注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

見るところ花にあらずと云ふことなし

褎然举首

 
 
 

日志

 
 

什么样叫rational?  

2009-09-14 18:55:00|  分类: Reading notes |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

 

在看本文之前,请诸位先回答一个问题:

纪律主义分子(disciplinarians) 和自由主义分子(libertarians) ,两者之间,哪一者比较理性(rational)呢?

 

 

最近看罗素的《西方哲学史》。刚看了绪论,感觉说出“我思故我在”的笛卡尔和浪漫主义诗人拜伦都是自由主义分子,纪律主义分子主要指教会方面的。

然而,然而,在绪论的倒数第二段写到:

“纪律主义分子宣扬着某种或新或旧的教条体系,并且因此在或多或少的程度上就不得不仇视科学,因为他们的教条并不能从经验上加以证明。他们几乎总是教训人说,幸福并不就是善,而惟有“崇高”或者“英雄主义”才是值得愿望的。他们对于人性中的非理性的部分有着一种同情,因为他们感到理性是不利于社会团结的。另外一方面,则自由主义分子,除了极端的无政府主义者而外,都倾向于科学、功利与理性而反对激情,并且是一切较深刻形式的宗教的敌人。”

[“The disciplinarians have advocated some system. of
dogma, either old or new, and have therefore been compelled to be, in a greater or less degree,
hostile to science, since their dogmas could not be proved empirically. They have almost
invariably taught that happiness is not the good, but that "nobility" or "heroism" is to be preferred.
They have had a sympathy with the irrational parts of human nature, since they have felt reason to
be inimical to social cohesion. The libertarians, on the other hand, with the exception of the
extreme anarchists, have tended to be scientific, utilitarian, rationalistic,hostile to violent passion, and enemies of all the more profound forms of religion.”]

 

也就是说,罗素认为,自由主义分子(libertarians)分子属于理性的一方。

 

之前的段落是这样写的:

主观主义一旦脱缰之后,就只能一泻到底而不能再被束缚于任何的界限之内。新教徒在道德上之强调个人的良心,本质上乃是无政府主义的。但习惯与风俗却是如此之有力,以致于除了象闵斯特那样暂时的爆发而外,个人主义的信徒们在伦理方面仍然是按照传统所认为的道德方式来行动,但这是一种不稳定的平衡。十八世纪的“感性”崇拜开始破坏了这种平衡:一种行为之受到赞美并不是因为它有好结果或者因为它与一种道德教条相符合,而是因为它有那种把它激发起来的情操。从这种态度就发展了象卡莱尔和尼采所表现的那种英雄崇拜,以及拜伦式的对于任何激情的崇拜。
[Subjectivity, once let loose, could not be confined within limits until it had run its course. In
morals, the Protestant emphasis on the individual conscience was essentially anarchic. Habit and
custom were so strong that, except in occasional outbreaks such as that of Munster, the disciples
of individualism in ethics continued to act in a manner which was conventionally virtuous. But
this was a precarious equilibrium. The eighteenth-century cult of "sensibility" began to break it
down: an act was admired, not for its good consequences, or for its conformity to a moral code, but for the emotion that inspired it. Out of this attitude developed the
cult of the hero, as it is expressed by Carlyle and Nietzsche, and the Byronic cult of violent
passion of no matter what kind.]

实在看不出文中的自由主义派哪里算是理性,尤其是与循规蹈矩的教条派相比。

 

得出的结论是,罗素认为,自主思考了的就算rational。和我们的思维方式相比,真是很大的差别呀!

  评论这张
 
阅读(136)| 评论(4)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017