光陰似箭，歲月如梭（這網一不小心就又曬了半個月....）
carry on carry on!
第一章最後三段(10-12)
And having discovered that opportunism does fail, I have been induced to look at it more largely, and in consequence to see that it must fail. I perceive that it is far more practical to begin at the beginning and discuss theories. I see that the men who killed each other about the orthodoxy of the Homoousion were far more sensible than the people who are quarrelling about the Education Act. For the Christian dogmatists were trying to establish a reign of holiness, and trying to get defined, first of all, what was really holy. But our modern educationists are trying to bring about a religious liberty without attempting to settle what is religion or what is liberty. If the old priests forced a statement on mankind, at least they previously took some trouble to make it lucid. It has been left for the modern mobs of Anglicans and Nonconformists to persecute for a doctrine without even stating it.
在了解機會主義曾經失敗後，我感到更應當好好檢視它，由此我發現機會主義一定會失敗。我感到從頭開始並討論理論要更為實際得多，我發覺那些因為本體相同（Homoousion）的正統教條而彼此廝殺的人，都比那些為了教育法案而爭吵的人，更為明事理。因為那些基督教教條主義者是想建立神聖的統治，因而試圖先辨別何為聖。但現代的教育學者卻是從未嘗試辨明什麼是宗教，什麼是自由，就想要帶入宗教自由。古時祭司在人群中強制推行宗教教條時，至少還有花一些心思嘗試使教條為何清楚易明，但今日英國國教（Anglicans）與不從國教派（nonconformists）裡的結夥暴民，卻在未能陳明規章前，就想以教條控告人。
For these reasons, and for many more, I for one have come to believe in going back to fundamentals. Such is the general idea of this book. I wish to deal with my most distinguished contemporaries, not personally or in a merely literary manner, but in relation to the real body of doctrine which they teach. I am not concerned with Mr. Rudyard Kipling as a vivid artist or a vigorous personality; I am concerned with him as a Heretic—that is to say, a man whose view of things has the hardihood to differ from mine. I am not concerned with Mr. Bernard Shaw as one of the most brilliant and one of the most honest men alive; I am concerned with him as a Heretic—that is to say, a man whose philosophy is quite solid, quite coherent, and quite wrong. I revert to the doctrinal methods of the thirteenth century, inspired by the general hope of getting something done.
基於這些原因，以及許多其他原因，我轉而相信回到基礎，回到開端的意義，而這是本書的梗概。我希望能與當代最聰穎優秀的心智對話，不是就個人感受或文學語法的層面，而是就他們所教授的信條的本質。我不在意吉卜齡先生（譯註：Joseph Rudyard Kipling，19世紀20世紀初英國作家與詩人，曾獲諾貝爾文學獎，作品後被批評具帝國主義及種族主義色彩）是個活躍的藝術家，或是他那活力鮮明的性格，我在意他是個異端份子，也就是說他對事物的看法與我截然不同。我也不在乎蕭伯納先生（Bernard Shaw）是當今最有才華也最誠實的人，我在乎他是個異端份子，也就是說他的哲學觀點確確實實、表裡一致，從頭到尾是錯的。我復歸援引十三世紀的教義方法，受當時對於某些事物能夠達成的普遍盼望所觸發、鼓舞。
Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamppost, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A greyclad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, "Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good—" At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamppost, the lamppost is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamppost down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamppost, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, today, tomorrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.
試想某日街頭上因為某個緣故突然出現一陣騷動，假設起因是路燈，因一群大有影響力的人想要把路燈拆掉。在當中一位灰袍僧侶，秉持中世紀精神代表的身份，被徵詢處理這問題，他在騷動中用經院學者般了無生氣的語氣開始發言：「我的弟兄們，讓我們首先想想燈光的價值，倘若燈光本身良好…」此時他被推倒，雖然這不難想像。所有人都衝向路燈，十分鐘內，路燈就倒了，街頭上人們對於彼此反中世紀的實用精神互相祝賀。但隨後的發展並不如設想的順利，有些人把路燈推倒是因為想要電燈，有些人是想要廢鐵，有些人則是因為行為邪惡齷齪而不想見光。有些人覺得一個路燈不夠，有些人覺得一個已經太多。有些人參與這行動是因為他們想擊垮市政機器，有些人只是想擊碎一些東西。當對立衝突發生在夜晚時，更是沒人知道他揮拳擊打的是誰。因此漸漸地，無可避免地，今天、明天，或到後天，人們發覺那個僧侶原來是對的，而這一切都在於人們對燈光的認識、對燈光的哲學為何，只是我們原可在煤氣路燈下進行的討論，如今只能在黑暗中進行了。
<Chesterton式的幽默...下次繼續....>
---------
留言
張貼留言