在這陰雨綿綿的天氣，有什麼比讀一本好書更享受....(睡覺？)
因此我們就繼續來讀吧！
Heretics第一章第五段
But there are some people, nevertheless—and I am one of them—who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy's numbers, but still more important to know the enemy's philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether in the long run, anything else affects them. In the fifteenth century men crossexamined and tormented a man because he preached some immoral attitude; in the nineteenth century we feted and flattered Oscar Wilde because he preached such an attitude, and then broke his heart in penal servitude because he carried it out. It may be a question which of the two methods was the more cruel; there can be no kind of question which was the more ludicrous. The age of the Inquisition has not at least the disgrace of having produced a society which made an idol of the very same man for preaching the very same things which it made him a convict for practising.
雖說如此，仍是有一些人（而我也是這些人的其中之一）認為，關於一個人最實際，也最重要的一點，就是他的宇宙觀。從我們這群人的觀點出發，若今天我們是房東，考量房客的時候，他的收入當然是我們會在意的，但他的人生哲學更為重要。我們認為，若一個將軍要打敗敵軍，對方的軍力如何當然是重要的情報，但更為重要的，是敵人的哲學觀。問題的核心不在於宇宙定律是否會影響物質，而是長期來看，其他任何事物是否會影響他們。在15世紀，一個人會因為教導不合倫理的觀點，而受到審問與刑求。到了19世紀，王爾德（Oscar Wilde）因為教導這類觀點，而先受到大眾的喜愛與吹捧，後又將他判刑拘禁，因他把教導內容付諸實踐。可能有人好奇，在這兩種對待他的方式中，哪一個比較殘忍，但絕不會有人懷疑，哪一個比較荒謬。在會進行異端審判的時代，至少不會出現同時因一個人所說的言詞而將其奉為偶像，又因這人實踐他所說的，而將其視為罪犯的荒謬事。
Now, in our time, philosophy or religion, our theory, that is, about ultimate things, has been driven out, more or less simultaneously, from two fields which it used to occupy. General ideals used to dominate literature. They have been driven out by the cry of "art for art's sake." General ideals used to dominate politics. They have been driven out by the cry of "efficiency," which may roughly be translated as "politics for politics' sake." Persistently for the last twenty years the ideals of order or liberty have dwindled in our books; the ambitions of wit and eloquence have dwindled in our parliaments. Literature has purposely become less political; politics have purposely become less literary. General theories of the relation of things have thus been extruded from both; and we are in a position to ask, "What have we gained or lost by this extrusion? Is literature better, is politics better, for having discarded the moralist and the philosopher?"
如今在我們的時代，無論哲學、宗教，或是我們的理論，只要是關於終極事物的（ultimate things），都已多少從其先前所主導的兩個領域中被揚棄。一般性標準過去在文學領域居於主導地位，但自從出現「為藝術而藝術」（藝術自身即有價值）的呼聲後，一般性標準就被屏棄。一般性觀點過去在政治界居主導地位，但自從出現對「效能」（或者可說是為政治而政治）的要求後，就被屏除。過去二十年間，書籍中關於秩序或自由的理念的描述持續不斷地減少，議會裡對機智與口才的企圖也持續降低。文學刻意地變得較無關政治，而政治則刻意地脫離文學。因而在這兩個領域中，關於事物之間關聯的一般性理論都已被趕逐，導致我們今天要問：「我們因為摒棄這些理論，得到或是失去了什麼？拋棄道德家與哲學家後，文學有變得更美好？政治有變得更美好？」
When everything about a people is for the time growing weak and ineffective, it begins to talk about efficiency. So it is that when a man's body is a wreck he begins, for the first time, to talk about health. Vigorous organisms talk not about their processes, but about their aims. There cannot be any better proof of the physical efficiency of a man than that he talks cheerfully of a journey to the end of the world. And there cannot be any better proof of the practical efficiency of a nation than that it talks constantly of a journey to the end of the world, a journey to the Judgment Day and the New Jerusalem. There can be no stronger sign of a coarse material health than the tendency to run after high and wild ideals; it is in the first exuberance of infancy that we cry for the moon. None of the strong men in the strong ages would have understood what you meant by working for efficiency. Hildebrand would have said that he was working not for efficiency, but for the Catholic Church. Danton would have said that he was working not for efficiency, but for liberty, equality, and fraternity. Even if the ideal of such men were simply the ideal of kicking a man downstairs, they thought of the end like men, not of the process like paralytics. They did not say, "Efficiently elevating my right leg, using, you will notice, the muscles of the thigh and calf, which are in excellent order, I—" Their feeling was quite different. They were so filled with the beautiful vision of the man lying flat at the foot of the staircase that in that ecstasy the rest followed in a flash. In practice, the habit of generalizing and idealizing did not by any means mean worldly weakness. The time of big theories was the time of big results. In the era of sentiment and fine words, at the end of the eighteenth century, men were really robust and effective. The sentimentalists conquered Napoleon. The cynics could not catch De Wet. A hundred years ago our affairs for good or evil were wielded triumphantly by rhetoricians. Now our affairs are hopelessly muddled by strong, silent men. And just as this repudiation of big words and big visions has brought forth a race of small men in politics, so it has brought forth a race of small men in the arts. Our modern politicians claim the colossal license of Caesar and the Superman, claim that they are too practical to be pure and too patriotic to be moral; but the upshot of it all is that a mediocrity is Chancellor of the Exchequer. Our new artistic philosophers call for the same moral license, for a freedom to wreck heaven and earth with their energy; but the upshot of it all is that a mediocrity is Poet Laureate. I do not say that there are no stronger men than these; but will any one say that there are any men stronger than those men of old who were dominated by their philosophy and steeped in their religion? Whether bondage be better than freedom may be discussed. But that their bondage came to more than our freedom it will be difficult for any one to deny.
當一群人在某段時間內逐漸衰殘與失去效能，那麼效率就會變為熱門的議題。這就好像當一個人失去身體健康時，他才會開始意識到健康的重要。精力充沛的有機體在意的絕不是過程是否有效率，而是能否能達到想要的目標。有什麼證據會比一個人能興致高昂地描述他的旅行，更能證明他的體能良好。而若要證明一個國家運作良好，最好的證據莫過於，這國家持續不斷地計劃要前往世界的盡頭，要為大審判做準備，要打造新耶路撒冷。也沒有其他跡象，比起對遠大寬闊理想的追求，更能顯示未經鍛造天份的潛力。是新生兒般的熱情，讓我們渴求飛至月亮。任何一個生在繁盛時代，且意志堅強的人，都無法理解為了效率而努力是什麼。希爾德布蘭（Hildebrand，德國哲學家與神學家）會說他是為了天主教會而努力，而非效率。丹頓（Danton，法國大革命領導人物）會說他是為了自由、平等、博愛而付出心力，而非效率。即使這類人的理想僅是把一個人踢下樓梯，他們也是像人一樣思考終極的目的，而不是像癱瘓的人一樣想著過程。他們不會說：「運作良好的大腿與小腿的肌肉，如你所見，有效率地抬起我的右腳，而我…」。他們的感受截然不同，那人躺在樓梯底部的畫面，完全充滿他們的心思，因這份狂喜，一切隨之而來的瑣事都不算什麼。現實中，將事物一以貫之、理想化的習慣，絲毫沒有帶來世俗的弱點。大理論的時代帶來偉大的成果。在多愁善感與優美言詞的時代，也就是18世紀末，當時的人十分強壯與有能力。那些多愁善感的人征服了拿破崙，而憤世嫉俗者卻連德韋特（川斯瓦共和國，今日南非，波耳人的將軍）都抓不到。一百年前，雄辯家大獲全勝地焊定善惡的分界，但如今被強壯卻安靜的人們踩踏混淆。艱深難懂的字詞與遠大的願景不僅產生一群政治界的小人物，也生出一群藝術界的小人物。而現代的政治家宣稱擁有凱撒和超人般的至尊身份，宣告他們太過務實以致於無法思考純粹理論，太過愛國以致於無法為人符合道德。這一切最終導致財務大臣那陳腐墮落的平庸。今日具藝術美感的哲學家也宣稱擁有同樣的崇高身份，擁有以其能力毀壞天地的自由，但這一切最終導致乏善可陳的庸俗桂冠詩人的誕生。我的意思不是沒有比這些更為強健的人存在，但難道有任何人能夠比古時的那些偉人更為強壯，但卻不受到他們的哲學所引導，不沈浸於他們的信仰中嗎？束縛（bondage）是否比自由更好，這問題可討論，但任何人都很難否認，他們雖被束縛，但卻比享有自由的我們更具影響力。
----
這三段各有其艱難之處，翻完後除了感到心虛還是感到心虛...部分段落實在是令我不安(請見紅字處)，深怕自己過度解讀或是翻得太平淡。
Chesterton的語氣是獨特的，身為一個優秀的作家，他個人的氣質顯著呈現於文字間，但我真的覺得我翻不出來XDDD
請容許我咀嚼一番之後再回來寫心得。
---------
留言
張貼留言