressed, or to feel that everything is just too boring." "Yes, indeed. Sartre was describing the twentieth-century city dweller. You remember that the Renaissance humanists had drawn attention, almost triumphantly, to man's freedom and independence? Sartre experienced man's freedom as a curse. 'Man is condemned to be free,' he said. 'Condemned because he has not created himself--and is nevertheless free. Because having once been hurled into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.' " "But we haven't asked to be created as free individuals." "That was precisely Sartre's point. Nevertheless we are free individuals, and this freedom condemns us to make choices throughout our lives. There are no eternal values or norms we can adhere to, which makes our choices even more significant. Because we are totally responsible for everything we do. Sartre emphasized that man must never disclaim the responsibility for his actions. Nor can we avoid the responsibility of making our own choices on the grounds that we 'must' go to work, or we 'must' live up to certain middle-class expectations regarding how we should live. Those who thus slip into the anonymous masses will never be other than members of the impersonal flock, having fled from themselves into self-deception. On the other hand our freedom obliges us to make something of ourselves, to live 'authentically' or 'truly.' " "Yes, I see." "This is not least the case as regards our ethical choices. We can never lay the blame on 'human nature,' or 'human frailty' or anything like that. Now and then it happens that grown men behave like pigs and then blame it on 'the old Adam.' But there is no 'old Adam.' He is merely a figure we clutch at to avoid taking responsibility for our own actions." "There ought to be a limit to what man can be blamed for." "Although Sartre claimed there was no innate meaning to life, he did not mean that nothing mattered. He was not what we call a nihilist." "What is that?" "That is a person who thinks nothing means anything and everything is permissible. Sartre believed that life must have meaning. It is an imperative. But it is we ourselves who must create this meaning in our own lives. To exist is to create your own life." "Could you elaborate on that?" /"Sartre tried to prove that consciousness in itself is nothing until it has perceived something. Because consciousness is always conscious of something. And this 'something' is provided just as much by ourselves as by our surroundings. We are partly instrumental in deciding what we perceive by selecting what is significant for us." "Could you give me an example?" "Two people can be present in the same room and yet experience it quite differently. This is because we contribute our own meaning--or our own interests--when we perceive our surroundings. A woman who is pregnant might think she sees other pregnant women everywhere she looks. That is not because there were no pregnant women before, but because now that she is pregnant she sees the world through different eyes. An escaped convict may see policemen everywhere ..." "Mm, I see." "Our own lives influence the way we perceive things in the room. If something is of no interest to me, I don't see it. So now I can perhaps explain why I was late to-day." "It was on purpose, right?" "Tell me first of all what you saw when you came in here." "The first thing I saw was that you weren't here." "Isn't it strange that the first thing you noticed was something that was absent?" "Maybe, but it was you I was supposed to meet." "Sartre uses just such a cafe visit to demonstrate the way we 'annihilate' whatever is irrelevant for us." "You got here late just to demonstrate that?" "To enable you to understand this central point in Sartre's philosophy, yes. Call it an exercise." "Get out of here!" "If you were in love, and were waiting for your loved one to call you, you might 'hear' him not calling you all evening. You arrange to meet him at the train; crowds of people are milling about on the platform and you can't see him anywhere. They are all in the way, they are unimportant to you. You might find them aggravating, un-pleasant even. They are taking up far too much room. The only thing you register is that he is not there." "How sad." "Simone de Beauvoir attempted to apply existentialism to feminism. Sartre had already said that man has no basic 'nature' to fall back on. We create ourselves." "Really?" "This is also true of the way we perceive the sexes. Simone de Beauvoir denied the existence of a basic 'female nature' or 'male nature.' For instance, it has been generally claimed that man has a 'transcending,' or achieving, nature. He will therefore seek meaning and direction outside the home. Woman has been said to have the opposite life philosophy. She is 'immanent,' which means she wishes to be where she is. She will therefore nurture her family, care for the environment and more homely things. Nowadays we might say that women are more concerned with 'feminine values' than men." "Did she really believe that?" "You weren't listening to me. Simone de Beauvoir in fact did not believe in the existence of any such 'female nature' or 'male nature.' On the contrary, she believed that women and men must liberate themselves from such ingrown prejudices or ideals." "I agree." "Her main work, published in 1949, was called The Second Sex." "What did she mean by that?" "She was talking about women. In our culture women are treated as the second sex. Men behave as if they are the subjects, treating women like their objects, thus depriving them of the responsibility for their own life." "She meant we women are exactly as free and independent as we choose to be?" "Yes, you could put it like that. Existentialism also had a great influence on literature, from the forties to the present day, especially on drama. Sartre himself wrote plays as well as novels. Other important writers were the Frenchman Albert Camus, the Irishman Samuel Beckett, Eugene lonesco, who was from Romania, and Witold Gombro-wicz from Poland. Their characteristic style, and that of many other modern writers, was what we call absurdism. The term is especially used about the 'theater of the absurd.' " "Ah." "Do you know what we mean by the 'absurd'?" "Isn't it something that is meaningless or irrational?" "Precisely. The theater of the absurd represented a contrast to realistic theater. Its aim was to show the lack of meaning in life in order to get the audience to disagree. The idea was not to cultivate the meaningless. On the contrary. But by showing and exposing the absurd in ordinary everyday situations, the onlookers are forced to seek a truer and more essential life for themselves." "It sounds interesting." "The theater of the absurd often portrays situations that are absolutely trivial. It can therefore also be called a kind of 'hyperrealism.' People are portrayed precisely as they are. But if you reproduce on stage exactly what goes on in the bathroom on a perfectly ordinary morning in a perfectly ordinary home, the audience would laugh. Their laughter could be interpreted as a defense mechanism against seeing themselves lampooned on stage." "Yes, exactly." "The absurd theater can also have certain surrealistic features. Its characters often find themselves in highly unrealistic and dreamlike situations. When they accept this without surprise, the audience is compelled to react in surprise at the characters' lack of surprise. This was how Charlie Chaplin worked in his silent movies. The comic effect in these silent movies was often Chaplin's laconic acceptance of all the absurd things that happen to him. That compelled the audience to look into themselves for something more genuine and true." "It's certainly surprising to see what people put up with without protesting." "At times it can be right to feel: This is something I must get away from--even though I don't have any idea where to go." "If the house catches fire you just have to get out, even if you don't have any other place to live." "That's true. Would you like another cup of tea? Or a Coke maybe?" "Okay. But I still think you were silly to be late." "I can live with that." Alberto came back with a cup of espresso and a Coke. Meanwhile Sophie had begun to like the cafe ambience. She was also beginning to think that the conversations at the other tables might not be as trivial as she had supposed them to be. Alberto banged the Coke bottle down on the table with a thud. Several people at the other tables looked up. "And that brings us to the end of the road," he said. "You mean the history of philosophy stops with Sartre and existentialism?" "No, that would be an exaggeration. Existentialist philosophy has had radical significance for many people all over the world. As we saw, its roots reach far back in history through Kierkegaard and way back to Socrates. The twentieth century has also witnessed a blossoming and a renewal of the other philosophical currents we have discussed." "Like what?" "Well, one such current is Neo-Thomism, that is to say ideas which belong to the tradition of Thomas Aquinas. Another is the so-called analytical philosophy or logical empiricism, with roots reaching back to Hume and British empiricism, and even to the logic of Aristotle. Apart from these, the twentieth century has naturally also been influenced by what we might call Neo-Marxism in a myriad of various trends. We have already talked about Neo-Darwinism and the significance of psychoanalysis." "Yes." "We should just mention a final current, materialism, which also has historical roots. A lot of current science can be traced back to the efforts of the pre-Socratics. For example, the search for the indivisible 'elemental particle' of which all matter is composed. No one has yet been able to give a satisfactory explanation of what 'matter' is. Modern sciences such as nuclear physics and biochemistry are so fascinated by the problem that for many people it constitutes a vital part of their life's philosophy." "The new and the old all jumbled together . . ." "Yes. Because the very questions we started our course with are still unanswered. Sartre made an important observation when he said that existential questions cannot be answered once and for all. A philosophical question is by definition something that each generation, each individual even, must ask over and over again." "A bleak thought." "I'm not sure I agree. Surely it is by asking such questions that we know we are alive. And moreover, it has always been the case that while people were seeking answers to the ultimate questions, they have discovered clear and final solutions to many other problems. Science, research, and technology are all by-products of our philosophical reflection. Was it not our wonder about life that finally brought men to the moon?" "Yes, that's true." "When Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon, he said 'One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.' With these words he summed up how it felt to be
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 33楼  发表于: 2013-10-28 0
[content too large, truncated for display] [table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,4][tr][td]
英文原文
[table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,1][tr][td]Freud ... the odious egoistic impulse that had emerged in her... Hilde Moller Knag jumped out of bed with the bulky ring binder in her arms. She plonked it down on her writing desk, grabbed her clothes, and dashed into the bathroom. She stood under the shower for two minutes, dressed herself quickly, and ran downstairs. "Breakfast is ready, Hilde!" "I just have to go and row first." "But Hilde... !" She ran out of the house, down the garden, and out onto the little dock. She untied the boat and jumped down into it. She rowed around the bay with short angry strokes until she had calmed down. "We are the living planet, Sophie! We are the great vessel sailing around a burning sun in the universe. But each and every of us is also a ship sailing through life with a cargo of genes. When we have carried this cargo safely to the next harbor--we have not lived in vain..." She knew the passage by heart. It had been written for her. Not for Sophie, for her. Every word in the ring binder was written by Dad to Hilde. She rested the oars in the oarlocks and drew them in. The boat rocked gently on the water, the ripples slapping softly against the prow. And like the little rowboat floating on the surface in the bay at Lillesand, she herself was just a nutshell on the surface of life. Where were Sophie and Alberto in this picture? Yes, where were Alberto and Sophie? She could not fathom that they were no more than "electromagnetic impulses" in her father's brain. She could not fathom, and certainly not accept, that they were only paper and printer's ink from a ribbon in her father's portable typewriter. One might just as well say that she herself was nothing but a conglomeration of protein compounds that had suddenly come to life one day in a "hot little pool." But she was more than that. She was Hilde Moller Knag. She had to admit that the ring binder was a fantastic present, and that her father had touched the core of something eternal in her. But she didn't care for the way he was dealing with Sophie and Alberto. She would certainly teach him a lesson, even before he got home. She felt she owed it to the two of them. Hilde could already imagine her father at Kastrup Airport, in Copenhagen. She could just see him running around like mad. Hilde was now quite herself again. She rowed the boat back to the dock, where she was careful to make it fast. After breakfast she sat at the table for a long time with her mother. It felt good to be able to talk about something as ordinary as whether the egg was a trifle too soft. She did not start to read again until the evening. There were not many pages left now. Once again there was a knocking on the door. "Let's just put our hands over our ears," said Alberto, "and perhaps it'll go away." "No, I want to see who it is." Alberto followed her to the door. On the step stood a naked man. He had adopted a very ceremonial posture, but the only thing he had with him was the crown on his head. "Well?" he said. "What do you good people think of the Emperor's new clothes?" Alberto and Sophie were utterly dumbfounded. This caused the naked man some consternation. "What? You are not bowing!" he cried. "Indeed, that is true," said Alberto, "but the Emperor is stark naked." The naked man maintained his ceremonial posture. Alberto bent over and whispered in Sophie's ear: "He thinks he is respectable." At this, the man scowled. "Is some kind of censorship being exercised on these premises?" he asked. "Regrettably," said Alberto. "In here we are both alert and of sound mind in every way. In the Emperor's shameless condition he can therefore not cross the threshold of this house." Sophie found the naked man's pomposity so absurd that she burst out laughing. As if her laughter had been a prearranged signal, the man with the crown on his head suddenly became aware that he was naked. Covering his private parts with both hands, he bounded toward the nearest clump of trees and disappeared, probably to join company with Adam and Eve, Noah, Little Red Riding-hood, and Winnie-the-Pooh. Alberto and Sophie remained standing on the step, laughing. At last Alberto said, "It might be a good idea if we went inside. I'm going to tell you about Freud and his theory of the unconscious." They seated themselves by the window again. Sophie looked at her watch and said: "It's already half past two and I have a lot to do before the garden party." "So have I. We'll just say a few words about Sigmund Freud." "Was he a philosopher?" "We could describe him as a cultural philosopher, at least. Freud was born in 1 856 and he studied medicine at the University of Vienna. He lived in Vienna for the greater part of his life at a period when the cultural life of the city was flourishing. He specialized early on in neurology. Toward the close of the last century, and far into our own, he developed his 'depth psychology' or psychoanalysis." "You're going to explain this, right?" "Psychoanalysis is a description of the human mind in general as well as a therapy for nervous and mental disorders. I do not intend to give you a complete picture either of Freud or of his work. But his theory of the unconscious is necessary to an understanding of what a human being is." "You intrigue me. Go on." "Freud held that there is a constant tension between man and his surroundings. In particular, a tension--or conflict--between his drives and needs and the demands of society. It is no exaggeration to say that Freud discovered human drives. This makes him an important exponent of the naturalistic currents that were so prominent toward the end of the nineteenth century." "What do you mean by human drives?" "Our actions are not always guided by reason. Man is not really such a rational creature as the eighteenth-century rationalists liked to think. Irrational impulses often determine what we think, what we dream, and what we do. Such irrational impulses can be an expression of basic drives or needs. The human sexual drive, for example, is just as basic as the baby's instinct to suckle." "Yes?" "This in itself was no new discovery. But Freud showed that these basic needs can be disguised or 'sublimated,' thereby steering our actions without our being aware of it. He also showed that infants have some sort of sexuality. The respectable middle-class Viennese reacted with abhorrence to this suggestion of the 'sexuality of the child' and made him very unpopular." "I'm not surprised." "We call it Victorianism, when everything to do with sexuality is taboo. Freud first became aware of children's sexuality during his practice of psychotherapy. So he had an empirical basis for his claims. He had also seen how numerous forms of neurosis or psychological disorders could be traced back to conflicts during childhood. He gradually developed a type of therapy that we could call the archeology of the soul." "What do you mean by that?" "An archeologist searches for traces of the distant past by digging through layers of cultural history. He may find a knife from the eighteenth century. Deeper in the ground he may find a comb from the fourteenth century--and even deeper down perhaps an urn from the fifth centuryB.C." "Yes?" "In a similar way, the psychoanalyst, with the patient's help, can dig deep into the patient's mind and bring to light the experiences that have caused the patient's psychological disorder, since according to Freud, we store the memory of all our experiences deep inside us." "Yes, I see." "The analyst can perhaps discover an unhappy experience that the patient has tried to suppress for many years, but which has nevertheless lain buried, gnawing away at the patient's resources. By bringing a 'traumatic experience' into the conscious mind--and holding it up to the patient, so to speak--he or she can help the patient 'be done with it,' and get well again." "That sounds logical." "But I am jumping too far ahead. Let us first take a look at Freud's description of the human mind. Have you ever seen a newborn baby?" "I have a cousin who is four." "When we come into the world, we live out our physical and mental needs quite directly and unashamedly. If we do not get milk, we cry, or maybe we cry if we have a wet diaper. We also give direct expression to our desire for physical contact and body warmth. Freud called this 'pleasure principle' in us the id. As newborn babies we are hardly anything but id." "Go on." "We carry the id, or pleasure principle, with us into adulthood and throughout life. But gradually we learn to regulate our desires and adjust to our surroundings. We learn to regulate the pleasure principle in relation to the 'reality principle.' In Freud's terms, we develop an ego which has this regulative function. Even though we want or need something, we cannot just lie down and scream until we get what we want or need." "No, obviously." "We may desire something very badly that the outside world will not accept. We may repress our desires. That means we try to push them away and forget about them." "I see." "However, Freud proposed, and worked with, a third element in the human mind. From infancy we are constantly faced with the moral demands of our parents and of society. When we do anything wrong, our parents say 'Don't do that!' or 'Naughty naughty, that's bad!' Even when we are grown up, we retain the echo of such moral demands and judgments. It seems as though the world's moral expectations have become part of us. Freud called this the superego." "Is that another word for conscience?" "Conscience is a component of the superego. But Freud claimed that the superego tells us when our desires themselves are 'bad' or 'improper/ not least in the case of erotic or sexual desire. And as I said, Freud claimed that these 'improper' desires already manifest themselves at an early stage of childhood." "How?" "Nowadays we know that infants like touching their sex organs. We can observe this on any beach. In Freud's time, this behavior could result in a slap over the fingers of the two- or three-year-old, perhaps accompanied by the mother saying, 'Naughty!' or 'Don't do that!' or 'Keep your hands on top of the covers!'" "How sick!" "That's the beginning of guilt feelings about everything connected with the sex organs and sexuality. Because this guilt feeling remains in the superego, many people--according to Freud, most people--feel guilty about sex all their lives. At the same time he showed that sexual desires and needs are natural and vital for human beings. And thus, my dear Sophie, the stage is set for a lifelong conflict between desire and guilt." "Don't you think the conflict has died down a lot since Freud's time?" "Most certainly. But many of Freud's patients experienced the conflict so acutely that they developed what Freud called neuroses. One of his many women patients, for example, was secretly in love with her brother-in-law. When her sister died of an illness, she thought: 'Now he is free to marry me!' This thought was on course for a frontal collision with her superego, and was so monstrous an idea that she immediately repressed it, Freud tells us. In other words, she buried it deep in her unconscious. Freud wrote: 'The young girl was ill and displaying severe hysterical symptoms. When I began treating her it appeared that she had thoroughly forgotten about the scene at her sister's bedside and the odious egoistic impulse that had emerged in her. But during analysis she remembered it, and in a state of great agitation she reproduced the pathogenic moment and through this treatment became cured.' " "Now I better understand what you meant by an archeology of the soul." "So we can give a general description of the human psyche. After many years of experience in treating patients, Freud concluded that the conscious constitutes only a small part of the human mind. The conscious is like the tip of the iceberg above sea level. Below sea level--or below the threshold of the conscious--is the 'subconscious,' or the unconscious." "So the unconscious is everything that's inside us that we have forgotten and don't remember?" "We don't have all our experiences consciously present all the time. But the kinds of things we have thought or experienced, and which we can recall if we 'put our mind to it,' Freud termed the preconscious. He reserved the term 'unconscious' for things we have repressed. That is, the sort of thing we have made an effort to forget because it was either 'unpleasant','improper,' or 'nasty.' If we have desires and urges that are not tolerable to the conscious, the superego shoves them downstairs. Away with them!" "I get it." "This mechanism is at work in all healthy people. But it can be such a tremendous strain for some people to keep the unpleasant or forbidden thoughts away from consciousness that it leads to mental illness. Whatever is repressed in this way will try of its own accord to reenter consciousness. For some people it takes a great effort to keep such impulses under the critical eye of the conscious. When Freud was in America in 1909 lecturing on psychoanalysis, he gave an example of the way this repression mechanism functions." "I'd like to hear that!" "He said: 'Suppose that here in this hall and in this audience, whose exemplary stillness and attention I cannot sufficiently commend, there is an individual who is creating a disturbance, and, by his ill-bred laughing, talking, by scraping his feet, distracts my attention from my task. I explain that I cannot go on with my lecture under these conditions, and thereupon several strong men among you get up and, after a short struggle, eject the disturber of the peace from the hall. He is now repressed, and I can continue my lecture. But in order that the disturbance may not be repeated, in case the man who has just been thrown out attempts to force his way back into the room, the gentlemen who have executed my suggestion take their chairs to the door and establish themselves there as a resistance, to keep up the repression. Now, if you transfer both locations to the psyche, calling this con-sciousness, and the outside the unconscious, you have a tolerably good illustration of the process of repression.' " "I agree." "But the disturber of the peace insists on reentering, Sophie. At least, that's the way it is with repressed thoughts and urges. We live under the constant pressure of repressed thoughts that are trying to fight their way up from the unconscious. That's why we often say or do things without intending to. Unconscious reactions thus prompt our feelings and actions." "Can you give me an example?" "Freud operates with several of these mechanisms. One is what he called parapraxes--slips of the tongue or pen. In other words, we accidentally say or do things that we once tried to repress. Freud gives the example of the shop foreman who was to propose a toast to the boss. The trouble was that this boss was terribly unpopular. In plain words, he was what one might call a swine." "Yes?" "The foreman stood up, raised his glass, and said 'Here's to the swine!' " "I'm speechless!" "So was the foreman. He had actually only said what he really meant. But he didn't mean to say it. Do you want to hear another example?" "Yes, please." "A bishop was coming to tea with the local minister, who had a large family of nice well-behaved little daughters. This bishop happened to have an unusually big nose. The little girls were duly instructed that on no account were they to refer to the bishop's nose, since children often blurt out spontaneous remarks about people because their repressive mechanism is not yet developed. The bishop arrived, and the delightful daughters strained themselves to the utmost not to comment on his nose. They tried to not even look at it and to forget about it. But they were thinking about it the whole time. And then one of them was asked to pass the sugar around. She looked at the distinguished bishop and said, 'Do you take sugar in your nose?' " "How awful!" "Another thing we can do is to rationalize. That means that we do not give the real reason for what we are doing either to ourselves or to other people because the real reason is unacceptable." "Like what?" "I could hypnotize you to open a window. While you are under hypnosis I tell you that when I begin to drum my fingers on the table you will get up and open the window. I drum on the table--and you open the window. Afterward I ask you why you opened the window and you might say you did it because it was too hot. But that is not the real reason. You are reluctant to admit to yourself that you did something under my hypnotic orders. So you rationalize." "Yes, I see." "We all encounter that sort of thing practically every day." "This four-year-old cousin of mine, I don't think he has a lot of playmates, so he's always happy when I visit. One day I told him I had to hurry home to my mom. Do you know what he said?" "What did he say?" "He said, she's stupid!" "Yes, that was definitely a case of rationalizing. The boy didn't mean what he actually said. He meant it was stupid you had to go, but he was too shy to say so. Another thing we do is project." "What's that?" "When we project, we transfer the characteristics we are trying to repress in ourselves onto other people. A person who is very miserly, for example, will characterize others as penny-pinchers. And someone who will not admit to being preoccupied with sex can be the first to be incensed at other people's sex-fixation." "Hmm." "Freud claimed that our everyday life was filled with unconscious mechanisms like these. We forget a particular person's name, we fumble with our clothes while we talk, or we shift what appear to be random objects around in the room. We also stumble over words and make various slips of the tongue or pen that can seem completely innocent. Freud's point was that these slips are neither as accidental nor as innocent as we think. These bungled actions can in fact reveal the most intimate secrets." "From now on I'll watch all my words very carefully." "Even if you do, you won't be able to escape from your unconscious impulses. The art is precisely not to expend too much effort on burying unpleasant things in the unconscious. It's like trying to block up the entrance to a water vole's nest. You can be sure the water vole will pop up in another part of the garden. It is actually quite healthy to leave the door ajar between the conscious and the unconscious." "If you lock that door you can get mentally sick, right?" "Yes. A neurotic is just such a person, who uses too much energy trying to keep the 'unpleasant' out of his consciousness. Frequently there is a particular experience which the person is desperately trying to repress. He can nonetheless be anxious for the doctor to help him to find his way back to the hidden traumas." "How does the doctor do that?" "Freud developed a technique which he called free association. In other words, he let the patient lie in a relaxed position and just talk about whatever came into his or her mind--however irrelevant, random, unpleasant, or embarrassing it might sound. The idea was to break through the 'lid' or 'control' that had grown over the traumas, because it was these traumas that were causing the patient concern. They are active all the time, just not consciously." "The harder you try to forget something, the more you think about it unconsciously?" "Exactly. That is why it is so important to be aware of the signals from the unconscious. According to Freud, the royal road to the unconscious is our dreams. His main work was written on this subject--The Interpretation of Dreams, published in 1900, in which he showed that our dreams are not random. Our unconscious tries to communicate with our conscious through dreams." "Go on." "After many years of experience with patients--and not least after having analyzed his own dreams--Freud determined that all dreams are wish fulfillments. This is clearly observable in children, he said. They dream about ice cream and cherries. But in adults, the wishes that are to be fulfilled in dreams are disguised. That is because even when we sleep, censorship is at work on what we will permit ourselves. And although this censorship, or repression mechanism, is considerably weaker when we are asleep than when we are awake, it is still strong enough to cause our dreams to distort the wishes we cannot acknowledge." "Which is why dreams have to be interpreted " "Freud showed that we must distinguish between the actual dream as we recall it in the morning and the real meaning of the dream. He termed the actual dream image--that is, the 'film' or 'video' we dream--the manifest dream. This 'apparent' dream content always takes its material or scenario from the previous day. But the dream also contains a deeper meaning which is hidden from consciousness. Freud called this the latent dream thoughts, and these hidden thoughts which the dream is really about may stem from the distant past, from earliest childhood, for instance." "So we have to analyze the dream before we can understand it." "Yes, and for the mentally ill, this must be done in conjunction with the therapist. But it is not the doctor who interprets the dream. He can only do it with the help of the patient. In this situation, the doctor simply fulfills the function of a Socratic 'midwife,' assisting during the interpretation." "I see." "The actual process of converting the latent dream thoughts to the manifest dream aspect was termed by Freud the dream work. We might call it 'masking' or 'coding' what the dream is actually about. In interpreting the dream, we must go through the reverse process and unmask or decode the motif to arrive at its theme." "Can you give me an example?" "Freud's book teems with examples. But we can construct a simple and very Freudian example for ourselves. Let us say a young man dreams that he is given two balloons by his female cousin . . ." "Yes?" "Go on, try to interpret the dream yourself." "Hmm ... there is a manifest dream, just like you said: a young man gets two balloons from his female cousin." "Carry on." "You said the scenario is always from the previous day. So he had been to the fair the day before--or maybe he saw a picture of balloons in the newspaper." "It's possible, but he need only have seen the word 'balloon,' or something that reminded him of a balloon." "But what are the latent dream thoughts that the dream is really about?" "You're the interpreter." "Maybe he just wanted a couple of balloons." "No, that won't work. You're right about the dream being a wish fulfillment. But a young man would hardly have an ardent wish for a couple of balloons. And if he had, he wouldn't need to dream about them." "I think I've got it: he really wants his cousin--and the two balloons are her breasts." "Yes, that's a much more likely explanation. And it presupposes that he experienced his wish as an embarrassment." "In a way, our dreams make a lot of detours?" "Yes. Freud believed that the dream was a 'disguised fulfillment of a repressed wish.' But exactly what we have repressed can have changed considerably since Freud was a doctor in Vienna. However, the mechanism of dis-guised dream content can still be intact." "Yes, I see." "Freud's psychoanalysis was extremely important in the 1920s, especially for the treatment of certain psychiatric patients. His theory of the unconscious was also very significant for art and literature." "Artists became interested in people's unconscious mental life?" "Exactly so, although this had already become a predominant aspect of literature in the last decade of the nineteenth century--before Freud's psychoanalysis was known. It merely shows that the appearance of Freud's psychoanalysis at that particular time, the 1890s, was no coincidence." "You mean it was in the spirit of the times?" "Freud himself did not claim to have discovered phenomena such as repression, defense mechanisms, or rationalizing. He was simply the first to apply these human experiences to psychiatry. He was also a master at illustrating his theories with literary examples. But as I mentioned, from the 1920s, Freud's psychoanalysis had a more direct influence on art and literature " "In what sense?" "Poets and painters, especially the surrealists, attempted to exploit the power of the unconscious in their work." "What are surrealists?" "The word surrealism comes from the French, and means 'super realism.' In 1924 Andre Breton published a 'surrealistic manifesto,' claiming that art should come from the unconscious. The artist should thus derive the freest possible inspiration from his dream images and strive toward a 'super realism,' in which the boundaries between dream and reality were dissolved. For an artist too it can be necessary to break the censorship of the conscious and let words and images have free play." "I can see that." "In a sense, Freud demonstrated that there is an artist in everyone. A dream is, after all, a little work of art, and there are new dreams every night. In order to interpret his patients' dreams, Freud often had to work his way through a dense language of symbols--rather in the way we interpret a picture or a literary text." "And we dream every single night?" "Recent research shows that we dream for about twenty percent of our sleeping hours, that is, between one and two hours each- night. If we are disturbed during our dream phases we become nervous and irritable. This means nothing less than that everybody has an innate need to give artistic expression to his or her existential situation. After all, it is ourselves that our dreams are about We are the directors, we set up the scenario and play all the roles. A person who says he doesn't understand art doesn't know himself very well." "I see that." "Freud also delivered impressive evidence of the wonders of the human mind. His work with patients convinced him that we retain everything we have seen and experienced somewhere deep in our consciousness, and all these impressions can be brought to light again. When we experience a memory lapse, and a bit later 'have it on the tip of our tongue' and then later still 'suddenly remember it,' we are talking about something which has lain in the unconscious and suddenly slips through the half-open door to consciousness." "But it takes a while sometimes." "All artists are aware of that. But then suddenly it's as if all doors and all drawers fly open. Everything comes tumbling out by itself, and we can find all the words and images we need. This is when we have 'lifted the lid' of the unconscious. We can call it inspiration, Sophie. It feels as if what we are drawing or writing is coming from some outside source." "It must be a wonderful feeling." "But you must have experienced it yourself. You can frequently observe inspiration at work in children who are overtired. They are sometimes so extremely overtired that they seem to be wide awake. Suddenly they start telling a story--as if they are finding words they haven't yet learned. They have, though; the words and the ideas have lain 'latent' in their consciousness, but now, when all caution and all censorship have let go, they are surfacing. It can also be important for an artist not to let reason and reflection control a more or less unconscious expression. Shall I tell you a little story to illustrate this?" "Sure." "It's a very serious and a very sad story." "Okay." "Once upon a time there was a centipede that was amazingly good at dancing with all hundred legs. All the creatures of the forest gathered to watch every time the centipede danced, and they were all duly impressed by the exquisite dance. But there was one creature that didn't like watching the centipede dance--that was a tortoise." "It was probably just envious." "How can I get the centipede to stop dancing? thought the tortoise. He couldn't just say he didn't like the dance. Neither could he say he danced better himself, that would obviously be untrue. So he devised a fiendish plan." "Let's hear it." "He sat down and wrote a letter to the centipede. 'O incomparable centipede,' he wrote, 'I am a devoted admirer of your exquisite dancing. I must know how you go about it when you dance. Is it that you lift your left leg number 28 and then your right leg number 39? Or do you begin by lifting your right leg number 17 before you lift your left leg number 44? I await your answer in breathless anticipation. Yours truly, Tortoise." "How mean!" "When the centipede read the letter, she immediately began to think about what she actually did when she danced. Which leg did she lift first? And which leg next? What do you think happened in the end?" "The centipede never danced again?" "That's exactly what happened. And that's the way it goes when imagination gets strangled by reasoned deliberation." "That was a sad story." "It is important for an artist to be able to 'let go.' The surrealists tried to exploit this by putting themselves into a state where things just happened by themselves. They had a sheet of white paper in front of them and they began to write without thinking about what they wrote. They called it automatic writing. The expression originally comes from spiritualism, where a medium believed that a departed spirit was guiding the pen. But I thought we would talk more about that kind of thing tomorrow." "I'd like that." "In one sense, the surrealist artist is also a medium, that is to say, a means or a link. He is a medium of his own unconscious. But perhaps there is an element of the unconscious in every creative process, for what do we actually mean by creativity?" "I've no idea. Isn't it when you create something?" "Fair enough, and that happens in a delicate interplay between imagination and reason. But all too frequently, reason throttles the imagination, and that's serious because without imagination, nothing really new will ever be created. I believe imagination is like a Darwinian system." "I'm sorry, but that I didn't get." "Well, Darwinism holds that nature's mutants arise one after the other, but only a few of them can be used. Only some of them get the right to live." "So?" "That's how it is when we have an inspiration and get masses of new ideas. Thought-mutants occur in the consciousness one after the other, at least if we refrain from censoring ourselves too much. But only some of these thoughts can be used. Here, reason comes into its own. It, too, has a vi
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 32楼  发表于: 2013-10-27 0
[content too large, truncated for display] [table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,4][tr][td]
英文原文
[table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,1][tr][td]Darwin a ship sailing through life with a cargo of genes Hilde was awakened on Sunday morning by a loud bump. It was the ring binder falling on the floor. She had been lying in bed reading about Sophie and Alber-to's conversation on Marx and had fallen asleep. The reading lamp by the bed had been on all night. The green glowing digits on her desk alarm clock showed 8:59. She had been dreaming about huge factories and polluted cities; a little girl sitting at a street corner selling matches--well-dressed people in long coats passing by without as much as a glance. When Hilde sat up in bed she remembered the legislators who were to wake up in a society they themselves had created. Hilde was glad she had woken up in Bjer-kely, at any rate. Would she have dared to wake up in Norway without knowing whereabouts in Norway she would wake up? But it was not only a question of where she would wake up. Could she not just as easily have woken up in a different age? In the Middle Ages, for instance--or in the Stone Age ten or twenty thousand years ago? Hilde tried to imagine herself sitting at the entrance to a cave, scraping an animal hide, perhaps. What could it have been like to be a fifteen-year-old girl before there was anything called a culture? How would she have thought? Could she have had thoughts at all? Hilde pulled on a sweater, heaved the ring binder onto the bed and settled down to read the next chapter. Alberto had just said "Next chapter!" when somebody knocked on the door of the major's cabin. "We don't have any choice, do we?" said Sophie. "No, I suppose we don't," said Alberto. On the step outside stood a very old man with long white hair and a beard. He held a staff in one hand, and in the other a board on which was painted a picture of a boat The boat was crowded with all kinds of animals. "And who is this elderly gentleman?" asked Alberto. "My name is Noah." "I guessed as much." "Your oldest ancestor, my son. But it is probably no longer fashionable to recognize one's ancestors." "What is that in your hand?" asked Sophie. "This is a picture of all the animals that were saved from the Flood. Here, my daughter, it is for you." Sophie took the large board. "Well, I'd better go home and tend the grapevines," the old man said, and giving a little jump, he clicked his heels together in the air and skipped merrily away into the woods in the manner peculiar to very old men now and then. Sophie and Alberto went inside and sat down again. Sophie began to look at the picture, but before she had a chance to study it, Alberto took it from her with an authoritative grasp. "We'll concentrate on the broad outlines first." "Okay, okay." "I forgot to mention that Marx lived the last 34 years of his life in London. He moved there in 1849 and died in 1883. All that time Charles Darwin was living just outside London. He died in 1882 and was buried with great pomp and ceremony in Westminster Abbey as one of England's distinguished sons. So Marx and Darwin's paths crossed, but not only in time and space. Marx wanted to dedicate the English edition of his greatest work, Capital, to Darwin, but Darwin declined the honor. When Marx died the year after Darwin, his friend Friedrich En-gels said: As Darwin discovered the theory of organic evolution, so Marx discovered the theory of mankind's historical evolution." "I see." "Another great thinker who was to link his work to Darwin was the psychologist Sigmund Freud. He also lived his last years in London. Freud said that both Darwin's theory of evolution and his own psychoanalysis had resulted in an affront to mankind's naive egoism." "That was a lot of names at one time. Are we talking about Marx, Darwin, or Freud?" "In a broader sense we can talk about a naturalistic current from the middle of the nineteenth century until quite far into our own. By 'naturalistic' we mean a sense of reality that accepts no other reality than nature and the sensory world. A naturalist therefore also considers mankind to be part of nature. A naturalistic scientist will exclusively rely on natural phenomena--not on either rationalistic suppositions or any form of divine revelation." "And that applies to Marx, Darwin, and Freud?" "Absolutely. The key words from the middle of the last century were nature, environment, history, evolution, and growth. Marx had pointed out that human ideologies were a product of the basis of society. Darwin showed that mankind was the result of a slow biological evolution, and Freud's studies of the unconscious revealed that people's actions were often the result of 'animal' urges or instincts." "I think I understand more or less what you mean by naturalistic, but isn't it best we talk about one person at a time?" "We'll talk about Darwin, Sophie. You may recall that the pre-Socratics looked for natural explanations of the processes of nature. In the same way that they had to distance themselves from ancient mythological explanations, Darwin had to distance himself from the church's view of the creation of man and beast." "But was he a real philosopher?" "Darwin was a biologist and a natural scientist. But he was also the scientist of recent times who has most openly challenged the Biblical view of man's place in Creation." "So you'll have to say something about Darwin's theory of evolution." "Let's begin with Darwin the man. He was born in the little town of Shrewsbury in 1809. His father, Dr. Robert Darwin, was a renowned local physician, and very strict about his son's upbringing. When Charles was a pupil at the local grammar school, his headmaster described him as a boy who was always flying around, fooling about with stuff and nonsense, and never doing a stroke of anything that was the slightest bit useful. By 'useful,' the headmaster meant cramming Greek and Latin verbs. By 'flying around,' he was referring among other things to the fact that Charles clambered around collecting beetles of all kinds." "I'll bet he came to regret those words." "When he subsequently studied theology, Charles was far more interested in bird-watching and collecting insects, so he did not get very good grades in theology. But while he was still at college, he gained himself a reputation as a natural scientist, not least due to his interest in geology, which was perhaps the most expansive science of the day. As soon as he had graduated in theology at Cam-bridge in April 1831, he went to North Wales to study rock formations and to search for fossils. In August of the same year, when he was barely twenty-two years old, he received a letter which was to determine the course of his whole life . . ." "What was the letter about?" "It was from his friend and teacher, John Steven Hens-low. He wrote: 'I have been requested to ... recommend a naturalist to go as companion to Captain Fitzroy, who has been commissioned by the government to survey the southern coasts of South America. I have stated that I consider you to be the best qualified person I know of who is likely to undertake such a situation. As far as the financial side of it is concerned, I have no notion. The voyage is to last two years ... ' " "How can you remember all that by heart?" "A bagatelle, Sophie." "And what did he answer?" "He wished ardently to grasp the chance, but in those days young men did nothing without their parents' consent. After much persuasion, his father finally agreed-- and it was he who financed his son's voyage. As far as the 'financial side' went, it was conspicuous by its absence." "Oh." "The ship was the naval vessel HMS Beagle. It sailed from Plymouth on December 27, 1831, bound for South America, and it did not return until October of 1836. The two years became five and the voyage to South America turned into a voyage round the world. And now we come to one of the most important voyages of discovery in recent times." "They sailed all the way round the world?" "Yes, quite literally. From South America they sailed on across the Pacific to New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa. Then they sailed back to South America before setting sail for England. Darwin wrote that the voyage on board the Beagle was without doubt the most significant event in his life." "It couldn't have been easy to be a naturalist at sea." "For the first years, the Beagle sailed up and down the coast of South America. This gave Darwin plenty of opportunity to familiarize himself with the continent, also inland. The expedition's many forays into the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific west of South America were of decisive significance as well. He was able to collect and send to England vast amounts of material. However, he kept his reflections on nature and the evolution of life to himself. When he returned home at the age of twenty-seven, he found himself renowned as a scientist. At that point he had an inwardly clear picture of what was to become his theory of evolution. But he did not publish his main work until many years after his return, for Darwin was a cautious man--as is fitting for a scientist." "What was his main work?" "Well, there were several, actually. But the book-which gave rise to the most heated debate in England was The Origin of Species, published in 1859. Its full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. The long title is actually a complete resume of Darwin's theory." "He certainly packed a lot into one title." "But let's take it piece by piece. In The Origin of Species, Darwin advanced two theories or main theses: first, he proposed that all existing vegetable and animal forms were descended from earlier, more primitive forms by way of a biological evolution. Secondly, that evolution was the result of natural selection." "The survival of the fittest, right?" "That's right, but let us first concentrate on the idea of evolution. This, in itself, was not all that original. The idea of biological evolution began to be widely accepted in some circles as early as 1800. The leading spokesman for this idea was the French zoologist Lamarck. Even before him, Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, had suggested that plants and animals had evolved from some few primitive species. But none of them had come up with an acceptable explanation as to how this evolution happened. They were therefore not considered by churchmen to be any great threat." "But Darwin was?" "Yes, indeed, and not without reason. Both in ecclesiastic and scientific circles, the Biblical doctrine of the immutability of all vegetable and animal species was strictly adhered to. Each and every form of animal life had been created separately once and for all. This Christian view was moreover in harmony with the teachings of Plato and Aristotle." "How so?" "Plato's theory of ideas presupposed that all animal species were immutable because they were made after patterns of eternal ideas or forms. The immutability of animal species was also one of the cornerstones of Aristotle's philosophy. But in Darwin's time there were a number of observations and finds which were putting traditional beliefs to the test." "What kind of observations and finds were they?" "Well, to begin with an increasing number of fossils were being dug out. There were also finds of large fossil bones from extinct animals. Darwin himself was puzzled to find traces of sea creatures far inland. In South America he made similar discoveries high up in the mountains of the Andes. What is a sea creature doing in the Andes, Sophie? Can you tell me that?" "No." "Some believed that they had just been thrown away there by humans or animals. Others believed that God had created these fossils and traces of sea creatures to lead the ungodly astray." "But what did scientists believe?" "Most geologists swore to a 'catastrophe theory/ according to which the earth had been subjected to gigantic floods, earthquakes, and other catastrophes that had destroyed all life. We read of one of these in the Bible--the Flood and Noah's Ark. After each catastrophe, God renewed life on earth by creating new--and more perfect-- plants and animals." "So the fossils were imprints of earlier life forms that had been wiped out after these gigantic catastrophes?" "Precisely. For example, it was thought that fossils were imprints of animals that had failed to get into the Ark. But when Darwin set sail on the Beagle, he had with him the first volume of the English biologist Sir Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology. Lyell held that the present geology of the earth, with its mountains and valleys, was the result of an interminably long and gradual evolution. His point was that even quite small changes could cause huge geological upheavals, considering the aeons of time that have elapsed." "What kind of changes was he thinking of?" "He was thinking of the same forces that prevail today: wind and weather, melting ice, earthquakes, and elevations of the ground level. You've heard the saying about a drop of water wearing away a stone--not by brute force, but by continuous dripping. Lyell believed that similar tiny and gradual changes over the ages could alter the face of nature completely. However, this theory alone could not explain why Darwin found the remains of sea creatures high up in the Andes. But Darwin always remembered that tiny gradual changes could result in dramatic alterations if they were given sufficient time." "I suppose he thought the same explanation could be used for the evolution of animals." "Yes, that was his thought. But as I said before, Darwin was a cautious man. He posed questions long before he ventured to answer them. In that sense he used the same method as all true philosophers: it is important to ask but there is no haste to provide the answer." "Yes, I see." "A decisive factor in Lyell's theory was the age of the earth. In Darwin's time, it was widely believed that about 6,000 years had elapsed since God created the earth. That figure had been arrived at by counting the generations since Adam and Eve." "How naive!" "Well, it's easy to be wise after the event. Darwin figured the age of the earth to be 300 million years. Because one thing, at least, was clear: neither Lyell's theory of gradual geological evolution nor Darwin's own theory of evolution had any validity unless one reckoned with tremendously long periods of time." "How old is the earth?" "Today we know that the earth is 4.6 billion years old." "Wow!" "Up to now, we have looked at one of Darwin's arguments for biological evolution, namely, the stratified deposits of fossils in various layers of rock. Another argument was the geographic distribution of living species. This was where Darwin's scientific voyage could contribute new and extremely comprehensive data. He had seen with his own eyes that the individuals of a single species of animal within the same region could differ from each other in only the minutest detail. He made some very interesting observations on the Galapagos Islands, west of Ecuador, in particular." "Tell me about them." "The Galapagos Islands are a compact group of volcanic islands. There were therefore no great differences in the plant and animal life there. But Darwin was interested in the tiny differences. On all the islands, he came across giant tortoises that were slightly different from one island to another. Had God really created a separate race of tortoises for each and every island?" "It's doubtful." "Darwin's observations of bird life on the Galapagos were even more striking. The Galapagos finches were clearly varied from island to island, especially as regards the shape of the beak. Darwin demonstrated that these variations were closely linked to the way the finches found their food on the different islands. The ground finches with steeply profiled beaks lived on pine cone seeds, the little warbler finches lived on insects, and the tree finches lived on termites extracted from bark and branches ... Each and every one of the species had a beak that was perfectly adapted to its own food intake. Could all these finches be descended from one and the same species? And had the finches adapted to their surroundings on the different islands over the ages in such a way that new species of finches evolved?" "That was the conclusion he came to, wasn't it?" "Yes. Maybe that was where Darwin became a 'Darwinist'--on the Galapagos Islands. He also observed that the fauna there bore a strong resemblance to many of the species he had seen in South America. Had God once and for all really created all these animals slightly different from each other--or had an evolution taken place? Increasingly, he began to doubt that all species were immutable. But he still had no viable explanation as to how such an evolution had occurred. But there was one more factor to indicate that all the animals on earth might be related." "And what was that?" "The development of the embryo in mammals. If you compare the embryos of dogs, bats, rabbits, and humans at an early stage, they look so alike that it is hard to tell the difference. You cannot distinguish a human embryo from a rabbit embryo until a very late stage. Shouldn't this indicate that we are distant relatives?" "But he had still no explanation of how evolution happened?" "He pondered constantly on [yell's theory of the minute changes that could have great effect over a long period of time. But he could find no explanation that would apply as a general principle. He was familiar with the theory of the French zoologist Lamarck, who had shown that the different species had developed the characteristics they needed. Giraffes, for example, had developed long necks because for generations they had reached up for leaves in the trees. Lamarck believed that the characteristics each individual acquires through his own efforts are passed on to the next generation. But this theory of the heredity of 'acquired characteristics' was rejected by Darwin because Lamarck had no proof of his bold claims. However, Darwin was beginning to pursue another, much more obvious line of thought. You could almost say that the actual mechanism behind the evolution of species was right in front of his very nose." "So what was it?" "I would rather you worked the mechanism out for yourself. So I ask: If you had three cows, but only enough fodder to keep two of them alive, what would you do?" "I suppose I'd have to slaughter one of them." "All right... which one would you slaughter?" "I suppose I'd slaughter the one that gave the least milk." "Would you?" "Yes, that's logical, isn't it?" "That is exactly what mankind had done for thousands of years. But we haven't finished with your two cows yet. Suppose you wanted one of them to calve. Which one would you choose?" "The one that was the best milker. Then its calf would probably be a good milker too." "You prefer good milkers to bad, then. Now there's one more question. If you were a hunter and you had two gundogs, but had to give up one of them, which one would you keep?" "The one that's best at finding the kind of game I shoot, obviously." "Quite so, you would favor the better gundog. That's exactly how people have bred domestic animals for more than ten thousand years, Sophie. Hens did not always lay five eggs a week, sheep did not always yield as much wool, and horses were not always as strong and swift as they are now. Breeders have made an artificial selection. The same applies to the vegetable kingdom. You don't plant bad potatoes if there are good seed potatoes available, and you don't waste time cutting wheat that yields no grain. Darwin pointed out that no cows, no stalks of wheat, no dogs, and no finches are completely alike. Nature produces an enormous breadth of variation. Even within the same species, no two individuals are exactly alike. You probably experienced that for yourself when you drank the blue liquid." "I'll say." "So now Darwin had to ask himself: could a similar mechanism be at work in nature too? Is it possible that nature makes a 'natural selection' as to which individuals are to survive? And could such a selection over a very long period of time create new species of flora and fauna?" "I would guess the answer is yes." "Darwin could still not quite imagine how such a natural selection could take place. But in October 1838, exactly two years after his return on the Beagle, he chanced to come across a little book by the specialist in population studies, Thomas Malthus. The book was called An Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus got the idea for this essay from Benjamin Franklin, the American who in-vented the lightning conductor among other things. Franklin had made the point that if there were no limiting factors in nature, one single species of plant or animal would spread over the entire globe. But because there are many species, they keep each other in balance." "I can see that." "Malthus developed this idea and applied it to the world's population. He believed that mankind's ability to procreate is so great that there are always more children born than can survive. Since the production of food can never keep pace with the increase in population, he believed that huge numbers were destined to succumb in the struggle for existence. Those who survived to grow up-- and perpetuate the race--would therefore be those who came out best in the struggle for survival." "That sounds logical." "But this was actually the universal mechanism that Darwin had been searching for. Here was the explanation of how evolution happens. It was due to natural selection in the struggle for life, in which those that were best adapted to their surroundings would survive and perpetuate the race. This was the second theory which he proposed in The Origin of Species. He wrote: The elephant is reck-oned the slowest breeder of all known animals,' but if it had six young and survived to a hundred, 'after a period of from 740 to 750 years there would be nearly nineteen million elephants alive, descended from the first pair.' " "Not to mention all the thousands of cods' eggs from a single cod." "Darwin further proposed that the struggle for survival is frequently hardest among species that resemble each other the most. They have to fight for the same food. There, the slightest advantage--that is to say, the infinitesimal variation--truly comes into its own. The more bitter the struggle for survival, the quicker will be the evolution of new species, so that only the very best adapted will survive and the others will die out." "The less food there is and the bigger the brood, the quicker evolution happens?" "Yes, but it's not only a question of food. It can be just as vital to avoid being eaten by other animals. For example, it can be a matter of survival to have a protective camouflage, the ability to run swiftly, to recognize hostile animals, or, if the worst comes to the worst, to have a repellent taste. A poison that can kill predators is quite useful too. That's why so many cacti are poisonous, Sophie. Practically nothing else can grow in the desert, so this plant is especially vulnerable to plant-eating animals." "Most cacti are prickly as well." "The ability to reproduce is also of fundamental importance, obviously. Darwin studied the ingenuity of plant pollination in great detail. Flowers glow in glorious hues and exude delirious scents to attract the insects which are instrumental in pollination. To perpetuate their kind, birds trill their melodious tones. A placid or melancholy bull with no interest in cows will have no interest for genealogy either, since with characteristics like these, its line will die out at once. The bull's sole purpose in life is to grow to sexual maturity and reproduce in order to propagate the race. It is rather like a relay race. Those that for one reason or another are unable to pass on their genes are continually discarded, and in that way the race is continually refined. Resistance to disease is one of the most important characteristics progressively accumulated and preserved in the variants that survive." "So everything gets better and better?" "The result of this continual selection is that the ones best adapted to a particular environment--or a particular ecological niche--will in the long term perpetuate the race in that environment. But what is an advantage in one environment is not necessarily an advantage in another. For some of the Galapagos finches, the ability to fly was vital. But being good at flying is not so necessary if food is dug from the ground and there are no predators. The reason why so many different animal species have arisen over the ages is precisely because of these many niches in the natural environment." "But even so, there is only one human race." "That's because man has a unique ability to adapt to different conditions of life. One of the things that amazed Darwin most was the way the Indians in Tierra del Fuego managed to live under such terrible climatic conditions. But that doesn't mean that all human beings are alike. Those who live near the equator have darker skins than people in the more northerly climes because their dark skin protects them from the sun. White people who expose themselves to the sun for long periods are more prone to skin cancer." "Is it a similar advantage to have white skin if you live in northern countries?" "Yes, otherwise everyone on earth would be dark-skinned. But white skin more easily forms sun vitamins, and that can be vital in areas with very little sun. Nowa-days that is not so important because we can make sure we have enough sun vitamins in our diet. But nothing in nature is random. Everything is due to infinitesimal changes that have taken effect over countless generations." "Actually, it's quite fantastic to imagine." "It is indeed. So far, then, we can sum up Darwin's theory of evolution in a few sentences." "Go ahead!" "We can say that the 'raw material' behind the evolution of life on earth was the continual variation of individuals within the same species, plus the large number of progeny, which meant that only a fraction of them survived, the actual 'mechanism,' or driving force, behind evolution was thus the natural selection in the struggle for survival. This selection ensured that the strongest, or the 'fittest,' survived." "It seems as logical as a math sum. How was The Origin of Species received?" "It was the cause of bitter controversies. The Church protested vehemently and the scientific world was sharply divided. That was not really so surprising. Darwin had, after all, distanced God a good way from the act of creation, although there were admittedly some who claimed it was surely greater to have created something with its own innate evolutionary potential than simply to create a fixed entity." Suddenly Sophie jumped up from her chair. "Look out there!" she cried. She pointed out of the window. Down by the lake a man and a woman were walking hand in hand. They were completely naked. "That's Adam and Eve," said Alberto. "They were gradually forced to throw in their lot with Little Red Rid-inghood and Alice in Wonderland. That's why they have turned up here." Sophie went to the window to watch them, but they soon disappeared among the trees. "Because Darwin believed that mankind was descended from animals?" "In 1871 Darwin published The Descent of Man, in which he drew attention to the great similarities between humans and animals, advancing the theory that men and anthropoid apes must at one time have evolved from the same progenitor. By this time the first fossil skulls of an extinct type of man had been found, first in the Rock of Gibraltar and some years later in Neanderthal in Germany. Strangely enough, there were fewer protests in T871 than in 1859, when Darwin published The Origin of Species. But man's descent from animals had been implicit in the first book as well. And as I said, when Darwin died in 1882, he was buried with all the ceremony due to a pioneer of science." "So in the end he found honor and dignity?" "Eventually, yes. But not before he had been described as the most dangerous man in England." "Holy Moses!" " 'Let us hope it is not true,' wrote an upper-class lady, 'but if it is, let us hope it will not be generally known.' A distinguished scientist expressed a similar thought: 'An embarrassing discovery, and the less said about it the better.' " "That was almost proof that man is related to the ostrich!" "Good point. But that's easy enough for us to say now. People were suddenly obliged to revise their whole approach to the Book of Genesis. The young writer John Ruskin put it like this: 'If only the geologists would leave me alone. After each Bible verse I hear the blows of their hammers.' " "And the blows of the hammers were his doubts about the word of God?" "That was presumably what he meant. Because it was more than the literal interpretation of the story of creation that toppled. The essence of Darwin's theory was the utterly random variations which had finally produced Man. And what was more, Darwin had turned Marv into a product of something as unsentimental as the struggle for existence." "Did Darwin have anything to say about how such random variations arose?" "You've put your finger on the weakest point in his theory. Darwin had only the vaguest idea of heredity. Something happens in the crossing. A father and mother never get two identical offspring. There is always some slight difference. On the other hand it's difficult to produce anything really new in that way. Moreover, there are plants and animals which reproduce by budding or by simple cell division. On the question of how the variations arise, Darwin's theory has been supplemented by the so-called neo-Darwinism." "What's that?" "All life and all reproduction is basically a matter of cell division. When a cell divides into two, two identical cells are produced with exactly the same hereditary factors. In cell division, then, we say a cell copies itself." "Yes?" "But occasionally, infinitesimal errors occur in the process, so that the copied cell is not exactly the same as the mother cell. In modern biological terms, this is a mutation. Mutations are either totally irrelevant, or they can lead to marked changes in the behavior of the individual. They can be directly harmful, and such 'mutants' will be continually discarded from the large broods. Many diseases are in fact due to mutations. But sometimes a mutation can give an individual just that extra positive characteristic needed to hold its own in the struggle for existence." "Like a longer neck, for instance?" "Lamarck's explanation of why t
本帖最近评分记录: 1 条评分 鲜花 +1
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 31楼  发表于: 2013-10-27 0
[content too large, truncated for display] [table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,4][tr][td]
英文原文
[table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,1][tr][td]Marx  a spectre is haunting Europe Hilde got off her bed and went to the window facing the bay. When she had started to read this Saturday, it was still Sophie's fifteenth birthday. The day before had been Hilde's own birthday. If her father had imagined that she would get as far as Sophie's birthday yesterday, he had certainly not been realistic. She had done nothing but read all day long. But he was right that there would only be one more birthday greeting. It was when Alberto and Sophie had sung Happy Birthday to her. Very embarrassing, Hilde thought. And now Sophie had invited people to a philosophical garden party on the very day her father was due back from Lebanon. Hilde was convinced something would happen that day which neither she nor her father were quite sure of. But one thing was certain: before her father got home to Bjerkely he would get a scare. That was the least she could do for Sophie and Alberto, especially after they had appealed for help ... Her mother was still down in the boathouse. Hilde ran downstairs to the telephone. She found Anne and Ole's number in Copenhagen and called them. "Anne Kvamsdal." "Hi, this is Hilde." "Oh, how are you? How are things in Lillesand?" "Fine, with vacation and everything. And Dad gets back from Lebanon in a week." "Won't that be great, Hilde!" "Yes, I'm looking forward to it. That's actually why I'm calling..." "It is?" "I think he's landing at Kastrup around 5 p.m. on Saturday the 23rd. Will you be in Copenhagen then?" "I think so." "I was wondering if you could do something for me." "Why, of course." "It's kind of a special favor. I'm not even sure if it's possible." "Now you're making me curious ..." Hilde began to describe her plan. She told Anne about the ring binder, about Sophie and Alberto and all the rest. She had to backtrack several times because either she or Anne were laughing too hard. But when Hilde hung up, her plan was in operation. She would now have to begin some preparations of her own. But there was still plenty of time. Hilde spent the remainder of the afternoon and the evening with her mother. They ended up driving to Kris-tiansand and going to the movies. They felt they had some catching up to do since they had not done anything special the day before. As they drove past the exit to Kjevik airport, a few more pieces of the big jigsaw puzzle Hilde was constructing fell into place. It was late before she went to bed that night, but she took the ring binder and read on. When Sophie slipped out of the den through the hedge it was almost eight o'clock. Her mother was weeding the flowerbeds by the front door when Sophie appeared. "Where did you spring from?" "I came through the hedge." "Through the hedge?" "Didn't you know there was a path on the other side?" "But where have you been, Sophie? This is the second time you've just disappeared without leaving any message." "I'm sorry, Mom. It was such a lovely day, I went for a long walk." Her mother rose from the pile of weeds and gave her a severe look. "You haven't been with that philosopher again?" "As a matter of fact, I have. I told you he likes going for long walks." "But he is coming to the garden party, isn't he?" "Oh yes, he's looking forward to it." "Me too. I'm counting the days." Was there a touch of sharpness in her voice? To be on the safe side, Sophie said: "I'm glad I invited Joanna's parents too. Otherwise it might be a bit embarrassing." "I don't know ... but whatever happens, I am going to have a talk with this Alberto as one adult to another." "You can borrow my room if you like. I'm sure you'll like him." "And another thing. There's a letter for you." "There is?" "It's stamped UN Battalion." "It must be from Alberto's brother." "It's got to stop, Sophie!" Sophie's brain worked overtime. But in a flash she hit on a plausible answer It was as though she was getting inspiration from some guiding spirit. "I told Alberto I collect rare postmarks. And brothers also have their uses." Her mother seemed to be reassured. "Dinner's in the fridge," she said in a slightly more amicable tone. "Where's the letter?" "On top of the fridge." Sophie rushed inside. The envelope was stamped June 15, 1990. She opened it and took out a little note: What matters our creative endless toil, When at a snatch, oblivion ends the coil? Indeed, Sophie had no answer to that question. Before she ate, she put the note in the closet together with all the other stuff she had collected in the past weeks. She would learn soon enough why the question had been asked. The following morning Joanna came by. After a game of badminton, they got down to planning the philosophical garden party. They needed to have some surprises on hand in case the party flopped at any point. When Sophie's mother got home from work they were still talking about it. Her mother kept saying: "Don't worry about what it costs." And she was not being sarcastic! Perhaps she was thinking that a "philosophical garden party" was just what was needed to bring Sophie down to earth again after her many weeks of intensive philosophical studies. Before the evening was over they had agreed on everything, from paper lanterns to a philosophical quiz with a prize. The prize should preferably be a book about philosophy for young people. If there was such a thing! Sophie was not at all sure. Two days before Midsummer Eve, on Thursday, June 21, Alberto called Sophie again. "Sophie." "And Alberto." "Oh, hi! How are you?" "Very well indeed, thank you. I think I have found an excellent way out." "Way out of what?" "You know what. A way out of the mental captivity we have lived in for much too long." "Oh, that." "But I cannot say a word about the plan before it is set in motion." "Won't it be too late then? I need to know what I am involved in." "Now you're being na'i've. All our conversations are being overheard. The most sensible thing would be to say nothing." "It's as bad as that, huh?" "Naturally, my child. The most important things must happen when we are not talking." "Oh." "We are living our lives in a fictional reality behind the words in a long story. Each single letter is being written on an old portable typewriter by the major. Nothing that is in print can therefore escape his attention." "No, I realize that. But how are we going to hide from him?" "Ssh!" "What?" "There's something going on between the lines as well. That's just where I'm trying to be tricky, with every crafty ruse I know." "I get it." "But we must make the most of the time both today and tomorrow. On Saturday the balloon goes up. Can you come over right now?" "I'm on my way." Sophie fed the birds and the fish and found a large lettuce leaf for Govinda. She opened a can of cat food for Sher-ekan and put it out in a bowl on the step as she left. Then she slipped through the hedge and out to the path on the far side. A little way further on she suddenly caught sight of a spacious desk standing in the midst of the heather. An elderly man was sitting at it, apparently adding up figures. Sophie went over to him and asked his name. "Ebenezer Scrooge," he said, poring over his ledgers again. "My name is Sophie. You are a businessman, I presume?" He nodded. "And immensely rich. Not a penny must go to waste. That's why I have to concentrate on my accounts." "Why bother?" Sophie waved and walked on. But she had not gone many yards before she noticed a little girl sitting quite alone under one of the tall trees. She was dressed in rags, and looked pale and ill. As Sophie walked by, she thrust her hand into a little bag and pulled out a box of matches. "Will you buy some matches?" she asked, holding them out to Sophie. Sophie felt in her pockets to see if she had any money with her. Yes--she found a crown. "How much are they?" "One crown." Sophie gave the girl the coin and stood there, with the box of matches in her hand. "You are the first person to buy anything from me for over a hundred years. Sometimes I starve to death, and other times the frost does away with me." Sophie thought it was perhaps not surprising if the sale of matches was not especially brisk here in the woods. But then she came to think of the businessman she had just passed. There was no reason for the little match girl to die of starvation when he was so wealthy. "Come here," said Sophie. She took the girl's hand and walked with her back to the rich man. "You must see to it that this girl gets a better life," she said. The man glanced up from his paperwork and said: "That kind of thing costs money, and I said not so much as a penny must go to waste." "But it's not fair that you're so rich when this girl is so poor," insisted Sophie. "It's unjust!" "Bah! Humbug! Justice only exists between equals." "What do you mean by that?" "I had to work my way up, and it has paid off. Progress, they call it." "If you don't help me, I'll die," said the poor girl. The businessman looked up again from his ledgers. Then he threw his quill pen onto the table impatiently. "You don't figure in my accounts! So--be off with you--to the poorhouse!" "If you don't help me, I'll set fire to the woods," the girl persisted. That brought the man to his feet, but the girl had already struck one of her matches. She held it to a tuft of dry grass which flared up instantly. The man threw up his arms. "God help me!" he shouted. "The red cock has crowed!" The girl looked up at him with a playful smile. "You didn't know I was a communist, did you?" The next minute, the girl, the businessman, and the desk had disappeared. Sophie was once again standing alone while the flames consumed the dry grass ever more hungrily. It took her a while to put out the fire by stamping on it. Thank goodness! Sophie glanced down at the blackened grass. She was holding a box of matches in her hand. She couldn't have started the fire herself, could she? When she met Alberto outside the cabin she told him what had happened. "Scrooge was the miserly capitalist in A Christmas Carol, by Charles Dickens. You probably remember the little match girl from the tale by Hans Christian Andersen." "I didn't expect to meet them here in the woods." "Why not? These are no ordinary woods, and now we are going to talk about Karl Marx. It is most appropriate that you have witnessed an example of the tremendous class struggles of the mid-nineteenth century. But let's go inside. We are a little more protected from the major's interference there." Once again they sat at the little table by the window facing the lake. Sophie could still feel all over her body how she had experienced the little lake after having drunk from the blue bottle. Today, both bottles were standing on the mantelpiece. There was a miniature model of a Greek temple on the table. "What's that?" asked Sophie. "All in good time, my dear." Alberto began to talk: "When Kierkegaard went to Berlin in 1841, he might have sat next to Karl Marx at Schel-ling's lectures. Kierkegaard had written a master of arts thesis on Socrates. About the same time, Marx had written a doctoral thesis on Democritus and Epicurus--in other words, on the materialism of antiquity. Thus they had both staked out the course of their own philosophies." "Because Kierkegaard became an existentialist and Marx became a materialist?" "Marx became what is known as a historical materialist. But we'll come back to that." "Go on." "Each in his own way, both Kierkegaard and Marx took Hegel's philosophy as their point of departure. Both were influenced by Hegel's mode of thought, but both rejected his 'world spirit,' or his idealism." "It was probably too high-flown for them." "Definitely. In general, we usually say that the era of the great philosophical systems ended with Hegel. After him, philosophy took a new direction. Instead of great speculative systems, we had what we call an existential philosophy or a philosophy of action. This was what Marx meant when he observed that until now, 'philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.' These words mark a significant turning point in the history of philosophy." "After meeting Scrooge and the little match girl, I have no problem understanding what Marx meant." "Marx's thinking had a practical--or political--objective. He was not only a philosopher; he was a historian, a sociologist, and an economist." "And he was a forerunner in all these areas?" "Certainly no other philosopher had greater significance for practical politics. On the other hand, we must be wary of identifying everything that calls itself Marxism with Marx's own thinking. It is said of Marx that he only became a Marxist in the mid-1840s, but even after that he could at times feel it necessary to assert that he was not a Marxist." "Was Jesus a Christian?" "That, too, of course, is debatable." "Carry on." "Right from the start, his friend and colleague Friedrich Engels contributed to what was subsequently known as Marxism. In our own century, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and many others also made their contribution to Marxism, or Marxism-Leninism." "I suggest we try to stick to Marx himself. You said he was a historical materialist?" "He was not a philosophical materialist like the atomists of antiquity nor did he advocate the mechanical materialism of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. But he thought that, to a great extent, it was the material factors in society which determined the way we think. Material factors of that nature have certainly been decisive for historical development." "That was quite different from Hegel's world spirit." "Hegel had pointed out that historical development is driven by the tension between opposites--which is then resolved by a sudden change. Marx developed this idea further. But according to Marx, Hegel was standing on his head." "Not all the time, I hope." "Hegel called the force that drives history forward world spirit or world reason. This, Marx claimed, is upside down. He wished to show that material changes are the ones that affect history. 'Spiritual relations' do not create material change, it is the other way about. Material change creates new spiritual relations. Marx particularly emphasized that it was the economic forces in society that created change and thus drove history forward." "Do you have an example?" "Antiquity's philosophy and science were purely theoretical in purpose. Nobody was particularly interested in putting new discoveries into practice." "They weren't?" "That was because of the way the economic life of the community was organized. Production was mainly based on slave labor, so the citizens had no need to increase production with practical innovations. This is an example of how material relations help to affect philosophical reflection in society." "Yes, I see." "Marx called these material, economic, and social relations the basis of society. The way a society thinks, what kind of political institutions there are, which laws it has and, not least, what there is of religion, morals, art, philosophy, and science, Marx called society's superstructure." "Basis and superstructure, right." "And now you will perhaps be good enough to pass me the Greek temple." Sophie did so. "This is a model of the Parthenon temple on the Acropolis. You have also seen it in real life." "On the video, you mean." "You can see that the construction has a very elegant and elaborate roof. Probably the roof with its front gable is what strikes one first. This is what we call the superstructure." "But the roof cannot float in thin air." "It is supported by the columns." "The building has very powerful foundations--its bases--supporting the entire construction. In the same way, Marx believed that material relations support, so to speak, everything in the way of thoughts and ideas in society. Society's superstructure is in fact a reflection of the bases of that society." "Are you saying that Plato's theory of ideas is a reflection of vase production and wine growing?" "No, it's not that simple, as Marx expressly points out. It is the interactive effect of society's basis on its superstructure. If Marx had rejected this interaction, he would have been a mechanical materialist. But because Marx realized that there was an interactive or dialectic relation between bases and superstructure, we say that he is a dialectical materialist. By the way, you may care to note that Plato was neither a potter nor a wine grower." "All right. Do you have any more to say about the temple?" "Yes, a little. Could you describe the bases of the temple?" "The columns are standing on a base that consists of three levels--or steps." "In the same manner we will identify three levels in the bases of society. The most basic level is what we may call society's conditions of production. In other words, the natural conditions or resources that are available to society. These are the foundation of any society, and this foundation clearly determines the type of production in the society, and by the same token, the nature of that society and its culture in general." "You can't have a herring trade in the Sahara, or grow dates in northern Norway." "You've got it. And the way people think in a nomadic culture is very different from the way they think in a fishing village in northern Norway The next level is the society's means of production. By this Marx meant the various kinds of equipment, tools, and machinery, as well as the raw materials to be found there." "In the old days people rowed out to the fishing grounds. Nowadays they use huge trawlers to catch the fish." "Yes, and here you are talking about the next level in the base of society, namely, those who own the means of production. The division of labor, or the distribution of work and ownership, was what Marx called society's 'production relations.' " "I see." "So far we can conclude that it is the mode of production in a society which determines which political and ideological conditions are to be found there. It is not by chance that today we think somewhat differently--and have a somewhat different moral codex--from the old feudal society." "So Marx didn't believe in a natural right that was eternally valid." "No, the question of what was morally right, according to Marx, is a product of the base of society. For example, it is not accidental that in the old peasant society, parents would decide whom their children married. It was a question of who was to inherit the farm. In a modern city, social relations are different. Nowadays you can meet your future spouse at a party or a disco, and if you are sufficiently in love, you'll find somewhere to live." "I could never have put up with my parents deciding who I was to marry." "No, that's because you are a child of your time. Marx emphasized moreover that it is mainly society's ruling class that sets the norms for what is right or wrong. Because 'the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.' In other words, history is principally a matter of who is to own the means of production." "Don't people's thoughts and ideas help to change history?" "Yes and no. Marx understood that conditions in society's superstructure could have an interactive effect on the base of society, but he denied that society's superstructure had any independent history of its own. What has driven historical development from the slave society of antiquity to the industrial society of today has primarily been determined by changes in the base of society." "So you said." "Marx believed that in all phases of history there has been a conflict between two dominant classes of society. In antiquity's slave society, the conflict was between free citizen and slave. In the feudal society of the Middle Ages, it was between feudal lord and serf; later on, between aristocrat and citizen. But in Marx's own time, in what he called a bourgeois or capitalist society, the conflict was first and foremost between the capitalists and the workers, or the proletariat. So the conflict stood between those who own the means of production and those who do not. And since the 'upper classes' do not voluntarily relinquish their power, change can only come about through revolution." "What about a communist society?" "Marx was especially interested in the transition from a capitalist to a communist society. He also carried out a detailed analysis of the capitalist mode of production. But before we look at that, we must say something about Marx's view of man's labor." "Go ahead." "Before he became a communist, the young Marx was preoccupied with what happens to man when he works. This was something Hegel had also analyzed. Hegel believed there was an interactive, or dialectic, relationship between man and nature. When man alters nature, he himself is altered. Or, to put it slightly differently, when man works, he interacts with nature and transforms it. But in the process nature also interacts with man and transforms his consciousness." "Tell me what you do and I'll tell you who you are." "That, briefly, was Marx's point. How we work affects our consciousness, but our consciousness also affects the way we work. You could say it is an interactive relationship between hand and consciousness. Thus the way you think is closely connected to the job you do." "So it must be depressing to be unemployed." "Yes. A person who is unemployed is, in a sense, empty. Hegel was aware of this early on. To both Hegel and Marx, work was a positive thing, and was closely connected with the essence of mankind." "So it must also be positive to a worker?" "Yes, originally. But this is precisely where Marx aimed his criticism of the capitalist method of production." "What was that?" "Under the capitalist system, the worker labors for someone else. His labor is thus something external to him--or something that does not belong to him. The worker becomes alien to his work--but at the same time also alien to himself. He loses touch with his own reality. Marx says, with a Hegelian expression, that the worker becomes alienated." "I have an aunt who has worked in a factory, packaging candy for over twenty years, so I can easily understand what you mean. She says she hates going to work, every single morning." "But if she hates her work, Sophie, she must hate herself, in a sense." "She hates candy, that's for sure." "In a capitalist society, labor is organized in such a way that the worker in fact slaves for another social class. Thus the worker transfers his own labor--and with it, the whole of his life--to the bourgeoisie." "Is it really that bad?" "We're talking about Marx, and we must therefore take our point of departure in the social conditions during the middle of the last century. So the answer must be a resounding yes. The worker could have a 12-hour working day in a freezing cold production hall. The pay was often so poor that children and expectant mothers also had to work. This led to unspeakable social conditions. In many places, part of the wages was paid out in the form of cheap liquor, and women were obliged to supplement their earnings by prostitution. Their customers were the respected citizenry of the town. In short, in the precise situation that should have been the honorable hallmark of mankind, namely work, the worker was turned into a beast of burden." "That infuriates me!" "It infuriated Marx too. And while it was happening, the children of the bourgeoisie played the violin in warm, spacious living rooms after a refreshing bath. Or they sat at the piano while waiting for their four-course dinner. The violin and the piano could have served just as well as a diversion after a long horseback ride." "Ugh! How unjust!" "Marx would have agreed. Together with Engels, he published a Communist Manifesto in 1848. The first sentence in this manifesto says: A spectre is haunting Europe--the spectre of Communism." "That sounds frightening." "It frightened the bourgeoisie too. Because now the proletariat was beginning to revolt. Would you like to hear how the Manifesto ends?" "Yes, please." "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!" "If conditions were as bad as you say, I think I would have signed that Manifesto. But conditions are surely a lot different today?" "In Norway they are, but they aren't everywhere. Many people still live under inhuman conditions while they continue to produce commodities that make capitalists richer and richer. Marx called this exploitation." "Could you explain that word, please?" "If a worker produces a commodity, this commodity has a certain exchange-value." "Yes." "If you now deduct the workers' wages and the other production costs from the exchange-value, there will always be a certain sum left over. This sum was what Marx called profit. In other words, the capitalist pockets a value that was actually created by the worker. That is what is meant by exploitation." "I see." "So now the capitalist invests some of his profit in new capital--for instance, in modernizing the production plant in the hope of producing his commodity even more cheaply, and thereby increasing his profit in the future." "That sounds logical." "Yes, it can seem logical. But both in this and in other areas, in the long term it will not go the way the capitalist has imagined." "How do you mean?" "Marx believed there were a number of inherent contradictions in the capitalist method of production. Capitalism is an economic system which is self-destructive because it lacks rational control." "That's good, isn't it, for the oppressed?" "Yes; it is inherent in the capitalist system that it is marching toward its own destruction. In that sense, capitalism is 'progressive' because it is a stage on the way to communism." "Can you give an example of capitalism being self-destructive?" "We said that the capitalist had a good surplus of money, and he uses part of this surplus to modernize the factory. But he also spends money on violin lessons. Moreover, his wife has become accustomed to a luxurious way of life." "No doubt." "He buys new machinery and so no longer needs so many employees. He does this to increase his competitive power." "I get it." "But he is not the only one thinking in this way, which means that production as a whole is continually being made more effective. Factories become bigger and bigger, and are gradually concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. What happens then, Sophie?" "Er. . ." "Fewer and fewer workers are required, which means there are more and more unemployed. There are therefore increasing social problems, and crises such as these are a signal that capitalism is marching toward its own destruction. But capitalism has a number of other self-destructive elements. Whenever profit has to be tied up in the means of production without leaving a big enough surplus to keep production going at competitive prices . . ." "Yes?" ", . . what does the capitalist do then? Can you tell me?" "No, I'm afraid I can't." "Imagine if you were a factory owner. You cannot make ends meet. You cannot buy the raw materials you need to keep producing. You are facing bankruptcy. So now my question is, what can you do to economize?" "Maybe I could cut down on wages?" "Smart! Yes, that really is the smartest thing you could do. But if all capitalists were as smart as you--and they are--the workers would be so poor that they couldn't afford to buy goods any more. We would say that purchasing power is falling. And now we really are in a vicious circle. The knell has sounded for capitalist private property, Marx would say. We are rapidly approaching a revolutionary situation." "Yes, I see." "To make a long story short, in the end the proletariat rises and takes over the means of production." "And then what?" "For a period, we get a new 'class society' in which the proletarians suppress the bourgeoisie by force. Marx called this the dictatorship of the proletariat. But after a transition period, the dictatorship of the proletariat is replaced by a 'classless society,' in which the means of production are owned 'by all'--that is, by the people themselves. In this kind of society, the policy is 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' Moreover, labor now belongs to the workers themselves and capitalism's alienation ceases." "It all sounds wonderful, but what actually happened? Was there a revolution?" "Yes and no. Today, economists can establish that Marx was mistaken on a number of vital issues, not least his analysis of the crises of capitalism. And he paid insufficient attention to the plundering of the natural environment--the serious consequences of which we are experiencing today. Nevertheless . . ." "Nevertheless?" "Marxism led to great upheavals. There is no doubt that socialism has largely succeeded in combating an inhumane society. In Europe, at any rate, we live in a society with more justice--and more solidarity--than Marx did. This is not least due to Marx himself and the entire socialist movement." "What happened?" "After Marx, the socialist movement split into two main streams, Social Democracy and Leninism. Social Democracy, which has stood for a gradual and peaceful path in the direction of socialism, was Western Europe's way. We might call this the slow revolution. Leninism, which retained Marx's belief that revolution was the only way to combat the old class society, had great influence in Eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa. Each in their own way, both movements have fought against hardship and oppression." "But didn't it create a new form of oppression? For example in Russia and Eastern Europe?" "No doubt of that, and here again we see that everything man touches becomes a mixture of good and evil. On the other hand, it would be unreasonable to blame Marx for the negative factors in the so-called socialist countries fifty or a hundred years after his death. But maybe he had given too little thought to the
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 30楼  发表于: 2013-10-27 0
[content too large, truncated for display]
英文原文
[table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,1]
Kierkegaard
Europe is on the road to bankruptcy
Hilde looked at her watch. It was already past four o'clock. She laid the ring binder on her desk and ran downstairs to the kitchen. She had to get down to the boathouse before her mother got tired of waiting for her. She glanced at the brass mirror as she passed.
She quickly put the kettle on for tea and fixed some sandwiches.
She had made up her mind to play a few tricks on her father. Hilde was beginning to feel more and more allied with Sophie and Alberto. Her plan would start when he got to Copenhagen.
She went down to the boathouse with a large tray.
"Here's our brunch," she said.
Her mother was holding a block wrapped in sandpaper. She pushed a stray lock of hair back from her forehead. There was sand in her hair too.
"Let's drop dinner, then."
They sat down outside on the dock and began to eat.
"When's Dad arriving?" asked Hilde after a while.
"On Saturday. I thought you knew that."
"But what time? Didn't you say he was changing planes in Copenhagen?"
"That's right.
Her mother took a bite of her sandwich.
"He gets to Copenhagen at about five. The plane to Kristiansand leaves at a quarter to eight. He'll probably land at Kjevik at half-past nine."
"So he has a few hours at Kastrup ..."
"Yes, why?"
"Nothing. I was just wondering."
When Hilde thought a suitable interval had elapsed, she said casually, "Have you heard from Anne and Ole lately?"
"They call from time to time. They are coming home on vacation sometime in July."
"Not before?"
"No, I don't think so."
"So they'll be in Copenhagen this week... ?"
"Why all these questions, Hilde?"
"No reason. Just small talk."
"You mentioned Copenhagen twice."
"I did?"
"We talked about Dad touching down in ..."
"That's probably why I thought of Anne and Ole."
As soon as they finished eating, Hilde collected the mugs and plates on the tray.
"I have to get on with my reading, Mom."
"I guess you must."
Was there a touch of reproach in her voice? They had talked about fixing up the boat together before Dad came home.
"Dad almost made me promise to finish the book before he got home."
"It's a little crazy. When he's away, he doesn't have to order us around back home."
"If you only knew how much he orders people around," said Hilde enigmatically, "and you can't imagine how much he enjoys it."
She returned to her room and went on reading.
Suddenly Sophie heard a knock on the door. Alberto looked at her severely.
"We don't wish to be disturbed."
The knocking became louder.
"I am going to tell you about a Danish philosopher who was infuriated by Hegel's philosophy," said Alberto.
The knocking on the door grew so violent that the whole door shook.
"It's the major, of course, sending some phantasm to see whether we swallow the bait," said Alberto. "It costs him no effort at all."
"But if we don't open the door and see who it is, it won't cost him any effort to tear the whole place down either."
"You might have a point there. We'd better open the door then."
They went to the door. Since the knocking had been so forceful, Sophie expected to see a very large person. But standing on the front step was a little girl with long fair hair, wearing a blue dress. She had a small bottle in each hand. One bottle was red, the other blue.
"Hi," said Sophie. "Who are you?"
"My name is Alice," said the girl, curtseying shyly.
"I thought so," said Alberto, nodding. "It's Alice in Wonderland."
"How did she find her way to us?"
Alice explained: "Wonderland is a completely borderless country. That means that Wonderland is everywhere--rather like the UN. It should be an honorary member of the UN. We should have representatives on all committees, because the UN also arose out of people's wonder."
"Hm ... that major!" muttered Alberto.
"And what brings you here?" asked Sophie.
"I am to give Sophie these little philosophy bottles."
She handed the bottles to Sophie. There was red liquid in one and blue in the other. The label on the red bottle read DRINK ME, and on the blue one the label read DRINK ME too.
The next second a white rabbit came hurrying past the cabin. It walked upright on two legs and was dressed in a waistcoat and jacket. Just in front of the cabin it took a pocket watch out of its waistcoat pocket and said:
"Oh dear! Oh dear! I shall be too late!"
Then it ran on. Alice began to run after it. Just before she ran into the woods, she curtsied and said, "Now it's starting again."
"Say hello to Dinah and the Queen," Sophie called after her.
Alberto and Sophie remained standing on the front step, examining the bottles.
"DRINK ME and DRINK ME too," read Sophie. "I don't know if I dare. They might be poisonous."
Alberto merely shrugged his shoulders.
"They come from the major, and everything that comes from the major is purely in the mind. So it's only pretend-juice."
Sophie took the cap off the red bottle and put it cautiously to her lips. The juice had a strangely sweet taste, but that wasn't all. As she drank, something started to happen to her surroundings.
It felt as if the lake and the woods and the cabin all merged into one. Soon it seemed that everything she saw was one person, and that person was Sophie herself. She glanced up at Alberto, but he too seemed to be part of Sophie's soul.
"Curiouser and curiouser," she said. "Everything looks like it did before, but now it's all one thing. I feel as if everything is one thought."
Alberto nodded--but it seemed to Sophie that it was she nodding to herself.
"It is Pantheism or Idealism," he said. "It is the Romantics' world spirit. They experienced everything as one big 'ego.' It is also Hegel--who was critical of the individual, and who saw everything as the expression of the one and only world reason."
"Should I drink from the other bottle too?"
"It says so on the label."
Sophie took the cap off the blue bottle and took a large gulp. This juice tasted fresher and sharper than the other. Again everything around her changed suddenly.
Instantly the effects of the red bottle disappeared and everything slid back to its normal place. Alberto was Alberto, the trees were back in the woods and the water looked like a lake again.
But it only lasted for a second, because things went on sliding away from each other. The woods were no longer woods and every little tree now seemed like a world in itself. The tiniest twig was like a fairy-tale world about which a thousand stories could be told.
The little lake suddenly became a boundless ocean-- not in depth or breadth, but in its glittering detail and the intricate patterns of its waves. Sophie felt she might spend a lifetime staring at this water and to her dying day it would still remain an unfathomable mystery.
She looked up at the crown of a tree. Three little sparrows were engrossed in a curious game. Was it hide-and-seek? Sophie had known in a way that there were birds in this tree, even after she had drunk from the red bottle, but she had not really seen them properly. The red juice had erased all contrasts and all individual differences.
Sophie jumped down from the large flat stone step they were standing on and bent over to look at the grass. There she discovered another new world--like a deep-sea diver opening his eyes under water for the first time. In amongst the twigs and straws of grass, the moss was teeming with tiny details. Sophie watched a spider make its way over the moss, surefooted and purposeful, a red plant louse running up and down a blade of grass, and a whole army of ants laboring in a united effort in the grass. But each tiny ant moved its legs in its own particular manner.
The most curious of all was the sight that met her eyes when she stood up again and looked at Alberto, still standing on the front step of the cabin. In Alberto she now saw a wondrous person--he was like a being from another planet, or an enchanted figure out of a fairy tale. At the same time she experienced herself in a completely new way as a unique individual. She was more than just a human being, a fifteen-year-old girl. She was Sophie Amundsen, and only she was that.
"What do you see?" asked Alberto.
"I see that you're a strange bird."
"You think so?"
"I don't think I'll ever get to understand what it's like being another person. No two people in the whole world are alike."
"And the woods?"
"They don't seem the same any more. They're like a whole universe of wondrous tales."
"It is as I suspected. The blue bottle is individualism. It is, for example, S0ren Kierkegaard's reaction to the idealism of the Romantics. But it also encompasses another Dane who lived at the same time as Kierkegaard, the famous fairy-tale writer Hans Christian Andersen. He had the same sharp eye for nature's incredible richness of detail. A philosopher who saw the same thing more than a century earlier was the German Leibniz. He reacted against the idealistic philosophy of Spinoza just as Kierkegaard reacted against Hegel."
"I hear you, but you sound so funny that I feel like laughing."
"That's understandable, just take another sip from the red bottle. Come on, let's sit here on the step. We'll talk a bit about Kierkegaard before we stop for today."
Sophie sat on the step beside Alberto. She drank a little from the red bottle and things began to merge together again. They actually merged rather too much; once more she got the feeling that no differences mattered at all. But she only had to touch the blue bottle to her lips again, and the world about her looked more or less as it did when Alice arrived with the two bottles.
"But which is true?" she now asked. "Is it the red or the blue bottle that gives the true picture?"
"Both the red and the blue, Sophie. We cannot say the Romantics were wrong in holding that there is only one reality. But maybe they were a little bit narrow in their outlook."
"What about the blue bottle?"
"I think Kierkegaard must have taken a few hefty swigs from that one. He certainly had a sharp eye for the significance of the individual. We are more than 'children of our time.' And moreover, every single one of us is a unique individual who only lives once."
"And Hegel had not made much of that?"
"No, he was more interested in the broad scope of history. This was just what made Kierkegaard so indignant. He thought that both the idealism of the Romantics and Hegel's 'historicism' had obscured the individual's responsibility for his own life. Therefore to Kierkegaard, Hegel and the Romantics were tarred with the same brush."
"I can see why he was so mad."
"S0ren Kierkegaard was born in 1813 and was subjected to a very severe upbringing by his father. His religious melancholia was a legacy from this father."
"That sounds ominous."
"It was because of this melancholia that he felt obliged to break off his engagement, something the Copenhagen bourgeoisie did not look kindly on. So from early on he became an outcast and an object of scorn. However, he gradually learned to give as good as he got, and he became increasingly what Ibsen later on described as 'an enemy of the people.' "
"All because of a broken engagement?"
"No, not only because of that. Toward the end of his life, especially, he became aggressively critical of society. 'The whole of Europe is on the road to bankruptcy,' he said. He believed he was living in an age utterly devoid of passion and commitment. He was particularly incensed by the vapidness of the established Danish Lutheran Church. He was merciless in his criticism of what you might call 'Sunday Christianity.' "
"Nowadays we talk of 'confirmation Christianity.' Most kids only get confirmed because of all the presents they get."
"Yes, you've got the point. To Kierkegaard, Christianity was both so overwhelming and so irrational that it had to be an either/or. It was not good being 'rather' or 'to some extent' religious. Because either Jesus rose on Easter Day--or he did not. And if he really did rise from the dead, if he really died for our sake--then this is so overwhelming that it must permeate our entire life."
"Yes, I think I understand."
"But Kierkegaard saw how both the church and people in general had a noncommittal approach to religious questions. To Kierkegaard, religion and knowledge were like fire and water. It was not enough to believe that Christianity is 'true.' Having a Christian faith meant following a Christian way of life."
"What did that have to do with Hegel?"
"You're right. Maybe we started at the wrong end."
"So I suggest you go into reverse and start again."
"Kierkegaard began his study of theology when he was seventeen, but he became increasingly absorbed in philosophical questions. When he was twenty-seven he took his master's degree with the dissertation 'On the Concept of Irony.' In this work he did battle with Romantic irony and the Romantics' uncommitted play with illusion. He posited 'Socratic irony' in contrast. Even though Socrates had made use of irony to great effect, it had the purpose of eliciting the fundamental truths about life. Unlike the Romantics, Socrates was what Kierkegaard called an 'existential' thinker. That is to say, a thinker who draws his entire existence into his philosophical reflection."
"So?"
"After breaking off his engagement in 1841, Kierkegaard went to Berlin where he attended Schelling's lectures."
"Did he meet Hegel?"
"No, Hegel had died ten years earlier, but his ideas were predominant in Berlin and in many parts of Europe. His 'system' was being used as a kind of all-purpose explanation for every type of question. Kierkegaard indicated that the sort of 'objective truths' that Hegelianism was concerned with were totally irrelevant to the personal life of the individual."
"What kind of truths are relevant, then?"
"According to Kierkegaard, rather than searching for the Truth with a capital T, it is more important to find the kind of truths that are meaningful to the individual's life. It is important to find 'the truth for me.' He thus sets the individual, or each and every man, up against the 'system.' Kierkegaard thought Hegel had forgotten that he was a man. This is what he wrote about the Hegelian professor: "While the ponderous Sir Professor explains the entire mystery of life, he has in distraction forgotten his own name; that he is a man, neither more nor less, not a fantastic three-eighths of a paragraph."
"And what, according to Kierkegaard, is a man?"
"It's not possible to say in general terms. A broad description of human nature or human beings was totally without interest to Kierkegaard. The only important thing was each man's 'own existence.' And you don't experience your own existence behind a desk. It's only when we act--and especially when we make significant choices--that we relate to our own existence. There is a story about Buddha that illustrates what Kierkegaard meant."
"About Buddha?"
"Yes, since Buddha's philosophy also took man's existence as its starting point. There was once a monk who asked Buddha if he could give clearer answers to fundamental questions on what the world is and what a man is. Buddha answered by likening the monk to a man who gets pierced by a poisoned arrow. The wounded man would have no theoretical interest in what the arrow was made of, what kind of poison it was dipped in, or which direction it came from."
"He would most likely want somebody to pull it out and treat the wound."
"Yes, he would. That would be existentially important to him. Both Buddha and Kierkegaard had a strong sense of only existing for a brief moment. And as I said, then you don't sit down behind a desk and philosophize about the nature of the world spirit."
"No, of course not."
"Kierkegaard also said that truth is 'subjective.' By this he did not mean that it doesn't matter what we think or believe. He meant that the really important truths are personal. Only these truths are 'true for me.' "
"Could you give an example of a subjective truth?"
"An important question is, for example, whether Christianity is true. This is not a question one can relate to theoretically or academically. For a person who 'under-stands himself in life,' it is a question of life and death. It is not something you sit and discuss for discussion's sake. It is something to be approached with the greatest passion and sincerity."
"Understandable."
"If you fall into the water, you have no theoretical interest in whether or not you will drown. It is neither 'interesting' nor 'uninteresting' whether there are alligators in the water. It is a question of life or death."
"I get it, thank you very much."
"So we must therefore distinguish between the philosophical question of whether God exists and the individual's relationship to the same question, a situation in which each and every man is utterly alone. Fundamental questions such as these can only be approached through faith. Things we can know through reason, or knowledge, are according to Kierkegaard totally unimportant."
"I think you'd better explain that."
"Eight plus four is twelve. We can be absolutely certain of this. That's an example of the sort of 'reasoned truth' that every philosopher since Descartes had talked about. But do we include it in our daily prayers? Is it something we will lie pondering over when we are dying? Not at all. Truths like those can be both 'objective' and 'general,' but they are nevertheless totally immaterial to each man's existence."
"What about faith?"
"You can never know whether a person forgives you when you wrong them. Therefore it is existentially important to you. It is a question you are intensely concerned with. Neither can you know whether a person loves you. It's something you just have to believe or hope. But these things are more important to you than the fact that the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degrees. You don't think about the law of cause and effect or about modes of perception when you are in the middle of your first kiss."
"You'd be very odd if you did."
"Faith is the most important factor in religious questions. Kierkegaard wrote: 'If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. If I wish to preserve myself in faith I must constantly be intent upon holding fast the objective uncertainty, so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water, still preserving my faith.' "
"That's heavy stuff."
"Many had previously tried to prove the existence of God--or at any rate to bring him within the bounds of rationality. But if you content yourself with some such proof or logical argument, you suffer a loss of faith, and with it, a loss of religious passion. Because what matters is not whether Christianity is true, but whether it is true for you. The same thought was expressed in the Middle Ages in the maxim: credo quid absurdum."
"You don't say."
"It means I believe because it is irrational. If Christianity had appealed to our reason, and not to other sides of us, it would not be a question of faith."
"No, I understand that now."
"So we have looked at what Kierkegaard meant by 'existential,' what he meant by 'subjective truth,' and what his concept of 'faith' was. These three concepts were formulated as a criticism of philosophical tradition in general, and of Hegel in particular. But they also embodied a trenchant 'social criticism.' The individual in modern urban society had become 'the public,' he said, and the predominant characteristic of the crowd, or the masses, was all their noncommittal 'talk.' Today we would probably use the word 'conformity'; that is when everybody 'thinks' and 'believes in' the same things without having any deeper feeling about it."
"I wonder what Kierkegaard would have said to Joanna's parents."
"He was not always kind in his judgments. He had a sharp pen and a bitter sense of irony. For example, he could say things like 'the crowd is the untruth,' or 'the truth is always in the minority/ and that most people had a superficial approach to life."
"It's one thing to collect Barbie dolls. But it's worse to be one."
"That brings us to Kierkegaard's theory of what he called the three stages on life's way."
"Pardon me?"
"Kierkegaard believed that there were three different forms of life. He himself used the term stages. He calls them the aesthetic stage, the ethical stage, and the religious stage. He used the term 'stage' to emphasize that one can live at one of the two lower stages and then suddenly leap to a higher stage. Many people live at the same stage all their life."
"I bet there's an explanation on the way. I'm anxious to know which stage I'm at."
"He who lives at the aesthetic stage lives for the moment and grasps every opportunity of enjoyment. Good is whatever is beautiful, satisfying, or pleasant. This person lives wholly in the world of the senses, and is a slave to his own desires and moods. Everything that is boring is bad."
"Yes thanks, I think I know that attitude."
"The typical Romantic is thus also the typical aesthete, since there is more to it than pure sensory enjoyment. A person who has a reflective approach to reality--or for that matter to his art or the philosophy he or she is engaged in--is living at the aesthetic stage. It is even possible to have an aesthetic, or 'reflective,' attitude to sorrow and suffering. In which case vanity has taken over. Ibsen's Peer Gynt is the portrait of a typical aesthete."
"I think I see what you mean."
"Do you know anyone like that?"
"Not completely. But I think maybe it sounds a little like the major."
"Maybe so, maybe so, Sophie ... Although that was another example of his rather sickly Romantic irony. You should wash your mouth out."
"What?"
"All right, it wasn't your fault."
"Keep going, then."
"A person who lives at the aesthetic stage can easily experience angst, or a sense of dread, and a feeling of emptiness. If this happens, there is also hope. According to Kierkegaard, angst is almost positive. It is an expression of the fact that the individual is in an 'existential situation,' and can now elect to make the great leap to a higher stage. But it either happens or it doesn't. It doesn't help to be on the verge of making the leap if you don't do it completely. It is a matter of 'either/or.' But nobody can do it for you. It is your own choice."
"It's a little like deciding to quit drinking or doing drugs."
"Yes, it could be like that. Kierkegaard's description of this 'category of decision' can be somewhat reminiscent of Socrates' view that all true insight comes from within. The choice that leads a person to leap from an aesthetic approach to an ethical or religious approach must come from within. Ibsen depicts this in Peer Gynt. Another masterly description of how existential choice springs from inner need and despair can be found in Dosfoevsfcy's great novel Crime and Punishment."
"The best you can do is choose a different form of life."
"And so perhaps you will begin to live at the ethical stage. This is characterized by seriousness and consistency of moral choices. This approach is not unlike Kant's ethics of duty. You try to live by the law of morals. Kierkegaard, like Kant, drew attention first and foremost to human temperament. The important thing is not what you may think is precisely right or wrong. What matters is that you choose to have an opinion at all on what is right or wrong. The aesthete's only concern is whether something is fun or boring."
"Isn't there a risk of becoming too serious, living like that?"
"Decidedly! Kierkegaard never claimed that the ethical stage was satisfactory. Even a dutiful person will eventually get tired of always being dedicated and meticulous. Lots of people experience that sort of fatigue reaction late in life. Some relapse into the reflective life of their aesthetic stage.
"But others make a new leap to the religious stage. They take the 'jump into the abyss' of Faith's 'seventy thousand fathoms.' They choose faith in preference to aesthetic pleasure and reason's call of duty. And although it can be 'terrible to jump into the open arms of the living God,' as Kierkegaard put it, it is the only path to redemption."
"Christianity, you mean."
"Yes, because to Kierkegaard, the religious stage was Christianity. But he also became significant to non-Christian thinkers. Existentialism, inspired by the Danish philosopher, flourished widely in the twentieth century."
Sophie glanced at her watch.
"It's nearly seven. I have to run. Mom will be frantic."
She waved to the philosopher and ran down to the boat.



[/td][td=1,1,60%]
中文翻译
[table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,1][tr][td]   祁克果    ……欧洲正迈向破产的地步……    席德看了看时间。已经过了四点了。她把讲义夹放在书桌上,然后便跑到楼下的厨房。她得在妈妈等得不耐烦之前赶快到船屋那儿去。她经过那面铜镜前看了它一眼。    她很快地把茶壶拿出来,准备烧茶,并以加倍的速度做了几个三明治。    她已经决定要跟她爸爸开几个玩笑。她开始觉得自己愈来愈站在苏菲和艾伯特这一边了。等爸爸到达哥本哈根时,那些玩笑就要开始了。    很快地,她已经端着一个大托盘,站在船屋那儿了。    “我们的早午餐来了。”她说。    妈妈正拿着一块用沙纸包着的东西。她把一绺散落的发丝从额前拂开,她的头发上也有沙子。    “那我们就不要吃晚餐好了。”    她们坐在外面的平台上,开始吃起来。    “爸爸什么时候到家?”过了一会儿,席德问。    “星期六。我还以为你知道呢。”    “可是几点呢?你不是说他要在哥本哈根换机吗?”    “没错……”    妈妈咬了一口肝酱黄瓜三明治。    “他大约五点会抵达哥本哈根,七点四十五分有一班飞机开往基督山。他大概会在九点半时在凯耶维克机场着陆。”    “这么说他在卡斯楚普机场会停留几个小时……”    “嗯,干嘛?”    “没事。我只是想他一路不知道会怎样。”    她们继续吃着。当席德认为时间已经够久时,便假装不经意地说:“你最近有没有安娜和欧雷的消息?”    “他们不时打电话来。七月时他们会回家度假。”    “他们不会提前来吗?”    “我想不会。”    “这么说他们这个星期会在哥本哈根……”    “到底怎么回事?席德。”    “没事,只是聊聊。”    “你提到哥本哈根两次了。”    “有吗?”    “在刚才我们谈到爸爸在……”    “我大概是这样才想到安娜和欧雷吧。”    她们一吃完,席德就收拾杯盘,放在托盘上。    “妈,我得回去继续看书了。”    “我想也是。”    她的回答里有谴责的意味吗?她们以前曾经说好在爸爸回家前要一起把船整修好。    “爸爸差点没要我答应他在他回家前把那本书念完呢。”    “这真是有点太胡闹了。他虽然离家在外,也不需要这样子指挥家里的人呀。”    “你才知道,他可是会指挥人呢!”席德高深莫测地说。“而且你无法想象他多喜欢这样呢!”    她回到房里,继续看下去。    突然间苏菲听到有人敲门。艾伯特严肃地看着她。    “我们不想被人打搅。”    敲门声又响了,这回更大声。    “我要和你谈一位丹麦的哲学家。他对黑格尔的哲学非常不满。”    敲门声愈来愈激烈,以至于整扇门都在晃动。    “一定是少校派了什么童话人物来看看我们是不是上钩了。”    艾伯特说。“他这样做根本不费吹灰之力。”    “可是如果我们不开门看看是谁,他也可以不费吹灰之力地把这整栋房子拆掉呀!”    “你说得可能有道理。我们最好还是开门吧。”    于是他们打开门。由于刚才的敲门声大而有力,苏菲预期这个人一定长得很魁梧。可是站在门前台阶上的却是一位有着一头金色的长发,穿了印花夏装的小女孩。她两手各拿了一个小瓶子。一瓶是红的,一瓶是蓝的。    “嗨!”苏菲说。“你是谁?”    “我名叫爱丽丝。”小女孩说,一边害羞地一鞠躬。    “果然不出我所料。”艾伯特点点头。“是爱丽丝梦游仙境里的爱丽丝。”    “她是怎么找到我们的?”    爱丽丝解释说:“仙境是一个完全没有疆界的国度。这表示仙境无所不在——当然也在联合国。它应该成为联合国的荣誉会员国。我们应该派代表参加他们所有的委员会,因为联合国当初成立也是一个奇迹。”    “哼……又是少校搞的鬼。”艾伯特嘀咕着。    “你来这儿做什么呢?”苏菲问。    “我是来拿这些小哲学瓶子给苏菲的。”    她把瓶子递给苏菲。两个瓶子都是透明玻璃做的,其中一个装了红色的液体,另一个则装了蓝色的。红瓶子上贴了一张标签,写着:请把我喝下去。蓝瓶子上的标签则写着:请把我也喝下去。    这时忽然有一只白兔子从小木屋旁跳过去。它全身挺直,只用两只脚来走路,身上穿了一件背心和外套。来到小木屋前时,它从背心口袋里掏出了一个怀表,并且说:“糟了,我要迟到了!”    然后它就跑走了。爱丽丝开始追它。就在她跑进树林前,她姿态优美地鞠了一个躬,说道:“现在又要开始了。”    “请帮我向蒂娜和皇后打招呼好吗?”苏菲在她身后喊。    小女孩消失了。艾伯特和苏菲仍站在台阶上,仔细看着那两个瓶子。    “‘请把我喝下去’和‘请把我也喝下去’,”苏菲念了出来。“我不知道我敢不敢呢。里面可能有毒。”    艾伯特只是耸耸肩。    “他们是少校派来的。而从少校那边来的每一件事物都是纯粹存在心灵中的,所以这并不是真的水。”    苏菲把红瓶子的瓶盖拿掉,小心地把瓶子送到唇边。瓶里的水有一种很奇怪的甜味,还有一些别的味道。当她喝下去时,她周遭的事物开始发生了一些变化。    感觉上仿佛小湖、树林小木屋都融成一体了。很快的,她所见到的一切似乎只是一个人,而这个人就是苏菲她自己。她抬头看了艾伯特一眼,但他似乎也成了苏菲灵魂的一部分。    “奇怪,真奇怪。”她说。“一切事物看起来都和从前没有两样,但现在却都成了一体了。我觉得一切事物好像都变成一个思想了。”    艾伯特点点头.但苏菲的感觉却好像是她自己在向她点头似的。    “这是泛神论或观念论,”他说。“这是浪漫主义者的世界精神。    在他们的体验中,每一件事物都属于一个大的‘自我’,这也是黑格尔的哲学。他批评个人主义,认为每一件事物都是世间唯一的世界理性的表现。”    “我应该也喝另外一瓶吗?”    “标签上是这么说的。”    苏菲把蓝瓶子的盖子拿掉,喝了一大口。里面的水尝起来比另一瓶新鲜,味道也较重。喝了之后,她周遭的每一件事物又开始改变了。    在那一瞬间,红瓶子所造成的效果消失了,一切事物都回到原来的位置。艾伯特还是艾伯特,树也回到了林子里,湖看起来又是湖了。    可是这种感觉只持续了一秒钟。因为,所有的东西都一直继续移动,愈分愈开。树林已经不再是树林,每一株小树现在看起来似乎本身就是一个世界,连最细小的树枝仿佛都是一个宝库,装着一千年的童话故事。    那小湖突然变成了一座无边无际的汪洋,虽然它没有变深,也没有变广,但湖里却出现了许多晶莹闪烁、细密交织的波纹。苏菲觉得她即使一辈子注视着这里的湖水,直到她死去之日也参不透那里面深不可测的秘密。    她抬起头看着一棵树的顶端。上面有三只小麻雀正全神贯注地玩着一种奇怪的游戏。她过去也知道树上有小鸟(即使在
[ 此帖被喻然末年在2013-10-27 00:31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 29楼  发表于: 2013-10-27 0
[content too large, truncated for display]
英文原文
[table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,1]
Hegel
... the reasonable is that which is viable
Hilde let the big ring binder fall to the floor with a heavy thud. She lay on her bed staring up at the ceiling. Her thoughts were in a turmoil.
Now her father really had made her head swim. The rascal! How could he?
Sophie had tried to talk directly to her. She had asked her to rebel against her father. And she had really managed to plant an idea in Hilde's mind. A plan ...
Sophie and Alberto could not so much as harm a hair on his head, but Hilde could. And through Hilde, Sophie could reach her father.
She agreed with Sophie and Alberto that he was going too far in his game of shadows. Even if he had only made Alberto and Sophie up, there were limits to the show of power he ought to permit himself.
Poor Sophie and Alberto! They were just as defenseless against the major's imagination as a movie screen is against the film projector.
Hilde would certainly teach him a lesson when he got home! She could already see the outline of a really good plan.
She got up and went to look out over the bay. It was almost two o'clock. She opened the window and called over toward the boathouse.
"Mom!"
Her mother came out.
"I'll be down with some sandwiches in about an hour. Okay?" "Fine." "I just have to read a chapter on Hegel."
Alberto and Sophie had seated themselves in the two chairs by the window facing the lake.
"Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hege/was a legitimate child of Romanticism," began Alberto. "One could almost say he developed with the German spirit as it gradually evolved in Germany. He was born in Stuttgart in 1770, and began to study theology in Tubingen at the age of eighteen. Beginning in 1799, he worked with Schelling in Jena during the time when the Romantic Movement was experiencing its most explosive growth. After a period as assistant professor in Jena he became a professor in Heidelberg, the center of German National Romanticism. In 1818 he was appointed professor in Berlin, just at the time when the city was becoming the spiritual center of Europe. He died of cholera in 1831, but not before 'He-gelianism' had gained an enormous following at nearly all the universities in Germany."
"So he covered a lot of ground."
"Yes, and so did his philosophy. Hegel united and developed almost all the ideas that had surfaced in the Romantic period. But he was sharply critical of many of the Romantics, including Schelling."
"What was it he criticized?"
"Schelling as well as other Romantics had said that the deepest meaning of life lay in what they called the 'world spirit.' Hegel also uses the term 'world spirit,' but in a new sense. When Hegel talks of 'world spirit' or 'world reason,' he means the sum of human utterances, because only man has a 'spirit.'
"In this sense, he can speak of the progress of world spirit throughout history. However, we must never forget that he is referring to human life, human thought, and human culture."
"That makes this spirit much less spooky. It is not lying in wait anymore like a 'slumbering intelligence' in rocks and trees."
"Now, you remember that Kant had talked about something he called 'das Ding an sich.' Although he denied that man could have any clear cognition of the in-nermost secrets of nature, he admitted that there exists a kind of unattainable 'truth.' Hegel said that 'truth is subjective/ thus rejecting the existence of any 'truth' above or beyond human reason. All knowledge is human knowledge, he said."
"He had to get the philosophers down to earth again, right?"
"Yes, perhaps you could say that. However, Hegel's philosophy was so all-embracing and diversified that for present purposes we shall content ourselves with highlighting some of the main aspects. It is actually doubtful whether one can say that Hegel had his own 'philosophy' at all. What is usually known as Hegel's philosophy is mainly a method for understanding the progress of history. Hegel's philosophy teaches us nothing about the inner nature of life, but it can teach us to think productively."
"That's not unimportant."
"All the philosophical systems before Hegel had had one thing in common, namely, the attempt to set up eternal criteria for what man can know about the world. This was true of Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, and Kant. Each and every one had tried to investigate the basis of human cognition. But they had all made pronouncements on the timeless factor of human knowledge of the world."
"Isn't that a philosopher's job?"
"Hegel did not believe it was possible. He believed that the basis of human cognition changed from one generation to the next. There were therefore no 'eternal truths/ no timeless reason. The only fixed point philosophy can hold on to is history itself."
"I'm afraid you'll have to explain that. History is in a constant state of change, so how can it be a fixed point?"
"A river is also in a constant state of change. That doesn't mean you can't talk about it. But you cannot say at which place in the valley the river is the 'truest' river."
"No, because it's just as much river all the way through."
"So to Hegel, history was like a running river. Every tiny movement in the water at a given spot in the river is determined by the falls and eddies in the water higher upstream. But these movements are determined, too, by the rocks and bends in the river at the point where you are observing it."
"I get it... I think."
"And the history of thought--or of reason--is like this river. The thoughts that are washed along with the current of past tradition, as well as the material conditions prevailing at the time, help to determine how you think. You can therefore never claim that any particular thought is correct for ever and ever. But the thought can be correct from where you stand."
"That's not the same as saying that everything is equally right or equally wrong, is it?"
"Certainly not, but some things can be right or wrong in relation to a certain historical context. If you advocated slavery today, you would at best be thought foolish. But you wouldn't have been considered foolish 2,500 years ago, even though there were already progressive voices in favor of slavery's abolition. But we can take a more local example. Not more than 100 years ago it was not considered unreasonable to burn off large areas of forest in order to cultivate the land. But it is extremely unreasonable today. We have a completely different--and better--basis for such judgments."
"Now I see."
"Hegel pointed out that as regards philosophical reflection, also, reason is dynamic; it's a process, in fact. And the 'truth' is this same process, since there are no criteria beyond the historical process itself that can determine what is the most true or the most reasonable."
"Examples, please."
"You cannot single out particular thoughts from antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, or the Enlightenment and say they were right or wrong. By the same token, you cannot say that Plato was wrong and that Aristotle was right. Neither can you say that Hume was wrong but Kant and Schelling were right. That would be an antihistorical way of thinking."
"No, it doesn't sound right."
"In fact, you cannot detach any philosopher, or any thought at all, from that philosopher's or that thought's historical context. But--and here I come to another point--because something new is always being added, reason is 'progressive.' In other words, human knowledge is constantly expanding and progressing."
"Does that mean that Kant's philosophy is nevertheless more right than Plato's?"
"Yes. The world spirit has developed--and progressed--from Plato to Kant. And it's a good thing! If we return to the example of the river, we could say that there is now more water in it. It has been running for over a thousand years. Only Kant shouldn't think that his 'truths' will remain on the banks of the river like immovable rocks. Kant's ideas get processed too, and his 'reason' becomes the subject of future generations' criticism. Which is exactly what has happened."
"But the river you talked about. . ."
"Yes?"
"Where does it go?"
"Hegel claimed that the 'world spirit' is developing toward an ever-expanding knowledge of itself. It's the same with rivers--they become broader and broader as they get nearer to the sea. According to Hegel, history is the story of the 'world spirit' gradually coming to consciousness of itself. Although the world has always existed, human culture and human development have made the world spirit increasingly conscious of its intrinsic value."
"How could he be so sure of that?"
"He claimed it as a historical reality. It was not a prediction. Anybody who studies history will see that humanity has advanced toward ever-increasing 'self-knowledge' and 'self-development.' According to Hegel, the study of history shows that humanity is moving toward greater rationality and freedom. In spite of all its capers, historical development is progressive. We say that history is purposeful."
"So it develops. That's clear enough."
"Yes. History is one long chain of reflections. Hegel also indicated certain rules that apply for this chain of reflections. Anyone studying history in depth will observe that a thought is usually proposed on the basis of other, previously proposed thoughts. But as soon as one thought is proposed, it will be contradicted by another. A tension arises between these two opposite ways of thinking. But the tension is resolved by the proposal of a third thought which accommodates the best of both points of view. Hegel calls this a dialectic process."
"Could you give an example?"
"You remember that the pre-Socratics discussed the question of primeval substance and change?"
"More or less."
"Then the Eleatics claimed that change was in fact impossible. They were therefore forced to deny any change even though they could register the changes through their senses. The Eleatics had put forward a claim, and Hegel called a standpoint like that a thesis."
"Yes?"
"But whenever such an extreme claim is proposed, a contradictory claim will arise. Hegel called this a nega-tion. The negation of the Eleatic philosophy was Heracli-tus, who said that everything flows. There is now a tension between two diametrically opposed schools of thought. But this tension was resolved when Empedocles pointed out that both claims were partly right and partly wrong."
"Yes, it all comes back to me now . . ."
"The Eleatics were right in that nothing actually changes, but they were not right in holding that we cannot rely on our senses. Heraclitus had been right in that we can rely on our senses, but not right in holding that everything flows."
"Because there was more than one substance. It was the combination that flowed, not the substance itself."
"Right! Empedocles' standpoint--which provided the compromise between the two schools of thought--was what Hegel called the negation of the negation."
"What a terrible term!"
"He also called these three stages of knowledge thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. You could, for example, say that Descartes's rationalism was a thesis--which was contradicted by Hume's empirical antithesis. But the contradiction, or the tension between two modes of thought, was resolved in Kant's synthesis. Kant agreed with the rationalists in some things and with the empiricists in others. But the story doesn't end with Kant. Kant's synthesis now becomes the point of departure for another chain of reflections, or 'triad.' Because a synthesis will also be contradicted by a new antithesis."
"It's all very theoretical!"
"Yes, it certainly is theoretical. But Hegel didn't see it as pressing history into any kind of framework. He believed that history itself revealed this dialectical pattern. He thus claimed he had uncovered certain laws for the development of reason--or for the progress of the 'world spirit' through history."
"There it is again!"
"But Hegel's dialectic is not only applicable to history. When we discuss something, we think dialectically. We try to find flaws in the argument. Hegel called that 'negative thinking.' But when we find flaws in an argument, we preserve the best of it."
"Give me an example."
"Well, when a socialist and a conservative sit down together to resolve a social problem, a tension will quickly be revealed between their conflicting modes of thought. But this does not mean that one is absolutely right and the other totally wrong. It is possible that they are both partly right and partly wrong. And as the argument evolves, the best of both arguments will often crystallize."
"I hope."
"But while we are in the throes of a discussion like that, it is not easy to decide which position is more rational. In a way, it's up to history to decide what's right and what's wrong. The reasonable is that which is viable."
"Whatever survives is right."
"Or vice versa: that which is right survives."
"Don't you have a tiny example for me?"
"One hundred and fifty years ago there were a lot of people fighting for women's rights. Many people also bitterly opposed giving women equal rights. When we read the arguments of both sides today, it is not difficult to see which side had the more 'reasonable' opinions. But we must not forget that we have the knowledge of hindsight.
If 'proved to be the case' that those who fought for equality were right. A lot of people would no doubt cringe if they saw in print what their grandfathers had said on the matter."
"I'm sure they would. What was Hegel's view?"
"About equality of the sexes?"
"Isn't that what we are talking about?"
"Would you like to hear a quote?"
"Very much."
" 'The difference between man and woman is like that between animals and plants,' he said. 'Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated--who knows how?--as it were by breathing in ideas, by living rather than by acquiring knowledge. The status of manhood, on the other hand, is attained only by the stress of thought and much technical exertion.' "
"Thank you, that will be quite enough. I'd rather not hear any more statements like that."
"But it is a striking example of how people's views of what is rational change all the time. It shows that Hegel was also a child of his time. And so are we. Our 'obvious' views will not stand the test of time either."
"What views, for example?"
"I have no such examples."
"Why not?"
"Because I would be exemplifying things that are already undergoing a change. For instance, I could say it's stupid to drive a car because cars pollute the environment. Lots of people think this already. But history will prove that much of what we think is obvious will not hold up in the light of history."
"I see."
"We can also observe something else: The many men in Hegel's time who could reel off gross broadsides like that one on the inferiority of women hastened the development of feminism."
"How so?"
"They proposed a thesis. Why? Because women had already begun to rebel. There's no need to have an opinion on something everyone agrees on. And the more grossly they expressed themselves about women's inferiority, the stronger became the negation."
"Yes, of course."
"You might say that the very best that can happen is to have energetic opponents. The more extreme they become, the more powerful the reaction they will have to face. There's a saying about 'more grist to the mill.' "
"My mill began to grind more energetically a minute ago!"
"From the point of view of pure logic or philosophy, there will often be a dialectical tension between two concepts."
"For example?"
"If I reflect on the concept of 'being,' I will be obliged to introduce the opposite concept, that of 'nothing.' You can't reflect on your existence without immediately realizing that you won't always exist. The tension between 'being' and 'nothing' becomes resolved in the concept of 'becoming.' Because if something is in the process of becoming, it both is and is not."
"I see that."
"Hegel's 'reason' is thus dynamic logic. Since reality is characterized by opposites, a description of reality must therefore also be full of opposites. Here is another example for you: the Danish nuclear physicist Niels Bohr is said to have told a story about Newton's having a horseshoe over his front door."
"That's for luck."
"But it is only a superstition, and Newton was anything but superstitious. When someone asked him if he really believed in that kind of thing, he said, 'No, I don't, but I'm told it works anyway.' "
"Amazing."
"But his answer was quite dialectical, a contradiction in terms, almost. Niels Bohr, who, like our own Norwegian poet Vinje, was known for his ambivalence, once said: There are two kinds of truths. There are the superficial truths, the opposite of which are obviously wrong. But there are also the profound truths, whose op-posites are equally right."
"What kind of truths can they be?"
"If I say life is short, for example . . ."
"I would agree."
"But on another occasion I could throw open my arms and say life is long."
"You're right. That's also true, in a sense."
"Finally I'll give you an example of how a dialectic tension can result in a spontaneous act which leads to a sudden change."
"Yes, do."
"Imagine a young girl who always answers her mother with Yes, Mom ... Okay, Mom ... As you wish, Mom ... At once, Mom."
"Gives me the shudders!"
"Finally the girl's mother gets absolutely maddened by her daughter's overobedience, and shouts: Stop being such a goody-goody! And the girl answers: Okay, Mom."
"I would have slapped her."
"Perhaps. But what would you have done if the girl had answered instead: But I wonf to be a goody-goody?"
"That would have been an odd answer. Maybe I would have slapped her anyway."
"In other words, the situation was deadlocked. The dialectic tension had come to a point where something had to happen."
"Like a slap in the face?"
"A final aspect of Hegel's philosophy needs to be mentioned here."
"I'm listening."
"Do you remember how we said that the Romantics were individualists?"
"The path of mystery leads inwards ..."
"This individualism also met its negation, or opposite, in Hegel's philosophy. Hegel emphasized what he called the 'objective' powers. Among such powers, Hegel emphasized the importance of the family, civil society, and the state. You might say that Hegel was somewhat skeptical of the individual. He believed that the individual was an organic part of the community. Reason, or 'world spirit/ came to light first and foremost in the interplay of people."
"Explain that more clearly, please!"
"Reason manifests itself above all in language. And a language is something we are born into. The Norwegian language manages quite well without Mr. Hansen, but Mr. Hansen cannot manage without Norwegian. It is thus not the individual who forms the language, it is the language which forms the individual."
"I guess you could say so."
"In the same way that a baby is born into a language, it is also born into its historical background. And nobody has a 'free' relationship to that kind of background. He who does not find his place within the state is therefore an unhistorical person. This idea, you may recall, was also central for the great Athenian philosophers. Just as the state is unthinkable without citizens, citizens are unthinkable without the state."
"Obviously."
"According to Hegel, the state is 'more' than the individual citizen. It is moreover more than the sum of its citizens. So Hegel says one cannot 'resign from society.' Anyone who simply shrugs their shoulders at the society they live in and wants to 'find their soul/ will therefore be ridiculed."
"I don't know whether I wholly agree, but okay."
"According to Hegel, it is not the individual that finds itself, it is the world spirit."
"The world spirit finds itself?"
"Hegel said that the world spirit returns to itself in three stages. By that he means that it becomes conscious of itself in three stages."
"Which are?"
"The world spirit first becomes conscious of itself in the individual. Hegel calls this subjective spirit. It reaches a higher consciousness in the family, civil society, and the state. Hegel calls this objective spirit because it appears in interaction between people. But there is a third stage ..."
"And that is ... ?"
"The world spirit reaches the highest form of self-realization in absolute spirit. And this absolute spirit is art, religion, and philosophy. And of these, philosophy is the highest form of knowledge because in philosophy, the world spirit reflects on its own impact on history. So the world spirit first meets itself in philosophy. You could say, perhaps, that philosophy is the mirror of the world spirit."
"This is so mysterious that I need to have time to think it over. But I liked the last bit you said."
"What, that philosophy is the mirror of the world spirit?"
"Yes, that was beautiful. Do you think it has anything to do with the brass mirror?"
"Since you ask, yes."
"What do you mean?"
"I assume the brass mirror has some special significance since it is constantly cropping up."
"You must have an idea what that significance is?"
"I haven't. I merely said that it wouldn't keep coming up unless it had a special significance for Hilde and her father. What that significance is only Hilde knows."
"Was that romantic irony?"
"A hopeless question, Sophie."
"Why?"
"Because it's not us working with these things. We are only hapless victims of that irony. If an overgrown child draws something on a piece of paper, you can't ask the paper what the drawing is supposed to represent."
"You give me the shudders."



[/td][td=1,1,60%]
中文翻译
[table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,1][tr][td]   黑格尔    ……可以站得住脚的就是有道理的……    “砰!”一声,席德腿上的大讲义夹落到地上。她躺在床上瞪着天花板,脑中的思绪一团混乱。    爸爸真的把她弄得头昏脑胀。这个坏蛋!他怎么可以这样呢?苏菲已经试着直接对她说话了。她要求她反抗她的父亲,而且她真的已经让她脑中浮现了某个念头。一个计划……苏菲和艾伯特对他是完全无可奈何,但是席德却不然。透过席德,苏菲可以找到她爸爸。    她同意苏菲和艾伯特的说法,爸爸在玩他的影子游戏时的确是做得太过分了。就算艾伯特和苏菲只是他虚构的人物,可是他在展示他的力量时也应该有个限度呀。    可怜的苏菲和艾伯特!他们对于少校的想象力完全没有抵抗能力,就像电影银幕无法抵抗放映机一般。    席德心想,在他回家时,她一定得给他一些教训j她已经大致想出一个捉弄他的好办法了。    她起床走到窗前去眺望海湾。已经快两点了。她打开窗户,对着船屋的方向喊:“妈!”    妈妈出来了。    “我再过一个小时左右就会带三明治到你那儿去,好吗?”    “好。”“我要读有关黑格尔那一章。”    艾伯特和苏菲坐在面湖的窗户旁边的两张椅子上。    黑格尔“黑格尔(GeorgWihelmFriedrichHegel)乃是浪漫主义的传人。”艾伯特开始说。“我们几乎可以说他是随着德国精神的发展而成长的。他在一七七O年出生于斯图加特,十八岁时开始在上宾根(Tubingen)研究神学。一七九九午时他在耶纳镇与谢林一起工作。    当时正是浪漫主义运动狂飙的年代。他在耶纳当了一段时间的助理教授后,便前往德国民族浪漫主义的中心海德堡担任学校教授。    一八一八年时,他在柏林任教。当时柏林正逐渐成为德国的精神中心。他在一八三一年死于霍乱。后来他的‘黑格尔主义’在德国各大学内吸引了无数的信徒。”    “这么说他的历练很广哼?”    “没错,他的哲学也是。黑格尔几乎统一了所有曾在浪漫主义时期出现的理念,并且加以发展。可是他却受到谢林等许多人的尖锐批评。”    “谢林怎么批评他的?”    “谢林和其他的浪漫主义者曾经说过,生命最深刻的意义在于他们所谓的‘世界精神’上。黑格尔也用‘世界精神’这个名词,可是意义却不相同。黑格尔所指的‘世界精神’或‘世界理性’乃是人类理念的总和,因为惟独人类有‘精神’可言。只有从这个角度,他才可以谈世界精神在历史上的进展。但我们不可以忘记:这里他所说的世界精神是指人类的生命、思想与文化。”    “这样子这个精神听起来就不会这么恐怖了。不再像是个潜伏在岩石、树丛间的一个‘沉睡的精灵’。”    “你应该还记得康德曾经谈过一种他称为‘物自身’的东西。虽然他否认人可以清楚认知自然最深处的秘密,但他承认世间有一种无法追求到的‘真理’。黑格尔却说‘真理是主观的’,因此他不承认在人类的理性之外有任何‘真理’存在。他说,所有的知识都是人类的知识。”    历史之河“他必须使哲学家们再度脚踏实地,对不对?”    “嗯,也许可以这么说。不过,黑格尔的哲学可说是无所不包、丰富多样,因此我们在这里只能重点式地谈一谈他的某些主要理论。事实上,我们究竟是否能说黑格尔有他自己的哲学是很有疑问的。通常所谓的‘黑格尔哲学’主要是指一种理解历史进展的方法。    黑格尔的哲学所教导我们的只有生命的内在本质,不过也可以教我们如何从思考中获取结论。”    “这也不算不重要。”    “黑格尔之前的哲学体系都有一个共通点,就是试图为人们对世界的知识建立一套永恒的标准。笛卡尔、史宾诺莎、休姆和康德等人都是如此。他们每一个人都曾经试图探索人类认知的基础,但他们都声称人类对于世界的知识是不受时间影响的。”    “那不就是哲学家该做的事吗?”    “黑格尔认为这是不可能的。他相信人类认知的基础代代不同,因此世间并没有‘永恒的真理’,没有‘永久的理性’。哲学唯一可以确切掌握的一个定点就是历史。”    “请你说清楚一些好吗?历史处于不断变化的状态,它怎么会是一个定点呢?”    “一条河也是处于不断变化的状态,但这并不表示你无法谈论它。可是你不能说这条河流到河谷里的那一点时才是‘最真’的河。”    “没错,因为它流到哪里都是河。”    “所以,对黑格尔来说,历史就像一条流动的河。河里任何一处河水的流动都受到上游河水的涨落与漩涡的影响。但上游河水的涨落与漩涡又受到你观察之处的岩石与河湾的影响。”    “我大概懂了。”    “思想(或理性)的历史就像这条河流。你的思考方式乃是受到宛如河水般向前推进的传统思潮与当时的物质条件的影响。因此你永远无法宣称任何一种思想永远是对的。只不过就你所置身之处而言,这种思想可能是正确的。”    “这和宣称每一件事物都对、也都不对是不同的,不是吗?”    “当然不同。不过事情的对错要看历史的情况而定。如果今天你还提倡奴隶制度,一定会被人耻笑。但在二五OO年前,这种想法也并不可笑,虽然当时已经有人开始主张废除奴隶制度。不过,我们还是来单一个范围比较小的例子吧。不到一百年前,人们还认为大举焚烧森林以开垦土地的做法没有什么不对,但在我们今天看来,这种做法简直是胡搞。这是因为我们现在有了新的、比较好的依据可以下这种判断。”    “我懂了。”    “黑格尔指出哲学思维也是如此。我们的理性事实上是动态的,是一种过程。而‘真理’就是这个过程,因为在这个历史的过程之外,没有外在的标准可以判定什么是最真、最合理的。”    “请举一些例子吧。”    “你不能从古代、中世纪、文艺复兴时期或启蒙运动时期挑出某些思想,然后说它们是对的,或是错的。同样的,你也不能说柏拉图是错的,亚理斯多德是对的,或者说休姆是错的,而康德和谢林是对的。因为这样的思考方式是反历史的。”    “嗯,这样做好像是不对。”    “事实上,你不能将任何哲学家或任何思想抽离他们的历史背景。不过这里我要讲到另外一点:由于新的事物总是后来才加上去的,因此理性是‘渐进的’。换句话说,人类的知识不断在扩张,在进步。”    “这个意思是不是说康德的哲学还是比柏拉图的有道理?”    “是的。从柏拉图到康德的时代,世界精神已经有了发展和进步,这也是我的想法。再以刚才说的河流为例,我们可以说现在的河水比从前多,因为它已经流了一千多年了。但话说回来,康德也不能认为他所说的‘真理’会像那些巨大的岩石一样一直留在河岸上。他的想法同样也会再经过后人的加工,他的‘理性’也会成为后世批评的对象。而这些事情确实都发生了。”    “可是你说的河……”    “怎样?”    “它会流到哪里去呢?”    “黑格尔宣称‘世界精神’正朝着愈来愈了解自己的方向发展,河流也是一样。它们离海愈近时,河面愈宽。根据黑格尔的说法,历史就是‘世界精神’逐渐实现自己的故事。虽然世界一直都存在,但人类文化与人类的发展已经使得‘世界精神’愈来愈意识到它固有的价值。”    “他怎么能这么确定呢?”    “他宣称这是历史的事实,不是一个预言。任何研究历史的人都会发现人类正朝向愈来愈‘了解自己’、‘发展自己’的方向前进。    根据黑格尔的说法,各项有关历史的研究都显示:人类正迈向更多的理性与自由。尽管时有震荡起落,但历史的发展仍是不断前进的。所以我们说历史是超越的,或是有目的的。”    “这么说历史很明显的不断在发展。”    “没错。历史是一长串的思维。黑格尔并指出这一长串思维的规则。他说,任何深入研究历史的人都会发现:每一种新思想通常都是以前人的旧思想为基础,而一旦有一种新思想被提出来,马上就会出现另外一种和它抵触的思想,于是这两种对立的思想之间就会产生一种紧张状态,但这种紧张状态又会因为有人提出另外一种融合了两种思想长处的思想而消除。黑格尔把这个现象称为一种辩证过程。”    “你可以举个例子吗?”    “你还记得苏格拉底之前的哲学家讨论过原始物质与自然界变化的问题吗?”    “多少记得一点。”    “后来伊利亚派的哲学家宣称事实上变化不可能发生。虽然他们能透过感官察觉到各种变化的发生,但他们仍然否认任何变化的存在。伊利亚派哲学家所提出的这种观点,就是黑格尔所称的‘正题,。”    “然后呢?”    “可是根据黑格尔的法则,这样强烈的说法一被提出后,就一定会出现另外一种与它抵触的学说。黑格尔称此为‘反题’或‘否定’。而否定伊利亚派哲学的人就是赫拉克里特斯。他宣称‘万事万物都是流动的’。这样一来,这两种完全相反的思想流派之间就出现了一种紧张状态。但这种紧张状态后来被恩培窦可里斯消除了,因为他指出两种说法都各有正确之处,也各有错误之处。”    “对,我现在想起来了。”    “恩培窦可里斯认为,伊利亚派哲学家指出没有什么事物会真正发生变化这点是对的,但他们错在认为我们不能依赖感官。赫拉克里特斯说我们可以依赖感官,这是正确的,但他说万事万物都是流动的,这点却是错误的。”    “因为世间的物质不只一种。流动的是物质的组合,而不是物质本身。”    “没错。恩培窦可里斯的观点折衷了两派的思想,这就是黑格尔所称的‘否定的否定’。”    “多可怕的名词!”    辩证法“他也称这三个知识的阶段为‘正’、‘反’、‘合’。举例来说,你可以称笛卡尔的理性主义为‘正’,那么与他正好相反的休姆的经验主义就是‘反’。但这两种思潮之间的矛盾或紧张状态后来被康德的‘合’给消除了。康德同意理性主义者的部分论点,但也同意经验主义者的部分论点。可薀褪事并非到此为止。康德的‘合’现在成了另外一个三段式发展的起点,因为一个‘合’也会有另外一个新的‘反’与它相抵触。”    “这一切都非常理论。”    “没错,这当然是很理论的。可是黑格尔并不认为这样的描述是把历史压缩为某种架构。他认为历史本身就展现了这种辩证模式。他并因此宣称他已经发现了理性发展(或‘世界精神’透过历史进展)的若干法则。”    “又来了广“不过黑格尔的辩证法不仅适用于历史而已。当我们讨论事情时,我们也是以辩证的方式来思考。我们会试着在别人所说的道理中找出缺失。黑格尔称此为‘否定的思考’。可是当我们在一个道理中找到缺点时,我们也会把它的优点保存�
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 28楼  发表于: 2013-10-27 0
[content too large, truncated for display] [table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,4][tr][td]
英文原文
[table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,1][tr][td]Romanticism the path of mystery leads inwards Hilde let the heavy ring binder slide into her lap. Then she let it slide further onto the floor. It was already lighter in the room than when she had gone to bed. She looked at the clock. It was almost three. She snuggled down under the covers and closed her eyes. As she was falling asleep she wondered why her father had begun to write about Little Red Ridinghood and Winnie-the-Pooh ... She slept until eleven o'clock the next morning. The tension in her body told her that she had dreamed intensely all night, but she could not remember what she had dreamed. It felt as if she had been in a totally different reality. She went downstairs and fixed breakfast. Her mother had put on her blue jumpsuit ready to go down to the boathouse and work on the motorboat. Even if it was not afloat, it had to be shipshape when Dad got back from Lebanon. "Do you want to come down and give me a hand?" "I have to read a little first. Should I come down with some tea and a mid-morning snack?" "What mid-morning?" When Hilde had eaten she went back up to her room, made her bed, and sat herself comfortably with the ring binder resting against her knees. *** Sophie slipped through the hedge and stood in the big garden which she had once thought of as her own Garden of Eden . . . There were branches and leaves strewn everywhere after the storm the night before. It seemed to her that there was some connection between the storm and the fallen branches and her meeting with Little Red Ridinghood and Winnie-the-Pooh. She went into the house. Her mother had just gotten home and was putting some bottles of soda in the refrigerator. On the table was a delicious-looking chocolate cake. "Are you expecting visitors?" asked Sophie; she had almost forgotten it was her birthday. "We're having the real party next Saturday, but I thought we ought to have a little celebration today as well." "How?" "I have invited Joanna and her parents." "Fine with me." The visitors arrived shortly before half-past seven. The atmosphere was somewhat formal--Sophie's mother very seldom saw Joanna's parents socially. It was not long before Sophie and Joanna went upstairs to Sophie's room to write the garden party invitations. Since Alberto Knox was also to be invited, Sophie had the idea of inviting people to a "philosophical garden party." Joanna didn't object. It was Sophie's party after all, and theme parties were "in" at the moment. Finally they had composed the invitation. It had taken two hours and they couldn't stop laughing. Dear. . . You are hereby invited to a philosophical garden party at 3 Clover Close on Saturday June 23 (Midsummer Eve) at 7 p.m. During the evening we shall hopefully solve the mystery of life. Please bring warm sweaters and bright ideas suitable for solving the riddles of philosophy. Because of the danger of woodland fires we unfortunately cannot have a bonfire, but everybody is free to let the flames of their imagination flicker unimpeded. There will be at least one genuine philosopher among the invited guests. For this reason the party is a strictly private arrangement. Members of the press will not be admitted. With regards,Joanna Ingebrigtsen (organizing committee) and Sophie Amundsen (hostess) The two girls went downstairs to their parents, who were now talking somewhat more freely. Sophie handed the draft invitation, written with a calligraphic pen, to her mother. "Could you make eighteen copies, please." It was not the first time she had asked her mother to make photocopies for her at work. Her mother read the invitation and then handed it to Joanna's father. "You see what I mean? She is going a little crazy." "But it looks really exciting," said Joanna's father, handing the sheet on to his wife. "I wouldn't mind coming to that party myself." Barbie read the invitation, then she said: "Well, I must say! Can we come too, Sophie?" "Let's say twenty copies, then," said Sophie, taking them at their word. "You must be nuts!" said Joanna. Before Sophie went to bed that night she stood for a long time gazing out of the window. She remembered how she had once seen the outline of Alberto's figure in the darkness. It was more than a month ago. Now it was again late at night, but this was a white summer night. Sophie heard nothing from Alberto until Tuesday morning. He called just after her mother had left for work. "Sophie Amundsen." "And Alberto Knox." "I thought so." "I'm sorry I didn't call before, but I've been working hard on our plan. I can only be alone and work undisturbed when the major is concentrating wholly and com-pletely on you." "That's weird." "Then I seize the opportunity to conceal myself, you see. The best surveillance system in the world has its limitations when it is only controlled by one single person ... I got your card." "You mean the invitation?" "Dare you risk it?" "Why not?" "Anything can happen at a party like that." "Are you coming?" "Of course I'm coming. But there is another thing. Did you remember that it's the day Hilde's father gets back from Lebanon?" "No, I didn't, actually." "It can't possibly be pure coincidence that he lets you arrange a philosophical garden party the same day as he gets home to Bjerkely." "I didn't think about it, as I said." "I'm sure he did. But all right, we'll talk about that later. Can you come to the major's cabin this morning?" "I'm supposed to weed the flower beds." "Let's say two o'clock, then. Can you make that?" "I'll be there." Alberto Knox was sitting on the step again when Sophie arrived. "Have a seat," he said, getting straight down to work. "Previously we spoke of the Renaissance, the Baroque period, and the Enlightenment. Today we are going to talk about Romanticism, which could be described as Europe's last great cultural epoch. We are approaching the end of a long story, my child." "Did Romanticism last that long?" "It began toward the end of the eighteenth century and lasted till the middle of the nineteenth. But after 1850 one can no longer speak of whole 'epochs' which comprise poetry, philosophy, art, science, and music." "Was Romanticism one of those epochs?" "It has been said that Romanticism was Europe's last common approach to life. It started in Germany, arising as a reaction to the Enlightenment's unequivocal emphasis on reason. After Kant and his cool intellectualism, it was as if German youth heaved a sigh of relief." "What did they replace it with?" "The new catchwords were 'feeling,"imagination,"experience,' and 'yearning.' Some of the Enlightenment thinkers had drawn attention to the importance of feel-ing--not least Rousseau--but at that time it was a criticism of the bias toward reason. What had been an undercurrent now became the mainstream of German culture." "So Kant's popularity didn't last very long?" "Well, it did and it didn't. Many of the Romantics saw themselves as Kant's successors, since Kant had established that there was a limit to what we can know of 'das Ding an sich.' On the other hand, he had underlined the importance of the ego's contribution to knowledge, or cognition. The individual was now completely free to interpret life in his own way. The Romantics exploited this in an almost unrestrained 'ego-worship,' which led to the exaltation of artistic genius." "Were there a lot of these geniuses?" "Beethoven was one. His music expresses his own feelings and yearnings. Beethoven was in a sense a 'free' artist--unlike the Baroque masters such as Bach and Handel, who composed their works to the glory of God, mostly in strict musical forms." "I only know the Moonlight Sonata and the Fifth Symphony." "But you know how romantic the Moonlight Sonata is, and you can hear how dramatically Beethoven expresses himself in the Fifth Symphony." "You said the Renaissance humanists were individualists too." "Yes. There were many similarities between the Renaissance and Romanticism. A typical one was the importance of art to human cognition. Kant made a considerable contribution here as well. In his aesthetics he investigated what happens when we are overwhelmed by beauty--in a work of art, for instance. When we abandon ourselves to a work of art with no other intention than the aesthetic experience itself, we are brought closer to an experience of 'das Ding an sich.' " "So the artist can provide something philosophers can't express?" "That was the view of the Romantics. According to Kant, the artist plays freely on his faculty of cognition. The German poet Schiller developed Kant's thought further. He wrote that the activity of the artist is like playing, and man is only free when he plays, because then he makes up his own rules. The Romantics believed that only art could bring us closer to 'the inexpressible.' Some went as far as to compare the artist to God." "Because the artist creates his own reality the way God created the world." "It was said that the artist had a 'universe-creating imagination.' In his transports of artistic rapture he could sense the dissolving of the boundary between dream and reality. "Novalis, one of the young geniuses, said that 'the world becomes a dream, and the dream becomes reality.' He wrote a novel called Heinrich von Ofterdingen set in Medieval times. It was unfinished when he died in 1801, but it was nevertheless a very significant novel. It tells of the young Heinrich who is searching for the 'blue flower' that he once saw in a dream and has yearned for ever since. The English Romantic poet Coleridge expressed the same idea; saying something like this: What if you slept? And what if, in your sleep, you dreamed? And what if, in your dream, you went to heaven and there plucked a strange and beautiful flower? And what if, when you awoke, you had the flower in your hand? Ah, what then?" "How pretty!" "This yearning for something distant and unattainable was characteristic of the Romantics. They longed for bygone eras, such as the Middle Ages, which now became enthusiastically reappraised after the Enlightenment's negative evaluation. And they longed for distant cultures like the Orient with its mysticism. Or else they would feel drawn to Night, to Twilight, to old ruins and the supernatural. They were preoccupied with what we usually refer to as the dark side of life, or the murky, uncanny, and mystical." "It sounds to me like an exciting period. Who were these Romantics?" "Romanticism was in the main an urban phenomenon. In the first half of the last century there was, in fact, a flourishing metropolitan culture in many parts of Europe, not least in Germany. The typical Romantics were young men, often university students, although they did not always take their studies very seriously. They had a decidedly anti-middle class approach to life and could refer to the police or their landladies as philistines, for example, or simply as the enemy." "I would never have dared rent a room to a Romantic!" "The first generation of Romantics were young in about 1 800, and we could actually call the Romantic Movement Europe's first student uprising. The Romantics were not unlike the hippies a hundred and fifty years later." "You mean flower power and long hair, strumming their guitars and lying around?" "Yes. It was once said that 'idleness is the ideal of genius, and indolence the virtue of the Romantic.' It was the duty of the Romantic to experience life--or to dream himself away from it. Day-to-day business could be taken care of by the philistines." "Byron was a Romantic poet, wasn't he?" "Yes, both Byron and Shelley were Romantic poets of the so-called Satanic school. Byron, moreover, provided the Romantic Age with its idol, the Byronic hero--the alien, moody, rebellious spirit--in life as well as in art. Byron himself could be both willful and passionate, and being also handsome, he was besieged by women of fashion. Public gossip attributed the romantic adventures of his verses to his own life, but although he had numerous liaisons, true love remained as illusive and as unattainable for him as Novalis's blue flower. Novalis became engaged to a fourteen-year-old girl. She died four days after her fifteenth birthday, but Novalis remained devoted to her for the rest of his short life." "Did you say she died four days after her fifteenth birthday?" "Yes . . ." "I am fifteen years and four days old today." "So you are." "What was her name?" "Her name was Sophie." "What?" "Yes, it was. . ." "You scare me. Could it be a coincidence?" "I couldn't say, Sophie. But her name was Sophie." "Go on!" "Novalis himself died when he was only twenty-nine. He was one of the 'yun9 dead.' Many of the Romantics died young, usually of tuberculosis. Some committed suicide . . ." "Ugh!" "Those who lived to be old usually stopped being Romantics at about the age of thirty. Some of them went on to become thoroughly middle-class and conservative." "They went over to the enemy, then." "Maybe. But we were talking about romantic love. The theme of unrequited love was introduced as early as 1774 by Goethe in his novel The Sorrows of Young Werther. The book ends with young Werther shooting himself when he can't have the woman he loves . . ." "Was it necessary to go that far?" "The suicide rate rose after the publication of the novel, and for a time the book was banned in Denmark and Norway. So being a Romantic was not without danger. Strong emotions were involved." "When you say 'Romantic/ I think of those great big landscape paintings, with dark forests and wild, rugged nature ... preferably in swirling mists." "Yes, one of the features of Romanticism was this yearning for nature and nature's mysteries. And as I said, it was not the kind of thing that arises in rural areas. You may recall Rousseau, who initiated the slogan 'back to nature.' The Romantics gave this slogan popular currency. Romanticism represents not least a reaction to the Enlightenment's mechanistic universe. It was said that Romanticism implied a renaissance of the old cosmic consciousness." "Explain that, please." "It means viewing nature as a whole; the Romantics were tracing their roots not only back to Spinoza, but also to Plotinus and Renaissance philosophers like Jakob Bohme and Giordano Bruno. What all these thinkers had in common was that they experienced a divine 'ego' in nature." "They were Pantheists then . . ." "Both Descartes and Hume had drawn a sharp line between the ego and 'extended' reality. Kant had also left behind him a sharp distinction between the cognitive 'I' and nature 'in itself.' Now it was said that nature is nothing but one big 'I.' The Romantics also used the expressions 'world soul' or 'world spirit.' " "I see." "The leading Romantic philosopher was Schelling, who lived from 1775 to 1854. He wanted to unite mind and matter. All of nature--both the human soul and physical reality--is the expression of one Absolute, or world spirit, he believed." "Yes, just like Spinoza." "Nature is visible spirit, spirit is invisible nature, said Schelling, since one senses a 'structuring spirit' everywhere in nature. He also said that matter is slumbering intelligence." "You'll have to explain that a bit more clearly." "Schelling saw a 'world spirit' in nature, but he saw the same 'world spirit' in the human mind. The natural and the spiritual are actually expressions of the same thing." "Yes, why not?" "World spirit can thus be sought both in nature and in one's own mind. Novalis could therefore say 'the path of mystery leads inwards.' He was saying that man bears the whole universe within himself and comes closest to the mystery of the world by stepping inside himself." "That's a very lovely thought." "For many Romantics, philosophy, nature study, and poetry formed a synthesis. Sitting in your attic dashing off inspired verses and investigating the life of plants or the composition of rocks were only two sides of the same coin because nature is not a dead mechanism, it is one living world spirit." "Another word and I think I'll become a Romantic." "The Norwegian-born naturalist Henrik Steffens--whom Wergeland called 'Norway's departed laurel leaf because he had settled in Germany--went to Copenhagen in 1801 to lecture on German Romanticism. He characterized the Romantic Movement by saying, 'Tired of the eternal efforts to fight our way through raw matter, we chose another way and sought to embrace the infinite. We went inside ourselves and created a new world ... ' " "How can you remember all that?" "A bagatelle, child." "Go on, then." "Schelling also saw a development in nature from earth and rock to the human mind. He drew attention to very gradual transitions from inanimate nature to more complicated life forms. It was characteristic of the Romantic view in general that nature was thought of as an organism, or in other words, a unity which is constantly developing its innate potentialities. Nature is like a flower unfolding its leaves and petals. Or like a poet unfolding his verses." "Doesn't that remind you of Aristotle?" "It does indeed. The Romantic natural philosophy had Aristotelian as well as Neoplatonic overtones. Aristotle had a more organic view of natural processes than the mechanical materialists . . ." "Yes, that's what I thought. . ." "We find similar ideas at work in the field of history. A man who came to have great significance for the Romantics was the historical philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder, who lived from 1744 to 1803. He believed that history is characterized by continuity, evolution, and design. We say he had a 'dynamic' view of history be-cause he saw it as a process. The Enlightenment philosophers had often had a 'static' view of history. To them, there was only one universal reason which there could be more or less of at various periods. Herder showed that each historical epoch had its own intrinsic value and each nation its own character or 'soul.' The question is whether we can identify with other cultures." "So, just as we have to identify with another person's Situation to understand them better, we have to identify with other cultures to understand them too." "That is taken for granted nowadays. But in the Romantic period it was a new idea. Romanticism helped strengthen the feeling of national identity. It is no coinci-dence that the Norwegian struggle for national independence flourished at that particular time--in 1814." "I see." "Because Romanticism involved new orientations in so many areas, it has been usual to distinguish between two forms of Romanticism. There is what we call Universal Romanticism, referring to the Romantics who were preoccupied with nature, world soul, and artistic genius. This form of Romanticism flourished first, especially around 1800, in Germany, in the town of Jena." "And the other?" "The other is the so-called National Romanticism, which became popular a little later, especially in the town of Heidelberg. The National Romantics were mainly interested in the history of 'the people,' the language of 'the people,' and the culture of 'the people' in general. And 'the people' were seen as an organism unfolding its innate potentiality--exactly like nature and history." "Tell me where you live, and I'll tell you who you are." "What united these two aspects of Romanticism was first and foremost the key word 'organism.' The Romantics considered both a plant and a nation to be a living organism. A poetic work was also a living organism. Language was an organism. The entire physical world, even, was considered one organism. There is therefore no sharp dividing line between National Romanticism and Universal Romanticism. The world spirit was just as much present in the people and in popular culture as in nature and art." "I see." "Herder had been the forerunner, collecting folk songs from many lands under the eloquent title Voices of the People. He even referred to folktales as 'the mother tongue of the people.' The Brothers Grimm and others began to collect folk songs and fairy tales in Heidelberg. You must know of Grimm's Fairy Tales." "Oh sure, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Rumpelstiltskin, The Frog Prince, Hansel and Gretel . . ." "And many more. In Norway we had Asbj0rnsen and Moe, who traveled around the country collecting 'folks' own tales.' It was like harvesting a juicy fruit that was suddenly discovered to be both good and nourishing. And it was urgent--the fruit had already begun to fall. Folk songs were collected; the Norwegian language began to be studied scientifically. The old myths and sagas from heathen times were rediscovered, and composers all over Europe began to incorporate folk melodies into their compositions in an attempt to bridge the gap between folk music and art music." "What's art music?" "Art music is music composed by a particular person, like Beethoven. Folk music was not written by any particular person, it came from the people. That's why we don't know exactly when the various folk melodies date from. We distinguish in the same way between folktales and art tales." "So art tales are ... ?" "They are tales written by an author, like Hans Christian Andersen. The fairy tale genre was passionately cultivated by the Romantics. One of the German masters of the genre was E.T.A, Hoffmann." "I've heard of The Tales of Hoffmann." "The fairy tale was the absolute literary ideal of the Romantics--in the same way that the absolute art form of the Baroque period was the theater. It gave the poet full scope to explore his own creativity." "He could play God to a fictional universe." "Precisely. And this is a good moment to sum up." "Go ahead." "The philosophers of Romanticism viewed the 'world soul' as an 'ego' which in a more or less dreamlike state created everything in the world. The philosopher Fichte said that nature stems from a higher, unconscious imagination. Scheliing said explicitly that the world is 'in God.' God is aware of some of it, he believed, but there are other aspects of nature which represent the unknown in God. For God also has a dark side." "The thought is fascinating and frightening. It reminds me of Berkeley." "The relationship between the artist and his work was seen in exactly the same light. The fairy tale gave the writer free rein to exploit his 'universe-creating imagination.' And even the creative act was not always completely conscious. The writer could experience that his story was being written by some innate force. He could practically be in a hypnotic trance while he wrote." "He could?" "Yes, but then he would suddenly destroy the illusion. He would intervene in the story and address ironic comments to the reader, so that the reader, at least momentarily, would be reminded that it was, after all, only a story." "I see." "At the same time the writer could remind his reader that it was he who was manipulating the fictional universe. This form of disillusion is called 'romantic irony.' Henrik Ibsen, for example, lets one of the characters in Peer Gynt say: 'One cannot die in the middle of Act Five.' " "That's a very funny line, actually. What he's really saying is that he's only a fictional character." "The statement is so paradoxical that we can certainly emphasize it with a new section." "What did you mean by that?" "Oh, nothing, Sophie. But we did say that Novalis's fiancee was called Sophie, just like you, and that she died when she was only fifteen years and four days old ..." "You're scaring me, don't you know that?" Alberto sat staring, stony faced. Then he said: "But you needn't be worriedthat you will meet the same fate as Novalis's fiancee." "Why not?" "Because there are several more chapters." "What are you saying?" "I'm saying that anyone reading the story of Sophie and Alberto will know intuitively that there are many pages of the story still to come. We have only gotten as far as Romanticism." "You're making me dizzy." "It's really the major trying to make Hilde dizzy. It's not very nice or him, is it? New section!" *** Alberto had hardly finished speaking when a boy came running out of the woods. He had a turban on his head, and he was carrying an oil lamp. Sophie grabbed Alberto's arm. "Who's that?" she asked. The boy answered for himself: "My name is Aladdin and I've come all the way from Lebanon." Alberto looked at him sternly: "And what do you have in your lamp?" The boy rubbed the lamp, and out of it rose a thick cloud which formed itself into the figure of a man. He had a black beard like Alberto's and a blue beret. Floating above the lamp, he said: "Can you hear me, Hilde? I suppose it's too late for any more birthday greetings. I just wanted to say that Bjerkely and the south country back home seem like fairyland to me here in Lebanon. I'll see you there in a few days." So saying, the figure became a cloud again and was sucked back into the lamp. The boy with the turban put the lamp under his arm, ran into the woods, and was gone. "I don't believe this," said Sophie. "A bagatelle, my dear." "The spirit of the lamp spoke exactly like Hilde's father." "That's because it was Hilde's father--in spirit." "But. . ." "Both you and I and everything around us are living deep in the major's mind. It is late at night on Saturday, April 28, and all the UN soldiers are asleep around the major, who, although still awake, is not far from sleep himself. But he must finish the book he is to give Hilde as a fifteenth birthday present. That's why he has to work, Sophie, that's why the poor man gets hardly any rest." "I give up." "New section!" Sophie and Alberto sat looking across the little lake. Alberto seemed to be in some sort of trance. After a while Sophie ventured to nudge his shoulder. "Were you dreaming?" "Yes, he was interfering directly there. The last few paragraphs were dictated by him to the letter. He should be ashamed of himself. But now he has given himself away and come out into the open. Now we know that we are living our lives in a book which Hilde's father will send home to Hilde as a birthday present. You heard what I said? Well, it wasn't 'me' saying it." "If what you say is true, I'm going to run away from the book and go my own way." "That's exactly what I am planning. But before that can happen, we must try and talk with Hilde. She reads every word we say. Once we succeed in getting away from here it will be much harder to contact her. That means we must grasp the opportunity now." "What do we say?" "I think the major is just about to fall asleep over his typewriter--although his fingers are still racing feverishly over the keys ..." "It's a creepy thought." "This is the moment when he may write something he will regret later. And he has no correction fluid. That's a vital part of my plan. May no one give the major a bottle of correction fluid!" "He won't get so much as a single coverup strip from me!" "I'm calling on that poor girl here and now to rebel against her own father. She should be ashamed to let herself be amused by his self-indulgent playing with shad-ows. If only we had him here, we'd give him a taste of our indignation!" "But he's not here." "He is here in spirit and soul, but he's also safely tucked away in Lebanon. Everything around us is the major's ego." "But he is more than what we can see here." "We are but shadows in the major's soul. And it is no easy matter for a shadow to turn on its master, Sophie. It requires both cunning and strategy. But we have an opportunity of influencing Hilde. Only an angel can rebel against God." "We could ask Hilde to give him a piece of her mind the moment he gets home. She could tell him he's a rogue. She could wreck his boat--or at least, smash the lantern." Alberto nodded. Then he said: "She could also run away from him That would be much easier for her than it is for us. She could leave the major's house and never return. Wouldn't that be fitting for a major who plays with his 'universe-creating imagination' at our expense?" "I can picture it. The major travels all over the world searching for Hilde. But Hilde has vanished into thin air because she can't stand living with a father who plays the fool at Alberto's and Sophie's expense." "Yes, that's it! Plays the fool! That's what I meant by his using us as birthday amusement. But he'd better watch out, Sophie. So had Hilde!" "How do you mean?" "Are you sitting tight?" "As long as there are no more genies from a lamp." "Try to imagine that everything that happens to us goes on in someone else's mind. We are that mind. That means we have no soul, we are someone else's soul. So far we are on familiar philosophical ground. Both Berkeley and Schelling would prick up their ears." "And?" "Now it is possible that this soul is Hilde M0ller Knag's father. He is over there in Lebanon writing a book on philosophy for his daughter's fifteenth birthday. When Hilde wakes up on June 15, she finds the book on her bedside table, and now she--and anyone else--can read about us. It has long been suggested that this 'present' could be shared with others." "Yes, I remember." "What I am saying to you now will be read by Hilde after her father in Lebanon once imagined that I was telling you he was in Lebanon ... imagining me telling you that he was in Lebanon." Sophie's head was swimming. She tried to remember what she had heard about Berkeley and the Romantics. Alberto Knox continued: "But they shouldn't feel so cocky because of that. They are the last people who should laugh, because laughter can easily get stuck in their throat." "Who are we talking about?" "Hilde and her father. Weren't we talking about them?" "But why shouldn't they feel so cocky?" "Because it is feasible that they, too, are nothing but mind." "How could they be?" "If it was possible for Berkeley and the Romantics, it must be possible for them. Maybe the major is also a shadow in a book about him and Hilde, which is also about us, since we are a part of their lives." "That would be even worse. That makes us only shadows of shadows." "But it is possible that a completely different author is somewhere writing a book about a UN Major Albert Knag, who is writing a book for his daughter Hilde. This book is about a certain Alberto Knox who suddenly begins to send humble philoso
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 27楼  发表于: 2013-10-27 0
[content too large, truncated for display] [table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,4][tr][td]
英文原文
[table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,1][tr][td]Kant ...the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me... It was close to midnight before Major Albert Knag called home to wish Hilde a happy birthday. Hilde's mother answered the telephone. "It's for you, Hilde." "Hello?" "It's Dad." "Are you crazy? It's nearly midnight!" "I just wanted to say Happy Birthday ..." "You've been doing that all day." "... but I didn't want to call before the day was over." "Why?" "Didn't you get my present?" "Yes, I did. Thank you very much." "I can't wait to hear what you think of it." "It's terrific. I have hardly eaten all day, it's so exciting." "I have to know how far you've gotten." "They just went inside the major's cabin because you started teasing them with a sea serpent." "The Enlightenment." "And Olympe de Gouges." "So I didn't get it completely wrong." "Wrong in what way?" "I think there's one more birthday greeting to come. But that one is set to music." "I'd better read a little more before I go to sleep." "You haven't given up, then?" "I've learned more in this one day than ever before. I can hardly believe that it's less than twenty-four hours since Sophie got home from school and found the first envelope." "It's strange how little time it takes to read." "But I can't help feeling sorry for her." "For Mom?" "No, for Sophie, of course." "Why?" "The poor girl is totally confused." "But she's only ..." "You were going to say she's only made up." "Yes, something like that." "I think Sophie and Alberto really exist." "We'll talk more about it when I get home." "Okay." "Have a nice day." "What?" "I mean good night." "Good night." When Hilde went to bed half an hour later it was still so light that she could see the garden and the little bay. It never got really dark at this time of the year. She played with the idea that she was inside a picture hanging on the wall of the little cabin in the woods. She wondered if one could look out of the picture into what surrounded it. Before she fell asleep, she read a few more pages in the big ring binder. Sophie put the letter from Hilde's father back on the mantel. "What he says about the UN is not unimportant," said Alberto, "but I don't like him interfering in my presentation." "I don't think you should worry too much about that." "Nevertheless, from now on I intend to ignore all extraordinary phenomena such as sea serpents and the like. Let's sit here by the window while I tell you about Kant." Sophie noticed a pair of glasses lying on a small table between two armchairs. She also noticed that the lenses were red. Maybe they were strong sunglasses . . . "It's almost two o'clock," she said. "I have to be home before five. Mom has probably made plans for my birthday." "That gives us three hours." "Let's start." "Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in the East Prussian town of Konigsberg, the son of a master saddler. He lived there practically all his life until he died at the age of eighty. His family was deeply pious, and his own religious conviction formed a significant background to his philosophy. Like Berkeley, he felt it was essential to preserve the foundations of Christian belief." "I've heard enough about Berkeley, thanks." "Kant was the first of the philosophers we have heard about so far to have taught philosophy at a university. He was a professor of philosophy." "Professor?" "There are two kinds of philosopher. One is a person who seeks his own answers to philosophical questions. The other is someone who is an expert on the history of philosophy but does not necessarily construct his own philosophy." "And Kant was that kind?" "Kant was both. If he had simply been a brilliant professor and an expert on the ideas of other philosophers, he would never have carved a place for himself in the history of philosophy. But it is important to note that Kant had a solid grounding in the philosophic tradition of the past. He was familiar both with the rationalism of Descartes and Spinoza and the empiricism of Locke, Berkeley, and Hume." "I asked you not to mention Berkeley again." "Remember that the rationalists believed that the basis for all human knowledge lay in the mind. And that the empiricists believed all knowledge of the world proceeded from the senses. Moreover, Hume had pointed out that there are clear limits regarding which conclusions we could reach through our sense perceptions." "And who did Kant agree with?" "He thought both views were partly right, but he thought both were partly wrong, too. The question everybody was concerned with was what we can know about the world. This philosophical project had been preoccupying all philosophers since Descartes. "Two main possibilities were drawn up: either the world is exactly as we perceive it, or it is the way it appears to our reason." "And what did Kant think?" "Kant thought that both 'sensing' and 'reason' come into play in our conception of the world. But he thought the rationalists went too far in their claims as to how much reason can contribute, and he also thought the empiricists placed too much emphasis on sensory experience." "If you don't give me an example soon, it will all be just a bunch of words." "In his point of departure Kant agrees with Hume and the empiricists that all our knowledge of the world comes from our sensations. But--and here Kant stretches his hand out to the rationalists--in our reason there are also decisive factors that determine how we perceive the world around us. In other words, there are certain conditions in the human mind that are contributive to our conception of the world." "You call that an example?" "Let us rather do a little experiment. Could you bring those glasses from the table over there? Thank you. Now, put them on." Sophie put the glasses on. Everything around her became red. The pale colors became pink and the dark colors became crimson. "What do you see?" "I see exactly the same as before, except that it's all red." "That's because the glasses limit the way you perceive reality. Everything you see is part of the world around you, but how you see it is determined by the glasses you are wearing. So you cannot say the world is red even though you conceive it as being so." "No, naturally." "If you now took a walk in the woods, or home to Captain's Bend, you would see everything the way you normally do. But whatever you saw, it would all be red." "As long as I didn't take the glasses off, yes." "And that, Sophie, is precisely what Kant meant when he said that there are certain conditions governing the mind's operation which influence the way we experience the world." "What kind of conditions?" "Whatever we see will first and foremost be perceived as phenomena in time and space. Kant called 'time' and 'space' our two 'forms of intuition.' And he emphasized that these two 'forms' in our own mind precede every experience. In other words, we can know before we experience things that we will perceive them as phenomena in time and space. For we are not able to take off the 'glasses' of reason." "So he thought that perceiving things in time and space was innate?" "Yes, in a way. What we see may depend on whether we are raised in India or Greenland, but wherever we are, we experience the world as a series of processes in time and space. This is something we can say beforehand." "But aren't time and space things that exist beyond ourselves?" "No. Kant's idea was that time and space belong to the human condition. Time and space are first and foremost modes of perception and not attributes or the physical world." "That was a whole new way of looking at things." "For the mind of man is not just 'passive wax' which simply receives sensations from outside. The mind leaves its imprint on the way we apprehend the world. You could compare it with what happens when you pour water into a glass pitcher. The water adapts itself to the pitcher's form. In the same way our perceptions adapt themselves to our 'forms of intuition.' " "I think I understand what you mean." "Kant claimed that it is not only mind which conforms to things. Things also conform to the mind. Kant called this the Copernican Revolution in the problem of human knowledge. "By that he meant that it was just as new and just as radically different from former thinking as when Copernicus claimed that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa." "I see now how he could think both the rationalists and the empiricists were right up to a point. The rationalists had almost forgotten the importance of experience, and the empiricists had shut their eyes to the way our own mind influences the way we see the world." "And even the law of causality--which Hume believed man could not experience--belongs to the mind, according to Kant." "Explain that, please." "You remember how Hume claimed that it was only force of habit that made us see a causal link behind all natural processes. According to Hume, we cannot per-ceive the black billiard ball as being the cause of the white ball's movement. Therefore, we cannot prove that the black billiard ball will always set the white one in motion." "Yes, I remember." "But that very thing which Hume says we cannot prove is what Kant makes into an attribute of human reason. The law of causality is eternal and absolute simply because human reason perceives everything that happens as a matter of cause and effect." "Again, I would have thought that the law of causality lay in the physical world itself, not in our minds." "Kant's philosophy states that it is inherent in us. He agreed with Hume that we cannot know with certainty what the world is like 'in itself.' We can only know what the world is like 'for me'--or for everybody. Kant's greatest contribution to philosophy is the dividing line he draws between things in themselves--das Ding an sich-- and things as they appear to us." "I'm not so good at German." "Kant made an important distinction between 'the thing in itself and 'the thing for me.' We can never have certain knowledge of things 'in themselves.' We can only know how things 'appear' to us. On the other hand, prior to any particular experience we can say something about how things will be perceived by the human mind." "We can?" "Before you go out in the morning, you cannot know what you will see or experience during the day. But you can know that what you see and experience will be perceived as happening in time and space. You can moreover be confident that the law of cause and effect will apply, simply because you carry it with you as part of your consciousness." "But you mean we could have been made differently?" "Yes, we could have had a different sensory apparatus. And we could have had a different sense or time and a different feeling about space. We could even have been created in such a way that we would not go around searching for the cause of things that happen around us." "How do you mean?" "Imagine there's a cat lying on the floor in the living room. A ball comes rolling into the room. What does the cat do?" "I've tried that lots of times. The cat will run after the ball." "All right. Now imagine that you were sitting in that same room. If you suddenly see a ball come rolling in, would you also start running after it?" "First, I would turn around to see where the ball came from." "Yes, because you are a human being, you will inevitably look for the cause of every event, because the law of causality is part of your makeup." "So Kant says." "Hume showed that we can neither perceive nor prove natural laws. That made Kant uneasy. But he believed he could prove their absolute validity by showing that in reality we are talking about the laws of human cognition." "Will a child also turn around to see where the ball came from?" "Maybe not. But Kant pointed out that a child's reason is not fully developed until it has had some sensory material to work with. It is altogether senseless to talk about an empty mind." "No, that would be a very strange mind." "So now let's sum up. According to Kant, there are two elements that contribute to man's knowledge of the world. One is the external conditions that we cannot know of before we have perceived them through the senses. We can call this the material of knowledge. The other is the internal conditions in man himself--such as the perception of events as happening in time and space and as processes conforming to an unbreakable law of causality. We can call this the form of knowledge." Alberto and Sophie remained seated for a while gazing out of the window. Suddenly Sophie saw a little girl between the trees on the opposite side of the lake. "Look!" said Sophie. "Who's that?" "I'm sure I don't know." The girl was only visible for a few seconds, then she was gone. Sophie noticed that she was wearing some kind of red hat. "We shall under no circumstances let ourselves be distracted." "Go on, then." "Kant believed that there are clear limits to what we can know. You could perhaps say that the mind's 'glasses' set these limits." "In what way?" "You remember that philosophers before Kant had discussed the really 'big' questions--for instance, whether man has an immortal soul, whether there is a God, whether nature consists of tiny indivisible particles, and whether the universe is finite or infinite." "Yes." "Kant believed there was no certain knowledge to be obtained on these questions. Not that he rejected this type of argument. On the contrary. If he had just brushed these questions aside, he could hardly have been called a philosopher." "What did he do?" "Be patient. In such great philosophical questions, Kant believed that reason operates beyond the limits of what we humans can comprehend. At the same time, there is in our nature a basic desire to pose these same questions. But when, for example, we ask whether the universe is finite or infinite, we are asking about a totality of which we ourselves are a tiny part. We can therefore never completely know this totality." "Why not?" "When you put the red glasses on, we demonstrated that according to Kant there are two elements that contribute to our knowledge of the world." "Sensory perception and reason." "Yes, the material of our knowledge comes to us through the senses, but this material must conform to the attributes of reason. For example, one of the attributes of reason is to seek the cause of an event." "Like the ball rolling across the floor." "If you like. But when we wonder where the world came from--and then discuss possible answers--reason is in a sense 'on hold.' For it has no sensory material to process, no experience to make use of, because we have never experienced the whole of the great reality that we are a tiny part of." "We are--in a way--a tiny part of the ball that comes rolling across the floor. So we can't know where it came from." "But it will always be an attribute of human reason to ask where the ball comes from. That's why we ask and ask, we exert ourselves to the fullest to find answers to all the deepest questions. But we never get anything firm to bite on; we never get a satisfactory answer because reason is not locked on." "I know exactly how that feels, thank you very much." "In such weighty questions as to the nature of reality, Kant showed that there will always be two contrasting viewpoints that are equally likely or unlikely, depending on what our reason tells us." "Examples, please." "It is just as meaningful to say that the world must have had a beginning in time as to say that it had no such beginning. Reason cannot decide between them. We can allege that the world has always existed, but con anything always have existed if there was never any beginning? So now we are forced to adopt the opposite view. "We say that the world must have begun sometime-- and it must have begun from nothing, unless we want to talk about a change from one state to another. But can something come from nothing, Sophie?" "No, both possibilities are equally problematic. Yet it seems one of them must be right and the other wrong." "You probably remember that Democritus and the materialists said that nature must consist of minimal parts that everything is made up of. Others, like Descartes, believed that it must always be possible to divide extended reality into ever smaller parts. But which of them was right?" "Both. Neither." "Further, many philosophers named freedom as one of man's most important values. At the same time we saw philosophers like the Stoics, for example, and Spinoza, who said that everything happens through the necessity of natural law. This was another case of human reason being unable to make a certain judgment, according to Kant." "Both views are equally reasonable and unreasonable." "Finally, we are bound to fail if we attempt to prove the existence of God with the aid of reason. Here the rationalists, like Descartes, had tried to prove that there must be a God simply because we have the idea of a 'supreme being.' Others, like Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, decided that there must be a God because every-thing must have a first cause." "What did Kant think?" "He rejected both these proofs of the existence of God. Neither reason nor experience is any certain basis for claiming the existence of God. As far as reason goes, it is just as likely as it is unlikely that God exists." "But you started by saying that Kant wanted to preserve the basis for Christian faith." "Yes, he opened up a religious dimension. There, where both reason and experience fall short, there occurs a vacuum that can be filled by faith." "That's how he saved Christianity?" "If you will. Now, it might be worth noting that Kant was a Protestant. Since the days of the Reformation, Protestantism has been characterized by its emphasis on faith. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has since the early Middle Ages believed more in reason as a pillar of faith. "But Kant went further than simply to establish that these weighty questions should be left to the faith of the individual. He believed that it is essential for morality to presuppose that man has an immortal soul, that God exists, and that man has a free will." "So he does the same as Descartes. First he is very critical of everything we can understand. And then he smuggles God in by the back door." "But unlike Descartes, he emphasizes most particularly that it is not reason which brought him to this point but faith. He himself called faith in the immortal soul, in God's existence, and in man's free will practical postulates." "Which means?" "To 'postulate' something is to assume something that cannot be proved. By a 'practical postulate,' Kant meant something that had to be assumed for the sake of 'praxis,' or practice; that is to say, for man's morality. 'It is a moral necessity to assume the existence of God,' he said." Suddenly there was a knock at the door. Sophie got up, but as Alberto gave no sign of rising, she asked: "Shouldn't we see who it is?" Alberto shrugged and reluctantly got up. They opened the door, and a little girl stood there in a white summer dress and a red bonnet. It was the girl they had seen on the other side of the lake. Over one arm she carried a basket of food. "Hi," said Sophie. "Who are you?" "Can't you see I am Little Red Ridinghood?" Sophie looked at Alberto, and Alberto nodded. "You heard what she said." "I'm looking for my grandmother's house," said the girl. "She is old and sick, but I'm taking her some food." "It's not here," said Alberto, "so you'd better get on your way." He gestured in a way that reminded Sophie of the way you brush off a fly. "But I'm supposed to deliver a letter," continued the girl in the red bonnet. With that, she took out a small envelope and handed it to Sophie. Then she went skipping away. "Watch out for the wolf!" Sophie called after her. Alberto was already on his way back into the living room. "Just think! That was Little Red Ridinghood," said Sophie. "And it's no good warning her. She will go to her grandmother's house and be eaten by the wolf. She never learns. It will repeat itself to the end of time " "But I have never heard that she knocked on the door of another house before she went to her grandmother's." "A bagatelle, Sophie." Now Sophie looked at the envelope she had been given. It was addressed "To Hilde." She opened it and read aloud: Dear Hilde, If the human brain was simple enough for us to understand, we would still be so stupid that we couldn't understand it. Love, Dad. Alberto nodded. "True enough. I believe Kant said something to that effect. We cannot expect to understand what we are. Maybe we can comprehend a flower or an insect, but we can never comprehend ourselves. Even less can we expect to comprehend the universe." Sophie had to read the cryptic sentence in the note to Hilde several times before Alberto went on: "We are not going to be interrupted by sea serpents and the like. Before we stop for today, I'll tell you about Kant's ethics." "Please hurry. I have to go home soon." "Hume's skepticism with regard to what reason and the senses can tell us forced Kant to think through many of life's important questions again. Not least in the area of ethics." "Didn't Hume say that you can never prove what is right and what is wrong2 You can't draw conclusions from is - sentence? to ought-sentences." "For Hume it was neither our reason nor our experience that determined the difference between right and wrong. It was simply our sentiments. This was too tenuous a basis for Kant." "I can imagine." "Kant had always felt that the difference between right and wrong was a matter of reason, not sentiment. In this he agreed with the rationalists, who said the ability to distinguish between right and wrong is inherent in human reason. Everybody knows what is right or wrong, not because we have learned it but because it is born in the mind. According to Kant, everybody has 'practical reason,' that is, the intelligence that gives us the capacity to discern what is right or wrong in every case." "And that is innate?" "The ability to tell right from wrong is just as innate as all the other attributes of reason. Just as we are all intelligent beings, for example, perceiving everything as having a causal relation, we all have access to the same universal moral law. "This moral law has the same absolute validity as the physical laws. It is just as basic to our morality as the statements that everything has a cause, or that seven plus five is twelve, are basic to our intelligence." "And what does that moral law say?" "Since it precedes every experience, it is 'formal.' That is to say, it is not bound to any particular situation of moral choice. For it applies to all people in all societies at all times. So it does not say you shall do this or this if you find yourself in that or that situation. It says how you are to behave in all situations." "But what is the point of having a moral law implanted inside yourself if it doesn't tell you what to do in specific situations?" "Kant formulates the moral law as a categorical imperative. By this he means that the moral law is 'categorical,' or that it applies to all situations. It is, moreover, 'imperative,' which means it is commanding and therefore absolutely authoritative." "Kant formulates this 'categorical imperative' in several ways. First he says: Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a Universal Law of Nature." "So when I do something, I must make sure I want everybody else to do the same if they are in the same situation." "Exactly. Only then will you be acting in accordance with the moral law within you. Kant also formulates the 'categorical imperative' in this way: Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end." "So we must not exploit other people to our own advantage." "No, because every man is an end in himself. But that does not only apply to others, it also applies to you yourself. You must not exploit yourself as a mere means to achieving something, either." "It reminds me of the golden rule: Do unto others . . ." "Yes, that is also a 'formal' rule of conduct that basically covers all ethical choices. You could say that the golden rule says the same thing as Kant's universal law of morals." "But surely this is only an assertion. Hume was probably right in that we can't prove what is right or wrong by reason." "According to Kant, the law of morals is just as absolute and just as universal as the law of causality. That cannot be proved by reason either, but it is nevertheless absolute and unalterable. Nobody would deny that." "I get the feeling that what we are really talking about is conscience. Because everybody has a conscience, don't they?" "Yes. When Kant describes the law of morals, he is describing the human conscience. We cannot prove what our conscience tells us, but we know it, nevertheless." "Sometimes I might only be kind and helpful to others because I know it pays off. It could be a way of becoming popular." "But if you share with others only to be popular, you are not acting out of respect for moral law. You might be acting in accordance with moral law--and that could be fair enough--but if it is to be a moral action, you must have conquered yourself. Only when you do something purely out of duty can it be called a moral action. Kant's ethics is therefore sometimes called duty ethics." "I can feel it my duty to collect money for the Red Cross or the church bazaar." "Yes, and the important thing is that you do it because you know it is right. Even if the money you collect gets lost in the street, or is not sufficient to feed all the mouths it is intended to, you obeyed the moral law. You acted out of good will, and according to Kant, it is this good will which determines whether or not the action was morally right, not the consequences of the action. Kant's ethics is therefore also called a good will ethic." "Why was it so important to him to know exactly when one acts out of respect for moral law? Surely the most important thing is that what we do really helps other peo-pie." "Indeed it is and Kant would certainly not disagree. But only when we know in ourselves that we are acting out of respect for moral law are we acting freely." "We act freely only when we obey a law? Isn't that kind of peculiar?" "Not according to Kant. You perhaps remember that he had to 'assume'or 'postulate' that man has a free will. This is an important point, because Kant also said that everything obeys the law of causality. How, then, can we have a free will?" "Search me." "On this point Kant divides man into two parts in a way not dissimilar to the way Descartes claimed that man was a 'dual creature,' one with both a body and a mind. As material creatures, we are wholly and fully at the mercy of causality's unbreakable law, says Kant. We do not decide what we perceive--perception comes to us through necessity and influences us whether we like it or not. But we are not only material creatures--we are also creatures of reason. "As material beings we belong wholly to the natural world. We are therefore subject to causal relations. As such, we have no free will. But as rational beings we have a part in what Kant calls das Ding an sich--that is, the world as it exists in itself, independent of our sensory impressions. Only when we follow our 'practical reason'-- which enables us to make moral choices--do we exercise our free will, because when we conform to moral law, it is we who make the law we are conforming to." "Yes, that's true in a way. It is me, or something in me, which tells me not to be mean to others." "So when you choose not to be mean--even if it is against your own interests--you are then acting freely." "You're not especially free or independent if you just do whatever you want, in any case." "One can become a slave to all kinds of things. One can even become a slave to one's own egoism. Independence and freedom are exactly what are required to rise above one's desires and vices." "What about animals? I suppose they just follow their inclinations and needs. They don't have any freedom to follow moral law, do they?" "No, that's the difference between animals and humans." "I see that now." "And finally we could perhaps say that Kant succeeded in showing the way out of the impasse that philosophy had reached in the struggle between rationalism and empiricism. With Kant, an era in the history of philosophy is therefore at an end. He died in 1804, when the cultural epoch we call Romanticism was in the ascendant. One of his most quoted sayings is carved on his gravestone in Konigsberg: Two things fill my mind with ever-increasing wonder and awe, the more often and the more intensely the reflection dwells on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.' " Alberto leaned back in his chair. "That's it," he said. "I think I have told you what's most important about Kant." "Anyway, it's a quarter past four." "But there is just one thing. Please give me a minute." "I never leave the classroom before the teacher is finished." "Did I say that Kant believed we had no freedom if we lived only as creatures of the senses?" "Yes, you said something like that." "But if we obey universal reason we are free and independent. Did I say that, too?" "Yes. Why are you saying it again now?" Alberto leaned toward Sophie, looked deep into her eyes, and whispered: "Don't believe everything you see, Sophie." "What do you mean by that?" "Just turn the other way, child." "Now, I don't understand what you mean at all." "People usually say, I'll believe that when I see it. But don't believe what you see, either." "You said something like that once before." "Yes, about Parmenides." "But I still don't know what you mean." "Well, we sat out there on the step, talking. Then that so-called sea serpent began to flap about in the water." "Wasn't it peculiar!" "Not at all. Then Little Red Ridinghood came to the door. 'I'm looking for my grandmother's house.' What a silly performance! It's just the major's tricks, Sophie. Like the banana message and that idiotic thunderstorm." "Do you think ... ?" "But I said I had a plan. As long as we stick to our reas
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 26楼  发表于: 2013-10-27 0
[content too large, truncated for display] [table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,4][tr][td]
英文原文
[table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,1][tr][td]The Enlightenent ...from the way needles are made to the way cannons are founded Hilde had just begun the chapter on the Renaissance when she heard her mother come in the front door. She looked at the clock. It was four in the afternoon. Her mother ran upstairs and opened Hilde's door. "Didn't you go to the church?" "Yes, I did." "But... what did you wear?" "What I'm wearing now." "Your nightgown?" "It's an old stone church from the Middle Ages." "Hilde!" She let the ring binder fall into her lap and looked up at her mother. "I forgot the time, Mom. I'm sorry, but I'm reading something terribly exciting." Her mother could not help smiling. "It's a magic book," added Hilde. "Okay. Happy birthday once again, Hilde!" "Hey, I don't know if I can take that phrase any more." "But I haven't... I'm just going to rest for a while, then I'll start fixing a great dinner. I managed to get hold of some strawberries." "Okay, I'll go on reading." Her mother left and Hilde read on. Sophie is following Hermes through the town. In Alberto's hall she finds another card from Lebanon. This, too, is dated June 15. Hilde was just beginning to understand the system of the dates. The cards dated before June 15 are copies of cards Hilde had already received from her dad. But those with today's date are reaching her for the first time via the ring binder. 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 . . . Hilde read how Alberto told Sophie about the Renaissance and the new science, the seventeenth-century rationalists and British empiricism. She jumped at every new card and birthday greeting that her father had stuck into the story. He got them to fall out of an exercise book, turn up inside a banana skin, and hide inside a computer program. Without the slightest effort, he could get Alberto to make a slip of the tongue and call Sophie Hilde. On top of everything else, he got Hermes to say "Happy birthday, Hilde!" Hilde agreed with Alberto that he was going a bit too far, comparing himself with God and Providence. But whom was she actually agreeing with? Wasn't it her father who put those reproachful--or self-reproachful--words in Alberto's mouth? She decided that the comparison with God was not so crazy after all. Her father really was like an almighty God for Sophie's world. When Alberto got to Berkeley, Hilde was at least as enthralled as Sophie had been. What would happen now? There had been all kinds of hints that something special was going to happen as soon as they got to that philosopher--who had denied the existence of a material world outside human consciousness. The chapter begins with Alberto and Sophie standing at the window, seeing the little plane with the long Happy Birthday streamer waving behind it. At the same time dark clouds begin to gather over the town. "So 'to be or not to be' is not the whole question. The question is also who we are. Are we really human beings of flesh and blood? Does our world consist of real things--or are we encircled by the mind?" Not so surprising that Sophie starts biting her nails. Nail-biting had never been one of Hilde's bad habits but she didn't feel particularly pleased with herself right now. Then finally it was all out in the open: "For us-- for you and me--this 'will or spirit' that is the 'cause of everything in everything' could be Hilde's father." "Are you saying he's been a kind of God for us?" "To be perfectly candid, yes.He should be ashamed of himself!" "What about Hilde herself?" "She is an angel, Sophie." "An angel?" "Hilde is the one this 'spirit' turns to." With that, Sophie tears herself away from Alberto and runs out into the storm. Could it be the same storm that raged over Bjerkely last night--a few hours after Sophie ran through the town? As she ran, one thought kept going round and round in her mind: "Tomorrow is my birthday*. Isn't it extra bitter to realize that life is only a dream on the day before your fifteenth birthday? It's like dreaming you won a million and then just as you're getting the money you wake up." Sophie ran across the squelching playing field. Minutes later she saw someone come running toward her. It was her mother. The sky was pierced again and again by angry darts of lightning. When they reached each other Sophie's mother put her arm around her. "What's happening to us, little one?" "I don't know," Sophie sobbed. "It's like a bad dream." Hilde felt the tears start. "To be or not to be--that is the question." She threw the ring binder to the end of the bed and stood up. She walked back and forth across the floor. At last she stopped in front of the brass mirror, where she remained until her mother came to say dinner was ready. When Hilde heard the knock on the door, she had no idea how long she had been standing there. But she was sure, she was perfectly sure, that her reflection had winked with both eyes. She tried to be the grateful birthday girl all through dinner. But her thoughts were with Sophie and Alberto all the time. How would things go for them now that they knew it was Hilda's father who decided everything? Although "knew" was perhaps an exaggeration. It was nonsense to think they knew anything at all. Wasn't it only her father who let them know things? Still, the problem was the same however you looked at it. As soon as Sophie and Alberto "knew" how everything hung together, they were in a way at the end of the road. She almost choked on a mouthful of food as she suddenly realized that the same problem possibly applied to her own world too. People had progressed steadily in their understanding of natural laws. Could history simply continue to all eternity once the last piece of the jigsaw puzzle of philosophy and science had fallen into place? Wasn't there a connection between the development of ideas and science on the one hand, and the greenhouse effect and deforestation on the other? Maybe it was not so crazy to call man's thirst for knowledge a fall from grace? The question was so huge and so terrifying that Hilde tried to forget it again. She would probably understand much more as she read further in her father's birthday book. "Happy birthday to you ...," sang her mother when they were done with their ice cream and Italian strawberries. "Now we'll do whatever you choose." "I know it sounds a bit crazy, but all I want to do is read my present from Dad." "Well, as long as he doesn't make you completely delirious." "No way." "We could share a pizza while we watch that mystery on TV." "Yes, if you like." Hilde suddenly thought of the way Sophie spoke to her mother. Dad had hopefully not written any of Hilde's mother into the character of the other mother? Just to make sure, she decided not to mention the white rabbit being pulled out of the top hat. Not today, at least. "By the way," she said as she was leaving the table. "What?" "I can't find my gold crucifix anywhere." Her mother looked at her with an enigmatic expression. "I found it down by the dock weeks ago. You must have dropped it, you untidy scamp." "Did you mention it to Dad?" "Let me think ... yes, I believe I may have." "Where is it then?" Her mother got up and went to get her own jewelry case. Hilde heard a little cry of surprise from the bedroom. She came quickly back into the living room. "Right now I can't seem to find it." "I thought as much." She gave her mother a hug and ran upstairs to her room. At last--now she could read on about Sophie and Alberto. She sat up on the bed as before with the heavy ring binder resting against her knees and began the next chapter. Sophie woke up the next morning when her mother came into the room carrying a tray loaded with birthday presents. She had stuck a flag in an empty soda bottle. "Happy birthday, Sophie!" Sophie rubbed the sleep from her eyes. She tried to remember what had happened the night before. But it was all like jumbled pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. One of the pieces was Alberto, another was Hilde and the major. A third was Berkeley, a fourth Bjerkely. The blackest piece of all was the violent storm. She had practically been in shock. Her mother had rubbed her dry with a towel and simply put her to bed with a cup of hot milk and honey. She had fallen asleep immediately. "I think I'm still alive," she said weakly. "Of course you're alive! And today you are fifteen years old." "Are you quite sure?" "Quite sure. Shouldn't a mother know when her only child was born? June 15, 1975 ... and half-past one, Sophie. It was the happiest moment of my life." "Are you sure it isn't all only a dream?" "It must be a good dream to wake up to rolls and soda and birthday presents." She put the tray of presents on a chair and disappeared out of the room for a second. When she came back she was carrying another tray with rolls and soda. She put it on the end of the bed. It was the signal for the traditional birthday morning ritual, with the unpacking of presents and her mother's sentimental flights back to her first contractions fifteen years ago. Her mother's present was a tennis racket. Sophie had never played tennis, but there were some open-air courts a few minutes from Clover Close. Her father had sent her a mini-TV and FM radio. The screen was no bigger than an ordinary photograph. There were also presents from old aunts and friends of the family. Presently her mother said, "Do you think I should stay home from work today?" "No, why should you?" "You were very upset yesterday. If it goes on, I think we should make an appointment to see a psychiatrist." "That won't be necessary." "Was it the storm--or was it Alberto?" "What about you? You said: What's happening to us, little one?" "I was thinking of you running around town to meet some mysterious person ... Maybe it's my fault." "It's not anybody's 'fault' that I'm taking a course in philosophy in my leisure time. Just go to work. School doesn't start till ten, and we're only getting our grades and sitting around." "Do you know what you're going to get?" "More than I got last semester at any rate." Not long after her mother had gone the telephone rang. "Sophie Amundsen." "This is Alberto." "Ah." "The major didn't spare any ammunition last night." "What do you mean." "The thunderstorm, Sophie." "I don't know what to think." "That is the finest virtue a genuine philosopher can have. I am proud of how much you have learned in such a short time." "I am scared that nothing is real." "That's called existential angst, or dread, and is as a rule only a stage on the way to new consciousness." "I think I need a break from the course." "Are there that many frogs in the garden at the moment?" Sophie started to laugh. Alberto continued: "I think it would be better to persevere. Happy birthday, by the way. We must complete the course by Midsummer Eve. It's our last chance." "Our last chance for what?" "Are you sitting comfortably? We're going to have to spend some time on this, you understand." "I'm sitting down." "You remember Descartes?" "I think, therefore I am?" "With regard to our own methodical doubt, we are right now starting from scratch. We don't even know whether we think. It may turn out that we are thoughts, and that is quite different from thinking. We have good reason to believe that we have merely been invented by Hilde's father as a kind of birthday diversion for the major's daughter from Lillesand. Do you see?" "Yes . . ." "But therein also lies a built-in contradiction. If we are fictive, we have no right to 'believe' anything at all. In which case this whole telephone conversation is purely imaginary." "And we haven't the tiniest bit of free will because it's the major who plans everything we say and do. So we can just as well hang up now." "No, now you're oversimplifying things." "Explain it, then." "Would you claim that people plan everything they dream? It may be that Hilde's father knows everything we do. It may be just as difficult to escape his omniscience as it is to run away from your own shadow. However-- and this is where I have begun to devise a plan--it is not certain that the major has already decided on everything that is to happen. He may not decide before the very last minute--that is to say, in the moment of creation. Precisely at such moments we may possibly have an initiative of our own which guides what we say and do. Such an initiative would naturally constitute extremely weak impulses compared to the major's heavy artillery. We are very likely defenseless against intrusive external forces such as talking dogs, messages in bananas, and thunderstorms booked in advance. But we cannot rule out our stubbornness, however weak it may be." "How could that be possible?" "The major naturally knows everything about our little world, but that doesn't mean he is all powerful. At any rate we must try to live as if he is not." "I think I see where you're going with this." "The trick would be if we could manage to do something all on our own--something the major would not be able to discover." "How can we do that if we don't even exist?" "Who said we don't exist? The question is not whether we are, but what we are and who we are. Even if it turns out that we are merely impulses in the major's dual personality, that need not take our little bit of existence away from us." "Or our free will?" "I'm working on it, Sophie." "But Hilde's father must be fully aware that you are working on it." "Decidedly so. But he doesn't know what the actual plan is. I am attempting to find an Archimedian point." "An Archimedian point?" "Archimedes was a Greek scientist who said 'Give me a firm point on which to stand and I will move the earth.' That's the kind of point we must find to move ourselves out of the major's inner universe." "That would be quite a feat." "But we won't manage to slip away before we have finished the philosophy course. While that lasts he has much too firm a grip on us. He has clearly decided that I am to guide you through the centuries right up to our own time. But we only have a few days left before he boards a plane somewhere down in the Middle East. If we haven't succeeded in detaching ourselves from his gluey imagination before he arrives at Bjerkely, we are done for." "You're frightening me!" "First of all I shall give you the most important facts about the French Enlightenment. Then we shall take the main outline of Kant's philosophy so that we can get to Romanticism. Hegel will also be a significant part of the picture for us. And in talking about him we will unavoidably touch on Kierkegaard's indignant clash with Hegelian philosophy. We shall briefly talk about Marx, Darwin, and Freud. And if we can manage a few closing comments on Sartre and Existentialism, our plan can be put into operation." "That's an awful lot for one week." "That's why we must begin at once. Can you come over right away?" "I have to go to school. We are having a class get-together and then we get our grades." "Drop it. If we are only fictive, it's pure imagination that candy and soda have any taste." "But my grades ..." "Sophie, either you are living in a wondrous universe on a tiny planet in one of many hundred billion galaxies-- or else you are the result of a few electromagnetic impulses in the major's mind. And you are talking about grades! You ought to be ashamed of yourself!" "I'm sorry." "But you'd better go to school before we meet. It might have a bad influence on Hilde if you cut your last school-day. She probably goes to school even on her birthday. She is an angel, you know." "So I'll come straight from school." "We can meet at the major's cabin." "The major's cabin?" ... Click! Hilde let the ring binder slide into her lap. Her father had given her conscience a dig there--she did cut her last day at school. How sneaky of him! She sat for a while wondering what the plan was that Alberto was devising. Should she sneak a look at the last page? No, that would be cheating. She'd better hurry up and read it to the end. But she was convinced Alberto was right on one important point. One thing was that her father had an overview of what was going to happen to Sophie and Alberto. But while he was writing, he probably didn't know everything that would happen. He might dash off something in a great hurry, something he might not notice till long after he had written it. In a situation like that Sophie and Alberto would have a certain amount of leeway. Once again Hilde had an almost transfiguring conviction that Sophie and Alberto really existed. Still waters run deep, she thought to herself. Why did that idea come to her? It was certainly not a thought that rippled the surface. At school, Sophie received lots of attention because it was her birthday. Her classmates were already keyed up by thoughts of summer vacation, and grades, and the sodas on the last day of school. The minute the teacher dismissed the class with her best wishes for the vacation, Sophie ran home. Joanna tried to slow her down but Sophie called over her shoulder that there was something she just had to do. In the mailbox she found two cards from Lebanon. They were both birthday cards: HAPPY BIRTHDAY--15 YEARS. One of them was to "Hilde M0ller Knag, c/o Sophie Amundsen . . ." But the other one was to Sophie herself. Both cards were stamped "UN Battalion--June 15." Sophie read her own card first: Dear Sophie Amundsen, Today you are getting a card as well. Happy birthday, Sophie, and many thanks for everything you have done for Hilde. Best regards, Major Albert Knag. Sophie was not sure how to react, now that Hilde's father had finally written to her too. Hilde's card read: Dear Hilde, I have no idea what day or time it is in Lillesand. But, as I said, it doesn't make much difference. If I know you, I am not too late for a last, or next to last, greeting from down here. But don't stay up too late! Alberto will soon be telling you about the French Enlightenment. He will concentrate on seven points. They are: 1. Opposition to authority 2. Rationalism 3. The enlightenment movement 4. Cultural optimism 5. The return to nature 6. Natural religion 7. Human rights The major was obviously still keeping his eye on them. Sophie let herself in and put her report card with all the A's on the kitchen table. Then she slipped through the hedge and ran into the woods. Soon she was once again rowing across the little lake. Alberto was sitting on the doorstep when she got to the cabin. He invited her to sit beside him. The weather was fine although a slight mist of damp raw air was coming off the lake. It was as though it had not quite recovered from the storm. "Let's get going right away," said Alberto. "After Hume, the next great philosopher was the German, Immanuel Kant. But France also had many important thinkers in the eighteenth century. We could say that the philosophical center of gravity h. Europe in the eighteenth century was in England in the first half, in France in the middle, and in Germany toward the end of it." "A shift from west to east, in other words." "Precisely. Let me outline some of the ideas that many of the French Enlightenment philosophers had in common. The important names are Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Rousseau, but there were many, many others. I shall concentrate on seven points." "Thanks, that I am painfully aware of." Sophie handed him the card from Hilde's father. Alberto sighed deeply. "He could have saved himself the trouble ... the first key words, then, are opposition to authority. Many of the French Enlightenment philosophers visited England, which was in many ways more liberal than their home country, and were intrigued by the English natural sciences, especially Newton and his universal physics. But they were also inspired by British philosophy, in particular by Locke and his political philos-ophy. Once back in France, they became increasingly opposed to the old authority. They thought it was essential to remain skeptical of all inherited truths, the idea being that the individual must find his own answer to every question. The tradition of Descartes was very inspiring in this respect." "Because he was the one who built everything up from the ground." "Quite so. The opposition to authority was not least directed against the power of the clergy, the king, and the nobility. During the eighteenth century, these institu-tions had far more power in France than they had in England." "Then came the French Revolution." "Yes, in 1789. But the revolutionary ideas arose much earlier. The next key word is rationalism." "I thought rationalism went out with Hume." "Hume himself did not die until 1776. That was about twenty years after Montesquieu and only two years before Voltaire and Rousseau, who both died in 1778. But all three had been to England and were familiar with the philosophy of Locke. You may recall that Locke was not consistent in his empiricism. He believed, for example, that faith in God and certain moral norms were inherent in human reason. This idea is also the core of the French Enlightenment." "You also said that the French have always been more rational than the British." "Yes, a difference that goes right back to the Middle Ages. When the British speak of 'common sense,' the French usually speak of 'evident.' The English expression means 'what everybody knows,' the French means 'what is obvious'--to one's reason, that is." "I see." "Like the humanists of antiquity--such as Socrates and the Stoics--most of the Enlightenment philosophers had an unshakable faith in human reason. This was so characteristic that the French Enlightenment is often called the Age of Reason. The new natural sciences had revealed that nature was subject to reason. Now the Enlightenment philosophers saw it as their duty to lay a foundation for morals, religion, and ethics in accordance with man's immutable reason. This led to the enlightenment movement." "The third point." "Now was the time to start 'enlightening' the masses. This was to be the basis for a better society. People thought that poverty and oppression were the fault of ig-norance and superstition. Great attention was therefore focused on the education of children and of the people. It is no accident that the science of pedagogy was founded during the Enlightenment." "So schools date from the Middle Ages, and pedagogy from the Enlightenment." "You could say that. The greatest monument to the enlightenment movement was characteristically enough a huge encyclopedia. I refer to the Encyclopedia in 28 volumes published during the years from 1751 to 1772. All the great philosophers and men of letters contributed to it. 'Everything is to be found here,' it was said, 'from the way needles are made to the way cannons are founded.' " "The next point is cultural optimism," Sophie said. "Would you oblige me by putting that card away while I am talking?" "Excuse me." "The Enlightenment philosophers thought that once reason and knowledge became widespread, humanity would make great progress. It could only be a question of time before irrationalism and ignorance would give way to an 'enlightened' humanity. This thought was dominant in Western Europe until the last couple of decades. Today we are no longer so convinced that all 'developments' are to the good. "But this criticism of 'civilization' was already being voiced by French Enlightenment philosophers." "Maybe we should have listened to them." "For some, the new catchphrase was back to nature. But 'nature' to the Enlightenment philosophers meant almost the same as 'reason/ since human reason was a gift of nature rather than of religion or of 'civilization.' It was observed that the so-called primitive peoples were frequently both healthier and happier than Europeans, and this, it was said, was because they had not been 'civilized.' Rousseau proposed the catchphrase, 'We should return to nature.' For nature is good, and man is 'by nature' good; it is civilization which ruins him. Rousseau also believed that the child should be allowed to remain in its 'naturally' innocent state as long as possible. It would not be wrong to say that the idea of the intrinsic value of childhood dates from the Enlightenment. Previously, childhood had been considered merely a preparation for adult life. But we are all human beings--and we live our life on this earth, even when we are children." "I should think so!" "Religion, they thought, had to be made natural." "What exactly did they mean by that?" "They meant that religion also had to be brought into harmony with 'natural' reason. There were many who fought for what one could call a natural religion, and that is the sixth point on the list. At the time there were a lot of confirmed materialists who did not believe in a God, and who professed to atheism. But most of the Enlightenment philosophers thought it was irrational to imagine a world without God. The world was far too rational for that. Newton held the same view, for example. It was also considered rational to believe in the immortality of the soul. Just as for Descartes, whether or not man has an immortal soul was held to be more a question of reason than of faith." "That I find very strange. To me, it's a typical case of what you believe, not of what you know." "That's because you don't live in the eighteenth century. According to the Enlightenment philosophers, what religion needed was to be stripped of all the irrational dogmas or doctrines that had got attached to the simple teachings of Jesus during the course of ecclesiastical history." "I see." "Many people consequently professed to what is known as Deism." "What is that?" "By Deism we mean a belief that God created the world ages and ages ago, but has not revealed himself to the world since. Thus God is reduced to the 'Supreme Being' who only reveals himself to mankind through nature and natural laws, never in any 'supernatural' way. We find a similar 'philosophical God' in the writings of Aristotle. For him, God was the 'formal cause' or 'first mover.' " "So now there's only one point left, human rights." "And yet this is perhaps the most important. On the whole, you could say that the French Enlightenment was more practical than the English philosophy." "You mean they lived according to their philosophy?" "Yes, very much so. The French Enlightenment philosophers did not content themselves with theoretical views on man's place in society. They fought actively for what they called the 'natural rights' of the citizen. At first, this took the form of a campaign against censorship--for the freedom of the press. But also in matters of religion, morals, and politics, the individual's right to freedom of thought and utterance had to be secured. They also fought for the abolition of slavery and for a more humane treatment of criminals." "I think I agree with most of that." "The principle of the 'inviolability of the individual' culminated in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen adopted by the French National Assembly in 178V. This Declaration of Human Rights was the basis for our own Norwegian Constitution of 1814." "But a lot of people still have to fight for these rights." "Yes, unhappily. But the Enlightenment philosophers wanted to establish certain rights that everybody was entitled to simply by being born. That was what they meant by natural rights. "We still speak of a 'natural right' which can often be in conflict with the laws of the land. And we constantly find individuals, or even whole nations, that claim this 'natural right' when they rebel against anarchy, servitude, and oppression." "What about women's rights?" "The French Revolution in 1787 established a number of rights for all 'citizens.' But a citizen was nearly always considered to be a man. Yet it was the French Revolution that gave us the first inklings of feminism." "It was about time!" "As early as 1787 the Enlightenment philosopher Condorcet published a treatise on the rights of women. He held that women had the same 'natural rights' as men. During the Revolution of 1789, women were extremely active in the fight against the old feudal regime. For example, it was women who led the demonstrations that forced the king away from his palace at Versailles. Women's groups were formed in Paris. In addition to the demand for the same political rights as men, they also demanded changes in the marriage laws and in women's social conditions." "Did they get equal rights?" "No. Just as on so many subsequent occasions, the question of women's rights was exploited in the heat of the struggle, but as soon as things fell into place in a new regime, the old male-dominated society was re-introduced." "Typical!" "One of those who fought hardest for the rights of women during the French Revolution was Olympe de Gouges. In 1791--two years after the revolution--she published a declaration on the rights of women. The declaration on the rights of the citizen had not included any article on women's natural rights. Olympe de Gouges now demanded all the same rights for women as for men." "What happened?" "She was beheaded in 1793. And all political activity for women was banned." "How shameful!" "It was not until the nineteenth century that feminism really got under way, not only in France but also in the rest of Europe. Little by little this struggle began to bear fruit. But in Norway, for example, women did not get the right to vote until 1913. And women in many parts of the world still have a lot to fight for." "They can count on my support." Alberto sat looking across at the lake. After a minute or two he said: "That was more or less what I wanted to say about the Enlightenment." "What do you mean by more or less?" "I have the feeling there won't be any more." But as he said this, something began to happen in the middle of the lake. Something was bubbling up from the depths. A huge and hideous creature rose from the surface. "A sea serpent!" cried Sophie. The dark monster coiled itself back and forth a few times and then disappeared back into the depths. The water wa
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 25楼  发表于: 2013-10-27 0
[content too large, truncated for display]
英文原文
[table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,1]
Bjerkely
an old magic mirror Great-grandmother had bought from a Gypsy woman ...
Hilde Moller Knag awoke in the attic room in the old captain's house outside Lillesand. She glanced at the clock. It was only six o'clock, but it was already light. Broad rays of morning sun lit up the room.
She got out of bed and went to the window. On the way she stopped by the desk and tore a page off her calendar. Thursday, June 14, 1990. She crumpled the page up and threw it in her wastebasket.
Friday, June 15, 1990, said the calendar now, shining at her. Way back in January she had written "15th birthday" on this page. She felt it was extra-special to be fifteen on the fifteenth. It would never happen again.
Fifteen! Wasn't this the first day of her adult life? She couldn't just go back to bed. Furthermore, it was the last day of school before the summer vacation. The students just had to appear in church at one o'clock. And what was more, in a week Dad would be home from Lebanon. He had promised to be home for Midsummer Eve.
Hilde stood by the window and looked out over the garden, down toward the dock behind the little red boat-house. The motorboat had not yet been brought out for the summer, but the old rowboat was tied up to the dock. She must remember to bail the water out of it after last night's heavy downpour.
As she was looking out over the little bay, she remembered the time when as a little girl of six she had climbed up into the rowboat and rowed out into the bay alone. She had fallen overboard and it was all she could do to struggle ashore. Drenched to the skin, she had pushed her way through the thicket hedge. As she stood in the garden looking up at the house, her mother had come running toward her. The boat and both oars were left afloat in the bay. She still dreamed about the boat sometimes, drifting on its own, abandoned. It had been an embarrassing experience.
The garden was neither especially luxuriant nor particularly well kept. But it was large and it was Hilde's. A weather-beaten apple tree and a few practically barren fruit bushes had just about survived the severe winter storms. The old glider stood on the lawn between granite rocks and thicket. It looked so forlorn in the sharp morning light. Even more so because the cushions had been taken in. Mom had probably hurried out late last night and rescued them from the rain.
There were birch trees--bj0rketreer--all around the large garden, sheltering it partly, at least, from the worst squalls. It was because of those trees that the house had been renamed Bjerkely over a hundred years ago.
Hilde's great-grandfather had built the house some years before the turn of the century. He had been a captain on one of the last tall sailing ships. There were a lot of people who continued to call it the captain's house.
That morning the garden still showed signs of the heavy rain that had suddenly started late last evening. Hilde had been awakened several times by bursts of thunder. But today there was not a cloud in the sky.
Everything is so fresh after a summer storm like that. It had been hot and dry for several weeks and the tips of the leaves on the birch trees had started to turn yellow. Now it was as if the whole world had been newly washed. It seemed as if even her childhood had been washed away with the storm.
"Indeed, there is pain when spring buds burst..." Wasn't there a Swedish poet who had said something like that? Or was she Finnish?
Hilde stood in front of the heavy brass mirror hanging on the wall above Grandmother's old dresser.
Was she pretty? She wasn't ugly, anyway. Maybe she was kind of in-between ...
She had long, fair hair. Hilde had always wished her hair could be either a bit fairer or a bit darker. This in-between color was so mousy. On the positive side, there were these soft curls. Lots of her friends struggled to get their hair to curl just a little bit, but Hilde's hair had always been naturally curly. Another positive feature, she thought, were her deep green eyes. "Are they really green?" her aunts and uncles used to say as they bent over to look at her.
Hilde considered whether the image she was studying was that of a girl or that of a young woman. She decided it was neither. The body might be quite womanly, but the face reminded her of an unripe apple.
There was something about this old mirror that always made Hilde think of her father. It had once hung down in the "studio." The studio, over the boathouse, was her father's combined library, writer's workshop, and retreat. Albert, as Hilde called him when he was home, had always wanted to write something significant. Once he had tried to write a novel, but he never finished it. From time to time he had had a few poems and sketches of the archipelago published in a national journal. Hilde was so proud every time she saw his name in print. ALBERT KNAG. It meant something in Lillesan^, anyway. Her great-grandfather's name had also been Albert.
The mirror. Many years ago her father had joked about not being able to wink at your own reflection with both eyes at the same time, except in this brass mirror. It was an exception because it was an old magic mirror Great-grandmother had bought from a Gypsy woman just after her wedding.
Hilde had tried for ages, but it was just as hard to wink at yourself with both eyes as to run away from your own shadow. In the end she had been given the old family heirloom to keep. Through the years she had tried from time to time to master the impossible art.
Not surprisingly, she was pensive today. And not unnaturally, she was preoccupied with herself. Fifteen years old ...
She happened to glance at her bedside table. There was a large package there. It had pretty blue wrapping and was tied with a red silk ribbon. It must be a birthday present!
Could this be the present? The great big present from Dad that had been so very secret? He had dropped so many cryptic hints in his cards from Lebanon. But he had "imposed a severe censorship on himself."
The present was something that "grew bigger and bigger," he had written. Then he had said something about a girl she was soon to meet--and that he had sent copies of all his cards to her. Hilde had tried to pump her mother for clues, but she had no idea what he meant, either.
The oddest hint had been that the present could perhaps be "shared with other people." He wasn't working for the UN for nothing! If her father had one bee in his bonnet--and he had plenty--it was that the. UN ought to be a kind of world government. May the UN one day really be able to unite the whole of humanity, he had written on one of his cards.
Was she allowed to open the package before her mother came up to her room singing "Happy Birthday to You," with pastry and a Norwegian flag? Surely that was why it had been put there?
She walked quietly across the room and picked up the package. It was heavy! She found the tag: To Hilde on her 15th birthday from Dad.
She sat on the bed and carefully untied the red silk ribbon. Then she undid the blue paper.
It was a large ring binder.
Was this her present? Was this the fifteenth-birthday present that there had been so much fuss about? The present that grew bigger and bigger and could be shared with other people?
A quick glance showed that the ring binder was rilled with typewritten pages. Hilde recognized them as being from her father's typewriter, the one he had taken with him to Lebanon.
Had he written a whole book for her?
On the first page, in large handwritten letters, was the title, SOPHIE'S WORLD.
Farther down the page there were two typewritten lines of poetry:
TRUE ENLIGHTENMENT IS TO MAN LIKE SUNLIGHT TO THE SOIL
--N.F.S. Grundtvig
Hilde turned to the next page, to the beginning of the first chapter. It was entitled "The Garden of Eden." She got into bed, sat up comfortably, resting the ring binder against her knees, and began to read.
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?
Hilde read on, oblivious of all else, even forgetting that it was her birthday. From time to time a brief thought crept in between the lines as she read: Had Dad written a book? Had he finally begun on the significant novel and completed it in Lebanon? He had often complained that time hung heavily on one's hands in that part of the world.
Sophie's father was far from home, too. She was probably the girl Hilde would be getting to know ...
Only by conjuring up an intense feeling of one day being dead could she appreciate how terribly good life was... . Where does the world come from? ... 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?
Hilde read on and on. With surprise, she read about Sophie Amundsen receiving a postcard from Lebanon: "Hilde Moller Knag, c/o Sophie Amundsen, 3 Clover Close..."
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.
The joker! Hilde knew her father had always been a sly one, but today he had really taken her by surprise! Instead of tying the card on the package, he had written it into the book.
But poor Sophie! She must have been totally confused!
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?
No, how could she?
Hilde turned a couple of pages and began to read the second chapter, "The Top Hat." She soon came to the long letter which a mysterious person had written to Sophie.
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.
"Sophie was completely exhausted." So was Hilde. Not only had Dad written a book for her fifteenth birthday, he had written a strange and wonderful book.
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 . . .
Sophie was not the only one who felt she had been on the point of finding herself a comfortable place deep down in the rabbit's fur. Today was Hilde's fifteenth birthday, and she had the feeling it was time to decide which way she would choose to crawl.
She read about the Greek natural philosophers. Hilde knew that her father was interested in philosophy. He had written an article in the newspaper proposing that philosophy should be a regular school subject. It was called "Why should philosophy be part of the school curriculum?" He had even raised the issue at a PTA meeting in Hilde's class. Hilde had found it acutely em-barrassing.
She looked at the clock. It was seven-thirty. It would probably be half an hour before her mother came up with the breakfast tray, thank goodness, because right now she was engrossed in Sophie and all the philosophical questions. She read the chapter called "Democritus." First of all, Sophie got a question to think about: Why is Lego the most ingenious toy in the world? Then she found a large brown envelope in the mailbox:
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.
Hilde was indignant when Sophie found the red silk scarf under her bed. So that was where it was! But how could a scarf just disappear into a story? It had to be someplace...
The chapter on Socrates began with Sophie reading "something about the Norwegian UN battalion in Lebanon" in the newspaper. Typical Dad! He was so concerned that people in Norway were not interested enough in the UN forces' peacekeeping task. If nobody else was, then Sophie would have to be. In that way he could write it into his story and get some sort of attention from the media.
She had to smile as she read the P.P.S. in the philosophy teacher's letter to Sophie:
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.
Hilde heard her mother's footsteps on the stairs. Before she knocked on the door, Hilde had begun to read about Sophie's discovery of the video of Athens in her secret den.
"Happy birthday ..." Her mother had begun to sing halfway up the stairs.
"Come in," said Hilde, in the middle of the passage where the philosophy teacher was talking directly to Sophie from the Acropolis. He looked almost exactly like Hilde's father--with a "black, well-trimmed beard" and a blue beret.
"Happy birthday, Hilde!"
"Uh-huh."
"Hilde?"
"Just put it there."
"Aren't you going to ... ?"
"You can see I'm reading."
"Imagine, you're fifteen!"
"Have you ever been to Athens, Mom?"
"No, why do you ask?"
"It's so amazing that those old temples are still standing. They are actually 2,500 years old. The biggest one is called the Virgin's Place, by the way."
"Have you opened your present from Dad?"
"What present?"
"You must look up now, Hilde. You're in a complete daze."
Hilde let the large ring binder slide down onto her lap.
Her mother stood leaning over the bed with the tray. On it were lighted candles, buttered rolls with shrimp salad, and a soda. There was also a small package. Her mother stood awkwardly holding the tray with both hands, with a flag under one arm.
"Oh, thanks a lot, Mom. It's sweet of you, but I'm really busy."
"You don't have to go to school till one o'clock."
Not until now did Hilde remember where she was, and her mother put the tray down on the bedside table.
"Sorry, Mom. I was completely absorbed in this."
"What is it he has written, Hilde? I've been just as mystified as you. It's been impossible to get a sensible word out of him for months."
For some reason Hilde felt embarrassed. "Oh, it's just a story."
"A story?"
"Yes, a story. And a history of philosophy. Or something like that."
"Aren't you going to open the package from me?"
Hilde didn't want to be unfair, so she opened her mother's present right away. It was a gold bracelet.
"It's lovely, Mom! Thank you very much!"
Hilde got out of bed and gave her mother a hug.
They sat talking for a while.
Then Hilde said, "I have to get back to the book, Mom. Right now he's standing on top of the Acropolis."
"Who is?"
"I've no idea. Neither has Sophie. That's the whole point."
"Well, I have to get to work. Don't forget to eat something. Your dress is on a hanger downstairs."
Finally her mother disappeared down the stairs. So did Sophie's philosophy teacher; he walked down the steps from the Acropolis and stood on the Areopagos rock before appearing a little later in the old square of Athens.
Hilde shivered when the old buildings suddenly rose from the ruins. One of her father's pet ideas had been to let all the United Nations countries collaborate in reconstructing an exact copy of the Athenian square. It would be the forum for philosophical discussion and also for disarmament talks. He felt that a giant project like that would forge world unity. "We have, after all, succeeded in building oil rigs and moon rockets."
Then she read about Plato. "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 ..."
Sophie had crawled through the hedge and followed Hermes, but the dog had escaped her. After having read about Plato, she had gone farther into the woods and come upon the red cabin by the little lake. Inside hung a painting of Bjerkely. From the description it was clearly meant to be Hilde's Bjerkely. But there was also a portrait of a man named Berkeley. "How odd!"
Hilde laid the heavy ring binder aside on the bed and went over to her bookshelf and looked him up in the three-volume encyclopedia she had been given on her fourteenth birthday. Here he was--Berkeley!
Berkeley, George, 1685-1753, Eng. Philos., Bishop of Cloyne. Denied existence of a material world beyond the human mind. Our sense perceptions proceed from God. Main work: A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710).
Yes, it was decidedly odd. Hilde stood thinking for a few seconds before going back to bed and the ring binder.
In one way, it was her father who had hung the two pictures on the wall. Could there be any connection other than the similarity of names?
Berkeley was a philosopher who denied the existence of a material world beyond the human mind. That was certainly very strange, one had to admit. But it was not easy to disprove such claims, either. As regards Sophie, it fitted very well. After all, Hilde's father was respon-sible for her "sense perceptions."
Well, she would know more if she read on. Hilde looked up from the ring binder and smiled when she got to the point where Sophie discovers the reflection of a girl who winks with both eyes. "The other girl had winked at Sophie as if to say: I can see you, Sophie. I am here, on the other side."
Sophie finds the green wallet in the cabin as well-- with the money and everything! How could it have made its way there?
Absurd! For a second or two Hilde had really believed that Sophie had found it. But then she tried to imagine how the whole thing must appear to Sophie. It must all seem quite inscrutable and uncanny.
For the first time Hilde felt a strong desire to meet Sophie face to face. She felt like telling her the real truth about the whole business.
But now Sophie had to get out of the cabin before she was caught red-handed. The boat was adrift on the lake, of course. (Her father couldn't resist reminding her of that old story, could he!)
Hilde gulped a mouthful of soda and took a bite of her roll while she read the letter about the "meticulous" Aristotle, who had criticized Plato's theories.
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."
Hilde had not known that it was Aristotle who had invented the game of "animal, vegetable, or mineral."
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.
When she read about Aristotle's view of women she was both irritated and disappointed. Imagine being such a brilliant philosopher and yet such a crass idiot!
Aristotle had inspired Sophie to clean up her own room. And there, together with all the other stuff, she found the white stocking which had disappeared from Hilde's closet a month ago! Sophie put all the pages she had gotten from Alberto into a ring binder. "There were in all over fifty pages." For her own part, Hilde had gotten up to page 124, but then she also had Sophie's story on top of all the correspondence from Alberto Knox.
The next chapter was called "Hellenism." First of all, Sophie finds a postcard with a picture of a UN jeep. It is stamped UN Battalion, June 15. Another of these "cards" to Hilde that her father had put into the story instead of sending by mail.
Dear Hilde, I assume you are still celebrating your fifteenth 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.
Not bad! That made her 150 crowns richer. He probably thought a homemade present alone wasn't enough.
So it appeared that June 15 was Sophie's birthday, too. But Sophie's calendar had only gotten as far as the middle of May. That must have been when her father had written this chapter, and he had postdated the "birthday card" to Hilde. But poor Sophie, running down 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.
Hilde, like Sophie, was elevated to the celestial spheres as she read about Plotinus.
I believe 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 the 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 greatest mystery of life. In truth, at very rare moments we can experience that we ourselves are that divine mystery.
This was the most giddying passage Hilde had read up to now. But it was nevertheless the simplest. Everything is one, and this "one" is a divine mystery that everyone shares.
This was not really something you needed to believe. It is so, thought Hilde. So everyone can read what they like into the word "divine."
She turned quickly to the next chapter. Sophie and Joanna go camping the night before the national holiday on May 17. They make their way to the major's cabin...
Hilde had not read many pages before she flung the bedclothes angrily aside, got up, and began to walk up and down, clutching the ring binder in her hands.
This was just about the most impudent trick she had ever heard of. In that little hut in the woods, her father lets these two girls find copies of all the cards he had sent Hilde in the first two weeks of May. And the copies were real enough. Hilde had read the very same words over and over. She recognized every single word.
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. . .
Sophie gets a new lesson from Alberto. It's all about Jews and Greeks and the two great cultures. Hilde liked getting this wide bird's-eye view of history. She had never learned anything like it at school. They only gave you details and more details. She now saw Jesus and Christianity in a completely new light.
She liked the quote from Goethe: "He who cannot draw on three thousand years is living from hand to mouth."
The next chapter began with a piece of card which sticks to Sophie's kitchen window. It is a new birthday card for Hilde, of course.
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. . .
Then Alberto calls Sophie, and this is the first time she hears his voice.
"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."
And then Sophie meets Alberto Knox disguised as a medieval monk in the twelfth-century stone church.
Oh, no, the church! Hilde looked at the time. A quarter past one ... She had forgotten all about the time.
Maybe it wouldn't matter so much that she cut school on her birthday. But it did mean that her classmates wouldn't be celebrating with her. Oh well, she had always had plenty of well-wishers.
Soon she found herself receiving a long sermon. Alberto had no problem slipping into the role of a medieval priest.
When she read about how Sophia had appeared to Hildegard in visions, she turned once again to her encyclopedia. But this time she found nothing about either of them. Wasn't that typical! As soon as it was a question of women or something to do with women, the en-cyclopedia was about as informative as a moon crater. Was the whole work censored by the Society for the Protection of Men?
Hildegard of Bingen was a preacher, a writer, a doctor, a botanist, and a biologist. She was "perhaps an example of the fact that women were often more practical, more scientific even, in the Middle Ages."
But there was not a single word about her in the encyclopedia. How scandalous!
Hilde had never heard that God had a "female side" or a "mother nature." Her name was Sophia, apparently--but she was apparently not worth printer's ink, either.
The nearest she could find in the encyclopedia was an entry about the Santa Sophia Church in Constantinople (now Istanbul), named Hagia Sophia, which means Sacred Wisdom. But there was nothing about it being female. That was censorship, wasn't it?
Otherwise, it was true enough that Sophie had revealed herself to Hilde. She was picturing the girl with the straight hair all the time ...
When Sophie gets home after spending most of the morning in St. Mary's Church, she stands in front of the brass mirror she took home from the cabin in the woods.
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.
How many times had Hilde stood in front of the mirror like that as if she was searching for someone else behind the glass? But how could her father have known that?
Wasn't it also a dark-haired woman she had been searching for? Great-grandmother had bought it from a Gypsy woman, hadn't she? Hilde felt her hands shaking as they held the book. She had the feeling that Sophie really existed somewhere "on the other side."
Now Sophie is dreaming about Hilde and Bjerkely. Hilde can neither see nor hear her, but then--Sophie finds Hilde's gold crucifix on the dock. And the crucifix--with Hilde's initials and everything--is in Sophie's bed when she wakes after her dream!
Hilde forced herself to think hard. Surely she hadn't lost her crucifix as well? She went to her dresser and took out her jewelry case. The crucifix, which she had received as a christening gift from her grandmother, was not there!
So she really had lost it. All right, but how had her father known it when she didn't even know it herself?
And another thing: Sophie had apparently dreamed that Hilde's father came home from Lebanon. But there was still a week to go before that happened. Was Sophie's dream prophetic? Did her father mean that when he came home Sophie would somehow be there? He had written that she would get a new friend ...
In a momentary vision of absolute clarity Hilde knew that Sophie was more than just paper and ink. She really existed.



[/td][td=1,1,60%]
中文翻译
[table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,1][tr][td]   柏客来    ……曾祖母向一名吉普赛妇人买的一面古老魔镜……    在黎乐桑郊区古老的船长屋的阁楼里,席德醒来了。她看看钟,才六点,但天色已经大亮。早晨的太阳已经将房间内的一整面墙壁都照亮了。    她起床走向窗前,经过书桌时停了一下,看见桌上写着:一九九O年六月十四日星期四。她把这页撕了下来,揉成一团,丢进字纸篓中。    现在桌历上的日期是一九九O年六月十五日星期五,簇新的日历纸闪闪发亮。早在今年一月时,她就在这一页上写下了“十五岁生日”这几个字。她觉得能在十五日这一天过十五岁生日实在很特别。这种机会一生只有一次。    十五岁!今天岂不是她过成人生活的第一天吗?所以,她不能再回床上去睡了。再说,今天是学校放暑假前的最后一天,学生下午一点钟必须在教堂集合。更何况,再过一个星期,爸爸就从黎巴嫩回来了。他答应要在仲夏节前回家。    席德站在窗前,俯瞰着外面的花园,以及红色的小船屋后面的平台。夏天用的汽艇还没有抬出来,但那条老旧的小船已经系在平台边了。她想到昨夜的那场倾盆大雨,便提醒自己今天一定要记得把小舟里的积水舀出来。    现在,她俯视着那个小海湾,想起她还是个六岁的小女孩时,有一次曾经爬进那条小船,独自一人划到狭湾去。后来她掉到水里,勉强挣扎着上岸,然后浑身湿淋淋的穿过矮树篱;当她站在花园里仰望着她家的房子时,她妈妈跑过来了。那条小船和两支桨就一直在狭湾里漂浮着。如今她偶尔还会梦见小船空无一人、径自漂流的情景。那真是很令人难为情的一次经验。    她家的这座园子花草既不特别繁茂,也没有经过刻意修整,但却相当宽敞。这是属于她的花园。园里那棵久经风霜的苹果树和几株光秃秃的灌木经过严寒的冬季暴风雪洗礼之后,仍然劲挺。在早晨明亮的阳光下,花岗岩与灌木丛之间的草坪上那座老旧的秋千显得分外孤零。秋千上的沙发垫子已经不见了。可能是昨天夜里妈妈匆匆跑出去收进来以免被雨淋湿。    为了避免暴风的吹袭,这座大花园四周都种有桦树。正是因为这些桦树,这栋房子才在一百多年前被改名为“柏客来”山庄。    这座山庄是在十九世纪末由席德的曾祖父兴建的。他是一艘大帆船的船长,也因此到现在还有许多人称这座宅子为“船长屋”。    今天早晨花园里仍留有昨夜豪雨的痕迹。这场雨在昨天黄昏时突然下�
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 24楼  发表于: 2013-10-27 0
英文原文
Berkeley
like a giddy planet round a burning sun
Alberto walked over to the window facing the town. Sophie followed him. While they stood looking out at the old houses, a small plane flew in over the rooftops. Fixed to its tail was a long banner which Sophie guessed would be advertising some product or local event, a rock concert perhaps. But as it approached and turned, she saw quite a different message: HAPPY BIRTHDAY, HILDE!
"Gate-crasher," was Alberto's only comment.
Heavy black clouds from the hills to the south were now beginning to gather over the town. The little plane disappeared into the grayness.
"I'm afraid there's going to be a storm," said Alberto.
"So I'll take the bus home."
"I only hope the major isn't behind this, too."
"He's not God Almighty, is he?"
Alberto did not reply. He walked across the room and sat down again by the coffee table.
"We have to talk about Berkeley," he said after a while.
Sophie had already resumed her place. She caught herself biting her nails.
"George Berkeley was an Irish bishop who lived from 1685 to 1753," Alberto began. There was a long silence.
"Berkeley was an Irish bishop ..." Sophie prompted.
"But he was a philosopher as well..."
"Yes?"
"He felt that current philosophies and science were a threat to the Christian way of life, that the all-pervading materialism, not least, represented a threat to the Christian faith in God as creator and preserver of all nature."
"He did?"
"And yet Berkeley was the most consistent of the empiricists."
"He believed we cannot know any more of the world than we can perceive through the senses?"
"More than that. Berkeley claimed that worldly things are indeed as we perceive them, but they are not 'things.' "
"You'll have to explain that."
"You remember that Locke pointed out that we cannot make statements about the 'secondary qualities' of things. We cannot say an apple is green and sour. We can only say we perceive it as being so. But Locke also said that the 'primary qualities' like density, gravity, and weight really do belong to the external reality around us. External reality has, in fact, a material substance."
"I remember that, and I think Locke's division of things was important."
"Yes, Sophie, if only that were all."
"Goon."
"Locke believed--just like Descartes and Spinoza-- that the material world is a reality."
"Yes?"
"This is just what Berkeley questioned, and he did so by the logic of empiricism. He said the only things that exist are those we perceive. But we do not perceive 'material' or 'matter.' We do not perceive things as tangible objects. To assume that what we perceive has its own underlying 'substance' is jumping to conclusions. We have absolutely no experience on which to base such a claim."
"How stupid. Look!" Sophie thumped her fist hard on the table. "Ouch," she said. "Doesn't that prove that this table is really a table, both of material and matter?"
"How did you feel it?"
"I felt something hard."
"You had a sensation of something hard, but you didn't feel the actual matter in the table. In the same way, you can dream you are hitting something hard, but there isn't anything hard in a dream, is there?"
"No, not in a dream."
"A person can also be hypnotized into 'feeling' things like warmth and cold, a caress or a punch."
"But if the table wasn't really hard, why did I feel it?"
"Berkeley believed in a 'spirit.' He thought all our ideas have a cause beyond our consciousness, but that this cause is not of a material nature. It is spiritual."
Sophie had started biting her nails again.
Alberto continued: "According to Berkeley, my own soul can be the cause of my own ideas--just as when I dream--but only another will or spirit can be the cause of the ideas that make up the 'corporeal' world. Everything is due to that spirit which is the cause of 'everything in everything' and which 'all things consist in,' he said."
"What 'spirit' was he talking about?"
"Berkeley was of course thinking of God. He said that 'we can moreover claim that the existence of God is far more clearly perceived than the existence of man."'
"Is it not even certain that we exist?"
"Yes, and no. Everything we see and feel is 'an effect of God's power,' said Berkeley. For God is 'intimately present in our consciousness, causing to exist for us the profusion of ideas and perceptions that we are constantly subject to.' The whole world around us and our whole life exist in God. He is the one cause of everything that exists. We exist only in the mind of God."
"I am amazed, to put it mildly."
"So 'to be or not to be' is not the whole question. The question is also who we are. Are we really human beings of flesh and blood? Does our world consist of real things--or are we encircled by the mind?"
Sophie continued to bite her nails.
Alberto went on: "Material reality was not the only thing Berkeley was questioning. He was also questioning whether 'time' and 'space' had any absolute or independent existence. Our own perception of time and space can also be merely figments of the mind. A week or two for us need not be a week or two for God ..."
"You said that for Berkeley this spirit that everything exists in is the Christian God."
"Yes, I suppose I did. But for us ..."
"Us?"
"For us--for you and me--this 'will or spirit' that is the 'cause of everything in everything' could be Hilde's father."
Sophie's eyes opened wide with incredulity. Yet at the same time a realization began to dawn on her.
"Is that what you think?"
"I cannot see any other possibility. That is perhaps the only feasible explanation for everything that has happened to us. All those postcards and signs that have turned up here and there... Hermes beginning to talk ... my own involuntary slips of the tongue."
"I..."
"Imagine my calling you Sophie, Hilde! I knew all the time that your name wasn't Sophie."
"What are you saying? Now you are definitely confused."
"Yes, my mind is going round and round, my child. Like a giddy planet round a burning sun."
"And that sun is Hilde's father?"
"You could say so."
"Are you saying he's been a kind of God for us?"
"To be perfectly candid, yes. He should be ashamed of himself!"
"What about Hilde herself?"
"She is an angel, Sophie."
"An angel?"
"Hilde is the one this 'spirit' turns to."
"Are you saying that Albert Knag tells Hilde about us?"
"Or writes about us. For we cannot perceive the matter itself that our reality is made of, that much we have learned. We cannot know whether our external reality is made of sound waves or of paper and writing. According to Berkeley, all we can know is that we are spirit."
"And Hilde is an angel..."
"Hilde is an angel, yes. Let that be the last word. Happy birthday, Hilde!"
Suddenly the room was filled with a bluish light. A few seconds later they heard the crash of thunder and the whole house shook.
"I have to go," said Sophie. She got up and ran to the front door. As she let herself out, Hermes woke up from his nap in the hallway. She thought she heard him say, "See you later, Hilde."
Sophie rushed down the stairs and ran out into the street. It was deserted. And now the rain came down in torrents.
One or two cars were plowing through the downpour, but there were no buses in sight. Sophie ran across Main Square and on through the town. As she ran, one thought kept going round and round in her mind: "Tomorrow is my birthday* Isn't it extra bitter to realize that life is only a dream on the day before your fifteenth birthday? It's like dreaming you won a million and then just as you're getting the money you wake up."
Sophie ran across the squelching playing field. Minutes later she saw someone come running toward her. It was her mother. The sky was pierced again and again by angry darts of lightning.
When they reached each other Sophie's mother put her arm around her.
"What's happening to us, little one?"
"I don't know," Sophie sobbed. "It's like a bad dream."





中文翻译
   柏克莱
   ……宛如燃烧的恒星旁一颗晕眩的行星……
   艾伯特走到面向市区的那一扇窗户旁。苏菲也过去站在他身边。
   当他们站在那儿看着外面那些古老的房子时,突然有一架小飞机飞到那些屋顶的上方,机尾挂了一块长布条。苏菲猜想那大概是某项产品、某种活动或某场摇滚音乐会的广告。但是当它飞近,机身转向时,她看到上面写的是:“席德,生日快乐!”
   “不请自来。”艾伯特只说了一句。
   这时,从南边山上下来的浓厚乌云已经开始聚集在市区上方了。小飞机逐渐隐没在灰色的云层中。
   “恐怕会有暴风雨呢。”艾伯特说。
   “所以我回家时必须坐车才行。”
   “我只希望这不是少校的计谋之一。”
   “他又不是万能的上帝。”
   艾伯特没有回答。他走到房间的另一头,再度坐在茶几旁。
   过了一会,他说:“我们得谈谈柏克莱。”
   此时苏菲已经坐回原位。她发现自己开始咬起指甲来。
   柏克莱“柏克莱(GeorgeBerkeley)是爱尔兰的一位天主教的主教,生于一六八五到一七五三年间。”艾伯特开始说,然后便沉默了很长一段时间。
   “你刚才说到柏克莱是爱尔兰的一位主教……”苏菲提醒他。
   “他也是一个哲学家……”
   “是吗?”
   “他觉得当时的哲学与科学潮流可能会对基督徒的生活方式有不利的影响。他认为他那个时代无所不在的唯物主义,将会腐蚀基督徒对于上帝这位创造者与大自然保护者的信心。”
   “是吗?”
   “然而他也是经验主义哲学家中理论最一贯的一位。”
   “他也认为我们对世界的知识只能经由感官的认知而获得吗?”
   “不只是这样。柏克莱宣称世间的事物的确是像我们所感知的那样。但它们并非‘事物’。”
   “请你解释一下好吗?”.“你还记得洛克说我们无法陈述事物的‘次要性质’吗?例如,我们不能说一个苹果是绿的或酸的。我们只能说我们感觉到它是绿的或酸的。但洛克同时也说像密度、比重和重量等‘主要性质’确实是我们周遭的外在真实世界的特性。而外在的真实世界具有物质的实体。”
   “我记得。而且我也认为洛克区分事物的方式是很重要的。”
   “是的,苏菲,但事实上并不只于此。”
   “说下去。”
   “洛克和笛卡尔、史宾诺莎一样,认为物质世界是真实的。”
   “然后呢?”
   “但柏克莱却对这点提出了疑问。他利用经验主义的逻辑提出这个疑问。他说,世间所存在的只有那些我们感受到的事情。但我们并未感受到‘物质’或‘质料’。我们无法察知我们所感受到的事物是否确实存在。他认为,如果我们认定自己所感知到的事物之下有‘实体’存在,我们就是妄下结论,因为我们绝对没有任何经验可以支持这样的说法。”
   “胡说八道!你看!”
   苏菲用拳头重重地捶了一下桌子。
   “好痛。”她说。“难道这不能证明这张桌子的确是一张桌子,既是物质,也是质料?”
   “你觉得这张桌子怎么样呢?”
   “很硬。”
   “你感觉到一个硬的东西,可是你并没有感觉到实际存在于桌子里的物质,对不对?同样的,你可以梦见自己碰到一个硬物,可是梦里不会有硬的东西,对不对?”
   “没错。”
   “人也会在被催眠的状态下‘感觉’冷或热,感觉被人抚摸或被人打了一拳。”
   “可是如果桌子实际上不是硬的,我又怎么会有这种感觉呢?”
   “柏克莱相信人有‘灵’。他认为我们所有的观念都有一个我们意识不到的成因。但这个成因不是物质的,而是精神性的。”
   灵苏菲又开始咬指甲了。艾伯特继续说:“根据柏克莱的看法,我们的灵魂可能是形成我们本身各种概念的原因,就像我们在做梦时一般。但世间只有另外一个意志或灵可能形成造就这个‘形体’世界的诸般概念。他说,万物都是因为这个灵而存在,这个灵乃是‘万物中的万物’的成因,也是‘所有事物存在之处’。”
   “他说的这个‘灵’是怎样的一个东西?”
   “他指的当然是天主。他宣称:‘我们可以说天主的存在比人的存在要更能够让人清楚地感知到。”’“难道连我们是否存在都不确定吗?”
   “可以说是,也可以说不是。柏克莱说,我们所看见、所感觉到的每一件事物都是‘天主力量的作用’,因为天主‘密切存在于我们的意识中,造成那些我们不断体会到的丰富概念与感官体验’。他认为,我们周遭的世界与我们的生命全都存在于天主之中。他是万物唯一的成因,同时我们只存在于天主的心中。”
   “太让人惊讶了。”
   “因此,tobeornottobe并不是唯一的问题。问题在于我们是什么。我们真的是血肉之躯的人类吗?我们的世界是由真实的事物组成的吗?或者我们只是受到心灵的包围?”
   苏菲再度咬起指甲来。艾伯特继续说:“柏克莱不只质疑物质真实性的问题,他也提出了‘时间’和‘空间’是否绝对存在或独立存在的问题。他认为,我们对于时间与空间的认知可能也只是由我们的心灵所虚构的产物而已。我们的----两个星期并不一定等于上帝的一两个星期……”
   “你刚才说柏克莱认为这个万物所存在于其中的灵乃是天主?”
   “是的。但对我们来说……”
   “我们?”
   “……对于你我来说,这个‘造成万物中之万物’的‘意志或灵’可能是席德的父亲。”
   苏菲震惊极了。她的眼睛睁得大大的,一副不可置信的样子。
   但同时她也开始悟出一些道理来。
   “你真的这么想吗?”
   “除此之外,我看不出还有别的可能。只有这样,才能解释我们所经历的这些事情,包括那些到处出现的明信片和标语、汉密士开口说人话……还有我经常不由自主地叫错你的名字。”
   “我……”
   “我居然叫你苏菲,席德。我一直都知道你的名字不叫苏菲。”
   “你说什么?你这回是真的胡涂了。”
   “是的,我的脑子正转呀转的,像围绕燃烧的恒星旋转的一颗晕眩的星球。”
   “而那颗恒星就是席德的父亲吗?”
   “可以这么说。”
   “你是说他有点像是在扮演我们的上帝吗?”
   “坦白说,是的。他应该觉得惭愧才对。”
   “那席德呢?”
   “她是个天使,苏菲。”
   “天使?”
   “因为她是这个‘灵’诉求的对象。”
   “你是说艾勃特把关于我们的事告诉席德?”
   “也可能是写的。因为我们不能感知那组成我们的现实世界的物质,这是我们到目前为止所学到的东西。我们无法得知我们的外在现实世界是由声波组成还是由纸和书写的动作组成。根据柏克莱的说法,我们唯一能够知道的就是我们是灵。”
   “而席德是个天使……”
   “是的,席德是个天使。我们就说到这里为止吧。生日快乐,席德!”
   突然间房里充满了一种红光。几秒钟后,他们听见雷电劈空声音,整栋房子都为之摇撼。
   “我得回家了。”苏菲说。她站起身,跑到前门。她刚走出来,厉本在门廊上睡午觉的汉密士就醒过来了。她走时,仿佛听到它说“再见,席德。”
   苏菲冲下楼梯,跑到街上。整条街都空无一人。雨已经开始滂沱地下着。
   偶尔有一两辆车在雨中穿梭而过。但却连一辆公车的影踪也没有。苏菲跑过大广场,然后穿过市区。她一边跑时,脑中不断浮现一个念头。
   明天就是我的生日了,苏菲心想。在十五岁生日前夕突然领悟到生命只不过是一场梦境而已,那种感觉真是分外苦涩啊!就好像是你中了一百万大奖,正要拿到钱时,却发现这只不过是南柯一梦。
   苏菲啪哒啪哒地跑过泥泞的运动场。几分钟后,她看见有人跑,向她,原来是妈妈。此时闪电正发怒般一再劈过天际。
   当她们跑到彼此身边时,妈妈伸出手臂搂着苏菲。
   “孩子,我们到底发生什么事了?”
   “我不知道,”苏菲啜泣。“好像一场噩梦一样。”





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 23楼  发表于: 2013-10-27 0
[content too large, truncated for display]
英文原文
[table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,1]
Hume
commit it then to the flames
Alberto sat staring down at the table. He finally turned and looked out of the window.
"It's clouding over," said Sophie.
"Yes, it's muggy."
"Are you going to talk about Berkeley now?"
"He was the next of the three British empiricists. But as he is in a category of his own in many ways, we will first concentrate on David Hume, who lived from 1711 to 1776. He stands out as the most important of the empiricists. He is also significant as the person who set the great philosopher Immanuel Kant on the road to his philosophy."
"Doesn't it matter to you that I'm more interested in Berkeley's philosophy?"
"That's of no importance. Hume grew up near Edinburgh in Scotland. His family wanted him to take up law but he felt 'an insurmountable resistance to everything but philosophy and learning.' He lived in the Age of Enlightenment at the same time as great French thinkers like Voltaire and Rousseau, and he traveled widely in Europe before returning to settle down in Edinburgh toward the end of his life. His main work, A Treatise of Human Nature, was published when Hume was twenty-eight years old, but he claimed that he got the idea for the book when he was only fifteen."
"I see I don't have any time to waste."
"You have already begun."
"But if I were going to formulate my own philosophy, it would be quite different from anything I've heard up to now."
"Is there anything in particular that's missing?"
"Well, to start with, all the philosophers you have talked about are men. And men seem to live in a world of their own. I am more interested in the real world, where there are flowers and animals and children that are born and grow up. Your philosophers are always talking about 'man' and 'humans,' and now here's another treatise on 'human nature.' It's as if this 'human' is a middle-aged man. I mean, life begins with pregnancy and birth, and I've heard nothing about diapers or crying babies so far. And hardly anything about love and friendship."
"You are right, of course. But Hume was a philosopher who thought in a different way. More than any other philosopher, he took the everyday world as his starting point. I even think Hume had a strong feeling for the way children--the new citizens of the world-- experienced life."
"I'd better listen then."
"As an empiricist, Hume took it upon himself to clean up all the woolly concepts and thought constructions that these male philosophers had invented. There were piles of old wreckage, both written and spoken, from the Middle Ages and the rationalist philosophy of the seventeenth century. Hume proposed the return to our spontaneous experience of the world. No philosopher 'will ever be able to take us behind the daily experiences or give us rules of conduct that are different from those we get through reflections on everyday life,' he said."
"Sounds promising so far. Can you give any examples?"
"In the time of Hume there was a widespread belief in angels. That is, human figures with wings. Have you ever seen such a creature, Sophie?"
"No."
"But you have seen a human figure?"
"Dumb question."
"You have also seen wings?"
"Of course, but not on a human figure."
"So, according to Hume, an 'angel' is a complex idea. It consists of two different experiences which are not in fact related, but which nevertheless are associated in man's imagination. In other words, it is a false idea which must be immediately rejected. We must tidy up all our thoughts and ideas, as well as our book collections, in the same way. For as Hume put it: If we take in our hands any volume ... let us ask, 'Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?' No. 'Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?' No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
"That was drastic."
"But the world still exists. More fresh and sharply outlined than ever. Hume wanted to know how a child experiences the world. Didn't you say that many of the philosophers you have heard about lived in their own world, and that you were more interested in the real world?"
"Something like that."
"Hume could have said the same thing. But let us follow his train of thought more closely."
"I'm with you."
"Hume begins by establishing that man has two different types of perceptions, namely impressions and ideas. By 'impressions' he means the immediate sensation of external reality. By 'ideas' he means the recollection of such impressions."
"Could you give me an example?"
"If you burn yourself on a hot oven, you get an immediate 'impression.' Afterward you can recollect that you burned yourself. That impression insofar as it is recalled is what Hume calls an 'idea.' The difference is that an impression is stronger and livelier than your reflective memory of that impression. You could say that the sensation is the original and that the idea, or reflection, is only a pale imitation. It is the impression which is the direct cause of the idea stored in the mind."
"I follow you--so far."
"Hume emphasizes further that both an impression and an idea can be either simple or complex. You remember we talked about an apple in connection with Locke. The direct experience of an apple is an example of a complex impression."
"Sorry to interrupt, but is this terribly important?"
"Important? How can you ask? Even though philosophers may have been preoccupied with a number of pseudoproblems, you mustn't give up now over the construction of an argument. Hume would probably agree with Descartes that it is essential to construct a thought process right from the ground."
"Okay, okay."
"Hume's point is that we sometimes form complex ideas for which there is no corresponding object in the physical world. We've already talked about angels. Previously we referred to crocophants. Another example is Pegasus, a winged horse. In all these cases we have to admit that the mind has done a good job of cutting out and pasting together all on its own. Each element was once sensed, and entered the theater of the mind in the form of a real 'impression.' Nothing is ever actually invented by the mind. The mind puts things together and constructs false 'ideas.' "
"Yes, I see. That is important."
"All right, then. Hume wanted to investigate every single idea to see whether it was compounded in a way that does not correspond to reality. He asked: From which impression does this idea originate? First of all he had to find out which 'single ideas' went into the making of a complex idea. This would provide him with a critical method by which to analyze our ideas, and thus enable him to tidy up our thoughts and notions."
"Do you have an example or two?"
"In Hume's day, there were a lot of people who had very clear ideas of 'heaven' or the 'New Jerusalem.' You remember how Descartes indicated that 'clear and distinct' ideas in themselves could be a guarantee that they corresponded to something that really existed?"
"I said I was not especially forgetful."
"We soon realize that our idea of 'heaven' is compounded of a great many elements. Heaven is made up of 'pearly gates,"streets of gold,"angels' by the score and so on and so forth. And still we have not broken everything down into single elements, for pearly gates, streets of gold, and angels are all complex ideas in themselves. Only when we recognize that our idea of heaven consists of single notions such as 'pearl,"gate,"street,"gold,"white-robed figure,' and 'wings' can we ask ourselves if we ever really had any such 'simple impressions.' "
"We did. But we cut out and pasted all these 'simple impressions' into one idea."
"That's just what we did. Because if there is something we humans do when we visualize, it's use scissors and paste. But Hume emphasizes that all the elements we put together in our ideas must at some time have entered the mind in the form of 'simple impressions.' A person who has never seen gold will never be able to visualize streets of gold."
"He was very clever. What about Descartes having a clear and distinct idea of God?"
"Hume had an answer to that too. Let's say we imagine God as an infinitely 'intelligent, wise, and good being.' We have thus a 'complex idea' that consists of something infinitely intelligent, something infinitely wise, and something infinitely good. If we had never known intelligence, wisdom, and goodness, we would never have such an idea of God. Our idea of God might also be that he is a 'severe but just Father'--that is to say, a concept made up of 'severity','justice,' and 'father.' Many critics of religion since Hume have claimed that such ideas of God can be associated with how we experienced our own father when we were little. It was said that the idea of a father led to the idea of a 'heavenly father.' "
"Maybe that's true, but I have never accepted that God had to be a man. Sometimes my mother calls God 'Godiva,' just to even things up."
"Anyway, Hume opposed all thoughts and ideas that could not be traced back to corresponding sense perceptions. He said he wanted to 'dismiss all this meaningless nonsense which long has dominated metaphysical thought and brought it into disrepute.'
"But even in everyday life we use complex ideas without stopping to wonder whether they are valid. For example, take the question of T--or the ego. This was the very basis of Descartes's philosophy. It was the one clear and distinct perception that the whole of his phi-losophy was built on."
"I hope Hume didn't try to deny that I am me. He'd be talking off the top of his head."
"Sophie, if there is one thing I want this course to teach you, it's not to jump to conclusions."
"Sorry. Go on."
"No, why don't you use Hume's method and analyze what you perceive as your 'ego.' "
"First I'd have to figure out whether the ego is a single or a complex idea."
"And what conclusion do you come to?"
"I really have to admit that I feel quite complex. I'm very volatile, for instance. And I have trouble making up my mind about things. And I can both like and dislike the same people."
"In other words, the 'ego concept' is a 'complex idea.' "
"Okay. So now I guess I must figure out if I have had a corresponding 'complex impression' of my own ego. And I guess I have. I always had, actually."
"Does that worry you?"
"I'm very changeable. I'm not the same today as I was when I was four years old. My temperament and how I see myself alter from one minute to the next. I can suddenly feel like I am a 'new person.' "
"So the feeling of having an unalterable ego is a false perception. The perception of the ego is in reality a long chain of simple impressions that you have never experienced simultaneously. It is 'nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed one another with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement,' as Hume expressed it. The mind is 'a kind of theater, where several perceptions successively make their appearance; pass, re-pass, slide away, and mingle in an infinite variety of postures and situations.' Hume pointed out that we have no underlying 'personal identity' beneath or behind these perceptions and feelings which come and go. It is just like the images on a movie screen. They change so rapidly we do not register that the film is made up of single pictures. In reality the pictures are not connected. The film is a collection of instants."
"I think I give in."
"Does that mean you give up the idea of having an unalterable ego?"
"I guess it does."
"A moment ago you believed the opposite. I should add that Hume's analysis of the human mind and his rejection of the unalterable ego was put forward almost 2,500 years earlier on the other side of the world."
"Who by?"
"By Buddha. It's almost uncanny how similarly the two formulate their ideas. Buddha saw life as an unbroken succession of mental and physical processes which keep people in a continual state of change. The infant is not the same as the adult; I am not the same today as I was yesterday. There is nothing of which I can say 'this is mine,' said Buddha, and nothing of which I can say 'this is me.' There is thus no T or unalterable ego."
"Yes, that was typically Hume."
"In continuation of the idea of an unalterable ego, many rationalists had taken it for granted that man had an eternal soul."
"Is that a false perception too?"
"According to Hume and Buddha, yes. Do you know what Buddha said to his followers just before he died?"
"No, how could I?"
" 'Decay is inherent in all compound things. Work out your own salvation with diligence.' Hume could have said the same thing. Or Democritus, for that matter. We know at all events that Hume rejected any attempt to prove the immortality of the soul or the existence of God. That does not mean that he ruled out either one, but to prove religious faith by human reason was rationalistic claptrap, he thought. Hume was not a Christian, neither was he a confirmed atheist. He was what we call an agnostic."
"What's that?"
"An agnostic is someone who holds that the existence of God or a god can neither be proved nor disproved. When Hume was dying a friend asked him if he believed in life after death. He is said to have answered:
"It is also possible that a knob of coal placed upon the fire will not burn."
"I see."
"The answer was typical of his unconditional open-mindedness. He only accepted what he had perceived through his senses. He held all other possibilities open. He rejected neither faith in Christianity nor faith in miracles. But both were matters of faith and not of knowledge or reason. You might say that with Hume's philosophy, the final link between faith and knowledge was broken."
"You say he didn't deny that miracles can happen?"
"That didn't mean that he believed in them, more the opposite. He made a point of the fact that people seemed to have a powerful need of what we today would call 'supernatural' happenings. The thing is that all the miracles you hear of have always happened in some far distant place or a long, long time ago. Actually, Hume only rejected miracles because he had never experienced any. But he had not experienced that they couldn't happen either."
"You'll have to explain that."
"According to Hume, a miracle is against the laws of nature. But it is meaningless to allege that we have experienced the laws of nature. We experience that a stone falls to the ground when we let go of it, and if it didn't fall--well, then we experienced that.'1"
"I would say that was a miracle--or something supernatural."
"So you believe there are two natures--a 'natural' and a 'supernatural.' Aren't you on the way back to the rationalistic claptrap?"
"Maybe, but I still think the stone will fall to the ground every time I let go."
"Why?"
"Now you're being horrible."
"I'm not horrible, Sophie. It's never wrong for a philosopher to ask questions. We may be getting to the crux of Hume's philosophy. Tell me how you can be so certain that the stone will always fall to the earth."
"I've seen it happen so many times that I'm absolutely certain."
"Hume would say that you have experienced a stone falling to the ground many times. But you have never experienced that it will always fall. It is usual to say that the stone falls to the ground because of the law of gravitation. But we have never experienced such a law. We have only experienced that things fall."
"Isn't that the same thing?"
"Not completely. You say you believe the stone will fall to the ground because you have seen it happen so many times. That's exactly Hume's point. You are so used to the one thing following the other that you expect the same to happen every time you let go of a stone. This is the way the concept of what we like to call 'the unbreakable laws of nature' arises."
"Did he really mean it was possible that a stone would not fall?"
"He was probably just as convinced as you that it would fall every time he tried it. But he pointed out that he had not experienced why it happens."
"Now we're far away from babies and flowers again!"
"No, on the contrary. You are welcome to take children as Hume's verification. Who do you think would be more surprised if the stone floated above the ground for an hour or two--you or a one-year-old child?"
"I guess I would."
"Why?"
"Because I would know better than the child how unnatural it was."
"And why wouldn't the child think it was unnatural?"
"Because it hasn't yet learned how nature behaves."
"Or perhaps because nature hasn't yet become a habit?"
"I see where you're coming from. Hume wanted people to sharpen their awareness."
"So now do the following exercise: let's say you and a small child go to a magic show, where things are made to float in the air. Which of you would have the most fun?"
"I probably would."
"And why would that be?"
"Because I would know how impossible it all is."
"So... for the child it's no fun to see the laws of nature being defied before it has learned what they are."
"I guess that's right."
"And we are still at the crux of Hume's philosophy of experience. He would have added that the child has not yet become a slave of the expectations of habit; he is thus the more open-minded of you two. I wonder if the child is not also the greater philosopher? He comes utterly without preconceived opinions. And that, my dear Sophie, is the philosopher's most distinguishing virtue. The child perceives the world as it is, without putting more into things than he experiences."
"Every time I feel prejudice I get a bad feeling."
"When Hume discusses the force of habit, he concentrates on 'the law of causation.' This law establishes that everything that happens must have a cause. Hume used two billiard balls for his example. If you roll a black billiard ball against a white one that is at rest, what will the white one do?"
"If the black ball hits the white one, the white one will start to move."
"I see, and why will it do that?"
"Because it was hit by the black one."
"So we usually say that the impact of the black ball is the cause of the white ball's starting to move. But remember now, we can only talk of what we have actually experienced."
"I have actually experienced it lots of times. Joanna has a pool table in her basement."
"Hume would say the only thing you have experienced is that the white ball begins to roll across the table. You have not experienced the actual cause of it beginning to roll. You have experienced that one event comes after the other, but you have not experienced that the other event happens because o/the first one."
"Isn't that splitting hairs?"
"No, it's very central. Hume emphasized that the expectation of one thing following another does not lie in the things themselves, but in our mind. And expectation, as we have seen, is associated with habit. Going back to the child again, it would not have stared in amazement if when one billiard ball struck the other, both had remained perfectly motionless. When we speak of the 'laws of nature' or of 'cause and effect,' we are actually speaking of what we expect, rather than what is 'reasonable.' The laws of nature are neither reasonable nor unreasonable, they simply are. The expectation that the white billiard ball will move when it is struck by the black billiard ball is therefore not innate. We are not born with a set of expectations as to what the world is like or how things in the world behave. The world is like it is, and it's something we get to know."
"I'm beginning to feel as if we're getting off the track again."
"Not if our expectations cause us to jump to conclusions. Hume did not deny the existence of unbreakable 'natural laws,' but he held that because we are not in a position to experience the natural laws themselves, we can easily come to the wrong conclusions."
"Like what?"
"Well, because I have seen a whole herd of black horses doesn't mean that all horses are black."
"No, of course not."
"And although I have seen nothing but black crows in my life, it doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a white crow. Both for a philosopher and for a scientist it can be important not to reject the possibility of finding a white crow. You might almost say that hunting for 'the white crow' is science's principal task."
"Yes, I see."
"In the question of cause and effect, there can be many people who imagine that lightning is the cause of thunder because the thunder comes after the lightning. The example is really not so different from the one with the billiard balls. But is lightning the cause of thunder?"
"Not really, because actually they both happen at the same time."
"Both thunder and lightning are due to an electric discharge. So in reality a third factor causes them both."
"Right."
"An empiricist of our own century, Bertrand Russell, has provided a more grotesque example. A chicken which experiences every day that it gets fed when the farmer's wife comes over to the chicken run will finally come to the conclusion that there is a causal link between the approach of the farmer's wife and feed being put into its bowl."
"But one day the chicken doesn't get its food?"
"No, one day the farmer's wife comes over and wrings the chicken's neck."
"Yuck, how disgusting!"
"The fact that one thing follows after another thus does not necessarily mean there is a causal link. One of the main concerns of philosophy is to warn people against jumping to conclusions. It can in fact lead to many different forms of superstition."
"How come?"
"You see a black cat cross the street. Later that day you fall and break your arm. But that doesn't mean there is any causal link between the two incidents. In science, it is especially important not to jump to conclusions. For instance, the fact that a lot of people get well after taking a particular drug doesn't mean it was the drug that cured them. That's why it's important to have a large control group of patients who think they are also being given this same medicine, but who are in fact only being given flour and water. If these patients also get well, there has to be a third factor--such as the belief that the medicine works, and has cured them."
"I think I'm beginning to see what empiricism is."
"Hume also rebelled against rationalist thought in the area of ethics. The rationalists had always held that the ability to distinguish between right and wrong is inherent in human reason. We have come across this idea of a so-called natural right in many philosophers from Socrates to Locke. But according to Hume, it is not reason that determines what we say and do."
"What is it then?"
"It is our sentiments. If you decide to help someone in need, you do so because of your feelings, not your reason."
"What if I can't be bothered to help?"
"That, too, would be a matter of feelings. It is neither reasonable nor unreasonable not to help someone in need, but it could be unkind."
"But there must be a limit somewhere. Everyone knows it's wrong to kill."
"According to Hume, everybody has a feeling for other people's welfare. So we all have a capacity for compassion. But it has nothing to do with reason."
"I don't know if I agree."
"It's not always so unwise to get rid of another person, Sophie. If you wish to achieve something or other, it can actually be quite a good idea."
"Hey, wait a minute! I protest!"
"Maybe you can try and explain why one shouldn't kill a troublesome person."
"'That person wants to live too. Therefore you ought not to kill them."
"Was that a logical reason?"
"I don't know."
"What you did was to draw a conclusion from a descriptive sentence--That person wants to live too'--to what we call a normative sentence: 'Therefore you ought not to kill them.' From the point of view of reason this is nonsense. You might just as well say 'There are lots of people who cheat on their taxes, therefore I ought to cheat on my taxes too.' Hume said you can never draw conclusions from is sentences to ought sentences. Nevertheless it is exceedingly common, not least in newspaper articles, political party programs, and speeches. Would you like some examples?"
"Please."
" 'More and more people want to travel by air. Therefore more airports ought to be built.' Do you think the conclusion holds up?"
"No. It's nonsense. We have to think of the environment. I think we ought to build more railroads instead."
"Or they say: The development of new oilfields will raise the population's living standards by ten percent. Therefore we ought to develop new oilfields as rapidly as possible."
"Definitely not. We have to think of the environment again. And anyway, the standard of living in Norway is high enough."
"Sometimes it is said that 'this law has been passed by the Senate, therefore all citizens in this country ought to abide by it.' But frequently it goes against people's deepest convictions to abide by such conventions."
"Yes, I understand that."
"So we have established that we cannot use reason as a yardstick for how we ought to act. Acting responsibly is not a matter of strengthening our reason but of deepening our feelings for the welfare of others. "Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger,' said Hume."
"That's a hair-raising assertion."
"It's maybe even more hair-raising if you shuffle the cards. You know that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews. Would you say that there was something wrong with the Nazis' reason, or would you say there was something wrong with their emotional life?"
"There was definitely something wrong with their feelings."
"Many of them were exceedingly clear-headed. It is not unusual to find ice-cold calculation behind the most callous decisions. Many of the Nazis were convicted after the war, but they were not convicted for being 'unreasonable.' They were convicted for being gruesome murderers. It can happen that people who are not of sound mind can be acquitted of their crimes. We say that they were 'not accountable for their actions.' Nobody has ever been acquitted of a crime they committed for being unfeeling."
"I should hope not."
"But we need not stick to the most grotesque examples. If a flood disaster renders millions of people homeless, it is our feelings that determine whether we come to their aid. If we are callous, and leave the whole thing to 'cold reason,' we might think it was actually quite in order that millions of people die in a world that is threatened by overpopulation."
"It makes me mad that you can even think that."
"And notice it's not your reason that gets mad."
"Okay, I got it."



[/td][td=1,1,60%]
中文翻译
[table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,1][tr][td]   休姆    ……将它付之一炬……    艾伯特坐在那儿,低头注视着茶几。最后他转过身来,看着窗外。    “云层愈来愈厚了。”苏菲说。    “嗯,天气很闷热。”    “你现在要谈柏克莱了吗?”    “他是三位英国经验主义哲学家中的第二位,但在许多方面他可说是自成一个格局。因此我们还是先谈休姆(DavidHume)好了。休姆生于一七一一到一七七六年间。他是经验主义哲学家中最重要的一位,也是启发大哲学家康德,使他开始走上哲学研究道路的人。”    “你不介意我对柏克莱的哲学比较有兴趣吗?”    休姆“这不重要。休姆生长在苏格兰的爱丁堡附近,家人希望他修习法律,但他觉得自己‘对哲学和学习以外的事物有不可抗拒的排斥心理’。他生在启蒙时代,与法国大思想家伏尔泰与卢梭等人同一个时期。他早年曾经遍游欧洲各地,最后才回到爱丁堡定居,度过余年。他的主要作品是《人性论》(TreatiseonHumanNature),在他二十八岁时出版。但他宣称他在十五岁的时候就有了写这本书的构想。”    “我看我也不应该再浪费时间了。”    “你已经开始了。”    “但如果我要建立一套自己的哲学,那这套哲学会和我们到目前为止所谈过的任何哲学理论都大不相同。”    “你认为我们谈的这些哲学理论缺少了什么东西吗?”    “这个嘛,首先,你谈的这些哲学家都是男人,而男人似乎只活在他们自己的世界里。我对真正的世界比较有兴趣。我是指一个有花、有动物、有小孩出生长大的世界。你说的那些哲学家总是谈什么‘人与人类’的理论。现在又有人写了一本《人性论》,好像这里面的‘人’是一个中年男人似的。我的意思是,生命是从怀孕和生产开始的。但是到目前为止,却从来没有人谈到尿布呀、婴儿啼哭呀什么的。也几乎没有人谈到爱和友情。”    “你说得当然很对。但在这方面,休姆可能和其他哲学家不太一样。他比任何一位哲学家都要能够以日常生活为起点。我甚至认为他对儿童(世界未来的公民)体验生命的方式的感觉很强烈。”    “那我最好洗耳恭听。”    “身为一个经验主义者,休姆期许自己要整理前人所提出的一些混淆不清的思想与观念,包括中世纪到十七世纪这段期间,理性主义哲学家留传下来的许多言论和著作。休姆建议,人应回到对世界有自发性感觉的状态。他说,没有一个哲学家‘能够带我们体验日常生活,而事实上哲学家们提示的那些行为准则都是我们对日常生活加以省思后,便可以领悟出来的’。”    “到目前为止他说的都不错。你能举一些例子吗?”    “在休姆那个时代,人们普遍相信有天使。他们的模样像人,身上长着翅膀。你见过这样的东西吗?”    “没有。”“可是你总见过人吧?”“什么傻问题嘛!”    “你也见过翅膀吗?”“当然,但不是长在人的身上。”    “所以,据休姆的说法,‘天使’是一个复合的概念,由两个不同的经验组成。这两个经验虽然事实上无关,但仍然在人的想象中结合在一起。换句话说,这是一个不实的观念,应该立即受到驳斥。同样的,我们也必须以这种方式厘清自身所有的思想观念和整理自己的藏书。他说,如果我们手里有一本书……我们应该问:‘书里是否包含任何与数量和数目有关的抽象思考?’如果答案是‘没有’,那么我们应该再问:‘书里是否包含任何与事实和存在有关的经验性思考?’如果答案还是‘没有’,那么我们还是将它付之一炬吧,因为这样的书内容纯粹薀皖辩和幻象。”    “好激烈呀”    “但世界仍然会存在,而且感觉更清新,轮廓也更分明。休姆希望人们回到孩提时代对世界的印象。你刚才不是说许多哲学家都活在自己的世界里,还说你对真实的世界比较有兴趣吗?”    “没错。”    “休姆可能也会说类似的话。不过我们还是继续谈他的理念吧。”    “请说。”    “休姆首先断定人有两种知觉,一种是印象,一种薀哇念。‘印象’指的是对于外界实在的直接感受,‘观念’指的是对印象的回忆。”    “能不能举个例子呢?”    “如果你被热炉子烫到,你会马上得到一个‘印象’。事后你会回想自己被烫到这件事,这就是休姆所谓的‘观念’。两者的不同在于‘印象’比事后的回忆要更强烈,也更生动。你可以说感受是原创的,而‘观念’(或省思)则只不过是模仿物而已。‘印象’是在我们的心灵中形成‘观念’的直接原因。”
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 22楼  发表于: 2013-10-26 0
[content too large, truncated for display]
英文原文
[table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,1]
LOCKE
 as hare and empty as a blackboard before the teacher arrives
Sophie arrived home at eight-thirty. That was one and a half hours after the agreement--which was not really an agreement. She had simply skipped dinner and left a message for her mother that she would be back not later than seven.
"This has got to stop, Sophie. I had to call information and ask if they had any record of anyone named Alberto in the Old Town. They laughed at me."
"I couldn't get away. I think we're just about to make a breakthrough in a huge mystery."
"Nonsense!"
"It's true!"
"Did you invite him to your party?"
"Oh no, I forgot."
"Well, now I insist on meeting him. Tomorrow at the latest. It's not natural for a young girl to be meeting an older man like this."
"You've got no reason to be scared of Alberto. It may be worse with Hilde's father."
"Who's Hilde?"
"The daughter of the man in Lebanon. He's really bad. He may be controlling the whole world."
"If you don't immediately introduce me to your Alberto, I won't allow you to see him again. I won't feel easy about him until I at least know what he looks like."
Sophie had a brilliant idea and dashed up to her room.
"What's the matter with you now?" her mother called after her.
In a flash Sophie was back again.
"In a minute you'll see what he looks like. And then I hope you'll let me be."
She waved the video cassette and went over to the VCR.
"Did he give you a video?"
"From Athens..."
Pictures of the Acropolis soon appeared on the screen. Her mother sat dumbfounded as Alberto came forward and began to speak directly to Sophie.
Sophie now noticed something she had forgotten about. The Acropolis was crowded with tourists milling about in their respective groups. A small placard was being held up from the middle of one group. On it was written HILDE ... Alberto continued his wandering on the Acropolis. After a while he went down through the entrance and climbed to the Areopagos hill where Paul had addressed the Athenians. Then he went on to talk to Sophie from the square.
Her mother sat commenting on the video in short utterances:
"Incredible... is that Alberto? He mentioned the rabbit again... But, yes, he's really talking to you, Sophie. I didn't know Paul went to Athens ..."
The video was coming to the part where ancient Athens suddenly rises from the ruins. At the last minute Sophie managed to stop the tape. Now that she had shown her mother Alberto, there was no need to introduce her to Plato as well.
There was silence in the room.
"What do you think of him? He's quite good-looking, isn't he?" teased Sophie.
"What a strange man he must be, having himself filmed in Athens just so he could send it to a girl he hardly knows. When was he in Athens?"
"I haven't a clue."
"But there's something else ..."
"What?"
"He looks very much like the major who lived in that little hut in the woods."
"Well maybe it is him, Mom."
"But nobody has seen him for over fifteen years."
"He probably moved around a lot... to Athens, maybe."
Her mother shook her head. "When I saw him sometime in the seventies, he wasn't a day younger than this Alberto I just saw. He had a foreign-sounding name..."
"Knox?"
"Could be, Sophie. Could be his name was Knox."
"Or was it Knag?"
"I can't for the life of me remember ... Which Knox or Knag are you talking about?"
"One is Alberto, the other is Hilde's father."
"It's all making me dizzy."
"Is there any food in the house?"
"You can warm up the meatballs."
Exactly two weeks went by without Sophie hearing a word from Alberto. She got another birthday card for Hilde, but although the actual day was approaching, she did not receive a single birthday card herself.
One afternoon she went to the Old Town and knocked on Alberto's door. He was out, but there was a short note attached to his door. It said:
Happy birthday, Hilde! Now the great turning point is at hand. The moment of truth, little one. Every time I think about it, I can't stop laughing. It has naturally something to do with Berkeley, so hold on to your hat.
Sophie tore the note off the door and stuffed it into Alberto's mailbox as she went out.
Damn! Surely he'd not gone back to Athens? How could he leave her with so many questions unanswered?
When she got home from school on June 14, Hermes was romping about in the garden. Sophie ran toward him and he came prancing happily toward her. She put her arms around him as if he were the one who could solve all the riddles.
Again she left a note for her mother, but this time she put Alberto's address on it.
As they made their way across town Sophie thought about tomorrow. Not about her own birthday so much-- that was not going to be celebrated until Midsummer Eve anyway. But tomorrow was Hilde's birthday too. Sophie was convinced something quite extraordinary would happen. At least there would be an end to all those birthday cards from Lebanon.
When they had crossed Main Square and were making for the Old Town, they passed by a park with a playground. Hermes stopped by a bench as if he wanted Sophie to sit down.
She did, and while she patted the dog's head she looked into his eyes. Suddenly the dog started to shudder violently. He's going to bark now, thought Sophie.
Then his jaws began to vibrate, but Hermes neither growled nor barked. He opened his mouth and said:
"Happy birthday, Hilde!"
Sophie was speechless. Did the dog just talk to her? Impossible, she must have imagined it because she was thinking of Hilde. But deep down she was nevertheless convinced that Hermes had spoken, and in a deep resonant bass voice.
The next second everything was as before. Hermes gave a couple of demonstrative barks--as if to cover up the fact that he had just spoken with a human voice-- and trotted on ahead toward Alberto's place. As they were going inside Sophie looked up at the sky. It had been fine weather all day but now heavy clouds were beginning to gather in the distance.
Alberto opened the door and Sophie said at once:
"No civilities, please. You are a great idiot, and you know it."
"What's the matter now?"
"The major taught Hermes to talk!"
"Ah, so it has come to that."
"Yes, imagine!"
"And what did he say?"
"I'll give you three guesses."
"I imagine he said something along the lines of Happy Birthday!"
"Bingo."
Alberto let Sophie in. He was dressed in yet another costume. It wasn't all that different from last time, but today there were hardly any braidings, bows, or lace.
"But that's not all," Sophie said.
"What do you mean?"
"Didn't you find the note in the mailbox?"
"Oh, that. I threw it away at once."
"I don't care if he laughs every time he thinks of Berkeley. But what is so funny about that particular philosopher?"
"We'll have to wait and see."
"But today is the day you're going to talk about him, isn't it?"
"Yes, today is the day."
Alberto made himself comfortable on the sofa. Then he said:
"Last time we sat here I told you about Descartes and Spinoza. We agreed that they had one important thing in common, namely, that they were both rationalists."
"And a rationalist is someone who believes strongly in the importance of reason."
"That's right, a rationalist believes in reason as the primary source of knowledge, and he may also believe that man has certain innate ideas that exist in the mind prior to all experience. And the clearer such ideas may be, the more certain it is that they correspond to reality. You recall how Descartes had a clear and distinct idea of a 'perfect entity,' on the basis of which he concluded that God exists."
"I am not especially forgetful."
"Rationalist thinking of this kind was typical for philosophy of the seventeenth century. It was also firmly rooted in the Middle Ages, and we remember it from Plato and Socrates too. But in the eighteenth century it was the object of an ever increasing in-depth criticism. A number of philosophers held that we have absolutely nothing in the mind that we have not experienced through the senses. A view such as this is called empiricism."
"And you are going to talk about them today, these empiricists?"
"I'm going to attempt to, yes. The most important empiricists--or philosophers of experience--were Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, and all three were British. The leading rationalists in the seventeenth century were Descartes, who was French; Spinoza, who was Dutch; and Leibniz, who was German. So we usually make a distinction between British empiricism and Continental rationalism."
"What a lot of difficult words! Could you repeat the meaning of empiricism?"
"An empiricist will derive all knowledge of the world from what the senses tell us. The classic formulation of an empirical approach came from Aristotle. He said: 'There is nothing in the mind except what was first in the senses.' This view implied a pointed criticism of Plato, who had held that man brought with him a set of innate 'ideas' from the world of ideas. Locke repeats Aristotle's words, and when Locke uses them, they are aimed at Descartes."
"There is nothing in the mind... except what was first in the senses?"
"We have no innate ideas or conceptions about the world we are brought into before we have seen it. If we do have a conception or an idea that cannot be related to experienced facts, then it will be a false conception. When we, for instance, use words like 'God,"eternity,' or 'substance,' reason is being misused, because nobody has experienced God, eternity, or what philosophers have called substance. So therefore many learned dissertations could be written which in actual fact contain no really new conceptions. An ingeniously contrived philosophical system such as this may seem impressive, but it is pure fantasy. Seventeenth- and eighteenth-century philosophers had inherited a number of such learned dissertations. Now they had to be examined under a microscope. They had to be purified of all hollow notions. We might compare it with panning for gold. Most of what you fish up is sand and clay, but in between you see the glint of a particle of gold."
"And that particle of gold is real experience?"
"Or at least thoughts that can be related to experience. It became a matter of great importance to the British empiricists to scrutinize all human conceptions to see whether there was any basis for them in actual experience. But let us take one philosopher at a time."
"Okay, shoot!"
"The first was the Englishman John Locke, who lived from 1632 to 1704. His main work was the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, published in 1690. In it he tried to clarify two questions. First, where we get our ideas from, and secondly, whether we can rely on what our senses tell us."
"That was some project!"
"We'll take these questions one at a time. Locke's claim is that all our thoughts and ideas issue from that which we have taken in through the senses. Before we perceive anything, the mind is a 'tabula rasa'--or an empty slate."
"You can skip the Latin."
"Before we sense anything, then, the mind is as bare and empty as a blackboard before the teacher arrives in the classroom. Locke also compared the mind to an unfurnished room. But then we begin to sense things. We see the world around us, we smell, taste, feel, and hear. And nobody does this more intensely than infants. In this way what Locke called simple ideas of sense arise. But the mind does not just passively receive information from outside it. Some activity happens in the mind as well. The single sense ideas are worked on by thinking, reasoning, believing, and doubting, thus giving rise to what he calls reflection. So he distinguished between 'sensation' and 'reflection.' The mind is not merely a passive receiver. It classifies and processes all sensations as they come streaming in. And this is just where one must be on guard."
"On guard?"
"Locke emphasized that the only things we can perceive are simple sensations. When I eat an apple, for example, I do not sense the whole apple in one single sensation. In actual fact I receive a whole series of simple sensations--such as that something is green, smells fresh, and tastes juicy and sharp. Only after I have eaten an apple many times do I think: Now I am eating an 'apple.' As Locke would say, we have formed a complex idea of an 'apple.' When we were infants, tasting an apple for the first time, we had no such complex idea. But we saw something green, we tasted something fresh and juicy, yummy ... It was a bit sour too. Little by little we bundle many similar sensations together and form concepts like 'apple,"pear,"orange.' But in the final analysis, all the material for our knowledge of the world comes to us through sensations. Knowledge that cannot be traced back to a simple sensation is therefore false knowledge and must consequently be rejected."
"At any rate we can be sure that what we see, hear, smell, and taste are the way we sense it."
"Both yes and no. And that brings us to the second question Locke tried to answer. He had first answered the question of where we get our ideas from. Now he asked whether the world really is the way we perceive it. This is not so obvious, you see, Sophie. We mustn't jump to conclusions. That is the only thing a real philosopher must never do."
"I didn't say a word."
"Locke distinguished between what he called 'primary' and 'secondary' qualities. And in this he acknowledged his debt to the great philosophers before him-- including Descartes.
"By primary qualities he meant extension, weight, motion and number, and so on. When it is a question of qualities such as these, we can be certain that the senses reproduce them objectively. But we also sense other qualities in things. We say that something is sweet or sour, green or red, hot or cold. Locke calls these secondary qualities. Sensations like these--color, smell, taste, sound--do not reproduce the real qualities that are inherent in the things themselves. They reproduce only the effect of the outer reality on our senses."
"Everyone to his own taste, in other words."
"Exactly. Everyone can agree on the primary qualities like size and weight because they lie within the objects themselves. But the secondary qualities like color and taste can vary from person to person and from animal to animal, depending on the nature of the individual's sensations."
"When Joanna eats an orange, she gets a look on her face like when other people eat a lemon. She can't take more than one segment at a time. She says it tastes sour. I usually think the same orange is nice and sweet."
"And neither one of you is right or wrong. You are just describing how the orange affects your senses. It's the same with the sense of color. Maybe you don't like a certain shade of red. But if Joanna buys a dress in that color it might be wise to keep your opinion to yourself. You experience the color differently, but it is neither pretty nor ugly."
"But everyone can agree that an orange is round."
"Yes, if you have a round orange, you can't 'think' it is square. You can 'think' it is sweet or sour, but you can't 'think' it weighs eight kilos if it only weighs two hundred grams. You can certainly 'believe' it weighs several kilos, but then you'd be way off the mark. If several people have to guess how much something weighs, there will always be one of them who is more right than the others. The same applies to number. Either there are 986 peas in the can or there are not. The same with motion. Either the car is moving or it's stationary."
"I get it."
"So when it was a question of 'extended' reality, Locke agreed with Descartes that it does have certain qualities that man is able to understand with his reason."
"It shouldn't be so difficult to agree on that."
"Locke admitted what he called intuitive, or 'demonstrative,' knowledge in other areas too. For instance, he held that certain ethical principles applied to everyone. In other words, he believed in the idea of a natural right, and that was a rationalistic feature of his thought. An equally rationalistic feature was that Locke believed that it was inherent in human reason to be able to know that God exists."
"Maybe he was right."
"About what?"
"That God exists."
"It is possible, of course. But he did not let it rest on faith. He believed that the idea of God was born of human reason. That was a rationalistic feature. I should add that he spoke out for intellectual liberty and tolerance. He was also preoccupied with equality of the sexes, maintaining that the subjugation of women to men was 'man-made.' Therefore it could be altered."
"I can't disagree there."
"Locke was one of the first philosophers in more recent times to be interested in sexual roles. He had a great influence on John Stuart Mill, who in turn had a key role in the struggle for equality of the sexes. All in all, Locke was a forerunner of many liberal ideas which later, during the period of the French Enlightenment in the eighteenth century, came into full flower. It was he who first advocated the principle of division of powers..."
"Isn't that when the power of the state is divided between different institutions?"
"Do you remember which institutions?"
"There's the legislative power, or elected representatives. There's the judicial power, or law courts, and then there's the executive power, that's the government."
"This division of power originated from the French Enlightenment philosopher Montesquieu. Locke had first and foremost emphasized that the legislative and the executive power must be separated if tyranny was to be avoided. He lived at the time of Louis XIV, who had assembled all power in his own hands. 'I am the State,' he said. We say he was an 'absolute' ruler. Nowadays we would call Louis XIV's rule lawless and arbitrary. Locke's view was that to ensure a legal State, the people's representatives must make the laws and the king or the government must apply them."



[/td][td=1,1,60%]
中文翻译
[table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,1][tr][td]   洛克    ……赤裸、空虚一如教师来到教室前的黑板……    苏菲回到家时已经八点半了,比她和妈妈说好的时间迟了一个半小时。其实她也没和妈妈说好,她只是在吃晚饭前离家,留了一张纸条给妈妈说她会七点前回来。    “苏菲,你不能再这样了。我刚才急得打查号台,问他们有没有登记住在旧市区的艾伯特这个人,结果还被人家笑。”    “我走不开呀!我想我们正要开始解开这个大谜团。”    “胡说八道!”    “是真的。”    “你请他参加你的生日宴会了吗?”    “糟糕,我忘了!”    “那么,我现在一定要见见他。最迟在明天。一个年轻女孩像这样和一个年纪比她大的男人见面是不正常的。”    “你没有理由担心艾伯特。席德的爸爸可能更糟糕。”    “席德是谁?”    “那个在黎巴嫩的男人的女儿。他真的很坏,他可能控制了全世界。”    “如果你不立刻介绍你的艾伯特给我认识,我就不准你再跟他见面。至少我要知道他长得什么样子,否则我不会放心。”    苏菲想到了一个很好的主意。于是她马上冲到房间去。    “你现在又是怎么回事?”妈妈在她背后叫她。    一转眼的工夫,苏菲就回来了。    “你马上就可以看到他的长相,然后我希望你就不要管这件事了。”    她挥一挥手中的录影带,然后走到录影机旁。    “他给你一卷录影带?”    “从雅典……”    不久,雅典的高城就出现在荧屏上。当艾伯特出现,并开始向苏菲说话时,妈妈看得目瞪口呆。    这次苏菲注意到一件她已经忘记的事。高城里到处都是游客,三五成群的往来穿梭。其中有一群人当中举起了一块小牌子,上面写着“席德”    ……    艾伯特继续在高城漫步。一会儿之后,他往下面走,穿过人口,并爬上当年保罗对雅典人演讲的小山丘。然后他继续从那里的广场上向苏菲说话。    妈妈坐在那儿,不时发表着评论:“真不可思议……那就是艾伯特吗?他又开始讲关于兔子的事了……可是……没错哎,苏菲,他真的是在对你讲话。我不知道保罗还到过雅典……”    录影带正要放到古城雅典突然从废墟中兴起的部分,苏菲连忙把带子停掉。现在她已经让妈妈看到艾伯特了,没有必要再把柏拉图介绍给她。    客厅里一片静寂。    “你认为他这个人怎么样?长得很好看对不对?”苏菲开玩笑地说。    “他一定是个怪人,才会在雅典拍摄自己的录影带,送给一个他几乎不认识的女孩子。他是什么时候跑到雅典去的?”    “我不知道。”    “还有……”    “还有什么?”    “他很像是住在林间小木屋的那个少校。”    “也许就是他呢!”    “可是已经有十五年都没有人看过他了。”    “他也许到处游历……也许到雅典去了。”    妈妈摇摇头。    “我在七十年代看到他时,他一点都不比我刚才看到的这个艾伯特年轻。他有一个听起来像是外国人的名字……”    “是艾伯特吗?”    “大概吧。”    “还是艾勃特?”    “我一点都不记得了……你说的这两个人是谁?”    “一个是艾伯特,一个是席德的爸爸。”    “你把我弄得头都昏了。”    “家里有东西吃吗?”    “你把肉丸子热一热吧。”    失踪整整两个礼拜过去了,艾伯特消息全无。这期间苏菲又接到了一张寄给席德的生日卡,不过虽然她自己的生日也快到了,她却连一张卡片也没接到。    一天下午,她到旧市区去敲艾伯特的门。他不在家,只见门上贴着一张短短的字条,上面写着:席德,生日快乐!现在那个大转捩点就要到了。孩子,这薀拓键性的一刻。我每次想到这里,就忍不住笑得差点尿裤子。当然这和柏克莱有点关系,所以把你的帽子抓紧吧!苏菲临走时,把门上的字条撕了下来,塞进艾伯特的信箱。    该死!他不会跑回雅典去吧?还有这么多问题等待解答,他怎么可以离她而去呢?经验主义六月十四日,她放学回家时,汉密士已经在花园里跑来跑去了。苏菲向它飞奔过去,它也快活地迎向她。她用双手抱着它,仿佛它可以解开她所有的谜题。    这天,苏菲又留了一张纸条给妈妈,但这一次她同时写下了艾伯特的地址。    他们经过镇上时,苏菲心里想着明天的事。她想的主要并不是她自己的生日。何况她的生日要等到仲夏节那一天才过。不过,明天也是席德的生日。苏菲相信明天一定会有很不寻常的事发生。至少从明天起不会有人从黎巴嫩寄生日卡来了。    当他们经过大广场,走向旧市区时,经过了一个有游乐场的公园。汉密士在一张椅旁停了下来,仿佛希望苏菲坐下来似的。    于是苏菲便坐了下来。她拍拍汉密士的头,并注视它的眼睛。    突然间汉密士开始猛烈地颤抖。苏菲心想,它要开始吠了。    然后汉密士的下颚开始振动,但它既没有吠,也没有汪汪叫。    它开口说话了:“生日快乐,席德!”    苏菲惊讶得目瞪口呆。汉密士刚才真的跟她讲话了吗?不可能的。那一定是她的幻觉,因为她刚才正想着席德的事。    不过内心深处她仍相信汉密士刚才确实曾开口说话…..•而且声音低沉而厚实。    一秒钟后,一切又恢复正常。汉密士吠了两三声,仿佛是要遮掩刚才开口说人话的事实。然后继续往艾伯特的住所走去。当他们正要进屋时,苏菲抬头看了一下天色。今天整天都是晴朗的天气,但现在远方已经开始聚集了厚重的云层。    艾伯特一打开门,苏菲便说:“别多礼了,拜托。你是个大白痴,你自己知道。”    “怎么啦?”    “少校让汉密士讲话了!”    “哦,已经到了这个地步?”    “是呀!你能想象吗?”    “那他说些什么呢?”    “我让你猜三次。”    “我猜他大概是说些类似生日快乐的话。”    “答对了!”    艾伯特让苏菲进门。这次他又穿了不同的衣裳,与上次的差别不是很大,但今天他身上几乎没有任何穗带、蝴蝶结或花边。    “可是还有一件事。”苏菲说。    “什么意思?”    “你没有看到信箱里的纸条吗?”    “喔,你是说那个。我马上把它扔掉。”    ;“我才不在乎他每次想到柏克莱时是否真的尿湿了裤子,可是那个哲学家到底是怎么回事,才会使他那个样子?”    “这个我们再看看吧。”    “你今天不就是要讲他吗?”    “是,啊,没错,就是今天。”    艾伯特舒适地坐在沙发上,然后说道:“上次我们坐在这儿时,我向你说明笛卡尔和史宾诺莎的哲学。我们一致同意他们两人有一点很相像,那就是:他们显然都是理性主义者。”    “而理性主义者就是坚信理性很重要的人。”    “没错,理性主义者相信理性是知识的泉源。不过他可能也同意人在还没有任何经验之前,心中已经先有了一些与生俱来的概念。这些概念愈清晰,必然就愈与实体一致。你应该还记得笛卡尔对于‘完美实体’有清晰的概念,并且以此断言上帝确实存在。”    “我的记性还不算差。”    “类似这样的理性主义思想是十七世纪哲学的特征,这种思想早在中世纪时就打下了深厚的基础。柏拉图与苏格拉底也有这种倾向。但在十八世纪时,理性主义思想受到的批判日益严格。当时有些哲学家认为,如果不是透过感官的体验,我们的心中将一无所有,这种观点被称为‘经验主义’。”    “你今天就是要谈那些主张经验主义的哲学家吗?”    “是的。最重要的经验主义哲学家是洛克、柏克莱与休姆,都是英国人。十七世纪主要的理性主义哲学当中,笛卡尔是法国人,史宾诺莎是荷兰人,莱布尼兹则是德国人。所以我们通常区分为‘英国的经验主义’与‘欧陆的理性主义’。”    “这些字眼都好难呀!你可以把经验主义的意思再说一次吗?”    “经验主义者就是那些从感官的经验获取一切关于世界的知识的人。亚理斯多德曾经说过;‘我们的心灵中所有的事物都是先透过感官而来的。’这是对经验主义的最佳说明。这种观点颇有批评柏拉图的意味。因为柏拉图认为人生下来就从观念世界带来了一整套的‘观念’。洛克则重复亚理斯多德说的话,但他针对的对象是笛卡尔。”    “我们心灵中所有的事物都是先透过感官而来的?”    “这句话的意思是:我们在看到这个世界之前对它并没有任何固有的概念或观念。如果我们有一个观念或概念是和我们所经验的事实完全不相关的,则它将是一个虚假的观念。举例来说,当我们说出‘上帝’、‘永恒’或‘实体’这些字眼时,我们并没有运用我们的理智,因为没有人曾经体验过上帝、永恒或哲学家所谓的‘实体’这些东西。因此,虽然有许多博学之士著书立说,探讨这些事物,但事实上他们并没有提出什么新见解。这类精心构筑的哲学体系可能令人印象深刻,但却是百分之百的虚幻。十七、十八世纪的哲学家虽然继承了若干这类理论,但他们现在要把这些理论拿到显微镜下检视,以便把所有空洞不实的观念淘汰掉。我们可以将这个过程比喻为淘金。你所淘取的东西大多是沙子和泥土,但偶尔你会发现一小片闪闪发亮的金屑。”    “那片金屑就是真正的经验吗?”    “至少是一些与经验有关的思想。那些英国的经验主义哲学家认为,仔细检视人类所有的观念,以确定它们是否根据实际的经验而来,乃是一件很重要的事。不过,我们还是一次谈一位哲学家好了。”    “好,那就开始吧。”    “第一位是英国哲学家洛克(JohnLocke)。他生于一六三二到一七O四年间,主要的作品是《论人之理解力》(EssayConcerningHumanUnderstanding),出版于一六九O年。他在书中试图澄清两个问题:第一,我们的概念从何而来?第二,我们是否可以信赖感官的经验?”    “有意思。”    “我们一次谈一个问题好了。洛克宣称,我们所有的思想和观念都反映我们曾看过、听过的事物。在我们看过、听过任何事物之前,我们的心灵就像一块Tabularasa,意思是‘空白的板子’。”    “请你不要再讲拉丁文了。”    “洛克认为,在我们的感官察知任何事物前,我们的心灵就像老师还没有进教室之前的黑板一样空白。他也将此时我们的心灵;比做一间没有家具的房间。可是后来我们开始经验一些事物,我们看到周遭的世界,我们闻到、尝到、摸到、听到各种东西。其中又以婴儿最为敏锐。这是洛克所谓的‘单一感官概念’。然而,我们的心灵除了被动地接收外界的印象之外,同时也积极地进行某种活动,它以思考、推理、相信、怀疑等方式来处理它所得到的各种单一感官概念,因此产生了洛克所谓的‘思维’(reflection)。所以说,他认为感觉(sensation)与思维是不同的,我们的心灵并不只是一具被动的接收器,它也会将所有不断传进来的感觉加以分类、处理。而这些是我们需要当心的地方。”    “当心?”    “洛克强调,我们唯一能感知的事物是那些‘单一感觉’。例如,当我吃一个苹果时,我并不能一次感知整个苹果的模样与滋味。事实上,我所接到的是一连串的单一感觉,诸如它是绿色的、闻起来很新鲜、尝起来脆又多汁等。一直要等到我吃了许多口之后,我才能说:我正在吃‘苹果’。洛克的意思是,我们自己形成了一个有关‘苹果’的‘复合概念’。当我们还是婴儿,初次尝到苹果时,我们并没有这种复合概念。我们只是看到一个绿色的东西,尝起来新鲜多汁,好吃……还有点酸。我们就这样一点一滴地将许多类似的感觉放在一起,形成‘苹果’、‘梨子’或‘橘子’这些概念。但根本上,使我们得以认识这个世界的所有材料都来自感官。那些无法回溯到一种单一感觉的知识便是虚假的知识,我们不应该接受。”    “无论如何,我可以确定这些事物便是像我们所看到、听到、闻到和尝到的一般。”    “可以说是,也可以说不是。谈到这点,我们就要讨论洛克尝试解答的第二个问题。刚才他已经回答了‘我们的概念从哪里来?’这个问题。现在他的问题是:‘这世界是否真的就像我们所感知的那样?’答案并不很明显。因此,苏菲,我们不能太早下定论。一个真正的哲学家绝不会遽下定论。”    “我一句话也没有说呀!”    “洛克将感官的性质分为‘主要’与‘次要’两种。在这方面他承认受到笛卡尔等大哲学家的影响。所谓的‘主要性质’指的是扩延世界的特质,如重量、运动和数量等等。我们谈的是这类特质时,我们可以确定我们的感官已经将它们加以客观地再现。但事物还有其他特质,如酸或甜、绿或红、热或冷等。洛克称它们为‘次要性质,。类似颜色、气息、味道、声音等感觉并不能真正反映事物本身的固有性质,而只是反映外在实体在我们的感官上所产生的作用。”    “换句话说,就是人各有所好。”    “一点都没有错。在尺寸、重量等性质上,每个人都会有一致的看法,因为这些性质就存在于事物本身之内。但类似颜色、味道等次要性质就可能因人而异,因动物而异,要看每个人感觉的本质而定。”    “乔安吃柳丁时,脸上的表情跟别人在吃柠檬时一样。她一次最多只能吃一片,她说柳丁很酸。可是同样的一个柳丁,我吃起来却往往觉得很甜、很好吃。”    “你们两个人没有谁对,也没有谁错。你只是描述柳丁对你的感官所产生的作用而已。我们对颜色的感觉也是一样。你也许不喜欢某种色调的红,但如果乔安买了一件那种颜色的衣服,你最好还是不要加以批评。你对颜色的体验与别人不同,但颜色的本身并没有美丑可言。”    “可是每一个人都会说柳丁是圆的。”    “是的,如果你面前的柳丁是圆的,你就不会‘以为’它是方的。    称会‘以为’它是甜的或酸的,但如果它的重量只有两百克,你不会‘以为’它有八公斤重。你当然可以‘相信’它重达几公斤,但如果这样的话,你一定是个不折不扣的呆子。如果你同时要几个人来猜某东西的重量,那么一定会有一个人的答案比较接近。同样的道理也适用于数目。罐子里豌豆的数量要不就是九八六个,要不就不是,动作方面也是一样。一辆汽车要不就是正在移动,要不就是在静止的状态。”    “我懂了。”    “所以当牵涉到‘扩延’的实体时,洛克同意笛卡尔的说法,认为确实有些性质是人可用理智来了解的。”    “在这方面取得共识应该不会太难才对。”    “洛克也承认笛卡尔所谓‘直觉的’或‘明示的’(demonstrative)知识在其他方面也存在。例如,他认为每个人都有相同的一些道德原则。换句话说,他相信世间有所谓‘自然权利’(naturalright)存在。这正是理性主义者的特征。洛克与理性主义者相像的另外一点是:他相信人类凭理性就自然而然可以知道上帝的存在。”    “他说的也许没错。”    “你是指哪一方面?”    “上帝确实存在这件事。”    “这当然是有可能的。不过他并不以为这只是一种信仰,他相信关于上帝的概念是原本就存在于人的理性之内的。这也是理性主义者的特色。还有,他也公开提倡知识自由与宽容的精神,并很关心两性平等的问题。他宣称,女人服从男人的现象是受到男人操纵的结果,因此是可以加以改变的。”    “这点我不能不同意。”    “洛克是近代哲学家中最先关心性别角色的人之一。他对于另外一个英国哲学家弥尔(JohnStuartMill)有很大的影响。而后者又在两性平等运动中扮演了举足轻重的角色。总而言之,洛克倡导了许多开明的观念,而这些观念后来在十八世纪的法国启蒙运动中终于开花结果。他也是首先倡导‘政权分立’原则的人。”    “他的意思是不是说国家的政权必须由不同的机构共同持有……?”    “你还记得是哪些机构吗?”    “人民所选出的代表握有立法权,法院握有司法权,政府握有行政权。”    “政权分立的观念最初是由法国启蒙运动时期的哲学家孟德斯鸠(Montesquieu)提出。但洛克最早强调立法权与行政权必须分立,
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 21楼  发表于: 2013-10-26 0
英文原文
Spinoza
God is not a puppeteer
They sat silently for a long time. Then Sophie spoke, trying to get Alberto's mind off what had happened.
"Descartes must have been an odd kind of person. Did he become famous?"
Alberto breathed deeply for a couple of seconds before answering: "He had a great deal of significance. Perhaps most of all for another great philosopher, Ba-ruch Spinoza, who lived from 1632 to 1677."
"Are you going to tell me about him?"
"That was my intention. And we're not going to be stopped by military provocations."
"I'm all ears."
"Spinoza belonged to the Jewish community of Amsterdam, but he was excommunicated for heresy. Few philosophers in more recent times have been so blasphemed and so persecuted for their ideas as this man. It happened because he criticized the established religion. He believed that Christianity and Judaism were only kept alive by rigid dogma and outer ritual. He was the first to apply what we call a historico-critical interpretation of the Bible."
"Explanation, please."
"He denied that the Bible was inspired by God down to the last letter. When we read the Bible, he said, we must continually bear in mind the period it was written in. A 'critical' reading, such as the one he proposed, revealed a number of inconsistencies in the texts. But beneath the surface of the Scriptures in the New Testament is Jesus, who could well be called God's mouthpiece. The teachings of Jesus therefore represented a liberation from the orthodoxy of Judaism. Jesus preached a 'religion of reason' which valued love higher than all else. Spinoza interpreted this as meaning both love of God and love of humanity. Nevertheless, Christianity had also become set in its own rigid dogmas and outer rituals."
"I don't suppose these ideas were easy to swallow, either for the church or the synagogue."
"When things got really tough, Spinoza was even deserted by his own family. They tried to disinherit him on the grounds of his heresy. Paradoxically enough, few have spoken out more powerfully in the cause of free speech and religious tolerance than Spinoza. The opposition he was met with on all sides led him to pursue a quiet and secluded life devoted entirely to philosophy. He earned a meager living by polishing lenses, some of which have come into my possession."
"Very impressive!"
"There is almost something symbolic in the fact that he lived by polishing lenses. A philosopher must help people to see life in a new perspective. One of the pillars of Spinoza's philosophy was indeed to see things from the perspective of eternity."
"The perspective of eternity?"
"Yes, Sophie. Do you think you can imagine your own life in a cosmic context? You'll have to try and imagine yourself and your life here and now ..."
"Hm ... that's not so easy."
"Remind yourself that you are only living a minuscule part of all nature's life. You are part of an enormous whole."
"I think I see what you mean ..."
"Can you manage to feel it as well? Can you perceive all of nature at one time--the whole universe, in fact-- at a single glance?"
"I doubt it. Maybe I need some lenses."
"I don't mean only the infinity of space. I mean the eternity of time as well. Once upon a time, thirty thousand years ago there lived a little boy in the Rhine valley. He was a tiny part of nature, a tiny ripple on an endless sea. You too, Sophie, you too are living a tiny part of nature's life. There is no difference between you and that boy."
"Except that I'm alive now."
"Yes, but that is precisely what I wanted you to try and imagine. Who will you be in thirty thousand years?"
"Was that the heresy?"
"Not entirely ... Spinoza didn't only say that everything is nature. He identified nature with God. He said God is all, and all is in God."
"So he was a pantheist."
"That's true. To Spinoza, God did not create the world in order to stand outside it. No, God is the world. Sometimes Spinoza expresses it differently. He maintains that the world is in God. In this, he is quoting St. Paul's speech to the Athenians on the Areopagos hill: 'In him we live and move and have our being.' But let us pursue Spinoza's own reasoning. His most important book was his Ethics Geometrically Demonstrated."
"Ethics--geometrically demonstrated?"
"It may sound a bit strange to us. In philosophy, ethics means the study of moral conduct for living a good life. This is also what we mean when we speak of the ethics of Socrates or Aristotle, for example. It is only in our own time that ethics has more or less become reduced to a set of rules for living without treading on other people's toes."
"Because thinking of yourself is supposed to be egoism?"
"Something like that, yes. When Spinoza uses the word ethics, he means both the art of living and moral conduct."
"But even so ... the art of living demonstrated geometrically?"
"The geometrical method refers to the terminology he used for his formulations. You may recall how Descartes wished to use mathematical method for philosophical reflection. By this he meant a form of philosophic reflection that was constructed from strictly logical conclusions. Spinoza was part of the same rationalistic tradition. He wanted his ethics to show that human life is subject to the universal laws of nature. We must therefore free ourselves from our feelings and our passions. Only then will we find contentment and be happy, he believed."
"Surely we are not ruled exclusively by the laws of nature?"
"Well, Spinoza is not an easy philosopher to grasp. Let's take him bit by bit. You remember that Descartes believed that reality consisted of two completely separate substances, namely thought and extension."
"How could I have forgotten it?"
"The word 'substance' can be interpreted as 'that which something consists of,' or that which something basically is or can be reduced to. Descartes operated then with two of these substances. Everything was either thought or extension.
"However, Spinoza rejected this split. He believed that there was only one substance. Everything that exists can be reduced to one single reality which he simply called Substance. At times he calls it God or nature. Thus Spinoza does not have the dualistic view of reality that Descartes had. We say he is a monist. That is, he reduces nature and the condition of all things to one single substance."
"They could hardly have disagreed more."
"Ah, but the difference between Descartes and Spinoza is not as deep-seated as many have often claimed. Descartes also pointed out that only God exists independently. It's only when Spinoza identifies God with nature--or God and creation--that he distances himself a good way from both Descartes and from the Jewish and Christian doctrines."
"So then nature is God, and that's that."
"But when Spinoza uses the word 'nature,' he doesn't only mean extended nature. By Substance, God, or nature, he means everything that exists, including all things spiritual."
"You mean both thought and extension."
"You said it! According to Spinoza, we humans recognize two of God's qualities or manifestations. Spinoza called these qualities God's attributes, and these two attributes are identical with Descartes's 'thought' and 'extension.' God--or nature--manifests itself either as thought or as extension. It may well be that God has infinitely more attributes than 'thought' and 'extension,' but these are the only two that are known to man."
"Fair enough, but what a complicated way of saying it."
"Yes, one almost needs a hammer and chisel to get through Spinoza's language. The reward is that in the end you dig out a thought as crystal clear as a diamond."
"I can hardly wait!"
"Everything in nature, then, is either thought or extension. The various phenomena we come across in everyday life, such as a flower or a poem by Wordsworth, are different modes of the attribute of thought or extension. A 'mode' is the particular manner which Substance, God, or nature assumes. A flower is a mode of the attribute of extension, and a poem about the same flower is a mode of the attribute of thought. But both are basically the expression of Substance, God, or nature."
"You could have fooled me!"
"But it's not as complicated as he makes it sound. Beneath his stringent formulation lies a wonderful realization that is actually so simple that everyday language cannot accommodate it."
"I think I prefer everyday language, if it's all the same to you."
"Right. Then I'd better begin with you yourself. When you get a pain in your stomach, what is it that has a pain?"
"Like you just said. It's me."
"Fair enough. And when you later recollect that you once had a pain in your stomach, what is it that thinks?"
"That's me, too."
"So you are a single person that has a stomachache one minute and is in a thoughtful mood the next. Spinoza maintained that all material things and things that happen around us are an expression of God or nature. So it follows that all thoughts that we think are also God's or nature's thoughts. For everything is One. There is only one God, one nature, or one Substance."
"But listen, when I think something, I'm the one who's doing the thinking. When I move, I'm doing the moving. Why do you have to mix God into it?"
"I like your involvement. But who are you? You are Sophie Amundsen, but you are also the expression of something infinitely bigger. You can, if you wish, say that you are thinking or that you are moving, but could you not also say that it is nature that is thinking your thoughts, or that it is nature that is moving through you? It's really just a question of which lenses you choose to look through."
"Are you saying I cannot decide for myself?"
"Yes and no. You may have the right to move your thumb any way you choose. But your thumb can only move according to its nature. It cannot jump off your hand and dance about the room. In the same way you also have your place in the structure of existence, my dear. You are Sophie, but you are also a finger of God's body."
"So God decides everything I do?"
"Or nature, or the laws of nature. Spinoza believed that God--or the laws of nature--is the inner cause of everything that happens. He is not an outer cause, since God speaks through the laws of nature and only through them."
"I'm not sure I can see the difference."
"God is not a puppeteer who pulls all the strings, controlling everything that happens. A real puppet master controls the puppets from outside and is therefore the 'outer cause' of the puppet's movements. But that is not the way God controls the world. God controls the world through natural laws. So God--or nature--is the 'inner cause' of everything that happens. This means that everything in the material world happens through necessity. Spinoza had a determinist view of the material, or natural, world."
"I think you said something like that before."
"You're probably thinking of the Stoics. They also claimed that everything happens out of necessity. That was why it was important to meet every situation with 'stoicism.' Man should not get carried away by his feelings. Briefly, that was also Spinoza's ethics."
"I see what you mean, but I still don't like the idea that I don't decide for myself."
"Okay, let's go back in time to the Stone Age boy who lived thirty thousand years ago. When he grew up, he cast spears after wild animals, loved a woman who became the mother of his children, and quite certainly worshipped the tribal gods. Do you really think he decided all that for himself?"
"I don't know."
"Or think of a lion in Africa. Do you think it makes up its mind to be a beast of prey? Is that why it attacks a limping antelope? Could it instead have made up its mind to be a vegetarian?"
"No, a lion obeys its nature."
"You mean, the laws of nature. So do you, Sophie, because you are also part of nature. You could of course protest, with the support of Descartes, that a lion is an animal and not a free human being with free mental faculties. But think of a newborn baby that screams and yells. If it doesn't get milk it sucks its thumb. Does that baby have a free will?"
"I guess not."
"When does the child get its free will, then? At the age of two, she runs around and points at everything in sight. At the age of three she nags her mother, and at the age of four she suddenly gets afraid of the dark. Where's the freedom, Sophie?"
"I don't know."
"When she is fifteen, she sits in front of a mirror experimenting with makeup. Is this the moment when she makes her own personal decisions and does what she likes?"
"I see what you're getting at."
"She is Sophie Amundsen, certainly. But she also lives according to the laws of nature. The point is that she doesn't realize it because there are so many complex reasons for everything she does."
"I don't think I want to hear any more."
"But you must just answer a last question. Two equally old trees are growing in a large garden. One of the trees grows in a sunny spot and has plenty of good soil and water. The other tree grows in poor soil in a dark spot. Which of the trees do you think is bigger? And which of them bears more fruit?"
"Obviously the tree with the best conditions for growing."
"According to Spinoza, this tree is free. It has its full freedom to develop its inherent abilities. But if it is an apple tree it will not have the ability to bear pears or plums. The same applies to us humans. We can be hindered in our development and our personal growth by political conditions, for instance. Outer circumstances can constrain us. Only when we are free to develop our innate abilities can we live as free beings. But we are just as much determined by inner potential and outer opportunities as the Stone Age boy on the Rhine, the lion in Africa, or the apple tree in the garden."
"Okay, I give in, almost."
"Spinoza emphasizes that there is only one being which is totally and utterly 'its own cause' and can act with complete freedom. Only God or nature is the expression of such a free and 'nonaccidental' process. Man can strive for freedom in order to live without outer con-straint, but he will never achieve 'free will.' We do not control everything that happens in our body--which is a mode of the attribute of extension. Neither do we 'choose' our thinking. Man therefore does not have a 'free soul'; it is more or less imprisoned in a mechanical body."
"That is rather hard to understand."
"Spinoza said that it was our passions--such as ambition and lust--which prevent us from achieving true happiness and harmony, but that if we recognize that everything happens from necessity, we can achieve an intuitive understanding of nature as a whole. We can come to realize with crystal clarity that everything is related, even that everything is One. The goal is to comprehend everything that exists in an all-embracing perception. Only then will we achieve true happiness and contentment. This was what Spinoza called seeing everything 'sub specie aeternitatis.' "
"Which means what?"
"To see everything from the perspective of eternity. Wasn't that where we started?"
"It'll have to be where we end, too. I must get going."
Alberto got up and fetched a large fruit dish from the book shelves. He set it on the coffee table.
"Won't you at least have a piece of fruit before you go?"
Sophie helped herself to a banana. Alberto took a green apple.
She broke off the top of the banana and began to peel it.
"There's something written here," she said suddenly.
"Where?"
"Here--inside the banana peel. It looks as if it was written with an ink brush."
Sophie leaned over and showed Alberto the banana. He read aloud:
Here I am again, Hilde. I'm everywhere. Happy birthday!
"Very funny," said Sophie.
"He gets more crafty all the time."
"But it's impossible ... isn't it? Do you know if they grow bananas in Lebanon?"
Alberto shook his head.
"I'm certainly not going to eat that."
"Leave it then. Someone who writes birthday greetings to his daughter on the inside of an unpeeled banana must be mentally disturbed. But he must also be quite ingenious."
"Yes, both."
"So shall we establish here and now that Hilde has an ingenious father? In other words, he's not so stupid."
"That's what I've been telling you. And it could just as well be him that made you call me Hilde last time I came here. Maybe he's the one putting all the words in our mouths."
"Nothing can be ruled out. But we should doubt everything."
"For all we know, our entire life could be a dream."
"But let's not jump to conclusions. There could be a simpler explanation."
"Well whatever, I have to hurry home. My mom is waiting for me."
Alberto saw her to the door. As she left, he said:
"We'll meet again, dear Hilde."
Then the door closed behind her.





中文翻译
   史宾诺莎
   ……上帝不是一个傀儡戏师傅……
   他们坐在那儿,许久没有开口。后来苏菲打破沉默,想让艾伯特忘掉刚才的事。
   “笛卡尔一定是个怪人。他后来成名了吗?”
   艾伯特深呼吸了几秒钟才开口回答:
   “他对后世的影响非常重大,尤其是对另外一位大哲学家史宾诺莎。他是荷兰人,生于一六三二到一六七七年间。”
   “你要告诉我有关他的事情吗?”
   “我正有此意。我们不要被来自军方的挑衅打断。”
   “你说吧,我正在听。”
   “史宾诺莎是阿姆斯特丹的犹太人,他因为发表异端邪说而被逐出教会。近代很少有哲学家像他这样因为个人的学说而备受毁谤与迫害,原因在于他批评既有的宗教。他认为基督教与犹太教之所以流传至今完全是透过严格的教条与外在的仪式。他是第一个对圣经进行‘历史性批判’的人。”
   “请你说得更详细一些。”
   “他否认整本圣经都是受到上帝启示的结果。他说,当我们阅读圣经时,必须时时记得它所撰写的年代。他建议人们对圣经进行‘批判性’的阅读,如此便会发现经文中有若干矛盾之处。不过他认为新约的经文代表的是耶稣,而耶稣又是上帝的代言人。因此耶稣的教诲代表基督教已脱离正统的犹太教。耶稣宣扬‘理性的宗教’,强调爱甚于一切。史宾诺莎认为这里所指的‘爱’代表上帝的爱与人类的爱。然而遗憾的是,后来基督教本身也沦为一些严格的教条与外在的仪式。”
   “我想无论基督教或犹太教大概都很难接受他这些观念。”
   “到事态最严重时,连史宾诺莎自己的家人也与他断绝关系,他们以他散布异端邪说为由,剥夺他的继承权。这点令人备感讽刺,因为很少人像史宾诺莎这样大力鼓吹言论自由与宗教上的宽容精神。由于来自四面八方的反对,史宾诺莎最后决定过清静隐遁的生活,全心研修哲学,并靠为人磨镜片煳口。其中有些镜片后来成为我的收藏晶。”
   “哇!”
   “他后来以磨镜片维生这件事可说具有象征性的意义。一个哲学家必须帮助人们用一种新的眼光来看待生命。史宾诺莎的主要哲学理念之一就是要用永恒的观点来看事情。”
   水但削观点?”
   “是的,苏菲。你想你可以用宇宙的观点来看你自己的生命吗?你必须试着想象此时此刻自己在人世间的生活……”
   “嗯……不太容易。”
   “提醒自己你只是整个大自然生命中很小的一部分,是整个浩瀚宇宙的一部分。”
   “我想我了解你的意思……”
   “你能试着去感觉吗?你能一下子看到整个大自然(应该说整个宇宙)吗?”
   “我不确定。也许我需要一些镜片。”
   “我指的不仅是无穷的空间,也包括无限的时间。三万年前在莱茵河谷住着一个小男孩,他曾经是这整个大自然的一小部分,是一个无尽的汪洋中的一个小涟漪。你也是,苏菲。你也是大自然生命中的一小部分。你和那个小男孩并没有差别。”
   “只不过我现在还活着。”
   “是的。但这正是我要你试着去想象的。在三万年之后,你会是谁呢?”
   “你说的异端邪说就是指这个吗?”
   “并不完全是……史宾诺莎并不只是说万事万物都属于自然,他认为大自然就是上帝。他说上帝不是一切,一切都在上帝之中。”
   “这么说他是一个泛神论者。”
   一元论“没错。对史宾诺莎而言,上帝创造这个世界并不是为了要置身其外。不,上帝就是世界,有时史宾诺莎自己的说法会有些出入。
   他主张世界就在上帝之中。这里他乃是引用保罗在雅典小丘上对雅典人说的话:‘我们生活、动作、存留都在乎他。不过我们还是追随史宾诺莎的思想脉络吧。他最重要著作是《几何伦理学》(EthicsGeometricaUyDemonstrated)。”
   “依几何方式证明的伦理学?”
   “听起来可能有点奇怪,在哲学上,伦理学研究的薀妄善良生活所需的道德行为。这也是我们提到苏格拉底或亚理斯多德的‘伦理学’时所指的意思,可是到了现代,伦理学却多多少少沦为教导人们不要冒犯别人的一套生活准则。”
   “是不是因为时常想到自己便有自我主义之嫌?”
   “是的,多少有这种意味,史宾诺莎所指的伦理学与现代不太相同,它包括生活的艺术与道德行为。”
   “可是……怎样用几何方法来展现生活的艺术呢?”
   “所谓几何方法是指他所有的术语或公式。你可能还记得笛卡尔曾经希望把数学方法用在哲学性思考中,他的意思是用绝对合乎逻辑的推理来进行哲学性的思考。史宾诺莎也禀承这种理性主义的传统。他希望用他的伦理学来显示人类的生命乃是遵守大自然普遍的法则,因此我们必须挣脱自我的感觉与冲动的束缚。他相信唯有如此,我们才能获得满足与快乐。”
   “我们不只受到自然法则的规范吧?”
   “你要知道,史宾诺莎不是一位让人很容易了解的哲学家,所以我们得慢慢来,你还记得笛卡尔相信真实世界是由‘思想’与‘外扩’这两种完全不同的实体所组成的吧?”
   “我怎么可能忘记呢?”
   “‘实体’这个词可以解释成‘组成某种东西的事物’或‘某种东西的本质或最终的面貌’。笛卡尔认为实体有两种。每一件事物不是‘思想’就是‘扩延’。”
   “你不需要再说一次。”
   “不过,史宾诺莎拒绝使用这种二分法。他认为宇宙间只有一种实体。既存的每样事物都可以被分解、简化成一个他称为‘实体’的真实事物。他有时称之为‘上帝’或‘大自然’。因此史宾诺莎并不像笛卡尔那样对真实世界抱持二元的观点。我们称他为‘一元论者’。也就是说,他将大自然与万物的情况简化为一个单一的实体。”
   “那么他们两人的论点可说是完全相反。”
   “是的。但笛卡尔与史宾诺莎之间的差异并不像许多人所说的那么大。笛卡尔也指出,唯有上帝是独立存在的。只是,史宾诺莎认为上帝与大自然(或上帝与他的造物)是一体的。只有在这方面他的学说与笛卡尔的论点和犹太、基督两教的教义有很大的差距。”
   “这么说他认为大自然就是上帝,只此而已。”
   “可是史宾诺莎所指的‘自然’并不仅指扩延的自然界。他所说的实体,无论是上帝或自然,指的是既存的每一件事物,包括所有精神上的东西。”
   “你是说同时包括思想与扩延。”
   “对。根据史宾诺莎的说法,我们人类可以认出上帝的两种特质(或上帝存在的证明)。史宾诺莎称之为上帝的‘属性’。这两种属性与笛卡尔的‘思想’和‘扩延’是一样的。上帝(或‘自然’)以思想或扩延的形式出现。上帝的属性很可能无穷无尽,远不止于此。
   但‘思想’与‘扩延’却是人类所仅知的两种。”
   “不错。但他把它说得好复杂呀!”
   “是的。我们几乎需要一把锤子和一把凿子才能参透史宾诺莎的证言,不过,这样的努力还是有报偿的。最后你会挖掘出像钻石一般清澄透明的思想。”
   “我等不及了。”
   “他认为自然界中的每一件事物不是思想就是扩延。我们在日常生活中看到的每一种现象,例如一朵花或华兹华士的一首诗,都是思想属性或扩延属性的的各种不同模态。所谓‘模态’就是实体、上帝或自然所采取的特殊表现方式。一朵花是扩延属性的一个模态,一首咏叹这朵花的诗则是思想属性的一个模态。但基本上两者都是实体、上帝或自然的表现方式。”
   “你差一点把我唬住了。”
   “不过,其中道理并没有像他说的那么复杂。在他严峻的公式之下,其实埋藏着他对生命美妙之处的体悟。这种体悟简单得无法用通俗的语言表达出来。”
   “我想我还是比较喜欢用通俗的语言。”
   “没错。那么我还是先用你来打个比方好了。当你肚子痛的时候,这个痛的人是谁?”
   “就像你说的,是我。”
   “嗯。当你后来回想到自己曾经肚子痛的时候,那个想的人是谁?”
   “也是我。”
   “所以说你这个人这会儿肚子痛,下一会儿则回想你肚子痛的感觉。史宾诺莎认为所有的物质和发生在我们周遭的事物都是上帝或自然的表现方式。如此说来,我们的每一种思绪也都是上帝或自然的的思绪。因为万事万物都是一体的。宇宙间只有一个上帝、一个自然或一个实体。”
   “可是,当我想到某一件事时,想这件事的人是我;当我移动时,做这个动作的人也是我。这跟上帝有什么关系呢?”
   “你很有参与感。这样很好。可是你是谁呢?你是苏菲,没错,但你同时也是某种广大无边的存在的表现。你当然可以说思考的人是你,或移动的人是你,但你也可以说是自然在透过你思考或移动。这只是你愿意从哪一种观点来看的问题罢了。”
   “你是说我无法为自己做决定吗?”
   “可以说是,也可以说不是。你当然有权决定以任何一种方式移动自己的拇指。但你的拇指只能根据它的本质来移动。它不能跳脱你的手,在房间里跳舞。同样的,你在这个生命的结构中也有一席之地。你是苏菲,但你也是上帝身体上的一根手指头。”
   “这么说我做的每一件事都是由上帝决定的啦?”
   “也可以说是由自然或自然的法则决定的。史宾诺莎认为上帝(或自然法则)是每一件事的‘内在因’。他不是一个外在因,因为上帝透过自然法则发言,而且只透过这种方式发言。”
   “我好像还是不太能够了解其间的差异。”
   “上帝并不是一个傀儡戏师傅,拉动所有的绳子,操纵一切的事情。一个真正的傀儡戏师傅是从外面来操纵他的木偶,因此他是这些木偶做出各种动作的‘外在因’。但上帝并非以这种方式来主宰世界。上帝是透过自然法则来主宰世界。因此上帝(或自然)是每一件事情的‘内在原因’。这表示物质世界中发生的每一件事情都有其必要性。对于物质(或自然)世界,史宾诺莎所采取的是决定论者的观点。”
   “你从前好像提过类似的看法。”
   自然法则“你说的大概是斯多葛学派,他们确实也认为世间每一件事的发生都有其必要。这是为什么我们遇到各种情况时要坚忍卓绝的缘故。人不应该被感情冲昏了头。简单地说,这也是史宾诺莎的道德观。”
   “我明白你的意思了。可是我仍然不太能够接受我不能替自己决定任何事情的看法。”
   “好,那么让我们再来谈三万年前石器时代那个小男孩好了。
   。长大后,他开始用矛射杀野兽,然后爱上了一个女人并结婚生子,同时崇奉他们那个部落的神。你真的认为那些事情都是由他自己决定的吗?”
   “我不知道。”
   “或者我们也可以想想非洲的一只狮子。你认为是它自己决定要成为一只兽的吗?它是因为这样才攻击一只跛脚的羚羊吗?它可不可能自己决定要吃素?”
   “不,狮子会依照自己的天性来做。”
   “所谓天性就是‘自然法则’。你也一样,苏菲,因为你也是自然的一部分。你当然可以拿笛卡尔的学说来反驳我,说狮子是动物,不是一个具有自由心智的自由人。可是请你想一想,一个新生的婴儿会哭会叫,如果没有奶喝,它就会吸自己的手指头。你认为那个婴儿有自由意志吗?”
   “大概没有吧。”
   “那么,一个孩子是怎样产生自由意志的呢?两岁时,她跑来跑去,指着四周每一样东西。三岁时她总是缠着妈妈叽哩呱啦说个不停。四岁时,她突然变得怕黑。所谓的自由究竟在哪里?”
   “我也不知道。”
   “当她十五岁时,她坐在镜子前面练习化妆。难道这就是她开始为自己做决定并且随心所欲做事的时候吗?”
   “我开始明白你的意思了。”
   “当然,她是苏菲,但她同时也依据自然法则而活。问题在于她自己并不了解这点,因为她所做的每一件事背后都有很多复杂的理由。”
   “好了,你不需要再说了。”
   “可是最后你必须回答一个问题。在一个大花园中,有两棵年纪一样大的树。其中一棵长在充满阳光、土壤肥沃、水分充足的地方,另外一棵长在土壤贫瘠的黑暗角落。你想哪一棵树会长得比较大?哪一棵树会结比较多的果子?”
   “当然是那棵拥有最佳生长条件的树。”
   “史宾诺莎认为,这棵树是自由的,它有充分的自由去发展它先天的能力。但如果它是一棵苹果树,它就不可能有能力长出梨子或李子。同样的道理也适用于我们人类。我们的发展与个人的成长可能会受到政治环境等因素的阻碍,外在的环境可能限制我们,只有在我们能够‘自由’发展本身固有能力时,我们才活得像个自由的人。但无论如何,我们仍然像那个生长在石器时代莱茵河谷的男孩、那只非洲的狮子或花园里那棵苹果树一样受到内在潜能与外在机会的左右。”
   “好了。我投降了。”
   “史宾诺莎强调世间只有一种存在是完全自主,且可以充分自由行动的,那就是上帝(或自然)。唯有上帝或自然可以表现这种自由、‘非偶然’的过程。人可以争取自由,以便去除外在的束缚,但他永远不可能获得‘自由意志’。我们不能控制发生在我们体内的每一件事,这是扩延属性的一个模态。我们也不能‘选择’自己的思想。因此,人并没有自由的灵魂,他的灵魂或多或少都被囚禁在一个类似机器的身体内。”
   “这个理论实在很难了解。”
   “史宾诺莎指出,使我们无法获得真正的幸福与和谐的是我们内心的各种冲动。例如我们的野心和欲望。但如果我们体认到每一件事的发生都有其必然性,我们就可以凭直觉理解整个大自然。
   我们会很清楚地领悟到每一件事都有关联,每一件事情都是一体的。最后的目标是以一种全然接纳的观点来理解世间的事物。只有这样,我们才能获得真正的幸福与满足。这是史宾诺莎所说的subspecieaeternitatis。”
   “什么意思?”
   “从永恒的观点来看每一件事情。我们一开始不就是讲这个吗?”
   “到这里我们也该结束了。我得走了。”
   艾伯特站起身来,从书架上拿了一个大水果盘,放在茶几上。
   “你走前不吃点水果吗?”
   苏菲拿了一根香蕉,艾伯特则拿了一个绿苹果。
   她把香蕉的顶端弄破,开始剥皮。
   “这里写了几个字。”她突然说。
   “哪里?”
   “这里——香蕉皮里面。好像是用毛笔写的。”
   苏菲倾过身子,把香蕉拿给艾伯特看。他把字念出来:
   “席德,我又来了。孩子,我是无所不在的。生日快乐!”
   “真滑稽。”苏菲说。
   “他愈来愈会变把戏了。”
   “可是这是不可能的呀……是不是?黎巴嫩也种香蕉吗?”
   艾伯特摇摇头。
   “这种香蕉我才不要吃呢!”
   “那就别吃吧。要是谁把送给女儿的生日贺词写在一根没有剥的香蕉里面,那他一定神经不太正常,可是一定也很聪明。”
   “可不是嘛!”
   “那我们可不可以从此认定席德有一个很聪明的父亲?换句话说,他并不笨。”
   “我不是早就告诉过你了吗?上次我来这里时,让你一直叫我席德的人很可能就是他。也许他就是那个透过我们的嘴巴说话的人。”
   “任何一种情况都有可能,但我们也应该怀疑每一件事情。”
   “我只知道,我们的生命可能只是一场梦。”
   “我们还是不要太早下结论。也许有一个比较简单的解释。”
   “不管怎样,我得赶快回家了。妈妈正在等我呢尸艾伯特送她到门口。她离去时,他说:
   “亲爱的席德,我们会再见面。”
   然后门就关了。





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 20楼  发表于: 2013-10-26 0
英文原文
Spinoza
God is not a puppeteer
They sat silently for a long time. Then Sophie spoke, trying to get Alberto's mind off what had happened.
"Descartes must have been an odd kind of person. Did he become famous?"
Alberto breathed deeply for a couple of seconds before answering: "He had a great deal of significance. Perhaps most of all for another great philosopher, Ba-ruch Spinoza, who lived from 1632 to 1677."
"Are you going to tell me about him?"
"That was my intention. And we're not going to be stopped by military provocations."
"I'm all ears."
"Spinoza belonged to the Jewish community of Amsterdam, but he was excommunicated for heresy. Few philosophers in more recent times have been so blasphemed and so persecuted for their ideas as this man. It happened because he criticized the established religion. He believed that Christianity and Judaism were only kept alive by rigid dogma and outer ritual. He was the first to apply what we call a historico-critical interpretation of the Bible."
"Explanation, please."
"He denied that the Bible was inspired by God down to the last letter. When we read the Bible, he said, we must continually bear in mind the period it was written in. A 'critical' reading, such as the one he proposed, revealed a number of inconsistencies in the texts. But beneath the surface of the Scriptures in the New Testament is Jesus, who could well be called God's mouthpiece. The teachings of Jesus therefore represented a liberation from the orthodoxy of Judaism. Jesus preached a 'religion of reason' which valued love higher than all else. Spinoza interpreted this as meaning both love of God and love of humanity. Nevertheless, Christianity had also become set in its own rigid dogmas and outer rituals."
"I don't suppose these ideas were easy to swallow, either for the church or the synagogue."
"When things got really tough, Spinoza was even deserted by his own family. They tried to disinherit him on the grounds of his heresy. Paradoxically enough, few have spoken out more powerfully in the cause of free speech and religious tolerance than Spinoza. The opposition he was met with on all sides led him to pursue a quiet and secluded life devoted entirely to philosophy. He earned a meager living by polishing lenses, some of which have come into my possession."
"Very impressive!"
"There is almost something symbolic in the fact that he lived by polishing lenses. A philosopher must help people to see life in a new perspective. One of the pillars of Spinoza's philosophy was indeed to see things from the perspective of eternity."
"The perspective of eternity?"
"Yes, Sophie. Do you think you can imagine your own life in a cosmic context? You'll have to try and imagine yourself and your life here and now ..."
"Hm ... that's not so easy."
"Remind yourself that you are only living a minuscule part of all nature's life. You are part of an enormous whole."
"I think I see what you mean ..."
"Can you manage to feel it as well? Can you perceive all of nature at one time--the whole universe, in fact-- at a single glance?"
"I doubt it. Maybe I need some lenses."
"I don't mean only the infinity of space. I mean the eternity of time as well. Once upon a time, thirty thousand years ago there lived a little boy in the Rhine valley. He was a tiny part of nature, a tiny ripple on an endless sea. You too, Sophie, you too are living a tiny part of nature's life. There is no difference between you and that boy."
"Except that I'm alive now."
"Yes, but that is precisely what I wanted you to try and imagine. Who will you be in thirty thousand years?"
"Was that the heresy?"
"Not entirely ... Spinoza didn't only say that everything is nature. He identified nature with God. He said God is all, and all is in God."
"So he was a pantheist."
"That's true. To Spinoza, God did not create the world in order to stand outside it. No, God is the world. Sometimes Spinoza expresses it differently. He maintains that the world is in God. In this, he is quoting St. Paul's speech to the Athenians on the Areopagos hill: 'In him we live and move and have our being.' But let us pursue Spinoza's own reasoning. His most important book was his Ethics Geometrically Demonstrated."
"Ethics--geometrically demonstrated?"
"It may sound a bit strange to us. In philosophy, ethics means the study of moral conduct for living a good life. This is also what we mean when we speak of the ethics of Socrates or Aristotle, for example. It is only in our own time that ethics has more or less become reduced to a set of rules for living without treading on other people's toes."
"Because thinking of yourself is supposed to be egoism?"
"Something like that, yes. When Spinoza uses the word ethics, he means both the art of living and moral conduct."
"But even so ... the art of living demonstrated geometrically?"
"The geometrical method refers to the terminology he used for his formulations. You may recall how Descartes wished to use mathematical method for philosophical reflection. By this he meant a form of philosophic reflection that was constructed from strictly logical conclusions. Spinoza was part of the same rationalistic tradition. He wanted his ethics to show that human life is subject to the universal laws of nature. We must therefore free ourselves from our feelings and our passions. Only then will we find contentment and be happy, he believed."
"Surely we are not ruled exclusively by the laws of nature?"
"Well, Spinoza is not an easy philosopher to grasp. Let's take him bit by bit. You remember that Descartes believed that reality consisted of two completely separate substances, namely thought and extension."
"How could I have forgotten it?"
"The word 'substance' can be interpreted as 'that which something consists of,' or that which something basically is or can be reduced to. Descartes operated then with two of these substances. Everything was either thought or extension.
"However, Spinoza rejected this split. He believed that there was only one substance. Everything that exists can be reduced to one single reality which he simply called Substance. At times he calls it God or nature. Thus Spinoza does not have the dualistic view of reality that Descartes had. We say he is a monist. That is, he reduces nature and the condition of all things to one single substance."
"They could hardly have disagreed more."
"Ah, but the difference between Descartes and Spinoza is not as deep-seated as many have often claimed. Descartes also pointed out that only God exists independently. It's only when Spinoza identifies God with nature--or God and creation--that he distances himself a good way from both Descartes and from the Jewish and Christian doctrines."
"So then nature is God, and that's that."
"But when Spinoza uses the word 'nature,' he doesn't only mean extended nature. By Substance, God, or nature, he means everything that exists, including all things spiritual."
"You mean both thought and extension."
"You said it! According to Spinoza, we humans recognize two of God's qualities or manifestations. Spinoza called these qualities God's attributes, and these two attributes are identical with Descartes's 'thought' and 'extension.' God--or nature--manifests itself either as thought or as extension. It may well be that God has infinitely more attributes than 'thought' and 'extension,' but these are the only two that are known to man."
"Fair enough, but what a complicated way of saying it."
"Yes, one almost needs a hammer and chisel to get through Spinoza's language. The reward is that in the end you dig out a thought as crystal clear as a diamond."
"I can hardly wait!"
"Everything in nature, then, is either thought or extension. The various phenomena we come across in everyday life, such as a flower or a poem by Wordsworth, are different modes of the attribute of thought or extension. A 'mode' is the particular manner which Substance, God, or nature assumes. A flower is a mode of the attribute of extension, and a poem about the same flower is a mode of the attribute of thought. But both are basically the expression of Substance, God, or nature."
"You could have fooled me!"
"But it's not as complicated as he makes it sound. Beneath his stringent formulation lies a wonderful realization that is actually so simple that everyday language cannot accommodate it."
"I think I prefer everyday language, if it's all the same to you."
"Right. Then I'd better begin with you yourself. When you get a pain in your stomach, what is it that has a pain?"
"Like you just said. It's me."
"Fair enough. And when you later recollect that you once had a pain in your stomach, what is it that thinks?"
"That's me, too."
"So you are a single person that has a stomachache one minute and is in a thoughtful mood the next. Spinoza maintained that all material things and things that happen around us are an expression of God or nature. So it follows that all thoughts that we think are also God's or nature's thoughts. For everything is One. There is only one God, one nature, or one Substance."
"But listen, when I think something, I'm the one who's doing the thinking. When I move, I'm doing the moving. Why do you have to mix God into it?"
"I like your involvement. But who are you? You are Sophie Amundsen, but you are also the expression of something infinitely bigger. You can, if you wish, say that you are thinking or that you are moving, but could you not also say that it is nature that is thinking your thoughts, or that it is nature that is moving through you? It's really just a question of which lenses you choose to look through."
"Are you saying I cannot decide for myself?"
"Yes and no. You may have the right to move your thumb any way you choose. But your thumb can only move according to its nature. It cannot jump off your hand and dance about the room. In the same way you also have your place in the structure of existence, my dear. You are Sophie, but you are also a finger of God's body."
"So God decides everything I do?"
"Or nature, or the laws of nature. Spinoza believed that God--or the laws of nature--is the inner cause of everything that happens. He is not an outer cause, since God speaks through the laws of nature and only through them."
"I'm not sure I can see the difference."
"God is not a puppeteer who pulls all the strings, controlling everything that happens. A real puppet master controls the puppets from outside and is therefore the 'outer cause' of the puppet's movements. But that is not the way God controls the world. God controls the world through natural laws. So God--or nature--is the 'inner cause' of everything that happens. This means that everything in the material world happens through necessity. Spinoza had a determinist view of the material, or natural, world."
"I think you said something like that before."
"You're probably thinking of the Stoics. They also claimed that everything happens out of necessity. That was why it was important to meet every situation with 'stoicism.' Man should not get carried away by his feelings. Briefly, that was also Spinoza's ethics."
"I see what you mean, but I still don't like the idea that I don't decide for myself."
"Okay, let's go back in time to the Stone Age boy who lived thirty thousand years ago. When he grew up, he cast spears after wild animals, loved a woman who became the mother of his children, and quite certainly worshipped the tribal gods. Do you really think he decided all that for himself?"
"I don't know."
"Or think of a lion in Africa. Do you think it makes up its mind to be a beast of prey? Is that why it attacks a limping antelope? Could it instead have made up its mind to be a vegetarian?"
"No, a lion obeys its nature."
"You mean, the laws of nature. So do you, Sophie, because you are also part of nature. You could of course protest, with the support of Descartes, that a lion is an animal and not a free human being with free mental faculties. But think of a newborn baby that screams and yells. If it doesn't get milk it sucks its thumb. Does that baby have a free will?"
"I guess not."
"When does the child get its free will, then? At the age of two, she runs around and points at everything in sight. At the age of three she nags her mother, and at the age of four she suddenly gets afraid of the dark. Where's the freedom, Sophie?"
"I don't know."
"When she is fifteen, she sits in front of a mirror experimenting with makeup. Is this the moment when she makes her own personal decisions and does what she likes?"
"I see what you're getting at."
"She is Sophie Amundsen, certainly. But she also lives according to the laws of nature. The point is that she doesn't realize it because there are so many complex reasons for everything she does."
"I don't think I want to hear any more."
"But you must just answer a last question. Two equally old trees are growing in a large garden. One of the trees grows in a sunny spot and has plenty of good soil and water. The other tree grows in poor soil in a dark spot. Which of the trees do you think is bigger? And which of them bears more fruit?"
"Obviously the tree with the best conditions for growing."
"According to Spinoza, this tree is free. It has its full freedom to develop its inherent abilities. But if it is an apple tree it will not have the ability to bear pears or plums. The same applies to us humans. We can be hindered in our development and our personal growth by political conditions, for instance. Outer circumstances can constrain us. Only when we are free to develop our innate abilities can we live as free beings. But we are just as much determined by inner potential and outer opportunities as the Stone Age boy on the Rhine, the lion in Africa, or the apple tree in the garden."
"Okay, I give in, almost."
"Spinoza emphasizes that there is only one being which is totally and utterly 'its own cause' and can act with complete freedom. Only God or nature is the expression of such a free and 'nonaccidental' process. Man can strive for freedom in order to live without outer con-straint, but he will never achieve 'free will.' We do not control everything that happens in our body--which is a mode of the attribute of extension. Neither do we 'choose' our thinking. Man therefore does not have a 'free soul'; it is more or less imprisoned in a mechanical body."
"That is rather hard to understand."
"Spinoza said that it was our passions--such as ambition and lust--which prevent us from achieving true happiness and harmony, but that if we recognize that everything happens from necessity, we can achieve an intuitive understanding of nature as a whole. We can come to realize with crystal clarity that everything is related, even that everything is One. The goal is to comprehend everything that exists in an all-embracing perception. Only then will we achieve true happiness and contentment. This was what Spinoza called seeing everything 'sub specie aeternitatis.' "
"Which means what?"
"To see everything from the perspective of eternity. Wasn't that where we started?"
"It'll have to be where we end, too. I must get going."
Alberto got up and fetched a large fruit dish from the book shelves. He set it on the coffee table.
"Won't you at least have a piece of fruit before you go?"
Sophie helped herself to a banana. Alberto took a green apple.
She broke off the top of the banana and began to peel it.
"There's something written here," she said suddenly.
"Where?"
"Here--inside the banana peel. It looks as if it was written with an ink brush."
Sophie leaned over and showed Alberto the banana. He read aloud:
Here I am again, Hilde. I'm everywhere. Happy birthday!
"Very funny," said Sophie.
"He gets more crafty all the time."
"But it's impossible ... isn't it? Do you know if they grow bananas in Lebanon?"
Alberto shook his head.
"I'm certainly not going to eat that."
"Leave it then. Someone who writes birthday greetings to his daughter on the inside of an unpeeled banana must be mentally disturbed. But he must also be quite ingenious."
"Yes, both."
"So shall we establish here and now that Hilde has an ingenious father? In other words, he's not so stupid."
"That's what I've been telling you. And it could just as well be him that made you call me Hilde last time I came here. Maybe he's the one putting all the words in our mouths."
"Nothing can be ruled out. But we should doubt everything."
"For all we know, our entire life could be a dream."
"But let's not jump to conclusions. There could be a simpler explanation."
"Well whatever, I have to hurry home. My mom is waiting for me."
Alberto saw her to the door. As she left, he said:
"We'll meet again, dear Hilde."
Then the door closed behind her.





中文翻译
   史宾诺莎
   ……上帝不是一个傀儡戏师傅……
   他们坐在那儿,许久没有开口。后来苏菲打破沉默,想让艾伯特忘掉刚才的事。
   “笛卡尔一定是个怪人。他后来成名了吗?”
   艾伯特深呼吸了几秒钟才开口回答:
   “他对后世的影响非常重大,尤其是对另外一位大哲学家史宾诺莎。他是荷兰人,生于一六三二到一六七七年间。”
   “你要告诉我有关他的事情吗?”
   “我正有此意。我们不要被来自军方的挑衅打断。”
   “你说吧,我正在听。”
   “史宾诺莎是阿姆斯特丹的犹太人,他因为发表异端邪说而被逐出教会。近代很少有哲学家像他这样因为个人的学说而备受毁谤与迫害,原因在于他批评既有的宗教。他认为基督教与犹太教之所以流传至今完全是透过严格的教条与外在的仪式。他是第一个对圣经进行‘历史性批判’的人。”
   “请你说得更详细一些。”
   “他否认整本圣经都是受到上帝启示的结果。他说,当我们阅读圣经时,必须时时记得它所撰写的年代。他建议人们对圣经进行‘批判性’的阅读,如此便会发现经文中有若干矛盾之处。不过他认为新约的经文代表的是耶稣,而耶稣又是上帝的代言人。因此耶稣的教诲代表基督教已脱离正统的犹太教。耶稣宣扬‘理性的宗教’,强调爱甚于一切。史宾诺莎认为这里所指的‘爱’代表上帝的爱与人类的爱。然而遗憾的是,后来基督教本身也沦为一些严格的教条与外在的仪式。”
   “我想无论基督教或犹太教大概都很难接受他这些观念。”
   “到事态最严重时,连史宾诺莎自己的家人也与他断绝关系,他们以他散布异端邪说为由,剥夺他的继承权。这点令人备感讽刺,因为很少人像史宾诺莎这样大力鼓吹言论自由与宗教上的宽容精神。由于来自四面八方的反对,史宾诺莎最后决定过清静隐遁的生活,全心研修哲学,并靠为人磨镜片煳口。其中有些镜片后来成为我的收藏晶。”
   “哇!”
   “他后来以磨镜片维生这件事可说具有象征性的意义。一个哲学家必须帮助人们用一种新的眼光来看待生命。史宾诺莎的主要哲学理念之一就是要用永恒的观点来看事情。”
   水但削观点?”
   “是的,苏菲。你想你可以用宇宙的观点来看你自己的生命吗?你必须试着想象此时此刻自己在人世间的生活……”
   “嗯……不太容易。”
   “提醒自己你只是整个大自然生命中很小的一部分,是整个浩瀚宇宙的一部分。”
   “我想我了解你的意思……”
   “你能试着去感觉吗?你能一下子看到整个大自然(应该说整个宇宙)吗?”
   “我不确定。也许我需要一些镜片。”
   “我指的不仅是无穷的空间,也包括无限的时间。三万年前在莱茵河谷住着一个小男孩,他曾经是这整个大自然的一小部分,是一个无尽的汪洋中的一个小涟漪。你也是,苏菲。你也是大自然生命中的一小部分。你和那个小男孩并没有差别。”
   “只不过我现在还活着。”
   “是的。但这正是我要你试着去想象的。在三万年之后,你会是谁呢?”
   “你说的异端邪说就是指这个吗?”
   “并不完全是……史宾诺莎并不只是说万事万物都属于自然,他认为大自然就是上帝。他说上帝不是一切,一切都在上帝之中。”
   “这么说他是一个泛神论者。”
   一元论“没错。对史宾诺莎而言,上帝创造这个世界并不是为了要置身其外。不,上帝就是世界,有时史宾诺莎自己的说法会有些出入。
   他主张世界就在上帝之中。这里他乃是引用保罗在雅典小丘上对雅典人说的话:‘我们生活、动作、存留都在乎他。不过我们还是追随史宾诺莎的思想脉络吧。他最重要著作是《几何伦理学》(EthicsGeometricaUyDemonstrated)。”
   “依几何方式证明的伦理学?”
   “听起来可能有点奇怪,在哲学上,伦理学研究的薀妄善良生活所需的道德行为。这也是我们提到苏格拉底或亚理斯多德的‘伦理学’时所指的意思,可是到了现代,伦理学却多多少少沦为教导人们不要冒犯别人的一套生活准则。”
   “是不是因为时常想到自己便有自我主义之嫌?”
   “是的,多少有这种意味,史宾诺莎所指的伦理学与现代不太相同,它包括生活的艺术与道德行为。”
   “可是……怎样用几何方法来展现生活的艺术呢?”
   “所谓几何方法是指他所有的术语或公式。你可能还记得笛卡尔曾经希望把数学方法用在哲学性思考中,他的意思是用绝对合乎逻辑的推理来进行哲学性的思考。史宾诺莎也禀承这种理性主义的传统。他希望用他的伦理学来显示人类的生命乃是遵守大自然普遍的法则,因此我们必须挣脱自我的感觉与冲动的束缚。他相信唯有如此,我们才能获得满足与快乐。”
   “我们不只受到自然法则的规范吧?”
   “你要知道,史宾诺莎不是一位让人很容易了解的哲学家,所以我们得慢慢来,你还记得笛卡尔相信真实世界是由‘思想’与‘外扩’这两种完全不同的实体所组成的吧?”
   “我怎么可能忘记呢?”
   “‘实体’这个词可以解释成‘组成某种东西的事物’或‘某种东西的本质或最终的面貌’。笛卡尔认为实体有两种。每一件事物不是‘思想’就是‘扩延’。”
   “你不需要再说一次。”
   “不过,史宾诺莎拒绝使用这种二分法。他认为宇宙间只有一种实体。既存的每样事物都可以被分解、简化成一个他称为‘实体’的真实事物。他有时称之为‘上帝’或‘大自然’。因此史宾诺莎并不像笛卡尔那样对真实世界抱持二元的观点。我们称他为‘一元论者’。也就是说,他将大自然与万物的情况简化为一个单一的实体。”
   “那么他们两人的论点可说是完全相反。”
   “是的。但笛卡尔与史宾诺莎之间的差异并不像许多人所说的那么大。笛卡尔也指出,唯有上帝是独立存在的。只是,史宾诺莎认为上帝与大自然(或上帝与他的造物)是一体的。只有在这方面他的学说与笛卡尔的论点和犹太、基督两教的教义有很大的差距。”
   “这么说他认为大自然就是上帝,只此而已。”
   “可是史宾诺莎所指的‘自然’并不仅指扩延的自然界。他所说的实体,无论是上帝或自然,指的是既存的每一件事物,包括所有精神上的东西。”
   “你是说同时包括思想与扩延。”
   “对。根据史宾诺莎的说法,我们人类可以认出上帝的两种特质(或上帝存在的证明)。史宾诺莎称之为上帝的‘属性’。这两种属性与笛卡尔的‘思想’和‘扩延’是一样的。上帝(或‘自然’)以思想或扩延的形式出现。上帝的属性很可能无穷无尽,远不止于此。
   但‘思想’与‘扩延’却是人类所仅知的两种。”
   “不错。但他把它说得好复杂呀!”
   “是的。我们几乎需要一把锤子和一把凿子才能参透史宾诺莎的证言,不过,这样的努力还是有报偿的。最后你会挖掘出像钻石一般清澄透明的思想。”
   “我等不及了。”
   “他认为自然界中的每一件事物不是思想就是扩延。我们在日常生活中看到的每一种现象,例如一朵花或华兹华士的一首诗,都是思想属性或扩延属性的的各种不同模态。所谓‘模态’就是实体、上帝或自然所采取的特殊表现方式。一朵花是扩延属性的一个模态,一首咏叹这朵花的诗则是思想属性的一个模态。但基本上两者都是实体、上帝或自然的表现方式。”
   “你差一点把我唬住了。”
   “不过,其中道理并没有像他说的那么复杂。在他严峻的公式之下,其实埋藏着他对生命美妙之处的体悟。这种体悟简单得无法用通俗的语言表达出来。”
   “我想我还是比较喜欢用通俗的语言。”
   “没错。那么我还是先用你来打个比方好了。当你肚子痛的时候,这个痛的人是谁?”
   “就像你说的,是我。”
   “嗯。当你后来回想到自己曾经肚子痛的时候,那个想的人是谁?”
   “也是我。”
   “所以说你这个人这会儿肚子痛,下一会儿则回想你肚子痛的感觉。史宾诺莎认为所有的物质和发生在我们周遭的事物都是上帝或自然的表现方式。如此说来,我们的每一种思绪也都是上帝或自然的的思绪。因为万事万物都是一体的。宇宙间只有一个上帝、一个自然或一个实体。”
   “可是,当我想到某一件事时,想这件事的人是我;当我移动时,做这个动作的人也是我。这跟上帝有什么关系呢?”
   “你很有参与感。这样很好。可是你是谁呢?你是苏菲,没错,但你同时也是某种广大无边的存在的表现。你当然可以说思考的人是你,或移动的人是你,但你也可以说是自然在透过你思考或移动。这只是你愿意从哪一种观点来看的问题罢了。”
   “你是说我无法为自己做决定吗?”
   “可以说是,也可以说不是。你当然有权决定以任何一种方式移动自己的拇指。但你的拇指只能根据它的本质来移动。它不能跳脱你的手,在房间里跳舞。同样的,你在这个生命的结构中也有一席之地。你是苏菲,但你也是上帝身体上的一根手指头。”
   “这么说我做的每一件事都是由上帝决定的啦?”
   “也可以说是由自然或自然的法则决定的。史宾诺莎认为上帝(或自然法则)是每一件事的‘内在因’。他不是一个外在因,因为上帝透过自然法则发言,而且只透过这种方式发言。”
   “我好像还是不太能够了解其间的差异。”
   “上帝并不是一个傀儡戏师傅,拉动所有的绳子,操纵一切的事情。一个真正的傀儡戏师傅是从外面来操纵他的木偶,因此他是这些木偶做出各种动作的‘外在因’。但上帝并非以这种方式来主宰世界。上帝是透过自然法则来主宰世界。因此上帝(或自然)是每一件事情的‘内在原因’。这表示物质世界中发生的每一件事情都有其必要性。对于物质(或自然)世界,史宾诺莎所采取的是决定论者的观点。”
   “你从前好像提过类似的看法。”
   自然法则“你说的大概是斯多葛学派,他们确实也认为世间每一件事的发生都有其必要。这是为什么我们遇到各种情况时要坚忍卓绝的缘故。人不应该被感情冲昏了头。简单地说,这也是史宾诺莎的道德观。”
   “我明白你的意思了。可是我仍然不太能够接受我不能替自己决定任何事情的看法。”
   “好,那么让我们再来谈三万年前石器时代那个小男孩好了。
   。长大后,他开始用矛射杀野兽,然后爱上了一个女人并结婚生子,同时崇奉他们那个部落的神。你真的认为那些事情都是由他自己决定的吗?”
   “我不知道。”
   “或者我们也可以想想非洲的一只狮子。你认为是它自己决定要成为一只兽的吗?它是因为这样才攻击一只跛脚的羚羊吗?它可不可能自己决定要吃素?”
   “不,狮子会依照自己的天性来做。”
   “所谓天性就是‘自然法则’。你也一样,苏菲,因为你也是自然的一部分。你当然可以拿笛卡尔的学说来反驳我,说狮子是动物,不是一个具有自由心智的自由人。可是请你想一想,一个新生的婴儿会哭会叫,如果没有奶喝,它就会吸自己的手指头。你认为那个婴儿有自由意志吗?”
   “大概没有吧。”
   “那么,一个孩子是怎样产生自由意志的呢?两岁时,她跑来跑去,指着四周每一样东西。三岁时她总是缠着妈妈叽哩呱啦说个不停。四岁时,她突然变得怕黑。所谓的自由究竟在哪里?”
   “我也不知道。”
   “当她十五岁时,她坐在镜子前面练习化妆。难道这就是她开始为自己做决定并且随心所欲做事的时候吗?”
   “我开始明白你的意思了。”
   “当然,她是苏菲,但她同时也依据自然法则而活。问题在于她自己并不了解这点,因为她所做的每一件事背后都有很多复杂的理由。”
   “好了,你不需要再说了。”
   “可是最后你必须回答一个问题。在一个大花园中,有两棵年纪一样大的树。其中一棵长在充满阳光、土壤肥沃、水分充足的地方,另外一棵长在土壤贫瘠的黑暗角落。你想哪一棵树会长得比较大?哪一棵树会结比较多的果子?”
   “当然是那棵拥有最佳生长条件的树。”
   “史宾诺莎认为,这棵树是自由的,它有充分的自由去发展它先天的能力。但如果它是一棵苹果树,它就不可能有能力长出梨子或李子。同样的道理也适用于我们人类。我们的发展与个人的成长可能会受到政治环境等因素的阻碍,外在的环境可能限制我们,只有在我们能够‘自由’发展本身固有能力时,我们才活得像个自由的人。但无论如何,我们仍然像那个生长在石器时代莱茵河谷的男孩、那只非洲的狮子或花园里那棵苹果树一样受到内在潜能与外在机会的左右。”
   “好了。我投降了。”
   “史宾诺莎强调世间只有一种存在是完全自主,且可以充分自由行动的,那就是上帝(或自然)。唯有上帝或自然可以表现这种自由、‘非偶然’的过程。人可以争取自由,以便去除外在的束缚,但他永远不可能获得‘自由意志’。我们不能控制发生在我们体内的每一件事,这是扩延属性的一个模态。我们也不能‘选择’自己的思想。因此,人并没有自由的灵魂,他的灵魂或多或少都被囚禁在一个类似机器的身体内。”
   “这个理论实在很难了解。”
   “史宾诺莎指出,使我们无法获得真正的幸福与和谐的是我们内心的各种冲动。例如我们的野心和欲望。但如果我们体认到每一件事的发生都有其必然性,我们就可以凭直觉理解整个大自然。
   我们会很清楚地领悟到每一件事都有关联,每一件事情都是一体的。最后的目标是以一种全然接纳的观点来理解世间的事物。只有这样,我们才能获得真正的幸福与满足。这是史宾诺莎所说的subspecieaeternitatis。”
   “什么意思?”
   “从永恒的观点来看每一件事情。我们一开始不就是讲这个吗?”
   “到这里我们也该结束了。我得走了。”
   艾伯特站起身来,从书架上拿了一个大水果盘,放在茶几上。
   “你走前不吃点水果吗?”
   苏菲拿了一根香蕉,艾伯特则拿了一个绿苹果。
   她把香蕉的顶端弄破,开始剥皮。
   “这里写了几个字。”她突然说。
   “哪里?”
   “这里——香蕉皮里面。好像是用毛笔写的。”
   苏菲倾过身子,把香蕉拿给艾伯特看。他把字念出来:
   “席德,我又来了。孩子,我是无所不在的。生日快乐!”
   “真滑稽。”苏菲说。
   “他愈来愈会变把戏了。”
   “可是这是不可能的呀……是不是?黎巴嫩也种香蕉吗?”
   艾伯特摇摇头。
   “这种香蕉我才不要吃呢!”
   “那就别吃吧。要是谁把送给女儿的生日贺词写在一根没有剥的香蕉里面,那他一定神经不太正常,可是一定也很聪明。”
   “可不是嘛!”
   “那我们可不可以从此认定席德有一个很聪明的父亲?换句话说,他并不笨。”
   “我不是早就告诉过你了吗?上次我来这里时,让你一直叫我席德的人很可能就是他。也许他就是那个透过我们的嘴巴说话的人。”
   “任何一种情况都有可能,但我们也应该怀疑每一件事情。”
   “我只知道,我们的生命可能只是一场梦。”
   “我们还是不要太早下结论。也许有一个比较简单的解释。”
   “不管怎样,我得赶快回家了。妈妈正在等我呢尸艾伯特送她到门口。她离去时,他说:
   “亲爱的席德,我们会再见面。”
   然后门就关了。





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 19楼  发表于: 2013-10-26 0
[content too large, truncated for display]
英文原文
[table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,1]
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.



[/td][td=1,1,60%]
中文翻译
[table=100%,#ffffff,#000000,1][tr][td]   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
发帖 回复