第五章
第7段
The mistake of all that medical talk lies in the very fact that it connects the idea of health with the idea of care. What has health to do with care? Health has to do with carelessness. In special and abnormal cases it is necessary to have care. When we are peculiarly unhealthy it may be necessary to be careful in order to be healthy. But even then we are only trying to be healthy in order to be careless. If we are doctors we are speaking to exceptionally sick men, and they ought to be told to be careful. But when we are sociologists we are addressing the normal man, we are addressing humanity. And humanity ought to be told to be recklessness itself. For all the fundamental functions of a healthy man ought emphatically to be performed with pleasure and for pleasure; they emphatically ought not to be performed with precaution or for precaution. A man ought to eat because he has a good appetite to satisfy, and emphatically not because he has a body to sustain. A man ought to take exercise not because he is too fat, but because he loves foils or horses or high mountains, and loves them for their own sake. And a man ought to marry because he has fallen in love, and emphatically not because the world requires to be populated. The food will really renovate his tissues as long as he is not thinking about his tissues. The exercise will really get him into training so long as he is thinking about something else. And the marriage will really stand some chance of producing a generous-blooded generation if it had its origin in its own natural and generous excitement. It is the first law of health that our necessities should not be accepted as necessities; they should be accepted as luxuries. Let us, then, be careful about the small things, such as a scratch or a slight illness, or anything that can be managed with care. But in the name of all sanity, let us be careless about the important things, such as marriage, or the fountain of our very life will fail.
所有醫療相關討論的錯誤在於，將健康（health）這概念與照護（care）這概念連結在一起。健康與細心照護（care）有何關係？若真要說，健康應與缺乏照護（carelessness）才有關係。當遭遇特殊與異常的狀況，進行照護是必要的。當我們感到不健康，小心照顧或許是恢復健康的必須手段。但即便在那樣的情境下，我們也是為了能夠回到缺乏照顧的狀態，而努力恢復健康。若我們是醫生，通常面對的是重病的人，他們理當被提醒要小心照顧。但當我們是社會學家，面對著一般人，所處理的是人性問題，身為人則應被提醒要大膽、要魯莽。因為一個健康人的基本功能，其運作應被強調是為了滿足、帶著愉悅在進行的，而絕對不是為了預防疾病，謹慎、小心翼翼地進行。一個人進食應出於想滿足自己良好的胃口，而絕非為了維繫生理上所需的養分。一個人運動不是因為他太胖，而是因喜愛擊劍或騎馬或爬山這運動本身。同理，一個人結婚是因墜入情網，而絕對不是因為這世界需要更多人口。只要他停止擔憂身體的細胞，食物自然會更新修復他的細胞。只要他的心思不專注於減肥，運動也會自然發揮功效。同理，只要婚姻的根源是出於人性自然且豐厚的情感，多子多孫的後代就有真實發生的可能。所以健康的第一條定律是，我們的基本需求不應被視為基本需求，而應被當作奢侈享受。讓我們對小事情，諸如擦傷、小病這類可透過小心照顧來處理的事情，小心謹慎；但基於一切理智，讓我們對大事情，例如婚姻，大膽莽撞，否則我們的生命之泉將枯竭。
第8段
Mr. Wells, however, is not quite clear enough of the narrower scientific outlook to see that there are some things which actually ought not to be scientific. He is still slightly affected with the great scientific fallacy; I mean the habit of beginning not with the human soul, which is the first thing a man learns about, but with some such thing as protoplasm, which is about the last. The one defect in his splendid mental equipment is that he does not sufficiently allow for the stuff or material of men. In his new Utopia he says, for instance, that a chief point of the Utopia will be a disbelief in original sin. If he had begun with the human soul—that is, if he had begun on himself—he would have found original sin almost the first thing to be believed in. He would have found, to put the matter shortly, that a permanent possibility of selfishness arises from the mere fact of having a self, and not from any accidents of education or ill-treatment. And the weakness of all Utopias is this, that they take the greatest difficulty of man and assume it to be overcome, and then give an elaborate account of the overcoming of the smaller ones. They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon. And an even stronger example of Mr. Wells's indifference to the human psychology can be found in his cosmopolitanism, the abolition in his Utopia of all patriotic boundaries. He says in his innocent way that Utopia must be a world-state, or else people might make war on it. It does not seem to occur to him that, for a good many of us, if it were a world-state we should still make war on it to the end of the world. For if we admit that there must be varieties in art or opinion what sense is there in thinking there will not be varieties in government? The fact is very simple. Unless you are going deliberately to prevent a thing being good, you cannot prevent it being worth fighting for. It is impossible to prevent a possible conflict of civilizations, because it is impossible to prevent a possible conflict between ideals. If there were no longer our modern strife between nations, there would only be a strife between Utopias. For the highest thing does not tend to union only; the highest thing, tends also to differentiation. You can often get men to fight for the union; but you can never prevent them from fighting also for the differentiation. This variety in the highest thing is the meaning of the fierce patriotism, the fierce nationalism of the great European civilization. It is also, incidentally, the meaning of the doctrine of the Trinity.
然而威爾斯對於這狹窄的科學觀未能充足了解，以致於他沒發現有些事情不該科學。他仍是些許受到那偉大科學觀的思想謬誤所影響，也就是不將一個人所接觸的第一件事情，也就是人類的靈魂放在首位，而是把原生質體（protoplasm）放在起首，但這是人可能是人所知道的最後一件事情。他那優異心智思考世界內的一個瑕疵，是他未能容讓足夠的人性本質存在。在他的新烏托邦中，他舉例說，烏托邦的一大重點是不相信有原罪。他的思想若從人類靈魂起頭，也就是說他若從檢視自己開始，他會發現，原罪的存在幾乎可說是第一件要相信的事。若將這情境簡化，他會發現，自私人性那永恆常態存續的可能，來自於擁有自我這個簡單的事實，而非來自任何教育或遭遇不當對待的意外。而所有烏托邦的弱點在於，假定人類最大的困難可被克服，然後將焦點與大量精力都放在克服較小的困難上。他們先假定，沒有人會在自己所分配之資產外，還想要更多，接著他們耗盡心思、精心解釋一個人當得的資產將如何以汽車或氣球運送給他。另有一個例子，可更清楚證明威爾斯對人類心理缺乏理解，這例子可在他的世界主義觀中找到，這觀點內的烏托邦廢棄所有的國境邊界。他以他獨有的天真語調，說明烏托邦應是一個世界聯合大公國，否則人與人之間會有戰爭。他似乎沒有想到，對我們當中許多人而言，若我們在一個世界聯合大公國，我們仍舊會在國內發起戰爭以結束這世界。因為倘若我們承認，風俗與觀點會有差異，那我們怎麼可能會認為，人們對政府體系不會有相異的看法？事實很簡單，除非你刻意防堵一件事物存有任何益處，否則不可能保證這事物不具使人為其刀劍相向的價值。防止文明間的可能衝突是不可能的，因為預防理念間的可能衝突是不可能的任務。若今日國家間的衝突不再，那將只剩下烏托邦間的干戈。因為那最具價值、最為崇高的事物不僅帶來團結，也帶來分歧。我們常能讓人們為了團結而努力，但卻從未能讓他們不為分歧打仗。而這存在於崇高價值內的分歧，正是偉大歐洲文明內激昂愛國主義、民族主義的意義，同時也是，三一神論這教義的意義。
留言
張貼留言