德国诗人歌德曾经说过： “不能汲取三千年历史经验的人没有未来可言。”我不希望你成为这些人当中之一。我将尽我所能，让你熟悉你在历史上的根。这是人之所以为人(而不仅是一只赤身露体的猿猴)的唯一方式，也是我们避免在虚空中飘浮的唯一方式。
The German poet Goethe once said that "he who cannot draw on three thousand years is living from hand to mouth." I don't want you to end up in such a sad state. I will do what I can to acquaint you with your historical roots. It is the only way to become a human being. It is the only way to become more than a naked ape. It is the only way to avoid floating in a vacuum.引自 两种文化
“怎么说呢?”
“当我们做梦时，我们以为自己置身真实世界中。那么，我们清，醒时的感觉与我们做梦时的感觉之间有何区别呢?笛卡尔写道:
‘当我仔细思索这个问题时，我发现人清醒时的状态与做梦时的状态并不一定有所分别。’他并且说：‘你怎能确定你的生命不是一场梦呢?”’“杰普认为他躺在男爵床上的那段时间只不过是一场梦而已。”
“而当他躺在男爵的床上时，他以为自己过去那段务农的贫穷生活只不过是个梦而已。所以，笛卡尔最终怀疑每一件事物。在他之前的许多哲学家走到这里就走不下去了。”
“所以他们并没有走多远。”
“可是笛卡尔却设法从这个零点开始出发。他怀疑每一件事，而这正是他唯一能够确定的事情。此时他悟出一个道理：有一件事情必定是真实的，那就是他怀疑。当他怀疑时，他必然是在思考，而由于他在思考，那么他必定是个会思考的存在者。用他自己的话来说，就是：Cogito，ergosum。”
“什么意思?”
“我思故我在。”
“我一点都不奇怪他会悟出这点。”
“不错。但请你注意他突然间视自己为会思考的存在者的那种直观的确定性。也许你还记得柏拉图说过：我们以理性所领会的知识要比我们以感官所领会的更加真实。对笛卡尔来说正是如此。他不仅察觉到自己是一个会思考的‘我’，也发现这个会思考的‘我’要比我们的感官所观察到的物质世界更加真实。同时，他的哲学探索并未到此为止。他仍旧继续追寻答案。”
“我希望你也能继续下去。”
“后来，笛卡尔开始问，自己是否能以同样直观的确定性来察知其他事物。他的结论是：在他的心灵中，他很清楚地知道何谓完美的实体，这种概念他一向就有。但是他认为这种概念显然不可能来自他本身，因为对于完美实体的概念不可能来自一个本身并不完美的人，所以它必定来自那个完美实体本身，也就是上帝。因此，对笛卡尔而言，上帝的存在是一件很明显的事实，就像一个会思考的存在者必定存在一样。”
“他这个结论下得太早了一些。他一开始时似乎比较谨慎。”
“你说得对。许多人认为这是笛卡尔的弱点。不过你刚才说‘结论’，事实上这个问题并不需要证明。笛卡尔的意思只是说我们都是具有对于完美实体的概念，由此可见这个完美实体的本身必定存在。因为一个完美的实体如果不存在，就不算完美了，此外，如果世上没有所谓的完美实体，我们也不会具有完美实体的概念。因为我们本身是不完美的，所以完美的概念不可能来自于我们。笛卡尔认为，上帝这个概念是与生俱来的，乃是我们出生时就烙印在我们身上的，‘就像工匠在他的作品上打上记号一般。”’“没错，可是我有‘鳄象’这个概念并不代表真的有‘鳄象’存在呀!”
“笛卡尔会说，‘鳄象’这个概念中并不包含它必然存在的事实。但‘完美实体’这个概念中却包含它必然存在的事实。笛卡尔认为，这就像‘圆’这个概念的要素之一就是，圆上所有的点必须与圆心等长一样。如果不符合这点，圆就不成其为圆。同样的，如果缺少‘存在’这个最重要的特质，一个‘完美的实体’也就不成其为‘完美的实体’了。”
“这种想法很奇怪。”
“这就是典型的‘理性主义者’的思考模式。笛卡尔和苏格拉底与柏拉图一样，相信理性与存在之间有所关联。依理性看来愈是明显的事情，它的存在也就愈加可以肯定。”
“到目前为止，他只讲到人是会思考的动物，以及宇宙间有一个完美的实体这两件事。”
“是的。他从这两点出发，继续探讨。在谈到我们对外在现实世界(如太阳和月亮)的概念时，笛卡尔认为，这些概念可能都只是幻象。但是外在现实世界也有若干我们可以用理性察知的特点，这些特点就是它们的数学特质，也就是诸如宽、高等可以测量的特性。这些‘量’方面的特性对于我们的理性来说，就像人会思考这个事实一般显而易见。至于‘质’方面的特性，如颜色、气味和味道等，则与我们的感官经验有关，因此并不足以描述外在的真实世界。”
“这么说大自然毕竟不是一场梦。”
"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."引自 笛卡尔-我思故我在
“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。”
"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."引自 史宾诺莎 上帝不是一个傀儡戏师傅Spinoza God is not a puppeteer
“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?”
"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?"
引自 史宾诺莎 上帝不是一个傀儡戏师傅Spinoza God is not a puppeteer
“黑格尔说，男女之不同犹如植物与动物之不同。动物具有较多的男人性格，而植物则较具女人性格，因为女人的发展基本上是属于静态的。在本质上她是一个犹豫不决的感情体系。如果由女人来领导政府，则国家将有覆亡之虞，因为她们并不是依据整体的需求行动，而是随兴之所至而决定的。女人主要是透过生活(而非读书)吸收思想，借此获得某种教育。相反的，男人为了在社会上争取一席之地，则必须勤练技能、苦心研读。”
“谢啦，这样就够了。这类的话我可不想再听了。”
" '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."引自 黑格尔/辩证法
“很多……各种潮流都有。我们要先讲一个非常重要的潮流，就是存在主义。这是一个集合名词，代表几股以人存在的情况为出发点的哲学潮流。我们通常谈的是二十世纪的存在哲学。这些存在主义哲学家中有几个是以祁克果，乃至黑格尔等人的学说为基础的。”
“嗯。”
“另外一个对二十世纪有很大影响的哲学家是德国的尼采(FriedrichNietzsche)，生于一八四四到一九OO年间。他同样反对黑格尔的哲学以及德国的‘历史主义’，他认为我们应该重视生命本身，而不必对历史和他所谓的基督教的‘奴隶式道德’过于注意。
他希望能够造成‘对所有价值的重新评价’，使强者的生命力不会受到弱者的拖累。根据尼采的说法，基督教和传统哲学已经脱离了真实世界，朝向‘天堂’或‘观念世界’发展，而人们过去认为的‘真实’世界事实上是一个‘伪世界’。他说：‘要忠于这个世界。不要听信那些让你有超自然期望的人。”’“然后呢?”。
“祁克果和尼采两人同时又影响了德国的存在主义哲学家海德格(MartinHeidegger)。可是我们现在要专门来谈法国存在主义哲学家萨特(Jean—PaulSartre)。他生于一九O五到一九八O年间，是存在主义者(至少是信奉存在主义的一般大众)的领袖。他的存在主义在第二次世界大战后的一九四O年左右尤其风行。后来他与法国的马克思主义运动结盟，但他本人从来没有加入任何党派。”
“是因为这样我们才在一家法国咖啡厅见面吗?”
“我承认这是有目的的。萨特本人经常出入咖啡厅。他就是在这样的咖啡厅里遇见他终身的伴侣西蒙波娃(SimonedeBeauvoir)的。她也是一位存在主义的哲学家。”
“一位女哲学家?”
“对。”
“大好了，人类终于变得比较文明了。”
“可是我们这个时代也有很多新的问题。”
“你要讲的是存在主义。”
“萨特说：‘存在主义就是人文主义。’他的意思是存在主义者乃是以人类为出发点。必须说明的是：他的人文土义对于人类处境的观点要比文艺复兴时代的人丈主义者悲观得多。”
“为什么呢?”
“祁克果和本世纪的若干存在主义哲学家都是基督徒，但萨特所信仰的却是所谓的‘无神论的存在主义’。他的哲学可以说是在‘上帝已死’的情况下对人类处境所做的无情分析。‘上帝已死’这句话是尼采说的。”
“说下去。”
“萨特和祁克果的哲学中最主要的一个字眼就是‘存在’。但存在不等于活着。植物和动物也活着，它们虽然存在，但并不需要思考存在的意义。人是唯一意识到自己存在的生物。萨特表示，一个东西只是在己(initself)而人类却是为已(foritself)。因此人的存在并不等于东西的存在。”
“我同意。”
“萨特进一步宣称，人的存在比任何其他事情都重要。我存在的这个事实比我是谁要更加重要。他说：‘存在先于本质。，”
“这句话很复杂。”
“所谓的本质是指组成某些事物的东西，也就是说某些事物的本性。但根据萨特的说法，人并没有这种天生的‘本性’，因此人必须创造自我。他必须创造自己的本性或‘本质’，因为他的本性并非是一生下来就固定的。”
“我明白了。”
“在整部哲学史中，哲学家们一直想要探索人的本性。但萨特相信，人并没有一种不变的‘本性’。因此，追求广泛的生命的‘意识’是没有用的。换句话说，我们是注定要自己创造这种意义。我们就像是还没背好台词就被拉上舞台的演员，没有剧本，也没有提词人低声告诉我们应该怎么做。我们必须自己决定该怎么活。”
“事实上，真的是这样。如果我们能在圣经或哲学教科书中学到该怎么活，就很有用了。”
“你讲到要点了。但萨特说，当人领悟到他们活在世上，总有一天会死，而且没有什么意义可以攀附时，他们就会愈加恐惧。你可能还记得祁克果在形容人存在的处境时，也用过这个字眼。”
“嗯。”
“萨特又说，人在一个没有意义的世界中会感到疏离。当他描述人的‘疏离’时，乃是重复黑格尔的中心思想。人的这种疏离感会造成绝望、烦闷、厌恶和荒谬等感觉。”
“感觉沮丧或觉得一切都很无聊是很正常的。”
“的确如此。萨特所描述的乃是二十世纪的城市人。你也许还记得文艺复兴时期的人文主义者曾经兴高采烈地强调人的自由与独立。萨特则觉得人的自由是一种诅咒。他说：‘人是注定要受自由之苦的。因为他并没有创造自己，但却是自由的。因为一旦被扔进这个世界里来，他就必须为他所做的每一件事负责。”’“可是我们并没有要求被创造成自由的个体。”
“这正是萨特所要说的。可是我们仍然是自由的个体，而这种自由使我们注定一生中要不断地做选择。世上没有我们必须遵守的永恒价值或规范，这使得我们的选择更加有意义。因为我们要为自己所做的事负全责。萨特强调，人绝对不能放弃他对自己行动的责任，也不能以我们‘必须’上班、‘必须’符合中产阶级对我们生活方式的期望为理由。逃避为自己做选择的责任。如果我们逃避这项责任，就会沦为无名大众的一分子，将永远只是一个没有个性的群体之一，逃避自我并自我欺骗。从另外一方面来说，我们的自由迫使我们要成为某种人物，要‘真实’地活着。”
“嗯，我明白了。”
“在道德的抉择上也是如此。我们永远不能把错误归咎于‘人性’或‘人的软弱’等等。我们可以发现时常有成年男子做出种种令人厌恶的行为，却把这样的行为归咎于‘男人天生的坏毛病’。可是世上没有‘男人天生的坏毛病’这种东西，那只是我们用来避免为自己的行为负责的借口罢了。”
“总不能把样样事情都怪在它头上。”
“虽然萨特宣称生命并没有固有的意义，但他的意思并不是说什么事情都不重要。他不是我们所谓的‘虚无主义者’。”
“什么是虚无主义者?”
“就是那些认为没有一件事情有意义，怎样都可以的人。萨特认为生命应该有意义，这是一个命令。但我们生命中的意义必须由我们自己来创造，存在的意义就是要创造自己的生命。”
“你可以说得详细一点吗?”
“萨特想要证明意识本身在感知某件事物之前是不存在的。因为意识总是会意识到某件事物。这个‘事物’固然是由我们的环境提供的，但也是由我们自己提供的。我们可以选择对我们有意义的事物，借以决定我们所要感知的事物。”
“你可以举个例子吗?”
“例如同一个房间内的两个人对于这个房间的感受可能大不相同，这是因为当我们感知我们的环境时，会赋予它我们本身的意义(或我们的利益)。一个怀孕的女人也许会认为她走到哪里都可以看见别的孕妇，这并不是因为从前没有孕妇，而是因为她自己怀孕这件事使得每一件事在她眼中都有了新的意义。一个生病的人也许会认为到处都看得见救护车……”
“嗯，我明白了。”
“我们本身的生活会影响我们对这房间内事物的看法。如果某件事情与我无关，我就看不见它。所以我现在也许可以告诉你我今天为什么迟到了。”
“你是有目的的，对吧?”
“你先告诉我你进来时看到什么。”
“我注意到的第一件事就是你不在这里。”“你看到的第一件事物却是一件不在这里的事物，这不是很奇怪吗?”
“也许吧。可是我要见的人是你呀。”
“萨特就曾经用过一次这样的咖啡厅之行说明我们如何‘虚无化’与我们无关的事物。”
“你迟到就是为了要说明这点?”
“是的，我想让你了解这个萨特哲学中的主要重点。你可以说这是一次演习。”
“少来!”
“当你谈恋爱，正等着你的爱人打电话给你时，你可能整晚都会‘听见’他没有打电话给你。因为你整个晚上注意到的就是他没有打电话来。当你跟他约好在火车站见面时，月台上人来人往，而你没有看见他。这些人都在那儿，但他们对你却是不重要的。你甚至可能觉得他们很讨厌，因为他们占去大多空间了。你唯一注意到的事情就是他不在那儿。”
“多悲哀呀。”
“西蒙波娃曾试图将存在主义应用到女性主义上。萨特已经说过，人没有基本的‘本性’。我们必须创造自我。”
“真的吗?”
“我们对于两性的看法也是这样。西蒙波娃否认一般人所谓的‘女人的天性’或‘男人的天性’。举例来说，一般人都说男人有所谓的‘超越的’或‘追求成功’的天性，因此他们会在家庭以外的地方追求意义和方向。而女人则被认为具有与男人完全相反的生活哲学。她们是所谓‘内在的’，意思就是说她们希望留在原地。因此她们会做养育小孩、整理环境等比较与家庭有关的事。今天我们也许会说妇女要比男人关心‘女性的价值’。”
“她真的相信那些话吗?”
“你没有在听我说。事实上，西蒙波娃不相信有任何这种‘女人天性’或‘男人天性’存在。相反的，她相信女人和男人都必须挣脱这种内在偏见或理想的束缚。”
“我同意。”
“她主要的作品名叫《第二性》，一九四九年出版。”
“第二性是什么意思?”
“她指的是女人。在我们的文化里，妇女是被当成‘第二性’的。
男人好像把她们当做臣民，把女人当成是他们的所有物，因此剥夺了她们对自己生命的责任。”
“她的意思是只要我们愿意，我们就可以自由独立?”
“是的，可以这么说。存在主义对于四十年代到现在的文学也有很大的影响。其中包括戏剧在内。萨特本身除了写小说外，也写了一些剧本。其他几位重要的作家包括法国的卡缪、爱尔兰的贝克特、罗马尼亚的伊欧涅思柯和波兰的康布罗维区(Gombrowich)。
他们和其他许多现代作家的典型风格就是我们所说的‘荒谬主义’。这个名词专门用来指‘荒谬剧场’。”
“啊。”
“你知道‘荒谬’的意思吗?”
“不就是指没有意义或非理性的事物吗?”
“一点没错。‘荒谬剧场’是‘写实剧场’的相反。它的目的在显示生命的没有意义，以使观众起而反对。它的用意并不是鼓吹人生没有意义，其实正好相反。他们借着显示、揭发日常生活情境的荒谬，进而迫使旁观者追求较为真实而有意义的生命。”
“听起来挺有意思的。”
“荒谬剧场经常描绘一些非常琐碎的情境，因此我们也可以称之为一种‘超写实主义’。剧中描绘的就是人们原来的面貌。可是当你把发生在浴室的事情或一个普通家庭平日早晨的景象搬上舞台时，观众就会觉得很好笑。他们的笑声可以解释成为一种看见自己在舞台上被嘲弄时的防卫机转。”
“正是如此。”
“荒谬剧场也可能具有若干超现实的特色。其中的角色时常发现自己处在一个非常不真实、像梦一般的情境里。当他们毫不讶异地接受这种情境时，观众就不得不讶异这些角色为何不感到讶异。
这是卓别林在他的默片中惯用的手法。这些默片中的喜剧效果经常来自于卓别林默默地接受所有发生在他身上的荒谬事情。这使得观众不得不检讨自己，追求更真实的事物。”
“看到人们对于各种荒谬事件那种逆来顺受的态度，实在是让人觉得很惊讶。”
“有时我们会有‘我必须远离这样的事，虽然我不知道该到哪里去’的感受。这种感觉可能并没有什么不好。”
“如果房子着火了，你只好冲出去，虽然你没有其他地方可以住。”
“没错。你想不想再喝一杯茶或一瓶可乐?”
“好。不过我还是认为你是个烂人，因为你迟到了。”
“没关系。”
艾伯特回来时拿了一杯意大利浓咖啡和一瓶可乐。这时，苏菲已经开始喜欢上咖啡厅的气氛了。她也开始认为其他桌客人的谈话也许不像她想象的那样没有意义。艾伯特“砰!”一声把可乐瓶子往桌上放。有几个别桌的客人抬起头来看。
“我们就上到这里了。”他说。
“你是说哲学史到了萨特和存在主义就结束了?”
“不，这样讲就太夸张了。存在主义哲学后来对世界各地的许多人产生了重大的影响。正如我们说过的，它的根可以回溯到祁克果，甚至远及苏格拉底。因此二十世纪也是一个我们谈过的其他哲学潮流开花结果、重新复苏的年代。”
“比如说什么潮流?”
“其中有一个是所谓的新圣多玛斯主义(Neo—Thomism)，也就是指那些属于圣多玛斯派的思想。另外一个就是所谓的‘分析哲学’或‘逻辑实验主义’。它的根源可追溯至休姆和英国的经验主义，甚至远及亚理斯多德的理则学。除此之外，二十世纪自然也曾受到所谓的新马克思主义的影响。至于新达尔文主义和精神分析的影响，我们已经谈过了。”
“是的。”
“最后还有一个是唯物主义。它同样有它历史上的根源。现代科学有一大部分源自苏格拉底之前的哲学家的努力，例如找寻组成所有物质的不可见的‘基础分子’。到目前为止还没有人能够对‘物质’是什么问题提出一个令人满意的答案。核子物理学与生物化学等现代科学对于这个问题极感兴趣，对许多人而言，这甚至是他们的生命哲学中很重要的一部分。”
“新旧学说杂陈并列……”
“对，因为我们开始这门课程时所提出的问题到现在还没有人能回答。在这方面，萨特说了一句很重要的话。他说：关于存在的问题是无法一次就回答清楚的。所谓哲学问题的定义就是每一个世代，甚至每一个人，都必须要一再的问自己的一些问题。”
“满悲观的。”
“我并不一定同意你的说法。因为，借着提出这些问题，我们才知道自己活着。当人们追寻这些根本问题的答案时，他们总是会发现许多其他问题因此而有了清楚明确的解决方法。科学、研究和科技都是我们哲学思考的副产品。我们最后之所以能登陆月球难道不是因为我们对于生命的好奇吗?”
“这倒是真的。”
“当阿姆斯壮踏上月球时，他说：‘这是个人的一小步，人类的一大步。’他用这些话来总结他身为第一位登陆月球者的感想，话中提到了所有我们的祖先，因为这显然不是他一个人的功劳。”
“当然。”
"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 the first man to set foot on the moon, drawing with him all the people who had lived before him. It was not his merit alone, obviously.”
“Sure.”引自 我们这个时代/存在哲学
苏菲坐在那儿，看着艾伯特。她心想，她现在能够活着，而且只能活一次，以后就永远不能复生，这件事是多么奇怪呀J突然间她脱口念道：“一世人劳苦奔忙有何益?”
艾伯特皱着眉头向她说：“你不可以这样说。这是魔鬼说的话。”
“魔鬼?”
“就是歌德作品《浮士德》里面的曼菲斯多弗里斯(Mephistopheles)。”
“但这话究竟是什么意思呢?”
“浮士德死时，回顾他一生的成就，他用一种胜利的语气说：‘此时我便可呼喊：停驻吧!美妙的时光!我在人世的日子会留下印记，任万代光阴飞逝也无法抹去，我在这样的预感中欣喜无比，这是我生命中最崇高的瞬际。’”
“嗯，很有诗意。”
“可是后来轮到魔鬼说话了。浮士德一死，他便说：谈到既往，不过是蠢话一句!过去的已经过去，消失在虚无里，一切又从零开始！一生劳苦奔忙有何益?到头终究须把眼儿闭！‘消逝了！’这个谜可有尽期?正仿佛一切不曾开始，若再回头重新活过一天，我情愿选择永恒的太虚。”
“这太悲观了。我比较喜欢第一段。即使生命结束了，浮士德仍旧认为他留下的足迹是有意义的。”
“所以，达尔文的理论不是正好让我们体认到我们是大千世界的一部分，在这个世界里，每一个细微的生物都有它存在的价值吗?苏菲，我们就是这个活的星球。地球是航行在宇宙中燃烧的大阳四周的一艘大船。而我们每一个人则是满载基因航行过生命的一条小船。当我们安全地把船上的货品运到下一个港口时，我们就没有白活了。英国诗人兼小说家哈代(ThomasHardy)在《变形》这首诗中表达过同样的想法：这紫杉的一截是我先人的旧识，树干底的枝桠：许是他的发妻，原本鲜活的血肉之躯，如今皆化为嫩绿的新枝。
这片草地必然是百年前那渴求安眠女子的化身，而许久前我无缘相识的那位佳丽，或者已凝为这株蔷薇的魂魄。
所以他们并未长眠于地下，而只是化做花树的血脉经络充斥于天地万物之间，再次领受阳光雨露以及前世造化赋形的活力!”
“好美呀！”
“我们不能再讲下去了。我只想说：下一章！”
“哦，别再说那些反讽的话吧！”
“我说：下一章!你得听我的话。”
Sophie sat looking up at Alberto. She was thinking how odd it was that she should be alive now, and that she only lived this one time and would never again return to life. Suddenly she exclaimed:
What matters our creative endless toil, When, at a snatch, oblivion ends the coil?
Alberto frowned at her.
"You must not talk like that, child. Those are the words of the Devil."
"The Devil?"
"Or Mephistopheles--in Goethe's Faust 'Was soil uns denn das ew'ge Schaffen! Geschaffenes zu nichts hinweg-zuraffenV "
"But what do those words mean exactly?" "As Faust dies and looks back on his life's work, he says in triumph:
Then to the moment could I say:
Linger you now, you are so fair!
Now records of my earthly dayNo flights of aeons can impair--Foreknowledge comes, and fills me with such bliss,I take my joy, my highest moment this."
"That was very poetic."
"But then it's the Devil's turn. As soon as Faust dies, he exclaims:
A foolish word, bygone.
How so then, gone?
Gone, to sheer Nothing, past with null made one!
What matters creative endless toil,When, at a snatch, oblivion ends the coil?
'It is bygone'--How shall this riddle run?
As good as if things never had begun,Yet circle back, existence to possess:
I'd rather have Eternal Emptiness."
"That's pessimistic. I liked the first passage best. Even though his life was over, Faust saw some meaning in the traces he would leave behind him."
"And is it not also a consequence of Darwin's theory that we are part of something all-encompassing, in which every tiny life form has its significance in the big picture? We are the living planet, Sophie! We are the great vessel sailing around a burning sun in the universe. But each and every one 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. Thomas Hardy expresses the same thought in his poem Transformations':
Portion of this yew
Is a man my grandsire knew,
Bosomed here at its foot:
This branch may be his wife,
A ruddy human life
Now turned to a green shoot.
These grasses must be made
Of her who often prayed,
Last century, for repose;
And the fair girl long ago
Whom I often tried to know
May be entering this rose.
So, they are not underground,
But as nerves and veins abound
In the growths of upper air,
And they feel the sun and rain,
And the energy again
That made them what they were!"
"That's very pretty."
"But we will talk no more. I simply say next chapter!'
"Oh, stop all that irony!"
"New chapter, I said! I shall be obeyed!"引自 达尔文/声名远起
