导航中医药

 找回密码
 注册
楼主: 一江春水
打印 上一主题 下一主题

苏菲的世界 Sophies World

[复制链接]
21
 楼主| 发表于 2019-1-19 11:44:29 | 只看该作者
Aristotle
...a meticulous organizer who wanted to clarify our concepts 

While her mother was taking her afternoon nap, Sophie went down to the den. She had put a lump of sugar in the pink envelope and written "To Alberto" on the outside.

There was no new letter, but after a few minutes Sophie heard the dog approaching.

"Hermes!" she called, and the next moment he had pushed his way into the den with a big brown envelope in his mouth.

"Good boy!" Sophie put her arm around the dog, which was snorting and snuffling like a walrus. She took the pink envelope with the lump of sugar and put it in the dog's mouth. He crawled through the hedge and made off into the woods again.

Sophie opened the big envelope apprehensively, wondering whether it would contain anything about the cabin and the boat.

It contained the usual typed pages held together with a paperclip. But there was also a loose page inside. On it was written:

Dear Miss Sleuth, or, to be more exact, Miss Burglar. The case has already been handed over to the police.

Not really. No, I'm not angry. If you are just as curious when it comes to discovering answers to the riddles of philosophy, I'd say your adventure was very promising. It's just a little annoying that I'll have to move now. Still, I have no one to blame but myself, I suppose. I might have known you were a person who would always want to get to the bottom of things.

Greetings, Alberto

Sophie was relieved. So he was not angry after all. But why would he have to move?

She took the papers and ran up to her room. It would be prudent to be in the house when her mother woke up. Lying comfortably on her bed, she began to read about Aristotle.

PHILOSOPHER AND SCIENTIST

Dear Sophie: You were probably astonished by Plato's theory or ideas. You are not the only one! I do not know whether you swallowed the whole thing--hook, line, and sinker--or whether you had any critical comments. But if you did have, you can be sure that the self-same criticism was raised by Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), who was a pupil at Plato's Academy for almost twenty years.

Aristotle was not a native of Athens. He was born in Macedonia and came to Plato's Academy when Plato was 61. Aristotle's father was a respected physician-- and therefore a scientist. This background already tells us something about Aristotle's philosophic project. What he was most interested in was nature study. He was not only the last of the great Greek philosophers, he was Europe's first great biologist.

Taking it to extremes, we could say that Plato was so engrossed in his eternal forms, or "ideas," that he took very little notice of the changes in nature. Aristotle, on the other hand, was preoccupied with just these changes--or with what we nowadays describe as natural processes.

To exaggerate even more, we could say that Plato turned his back on the sensory world and shut his eyes to everything we see around us. (He wanted to escape from the cave and look out over the eternal world of ideas!) Aristotle did the opposite: he got down on all fours and studied frogs and fish, anemones and poppies.

While Plato used his reason, Aristotle used his senses as well.

We find decisive differences between the two, not least in their writing. Plato was a poet and mythologist; Aristotle's writings were as dry and precise as an encyclopedia. On the other hand, much of what he wrote was based on up-to-the-minute field studies.

Records from antiquity refer to 170 titles supposedly written by Aristotle. Of these, 47 are preserved. These are not complete books; they consist largely of lecture notes. In his time, philosophy was still mainly an oral activity.

The significance of Aristotle in European culture is due not least to the fact that he created the terminology that scientists use today. He was the great organizer who founded and classified the various sciences.

Since Aristotle wrote on all the sciences, I will limit myself to some of the most important areas. Now that I have told you such a lot about Plato, you must start by hearing how Aristotle refuted Plato's theory of ideas. Later we will look at the way he formulated his own natural philosophy, since it was Aristotle who summed up what the natural philosophers before him had said. We'll see how he categorizes our concepts and founds the discipline of Logic as a science. And finally I'll tell you a little about Aristotle's view of man and society.

No Innate Ideas

Like the philosophers before him, Plato wanted to find the eternal and immutable in the midst of all change. So he found the perfect ideas that were superior to the sensory world. Plato furthermore held that ideas were more real than all the phenomena of nature. First came the idea "horse," then came all the sensory world's horses trotting along like shadows on a cave wall. The idea "chicken" came before both the chicken and the egg.

Aristotle thought Plato had turned the whole thing upside down. He agreed with his teacher that the particular horse "flows" and that no horse lives forever. He also agreed that the actual form of the horse is eternal and immutable. But the "idea" horse was simply a concept that we humans had formed after seeing a certain number of horses. The "idea" or "form" horse thus had no existence of its own. To Aristotle, the "idea" or the "form" horse was made up of the horse's characteristics--which define what we today call the horse species.

To be more precise: by "form" horse, Aristotle meant that which is common to all horses. And here the metaphor of the gingerbread mold does not hold up because the mold exists independently of the particular gingerbread cookies. Aristotle did not believe in the existence of any such molds or forms that, as it were, lay on their own shelf beyond the natural world. On the contrary, to Aristotle the "forms" were in the things, because they were the particular characteristics of these things.

So Aristotle disagreed with Plato that the "idea" chicken came before the chicken. What Aristotle called the "form" chicken is present in every single chicken as the chicken's particular set characteristics--for one, that it lays eggs. The real chicken and the "form" chicken are thus just as inseparable as body and soul.

And that is really the essence of Aristotle's criticism of Plato's theory of ideas. But you should not ignore the fact that this was a dramatic turn of thought. The highest degree of reality, in Plato's theory, was that which we think with our reason. It was equally apparent to Aristotle that the highest degree of reality is that which we perceive with our senses. Plato thought that all the things we see in the natural world were purely reflections of things that existed in the higher reality of the world of ideas--and thereby in the human soul. Aristotle thought the opposite: things that are in the human soul were purely reflections of natural objects. So nature is the real world. According to Aristotle, Plato was trapped in a mythical world picture in which the human imagination was confused with the real world.

Aristotle pointed out that nothing exists in consciousness that has not first been experienced by the senses. Plato would have said that there is nothing in the natural world that has not first existed in the world of ideas. Aristotle held that Plato was thus "doubling the number of things." He explained a horse by referring to the "idea" horse. But what kind of an explanation is that, Sophie? Where does the "idea" horse come from, is my question. Might there not even be a third horse, which the "idea" horse is just an imitation of?

Aristotle held that all our thoughts and ideas have come into our consciousness through what we have heard and seen. But we also have an innate power of reason. We have no innate ideas, as Plato held, but we have the innate faculty of organizing all sensory impressions into categories and classes. This is how concepts such as "stone," "plant," "animal," and "human" arise. Similarly there arise concepts like "horse," "lobster," and "canary."

Aristotle did not deny that humans have innate reason. On the contrary, it is precisely reason, according to Aristotle, that is man's most distinguishing characteristic. But our reason is completely empty until we have sensed something. So man has no innate "ideas."

The Form of a Thing Is Its Specific CharacteristicsHaving come to terms with Plato's theory of ideas, Aristotle decided that reality consisted of various separate things that constitute a unity of form and substance. The "substance" is what things are made of, while the "form" is each thing's specific characteristics.

A chicken is fluttering about in front of you, Sophie. The chicken's "form" is precisely that it flutters--and that it cackles and lays eggs. So by the "form" of a chicken, we mean the specific characteristics of its species--or in other words, what it does. When the chicken dies--and cackles no more--its "form" ceases to exist. The only thing that remains is the chicken's "substance" (sadly enough, So-phie), but then it is no longer a chicken.

As I said earlier, Aristotle was concerned with the changes in nature. "Substance" always contains the potentiality to realize a specific "form." We could say that "substance" always strives toward achieving an innate potentiality. Every change in nature, according to Aristotle, is a transformation of substance from the "potential" to the "actual."

Yes, I'll explain what I mean, Sophie. See if this funny story helps you. A sculptor is working on a large block of granite. He hacks away at the formless block every day. One day a little boy comes by and says, "What are you looking for?" "Wait and see," answers the sculptor. After a few days the little boy comes back, and now the sculptor has carved a beautiful horse out of the granite. The boy stares at it in amazement, then he turns to the sculptor and says, "How did you know it was in there?"

How indeed! In a sense, the sculptor had seen the horse's form in the block of granite, because that particular block of granite had the potentiality to be formed into the shape or a horse. Similarly Aristotle believed that everything in nature has the potentiality of realizing, or achieving, a specific "form."

Let us return to the chicken and the egg. A chicken's egg has the potentiality to become a chicken. This does not mean that all chicken's eggs become chickens--many of them end up on the breakfast table as fried eggs, omelettes, or scrambled eggs, without ever having realized their potentiality. But it is equally obvious that a chicken's egg cannot become a goose. That potentiality is not within a chicken's egg. The "form" of a thing, then, says something about its limitation as well as its potentiality.

When Aristotle talks about the "substance" and "form" of things, he does not only refer to living organisms. Just as it is the chicken's "form" to cackle, flutter its wings, and lay eggs, it is the form of the stone to fall to the ground. Just as the chicken cannot help cackling, the stone cannot help falling to the ground. You can, of course, lift a stone and hurl it high into the air, but because it is the stone's nature to fall to the ground, you cannot hurl it to the moon. (Take care when you perform this experiment, because the stone might take revenge and find the shortest route back to the earth!)

The Final Cause

Before we leave the subject of all living and dead things having a "form" that says something about their potential "action," I must add that Aristotle had a remarkable view of causality in nature.

Today when we talk about the "cause" of anything, we mean how it came to happen. The windowpane was smashed because Peter hurled a stone through it; a shoe is made because the shoemaker sews pieces of leather together. But Aristotle held that there were different types of cause in nature. Altogether he named four different causes. It is important to understand what he meant by what he called the "final cause."

In the case of window smashing, it is quite reasonable to ask why Peter threw the stone. We are thus asking what his purpose was. There can be no doubt that purpose played a role, also, in the matter of the shoe being made. But Aristotle also took into account a similar "purpose" when considering the purely lifeless processes in nature. Here's an example:

Why does it rain, Sophie? You have probably learned at school that it rains because the moisture in the clouds cools and condenses into raindrops that are drawn to the earth by the force of gravity. Aristotle would have nodded in agreement. But he would have added that so far you have only mentioned three of the causes. The "material cause" is that the moisture (the clouds) was there at the precise moment when the air cooled. The "efficient cause" is that the moisture cools, and the "formal cause" is that the "form," or nature of the water, is to fall to the earth. But if you stopped there, Aristotle would add that it rains because plants and animals need rainwater in order to grow. This he called the "final cause." Aristotle assigns the raindrops a life-task, or "purpose."

We would probably turn the whole thing upside down and say that plants grow because they find moisture. You can see the difference, can't you, Sophie? Aristotle believed that there is a purpose behind everything in nature. It rains so that plants can grow; oranges and grapes grow so that people can eat them.

That is not the nature of scientific reasoning today. We say that food and water are necessary conditions of life for man and beast. Had we not had these conditions we would not have existed. But it is not the purpose of water or oranges to be food for us.

In the question of causality then, we are tempted to say that Aristotle was wrong. But let us not be too hasty. Many people believe that God created the world as it is so that all His creatures could live in it. Viewed in this way, it can naturally be claimed that there is water in the rivers because animals and humans need water to live. But now we are talking about God's purpose. The raindrops and the waters of the river have no interest in our welfare.

22
 楼主| 发表于 2019-1-19 11:46:43 | 只看该作者
Nature's Scale

When Aristotle "clears up" in life, he first of all points out that everything in the natural world can be divided into two main categories. On the one hand there are nonliving things, such as stones, drops of water, or clumps of soil. These things have no potentiality for change. According to Aristotle, nonliving things can only change through external influence. Only living things have the potentiality for change.

Aristotle divides "living things" into two different categories. One comprises plants, and the other creatures. Finally, these "creatures" can also be divided into two subcategories, namely animals and humans.

You have to admit that Aristotle's categories are clear and simple. There is a decisive difference between a living and a nonliving thing, for example a rose and a stone, just as there is a decisive difference between a plant and an animal, for example a rose and a horse. I would also claim that there definitely is a difference between a horse and a man. But what exactly does this difference consist of? Can you tell me that?

Unfortunately I do not have time to wait while you write the answer down and put it in a pink envelope with a lump of sugar, so I'll answer myself. When Aristotle divides natural phenomena into various categories, his criterion is the object's characteristics, or more specifically what it can do or what it does.

All living things (plants, animals, humans) have the ability to absorb nourishment, to grow, and to propagate. All "living creatures" (animals and humans) have in addition the ability to perceive the world around them and to move about. Moreover, all humans have the ability to think--or otherwise to order their perceptions into various categories and classes.

So there are in reality no sharp boundaries in the natural world. We observe a gradual transition from simple growths to more complicated plants, from simple animals to more complicated animals. At the top of this "scale" is man--who according to Aristotle lives the whole life of nature. Man grows and absorbs nourishment like plants, he has feelings and the ability to move like animals, but he also has a specific characteristic peculiar to humans, and that is the ability to think rationally.

Therefore, man has a spark of divine reason, Sophie. Yes, I did say divine. From time to time Aristotle reminds us that there must be a God who started all movement in the natural world. Therefore God must be at the very top of nature's scale.

Aristotle imagined the movement of the stars and the planets guiding all movement on Earth. But there had to e something causing the heavenly bodies to move. Aristotle called this the "first mover," or "God." The "first mover" is itself at rest, but it is the "formal cause" of the movement of the heavenly bodies, and thus of all movement in nature.



Ethics

Let us go back to man, Sophie. According to Aristotle, man's "form" comprises a soul, which has a plant-like part, an animal part, and a rational part. And now he asks: How should we live? What does it require to live a good life? His answer: Man can only achieve happiness by using all his abilities and capabilities.

Aristotle held that there are three forms of happiness. The first form of happiness is a life of pleasure and enjoyment. The second form of happiness is a life as a free and responsible citizen. The third form of happiness is a life as thinker and philosopher.

Aristotle then emphasized that all three criteria must be present at the same time for man to find happiness and fulfillment. He rejected all forms of imbalance. Had he lived today he might have said that a person who only develops his body lives a life that is just as unbalanced as someone who only uses his head. Both extremes are an expression of a warped way of life.

The same applies in human relationships, where Aristotle advocated the "Golden Mean." We must be neither cowardly nor rash, but courageous (too little courage is cowardice, too much is rashness), neither miserly nor extravagant but liberal (not liberal enough is miserly, too liberal is extravagant). The same goes for eating. It is dangerous to eat too little, but also dangerous to eat too much. The ethics of both Plato and Aristotle contain echoes of Greek medicine: only by exercising balance and temperance will I achieve a happy or "harmonious" life.

Politics

The undesirability of cultivating extremes is also expressed in Aristotle's view of society. He says that man is by nature a "political animal." Without a society around us, we are not real people, he claimed. He pointed out that the family and the village satisfy our primary needs of food, warmth, marriage, and child rearing. But the highest form of human fellowship is only to be found in the state.

This leads to the question of how the state should be organized. (You remember Plato's "philosophic state"?) Aristotle describes three good forms of constitution.

One is monarchy, or kingship--which means there is only one head of state. For this type of constitution to be good, it must not degenerate into "tyranny"--that is, when one ruler governs the state to his own advantage. Another good form of constitution is aristocracy, in which there is a larger or smaller group of rulers. This constitutional form must beware of degenerating into an "oligarchy"--when the government is run by a few people. An example of that would be a junta. The third good constitutional form is what Aristotle called polity, which means democracy. But this form also has its negative aspect. A democracy can quickly develop into mob rule. (Even if the tyrannic Hitler had not become head of state in Germany^ all the lesser Nazis could have formed a terrifying mob rule.)

Views on Women

Finally, let us look at Aristotle's views on women. His was unfortunately not as uplifting as Plato's. Aristotle was more inclined to believe that women were incomplete in some way. A woman was an "unfinished man." In reproduction, woman is passive and receptive whilst man is active and productive; for the child inherits only the male characteristics, claimed Aristotle. He believed that all the child's characteristics lay complete in the male sperm. The woman was the soil, receiving and bringing forth the seed, whilst the man was the "sower." Or, in Aristotelian language, the man provides the "form" and the woman contributes the "substance."

It is of course both astonishing and highly regrettable that an otherwise so intelligent man could be so wrong about the relationship of the sexes. But it demonstrates two things: first, that Aristotle could not have had much practical experience regarding the lives of women and children, and second, it shows how wrong things can go when men are allowed to reign supreme in the fields of philosophy and science.

Aristotle's erroneous view of the sexes was doubly harmful because it was his--rather than Plato's--view that held sway throughout the Middle Ages. The church thus inherited a view of women that is entirely without foundation in the Bible. Jesus was certainly no woman hater!

I'll say no more. But you will be hearing from me again.

When Sophie had read the chapter on Aristotle one and a half times, she returned it to the brown envelope and remained sitting, staring into space. She suddenly became aware of the mess surrounding her. Books and ring binders lay scattered on the floor. Socks and sweaters, tights and jeans hung half out of the closet. On the chair in front of the writing desk was a huge pile of dirty laundry.

Sophie had an irresistible desire to clear up. The first thing she did was to pull all the clothes out of the closet and onto the floor. It was necessary to start all over. Then she began folding her things very neatly and stacking them all tidily on the shelves. The closet had seven shelves. One was for underwear, one for socks and tights, and one for jeans. She gradually filled up each shelf. She never had any question about where to put anything. Dirty laundry went into a plastic bag she found on the bottom shelf. One thing she did have trouble with--a white knee-length stocking. The problem was that the other one of the pair was missing. What's more, it had never been Sophie's.

She examined it carefully. There was nothing to identify the owner, but Sophie had a strong suspicion about who the owner was. She threw it up onto the top shelf to join the Lego, the video cassette, and the red silk scarf.

Sophie turned her attention to the floor. She sorted books, ring binders, magazines, and posters--exactly as the philosophy teacher had described in the chapter on Aristotle. When she had done that, she made her bed and got started on her writing desk.

The last thing she did was to gather all the pages on Aristotle into a neat pile. She fished out an empty ring binder and a hole punch, made holes in the pages, and clipped them into the ring binder. This also went onto the top shelf. Later on in the day she would have to bring in the cookie tin from the den.

From now on things would be kept neat. And she didn't only mean in her room. After reading Aristotle, she realized it was just as important to keep her ideas orderly. She had reserved the top shelf of the closet especially for that kind of thing. It was the only place in the room that she did not yet have complete control over.

There had been no sign of life from her mother for over two hours. Sophie went downstairs. Before she woke her mother up she decided to feed her pets.

She bent over the goldfish bowl in the kitchen. One of the fishes was black, one orange, and one red and white. This was why she called them Black Jack, Gold-top, and Red Ridinghood.

As she sprinkled fish food into the water she said:

"You belong to Nature's living creatures, you can absorb nourishment, you can grow and reproduce yourselves. More specifically, you belong to the animal kingdom. So you can move around and look out at the world. To be precise, you are fish, and you breathe through your gills and can swim back and forth in the waters of life."

Sophie put the lid back on the fish food jar. She was quite satisfied with the way she had placed the goldfish in Nature's scale, and she was especially pleased with the expression "the waters of life." So now it was the budgerigars' turn.

Sophie poured a little birdseed in their feeding cup and said:

"Dear Smit and Smule. You have become dear little budgerigars because you grew out of dear little budgerigar eggs, and because these eggs had the form of being budgerigars, luckily you didn't grow into squawking parrots."

Sophie then went into the large bathroom, where the sluggish tortoise lay in a big box. Every now and then when her mother showered, she yelled that she would kill it one day. But so far it had been an empty threat. Sophie took a lettuce leaf from a large jam jar and laid it in the box.

"Dear Govinda," she said. "You are not one of the speediest animals, but you certainly are able to sense a tiny fraction of the great big world we live in. You'll have to content yourself with the fact that you are not the only one who can't exceed your own limits."

Sherekan was probably out catching mice--that was a cat's nature, after all. Sophie crossed the living room toward her mother's bedroom. A vase of daffodils stood on the coffee table. It was as if the yellow blooms bowed respectfully as Sophie went by. She stopped for a moment and let her fingers gently brush their smooth heads. "You belong to the living part of nature too," she said. "Actually, you are quite privileged compared to the vase you are in. But unfortunately you are not able to appreciate it."

Then Sophie tiptoed into her mother's bedroom. Although her mother was in a deep sleep, Sophie laid a hand on her forehead.

"You are one of the luckiest ones," she said, "because you are not only alive like the lilies of the field. And you are not only a living creature like Sherekan or Govinda. You are a human, and therefore have the rare capacity of thought."

"What on earth are you talking about, Sophie?"

Her mother had woken up more quickly than usual.

"I was just saying that you look like a lazy tortoise. I can otherwise inform you that I have tidied up my room, with philosophic thoroughness."

Her mother lifted her head.

"I'll be right there," she said. "Will you put the coffee on?"

Sophie did as she was asked, and they were soon sitting in the kitchen over coffee, juice, and chocolate.

Suddenly Sophie said, "Have you ever wondered why we are alive, Mom?"

"Oh, not again!"

"Yes, because now I know the answer. People live on this planet so that someone can go around giving names to everything."

"Is that right? I never thought of that."

"Then you have a big problem, because a human is a thinking animal. If you don't think, you're not really a human."

"Sophie!"

"Imagine if there were only vegetables and animals. Then there wouldn't have been anybody to tell the difference between 'cat' and 'dog,' or 'lily' and 'gooseberry.' Vegetables and animals are living too, but we are the only creatures that can categorize nature into different groups and classes."

"You really are the most peculiar girl I have ever had," said her mother.

"I should hope so," said Sophie. "Everybody is more or less peculiar. I am a person, so I am more or less peculiar. You have only one girl, so I am the most peculiar."

"What I meant was that you scare the living daylights out of me with all that new talk."

"You are easily scared, then."

Later that afternoon Sophie went back to the den. She managed to smuggle the big cookie tin up to her room without her mother noticing.

First she put all the pages in the right order. Then she punched holes in them and put them in the ring binder, before the chapter on Aristotle. Finally she numbered each page in the top right-hand corner. There were in all over fifty pages. Sophie was in the process of compiling her own book on philosophy. It was not by her, but written especially for her.

She had no time to do her homework for Monday. They were probably going to have a test in Religious Knowledge, but the teacher always said he valued personal commitment and value judgments. Sophie felt she was beginning to have a certain basis for both.
23
 楼主| 发表于 2019-1-19 11:47:36 | 只看该作者
亚理斯多德

……一位希望澄清我们观念的严谨的逻辑学家,
妈妈睡午觉时,苏菲跑到密洞去。之前她已经把一块糖放在那个粉红色的信封里,信上并写着“艾伯特收”。
密洞中并没有任何新的信,但几分钟后她听到狗儿走近的声音。
“汉密士!”她喊。一转眼,它已经钻进密洞,嘴里衔着一个棕色的大信封。
“乖狗狗!”汉密士正像海象一般在咻咻喘气。苏菲一手抱着它,一手拿起装有一块糖的粉红色信封,放在它的嘴里。然后汉密士便钻过树篱,奔回树林中。
苏菲焦急地打开大信封,心想信里不知是否会提到有关木屋与小船的事。
信封里还是像往常那样装了几张用纸夹夹住的打字信纸过这次里面还有另一张信纸,上面写着:
亲爱的侦探小姐(或小偷小姐):
有关阁下擅闯小屋的事,我已经报警处理了。
说着玩的。其实,我并不很生气。如果你在追求哲学问题的答案时,也有同样的好奇心,那你的前途真是不可限量。只是我现在非搬家不可了,这是颇恼人的一点。不过我想我只能怪自己,我应该早就知道你是那种喜欢打破砂锅问到底的人。
祝好。
艾伯特笔
苏菲松一口气,放下心中的一块大石头。原来他一点也不生气,但他为何非搬家不可呢?
她拿了这一沓信纸,跑到楼上的房间去。她想,妈妈醒来时,她还是待在屋里比较好。不久她便舒适地躺在她的床上,开始读有关亚理斯多德的种种。
亲爱的苏菲:
柏拉图的理型论也许使你很震惊。其实有这种感觉的不只你 一个人而已。我不知道你对这个理论是否照单全收,还是有所批 评。不过,即使你不能完全同意,你也大可放心,因为同样的批评亚理斯多德(公元前三八四~公元前三二二年)都曾经提出过。
亚理斯多德曾经在柏拉图的学园中进修了二十年。他并不是雅典当地的人士,他出生于马其顿,在柏拉图六十一岁时来到他的学园进修。他的父亲是一位很受人敬重的医生(所以也算是一位科学家),这个背景对于亚理斯多德的哲学事业影响颇大,他因此对研究大自然极感兴趣。他不仅是希腊最后一位大哲学家,也是欧洲第一位大生物学家。
我们可以说柏拉图太过沉迷于他那些永恒的形式(或“理型”),以至于他很少注意到自然界的变化。相反的,亚理斯多德则只对这些变化(或我们今天所称的大自然的循环)感到兴趣。
说得夸张一些,我们可以说柏拉图无视于感官世界的存在,也无视于我们在周遭所见的一切事物。(他只想逃离洞穴,观察永恒的概念世界。)
亚理斯多德则正好相反:他倾全力研究青蛙与鱼、白头翁与罂粟等事物。
我们可以说,柏拉图运用他的理性,而亚理斯多德则同时也运用他的感官。
他们有很大的不同,这些差异也显现于他们的写作上。柏拉图是一位诗人与神话学家,亚理斯多德的文章则朴实精确,一如百科全书。此外,他有许多作品都是他进行实地研究的结果。
根据古籍记载,亚理斯多德写了一百七十本书,其中只有四十七本保存至今。这些作品都不完整,大部分都是一些演讲的笔记。
在他那个时代,哲学主要仍是一种口头的活动。
亚理斯多德在欧洲文化的地位并不仅是因为他创造了许多现代科学家使用的辞汇,同时也是因为他是一位伟大的组织家,他发明了各种科学并且加以分类。
亚理斯多德的作品涉及各种科学,但我只想讨论其中较为重要的领域。由于我们已经谈了许多柏拉图的哲学,因此一开始我们要听听亚理斯多德如何驳斥柏拉图的理型论。然后,我们再来看他
如何总结前人的理论,创立他自己的自然哲学。
我们也会谈到他如何将我们的概念加以分类,并创建理则学(或称逻辑学)这门学科。最后,我将略微讨论亚理斯多德对人与社会的看法。
如果你可以接受这种安排,那就让我们卷起袖子开始吧!

没有的概念

柏拉图和他的前辈一样,想在所有变化无常的事物中找出永恒与不变之物。因此他发现了比感官世界层次更高的完美理型。他更进一步认为理型比所有的自然现象真实。他指出,世间是先有“马”的理型,然后才有感官世界里所有的马匹,它们就像洞壁上的影子一般达达前进。因此“鸡”的理型要先于鸡,也先于蛋。
亚理斯多德则认为柏拉图将整个观念弄反了。他同意他的老 师的说法,认为一匹特定的马是“流动”的,没有一匹马可以长生不死,他也认为马的形式是永恒不变的。但他认为马的“理型”是我们人类在看到若干匹马后形成的概念。因此马的“理型”或“形式”
本身是不存在的。对于亚理斯多德而言,马的“理型”或“形式”就是马的特征,后者定义了我们今天所称的马这个“种类”。
更精确地说,亚理斯多德所谓马的“形式”乃是指所有马匹都共有的特征。在这里姜饼人模子的比喻并不适用,因为模于是独立于姜饼人之外而存在的。亚理斯多德并不相信自然界之外有这样一些模子或形式放在他们所属的架子上。相反的,亚理斯多德认为“形式”存在于事物中,因为所谓形式就是这些事物的特征。
所以,亚理斯多德并不赞成柏拉图主张“鸡”的理型比鸡先有的说法。亚理斯多德所称的鸡的“形式”存在于每一只鸡的身上,成为鸡之所以为鸡的特色,例如:鸡会生蛋。因此真正的鸡和鸡的“形式”就像身体与灵魂一般是不可分割的。
这就是亚理斯多德批评柏拉图的理型论的大要。这是思想上的一大转变。在柏拉图的理论中,现实世界中最高层次的事物乃是那些我们用理性来思索的事物。但对亚理斯多德而言,真实世界中最高层次的事物乃是那些我们用感官察觉的事物。柏拉图认为,我们在现实世界中看到的一切事物纯粹只是更高层次的概念世界(以及灵魂)中那些事物的影子。亚理斯多德的主张正好相反。他认为,人类灵魂中存在的事物纯粹只是自然事物的影子。因此自然就是真实的世界。根据亚理斯多德的说法,柏拉图是陷入了一个神话世界的图像中不可自拔,在这个世界中人类的想像与真实世界混淆不清。
亚理斯多德指出,我们对于自己感官未曾经验过的事物就不可能有意识。柏拉图则会说:不先存在于理型世界中的事物就不可能出现在自然界中。亚理斯多德认为柏拉图如此的主张会使“事物的数目倍增”。他用“马的理型”来解释马,但那是怎样的一种解释呢?苏菲,我的问题在于:这个“马的理型”从何而来?世间会不会有另外一匹马,而马的理型只不过是模仿这匹马罢了?
亚理斯多德认为,我们所拥有的每一种想法与意念都是透过我们看到、听到的事物而进入我们的意识。不过我们也具有与生俱来的理性,因此天生就能够组织所有的感官印象,并且将它们加以整理与分类,所以才会产生诸如“石头”、“植物”、“动物”与“人类”等概念。而“马”、“龙虾”、“金丝雀”这些概念也是以同样的方式形成的。
亚理斯多德并不否认人天生就有理性。相反的,根据他的说法,具有理性正是人最大的特征。不过在我们的感官经验到各种事物之前,我们的理性是完全真空的。因此人并没有天生的“观念”。

一件事物的形式乃是它的特征   

在批评柏拉图的理型论后,亚理斯多德认为实在界乃是由各种本身的形式与质料和谐一致的事物所组成的。“质料”是事物组成的材料,“形式”则是每一件事物的个别特征。
苏菲,假设现在你眼前有一只鼓翅乱飞的鸡。这只鸡的“形式”正是它会鼓翅、会咕咕叫、会下蛋等。因此我们所谓的一只鸡的“形式”就是指鸡这种动物的特征,也可以说是鸡的各种行为。当这只鸡死时(当它不再咕咕叫时),它的“形式”也不再存在。唯一剩下的就是鸡的“物质”(说起来很悲哀),但这时它已经不再是鸡了。
就像我先前所说的,亚理斯多德对于自然界的变化很感兴趣。
“质料”总是可能实现成某一特定的“形式”。我们可以说“质料”总是致力于实现一种内在的可能性。亚理斯多德认为自然界的每一种变化,都是物质从“潜能”转变为“实现”的结果。
这点显然我必须加以解释,我将试着用一个小故事来说明。有一位雕刻家正在雕凿一块大花岗石。他每天一斧一斧的雕凿着这块没有形状的岩石。有一天,一个小男孩走过来问他:“你在找寻什么?”雕刻家答道:“你等着瞧吧!”几天后小男孩又回来了,看到雕刻家已经将花岗岩雕成了一匹骏马。小男孩惊异的注视着这只马,
然后转向雕刻家问道:“你怎么知道马在里面呢?”
的确,就某一方面来说,雕刻家确实在那块花岗岩里看到了马的形式,因为这块花岗岩具有变成一匹马的潜能。同样的,亚理斯多德相信自然界的每一件事物都可能实现或达成某一个特定的形式”。
让我们回到鸡与蛋的问题。鸡蛋有成为一只鸡的潜能,这并不表示每一个鸡蛋都会变成鸡,因为许多鸡蛋到头来会变成人们早餐桌上的煎蛋、蛋卷或炒蛋等佳肴,因而未能实现它们的潜能。同理,鸡蛋显然不能变成一只鹅,因为鸡蛋没有这样的潜能。因此,一件事物的“形式”不但说明了这件事物的潜能,也说明了它的极限。
当亚理斯多德谈到事物的“质料”与“形式”时,他所指的不仅是生物而已。正如鸡的“形式”就是会咕咕叫、会鼓翅、会下蛋,石头的形式就是会掉在地上。正如鸡无法不咕咕叫一般,石头也无法不掉在地上。当然你可以捡起一块石头,把它丢向空中,但由于石头的天性就是要掉在地上,因此你无法把它丢向月亮。(你做这个实验的时候可要小心,因为石头可能会报复,并且由最短的一条路径回到地球上。希望上帝保佑那些站在它的路径上的人!)

目的因   

在我们结束“所有生物、无生物的‘形式’都说明他们可能采取的‘行动’”这个话题前,我必须声明亚理斯多德对自然界的因果律的看法实在很高明。
今天当我们谈到一件事物的“原因”时,我们指的是这件事物为何会发生。窗子之所以被砸破是因为彼德丢了一块石头穿过它;
鞋子之所以被制造出来,是因为鞋匠把几块皮革缝在一起。不过亚理斯多德认为自然界有各种不同的原因。他一共举出了四种原因。
我们必须了解他所谓的“目的因”是什么意思。
在窗予被砸破后,问问彼德为何要丢石头是一件很合理的事。
我们所问的就是他的目的。在这里,目的无疑扮演了一个重要的角色。在制鞋的例子中也是如此。同样的,亚理斯多德认为自然界种种循环变迁中也可能有类似的“目的”存在。我们用一个简单的例子来说明好了:
苏菲,你认为天为什么会下雨?不用说,你曾在学校里念过天之所以下雨,是因为云层中的湿气冷却凝结后变成雨滴,然后受重力的吸引,降落在地上。对这个说法,亚理斯多德应该会点头同意。
但是,他也会补充说你只提到其中的三种肇囚。“质料因”是在空气冷却时湿气(云层)正好在那儿。“主动因”是湿气冷却,“形式因”则是水的“形式”(或天性)就是会降落地面。不过假如你只提到这三者,亚理斯多德会补充说,天空下雨的原因是因为植物和动物需要雨水才能生长,这就是他所谓的“目的因”。因此,你可以看出来,亚理斯多德赋予雨滴一个任务或“目的”。
我们也许可以反过来说,植物之所以生长是因为它们有了湿气,你应该可以看出这两种说法之间的不同,是不是?亚理斯多德相信自然界的每一件事物都有其目的。天空下雨是因为要让植物生长,柳橙和葡萄之所以生长是为了供人们食用。
这并不是现代科学思维的本质。我们说食物、雨水是人类与动物维生的必要条件。如果没有这些条件,我们就无法生存。不过,水或柳橙存在的目的并不是为了供人类食用。
因此,就因果律的问题而言,我们往往会认为亚理斯多德的想法是错误的。但我们且勿遽下定论。许多人相信上帝创造这个世界,是为了让它所有的子民都可以生活于其间。从这种说法来看,我们自然可以宣称河流里面之所以有水是因为动物与人类需要水才能生存。不过,话说回来,这是上帝的目的。雨滴和河水本身对我们人类的福祉可是一点也不感兴趣。

逻辑

亚理斯多德说明人类如何区别世间事物时,强调了“形式”与“质料”的差别。
我们区别事物的方法是将事物分门别类。例如,我先看到一匹马,然后又看到另外两匹。这些马并非完全相同,但也有一些相似之处。这些相似之处就是马的“形式”。至于每匹马与其他马不同
之处就是它的“质料”。
就这样,我们把每一件事物都加以分类。我们把牛放在牛棚里,把马放在马厩里,把猪赶进猪圈里,把鸡关在鸡舍里。你在清理房间时,一定也是这样做的。你会把书放在书架上,把书本放在书包里,把杂志放在抽屉里。然后再把衣服折得整整齐齐的,放在衣橱里:内衣放一格、毛衣放一格、袜子则单独放在抽屉里。注意,我们心里也是做着类似的工作,我们把事物分成石头做的、羊毛做的或橡胶做的;我们也把事物分成活的、死的、植物、动物或人类。
你明白了吗?苏菲。亚里斯多德想把大自然“房间”内的东西都彻底地分门别类。他试图显示自然界里的每一件事物都各自有其所属的类目或次类目。(例如,我们可以说汉密士是一个生物,但更严格地说,它是一只动物,再严格一点说,它是一只脊椎动物,更进一步说,它是一只哺乳类动物,再进一步说,它是一只狗,更精确地说,它是一只猎狗,更完整地说,它是一只雄猎狗。)
苏菲,假设你进入房间,从地上捡起某样东西。无论你捡的是什么,你会发现它属于一个更高的类目。如果有一天你看到了一样你很难分类的东西,你一定会大吃一惊。举例来说,如果你发现了一个小小的、不知道是啥玩意的东西,你不确定它是动物、植物还是矿物,我想你大概不敢碰它吧!
说到动物、植物与矿物,让我想到一个大伙聚会时常玩的游戏:当“鬼”的人必须要离开房间,当他再回来时,必须猜出大家心里面在想什么东西。在此之前,大家已经商量好要想的东西是那只正在隔壁花园里玩耍的猫咪“毛毛”。当“鬼”的人回到房间后就开始猜。其他人必须答“是”或“不是”。如果这个“鬼”受过良好的亚理斯多德式训练的话,这个游戏的情形很可能会像下面描述的一样:
是具体的东西吗?(是门是矿物吗?(不是!)是活的吗?(是!)是植物吗?(不是!)是动物吗?(是!)是鸟吗?(不是!)是哺乳类动物吗?(是!)是一整只动物吗?(是!)是猫吗?(是!)是“毛毛”吗?(猜对了!大伙笑……)
如此看来,发明这个游戏的人应该是亚理斯多德,而捉迷藏的游戏则应该是柏拉图发明的。至于堆积木的游戏,我们早已经知道是德谟克里特斯发明的。
亚理斯多德是一位严谨的逻辑学家。他致力于澄清我们的概念。因此,是他创立了逻辑学这门学科。他以实例显示我们在得出合乎逻辑的结论或证明时,必须遵循若干法则。
我们只单一个例子就够了。如果我先肯定“所有的生物都会死”(第一前提),然后再肯定“汉密士是生物”(第二前提),则我可以从容地得出一个结论:“汉密士会死”。
这个例子显示亚理斯多德的推理是建立在名词之间的相互关系上。在这个例子中,这两个名词分别是“生物”与“会死”。虽然我们不得不承认这两个结论都是百分之百正确,但我们可能会说:这些都是我们已经知道的事情呀。我们已经知道汉密士“会死”。(他是一只“狗”,而所有的狗都是“生物”,而所有的生物都“会死”,不像圣母峰的岩石一样。)不用说,这些我们都知道,但是,苏菲,各种事物之间的关系并非都是如此明显。因此我们可能需要不时澄清我们的概念。
我举一个例子就好了:一丁点大的小老鼠真的可能像小羊或不猪一样吸奶吗?对于小老鼠来说,吸奶当然是一件很吃力的工作。但我们要记得:老鼠一定不会下蛋。(我们什么时候见过老鼠蛋?)因此,它们所生的是小老鼠,就像猪生小猪,羊生小羊一般。同时,我们将那些会生小动物的动物称为哺乳动物,而哺乳动物也就是那些吃母奶的动物。因此,答案很明显了。我们心中原来就有答案,但必须要想清楚,答案才会出来。我们会一下子忘记了老鼠真是吃奶长大的。这也许是因为我们从未见过老鼠喂奶的缘故。理由很简单:老鼠喂奶时很怕见人。   

自然的层级   

当亚理斯多德将人类的生活做一番整理时,他首先指出:自然界的万事万物都可以被分成两大类。一类是石头、水滴或土壤等无生物,这些无生物没有改变的潜能。亚理斯多德认为无生物只能透过外力改变。另外一类则是生物,而生物则有潜能改变。
亚理斯多德同时又把生物分成两类:一类是植物,一类是动物。而这些“动物”又可以分成两类,包括禽兽与人类。
我们不得不承认亚理斯多德的分类相当清楚而简单。生物与无生物(例如玫瑰与石头)确实截然不同。而植物与动物(如玫瑰与马儿)之间也有很大的不同。我们也会说,马儿与人类之间确实是不相同的。但这些差异究竟何在呢?你能告诉我吗?
很遗憾我没有时间等你把答案写下来,和一块糖一起放在一个粉红色的信封内。所以我就直接告诉你答案好了。当亚理斯多德把自然现象分成几类时,他是以对象的特征为标准。说得详细一些,所谓标准就是这个东西能做什么或做些什么。
所有的生物(植物、动物与人类)都有能力吸收养分以生长、繁殖。所有的动物(禽兽与人类)则还有感知周遭环境以及到处移动
的能力。至于人类则更进一步有思考(或将他们感知的事物分门别类)的能力。
因此,实际上自然界各类事物中并没有清楚分明的界线。我们看到的事物从简举的生物到较为复杂的植物,从简单的动物到较为复杂的动物都有。在这些层级之上的就是人类。亚理斯多德认为人类乃是万物中最完全的生命。人能够像植物一般生长并吸收养分,也能够像动物一般有感觉并能移动。除此之外,人还有一个与众不同的特质,就是理性思考的能力。
因此,苏菲,人具有一些神的理性。没错,我说的是“神”的理性。亚理斯多德不时提醒我们,宇宙间必然有一位上帝推动自然界
所有的运作,因此上帝必然位于大自然层级的最顶端。
亚理斯多德猜想地球上所有的活动乃是受到各星球运转的影响。不过,这些星球必定是受到某种力量的操控才能运转。亚理斯多德称这个力量为“最初的推动者”或“上帝”。这位“最初的推动者”本身是不动的,但他却是宇宙各星球乃至自然界各种活动的“目的因”。

伦理学   

让我们回到人类这个主题。根据亚理斯多德的看法,人的“形式”是由一个“植物”灵魂、一个“动物”灵魂与一个“理性”灵魂所组成。同时他问道:“我们应该如何生活?…‘人需要什么才能过良好的生活?”我可以用一句话来回答:“人唯有运用他所有的能力与才干,才能获得幸福。”
亚理斯多德认为,快乐有三种形式。一种是过着享乐的生活, 一种是做一个自由而负责的公民,另一种则是做一个思想家与哲学家。
接着,他强调,人要同时达到这三个标准才能找到幸福与满足。他认为任何一种形式的不平衡都是令人无法接受的。他如果生在现今这个时代,也许会说:一个只注重锻炼身体的人所过的生活就像那些只动脑不动手的人一样不平衡。无论偏向哪一个极端,生活方式都会受到扭曲。
同理也适用于人际关系。亚理斯多德提倡所谓的“黄金中庸”。
也就是说:人既不能懦弱,也不能太过鲁莽,而要勇敢(不够勇敢就是懦弱,太过勇敢就变成鲁莽);既不能吝啬也不能挥霍,而要慷慨(不够慷慨即是吝啬,太过慷慨则是挥霍)。在饮食方面也是如此。
吃得太少或吃得太多都不好。柏拉图与亚理斯多德两人关于伦理道德的规范使人想起希腊医学的主张:唯有平衡、节制,人才能过着快乐和谐的生活。

政治学

亚理斯多德谈到他对社会的看法时,也主张人不应该走极端。
他说人天生就是“政治动物”。他宣称人如果不生存在社会中,就不算是真正的人。他指出,家庭与社区满足我们对食物、温暖、婚姻与生育的基本需求。但人类休戚与共的精神只有在国家中才能表现得淋漓尽致。
这就使我们想到一个国家应该如何组织起来的问题。(你还记得柏拉图的“哲学国度”吗?)亚理斯多德描述了三种良好的政治制度。
一种是君主制,就是一个国家只有一位元首。但这种制度如果要成功,统治者就不能致力于谋求私利,以免沦为“专制政治”。另一种良好的制度是“贵族政治”,就是国家由一群人来统治。这种制度要小心不要沦于“寡头政治”(或我们今天所称的“执政团”式的政治制度)。第三种制度则是亚理斯多德所称的Polity,也就是民主政治的意思。但这种制度也有不好的一面,因为它很容易变成暴民政治。(当年即使专制的希特勒没有成为德国元首,他乎下那些纳粹分子可能也会造成可怕的暴民政治。)   

对女人的看法   

最后,让我们来看看亚理斯多德对女性的看法。很遗憾的,他在这方面的观点并不像柏拉图那般崇高。亚理斯多德似乎倾向于认为女性在某些方面并不完整。在他眼中,女性是“未完成的男人”在生育方面,女性是被动的,只能接受,而男性则是主动且多产的。亚理斯多德宣称小孩只继承男性的特质。他相信男性的精子中具有小孩所需的全部特质,女性只是土壤而已,她们接受并孕育种子,但男性则是“播种者”。或者,用亚理斯多德的话来说,男人提供“形式”,而女人则仅贡献“质料”。
像亚理斯多德这样有智慧的男人居然对两性关系有如此谬误的见解,的确令人震惊而且遗憾。但这说明了两件事:第一,亚理斯多德对妇女与儿童的生活大概没有多少实际的经验。第二,这个例子显示如果我们任由男人主宰哲学与科学的领域的话,可能发生何等的错误。
亚理斯多德对于两性错误的见解带来很大的负面作用,因为整个中世纪时期受到他(而不是柏拉图)的看法的影响。教会也因此继承了一种歧视女性的观点,而事实上,这种观点在圣经上是毫无根据的。耶稣基督当然不是一个仇视妇女的人。
今天就到此为止吧。我会再和你联络的。
苏菲把信又读了一遍,读到一半时,她把信纸放回棕色的信封内,仍然坐着发呆。
她突然察觉到房间内是如何凌乱:地板上到处放着书本与讲义夹,袜子、毛衣、衬衣与牛仔裤有一半露在衣橱外,书桌前的椅子上放着一大堆待洗的脏衣服。
她突然有一股无法抗拒的冲动,想要把房间清理一下。首先她把所有的衣服都拉出衣橱,丢在地板上,因为她觉得有必要从头做起。然后她开始把东西折得整整齐齐的,叠在架子上。衣橱共有七格,一格放内衣,一格放袜子与衬衣,一格放牛仔裤。她轮流把每 一格放满。她从不曾怀疑过什么东西应该放哪里。脏衣服总是放在最底下一格的一个塑胶袋内。但是现在有一样东西她不知道该放哪里,那就是一只白色的及膝的袜子。因为,另外一只不见了。何况,苏菲从来没有过这样的袜子。
苏菲仔细地看着这只袜子,看了一两分钟。袜子上并没有任何标记,但苏菲非常怀疑它的主人究竟是谁。她把它丢到最上面一格,和积木、录影带与丝巾放在一起。
现在,苏菲开始把注意力放在地板上。她把书本、讲义夹、杂志与海报加以分类,就像她的哲学老师在讲到亚理斯多德时形容的一般。完成后,她开始铺床并整理书桌。
最后,她把所有关于亚理斯多德的信纸叠好,并找出一个没有用的讲义夹和一个打孔机,在每一张信纸上打几个洞,然后夹进讲义夹中,并且把这个讲义夹放在衣橱最上一格,白袜子的旁边。她决定今天要把饼干盒从密洞中拿出来。
从今以后,她将把一切收拾得井然有序。她指的可不止是房间而已。在读了亚理斯多德的学说后,她领悟到她应该把自己的思想也整理得有条不紊。她已经将衣橱的最上面一格留作这样的用途。
这是房间内唯一一个她还没有办法完全掌握的地方。
妈妈已经有两个多小时没有动静了。苏菲走下楼。在把妈妈叫醒之前,她决定先喂她的宠物。
她躬身在厨房里的金鱼缸前看着。三条鱼中,有一条是黑色的,一条是橘色的,另一条则红、白相间。这是为什么她管它们叫黑水手、金冠与小红帽的缘故。
当她把鱼饲料撒进水中时,她说:“你们属于大自然中的生物。
你们可以吸收养分、可以生长并且繁殖下一代。更精确地说,你们属于动物王国,因此你们可以移动并且看着外面的这个世界。再说得精确些,你们是鱼,用鳃呼吸,并且可以在生命的水域中游来游去。”
苏菲把饲料罐的盖子合上。她很满意自己把金鱼放在大自然的层级中的方式,更满意自己所想出来的“生命的水域”这样的词句。现在,该喂那些鹦哥了。
苏菲倒了一点鸟食在鸟杯中,并且说:“亲爱的史密特和史穆尔,你们之所以成为鹦哥是因为你们从小鹦哥的蛋里生出来,也是因为那些蛋具有成为鹦哥的形式。你们运气不错,没有变成叫声很难听的鹦鹉。”
然后,苏菲进入那间大浴室。她的乌龟正在里面一个大盒子里缓缓爬动。以前妈妈不时在洗澡时大声嚷嚷说,总有一天她要把那只乌龟弄死。不过,到目前为让,她并没有这样做。苏菲从一个大果酱罐子里拿了一片莴苣叶,放在盒子里。
“亲爱的葛文达,”她说,“你并不是世间跑得最快的动物之一,但是你当然能够感觉到一小部分我们所生活的这个伟大世界。你应该知足了,因为你并不是唯一无法超越自己限制的生物。”
雪儿也许正在外面抓老鼠,毕竟这是猫的天性。苏菲穿过客厅,走向妈妈的卧室。一瓶水仙花正放在茶几上,苏菲经过时,那些黄色的花朵仿佛正向她弯腰致敬。她在花旁停驻了一会儿,用手指轻轻抚摸着那光滑的花瓣。
她说:“你们也是属于大自然的生物。事实上,比起装着你们的花瓶来说,你们是非常幸福的。不过很可惜的是你们无法了解这点。”
然后苏菲蹑手蹑脚地进入妈妈的房间。虽然妈妈正在熟睡,但苏菲仍用一只手放在她的额头上。
“你是最幸运的一个。”她说,“因为你不像原野里的百合花一样,只是活着而已,也不像雪儿或葛文达一样,只是一种生物。你是人类,因此具有难能可贵的思考能力。”
“苏菲,你到底在说什么?”妈妈比平常醒得更快。
“我只是说你看起来像一只懒洋洋的乌龟。还有,我要告诉你,我已经用哲学家般严谨的方法把房间收拾干净了。”
妈妈抬起头。
“我就来。”她说,“请你把咖啡拿出来好吗?”
苏菲遵照妈妈的嘱咐。很快地,她们已经坐在厨房里,喝着咖啡、果汁和巧克力。
突然间,苏菲问道;“妈,你有没有想过为什么我们会活着?”
“天哪!你又来了!”
“因为我现在知道答案了。人活在这个星球上是为了替每东西取名字。”
“是吗?我倒没有这样想过。”
“那你的问题可大了,因为人是会思考的动物。如果你不思考,就不算是人。”
“苏菲!”
“你有没有想过,如果世间只有植物和动物,就没有人可以区分猫和狗、百合与鹅莓之间的不同。植物和动物虽然也活着,但我们是唯一可以将大自然加以分类的生物。”
“我怎么会生出像你这样古怪的女儿?”妈妈说。
“我倒希望自己古怪一点。”苏菲说。“每一个人或多或少都有些古怪。我是个人,因此或多或少总有些古怪。你只有一个女儿,因此我可以算是最古怪的。”
“我的意思是你刚才讲的那些话可把我吓坏了。”
“那你真是太容易受到惊吓了。”
那天下午,苏菲回到密洞。她设法偷偷地将大饼干盒运回楼上的房间,妈妈一点也没有发现。
回到房间后,她首先将所有的信纸按次序排列。然后她把每一张信纸打洞,并放在讲义夹内亚理斯多德那一章之前。最后她在每一页的右上角写上页序。总共有五十多页。她要自己编纂一本有关哲学的书。虽然不是她写的,却是专门为她写的。
她没有时间写星期一的功课了。明天宗教知识这门课或许会考试,不过老师常说他比较重视学生用功的程度和价值判断。苏菲觉得自己在这两方面都开始有一些基础了。
24
 楼主| 发表于 2019-1-19 11:48:28 | 只看该作者
Hellenism

... a spark from the fire

Although the philosophy teacher had begun sending his letters directly to the old hedge, Sophie nevertheless looked in the mailbox on Monday morning, more out of habit than anything else.

It was empty, not surprisingly. She began to walk down Clover Close.

Suddenly she noticed a photograph lying on the sidewalk. It was a picture of a white jeep and a blue flag with the letters UN on it. Wasn't that the United Nations flag?

Sophie turned the picture over and saw that it was a regular postcard. To "Hilde Moller Knag, c/o Sophie Amundsen ..." It had a Norwegian stamp and was postmarked "UN Battalion" Friday June 15, 1990.

June 15! That was Sofie's birthday!

The card read:

Dear Hilde, I assume you are still celebrating your 15th birthday. Or is this the morning after? Anyway, it makes no difference to your present. In a sense, that will last a lifetime. But I'd like to wish you a happy birthday one more time. Perhaps you understand now why I send the cards to Sophie. I am sure she will pass them on to you.

P.S. Mom said you had lost your wallet. I hereby promise to reimburse you the 150 crowns. You will probably be able to get another school I.D. before they close for the summer vacation. Love from Dad.

Sophie stood glued to the spot. When was the previous card postmarked? She seemed to recall that the postcard of the beach was also postmarked June--even though it was a whole month off. She simply hadn't looked properly.

She glanced at her watch and then ran back to the house. She would just have to be late for school today!

Sophie let herself in and leaped upstairs to her room. She found the first postcard to Hilde under the red silk scarf. Yes! It was also postmarked June 15! Sophie's birthday and the day before the summer vacation.

Her mind was racing as she ran over to the supermarket to meet Joanna.

Who was Hilde? How could her father as good as take it for granted that Sophie would find her? In any case, it was senseless of him to send Sophie the cards instead of sending them directly to his daughter. It could not possibly be because he didn't know his own daughter's address. Was it a practical joke? Was he trying to surprise his daughter on her birthday by getting a perfect stranger to play detective and mailman? Was that why she was being given a month's headstart? And was using her as the go-between a way of giving his daughter a new girlfriend as a birthday present? Could she be the present that would "last a lifetime"?

If this joker really was in Lebanon, how had he gotten hold of Sophie's address? Also, Sophie and Hilde had at least two things in common. If Hilde's birthday was June 15, they were both born on the same day. And they both had fathers who were on the other side of the globe.

Sophie felt she was being drawn into an unnatural world. Maybe it was not so dumb after all to believe in fate. Still--she shouldn't be jumping to conclusions; it could all have a perfectly natural explanation. But how had Alberto Knox found Hilde's wallet when Hilde lived in Lillesand? Lillesand was hundreds of miles away. And why had Sophie found this postcard on her sidewalk? Did it fall out of the mailman's bag just as he got to Sophie's mailbox? If so, why should he drop this particular card?

"Are you completely insane?" Joanna burst out when Sophie finally made it to the supermarket.

"Sorry!"

Joanna frowned at her severely, like a schoolteacher.

"You'd better have a good explanation."

"It has to do with the UN," said Sophie. "I was detained by hostile troops in Lebanon."

"Sure ... You're just in love!"

They ran to school as fast as their legs could carry them.

The Religious Knowledge test that Sophie had not had time to prepare for was given out in the third period. The sheet read:

PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE AND TOLERANCE

1. Make a list of things we can know. Then make a list of things we can only believe.

2. Indicate some of the factors contributing to a person's philosophy of life.

3. What is meant by conscience? Do you think conscience is the same for everyone?

4. What is meant by priority of values?

Sophie sat thinking for a long time before she started to write. Could she use any of the ideas she had learned from Alberto Knox? She was going to have to, because she had not opened her Religious Knowledge book for days. Once she began to write, the words simply flowed from her pen.

She wrote that we know the moon is not made of green cheese and that there are also craters on the dark side of the moon, that both Socrates and Jesus were sentenced to death, that everybody has to die sooner or later, that the great temples on the Acropolis were built after the Persian wars in the fifth century B.C. and that the most important oracle in ancient Greece was the oracle at Delphi. As examples of what we can only believe, Sophie mentioned the questions of whether or not there is life on other planets, whether God exists or not, whether there is life after death, and whether Jesus was the son of God or merely a wise man. "We can certainly not know where the world came from," she wrote, completing her list. "The universe can be compared to a large rabbit pulled out of a top hat. Philosophers try to climb up one of the fine hairs of the rabbit's fur and stare straight into the eyes of the Great Magician. Whether they will ever succeed is an open question. But if each philosopher climbed onto another one's back, they would get even higher up in the rabbit's fur, and then, in my opinion, there would be some chance they would make it some day. P.S. In the Bible there is something that could have been one of the fine hairs of the rabbit's fur. The hair was called the Tower of Babel, and it was destroyed because the Magician didn't want the tiny human insects to crawl up that high out of the white rabbit he had just created."

Then there was the next question: "Indicate some of the factors contributing to a person's philosophy of life." Upbringing and environment were important here. People living at the time of Plato had a different philosophy of life than many people have today because they lived in a different age and a different environment. Another factor was the kind of experience people chose to get themselves. Common sense was not determined by environment. Everybody had that. Maybe one could compare environment and social situation with the conditions that existed deep down in Plato's cave. By using their intelligence individuals can start to drag themselves up from the darkness. But a journey like that requires personal courage. Socrates is a good example of a person who managed to free himself from the prevailing views of his time by his own intelligence. Finally, she wrote: "Nowadays, people of many lands and cultures are being intermingled more and more. Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists may live in the same apartment building. In which case it is more important to accept each other's beliefs than to ask why everyone does not believe the same thing."

Not bad, thought Sophie. She certainly felt she had covered some ground with what she had learned from her philosophy teacher. And she could always supplement it with a dash of her own common sense and what she might have read and heard elsewhere.

She applied herself to the third question: "What is meant by conscience? Do you think conscience is the same for everyone?" This was something they had discussed a lot in class. Sophie wrote: Conscience is people's ability to respond to right and wrong. My personal opinion is that everyone is endowed with this ability, so in other words, conscience is innate. Socrates would have said the same. But just what conscience dictates can vary a lot from one person to the next. One could say that the Sophists had a point here. They thought that right and wrong is something mainly determined by the environment the individual grows up in. Socrates, on the other hand, believed that conscience is the same for everyone. Perhaps both views were right. Even if everybody doesn't feel guilty about showing themselves naked, most people will have a bad conscience if they are really mean to someone. Still, it must be remembered that having a conscience is not the same as using it. Sometimes it looks as if people act quite unscrupulously, but I believe they also have a kind of conscience somewhere, deep down. Just as it seems as if some people have no sense at all, but that's only because they are not using it. P.S. Common sense and conscience can both be compared to a muscle. If you don't use a muscle, it gets weaker and weaker."

Now there was only one question left: "What is meant by priority of values?" This was another thing they had discussed a lot lately. For example, it could be of value to drive a car and get quickly from one place to another. But if driving led to deforestation and polluting the natural environment, you were facing a choice of values. After careful consideration Sophie felt she had come to the conclusion that healthy forests and a pure environment were more valuable than getting to work quickly. She gave several more examples. Finally she wrote: "Personally, I think Philosophy is a more important subject than English Grammar. It would therefore be a sensible priority of values to have Philosophy on the timetable and cut down a bit on English lessons."

In the last break the teacher drew Sophie aside.

"I have already read your Religion test," he said. "It was near the top of the pile."

"I hope it gave you some food for thought."

"That was exactly what I wanted to talk to you about. It was in many ways very mature. Surprisingly so. And self-reliant. But had you done your homework, Sophie?"

Sophie fidgeted a little.

"Well, you did say it was important to have a personal point of view."

"Well, yes I did ... but there are limits."

Sophie looked him straight in the eye. She felt she could permit herself this after all she had experienced lately.

"I have started studying philosophy," she said. "It gives one a good background for personal opinions."

"But it doesn't make it easy for me to grade your paper. It will either be a D or an A."

"Because I was either quite right or quite wrong? Is that what you're saying?"

"So let's say A," said the teacher. "But next time, do your homework!"

When Sophie got home from school that afternoon, she flung her schoolbag on the steps and ran down to the den. A brown envelope lay on top of the gnarled roots. It was quite dry around the edges, so it must have been a long time since Hermes had dropped it.

She took the envelope with her and let herself in the front door. She fed the animals and then went upstairs to her room. Lying on her bed, she opened Alberto's letter and read:

HELLENISM

Here we are again, Sophie! Having read about the natural philosophers and Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, you are now familiar with the foundations of European philosophy. So from now on we will drop the introductory questions which you earlier received in white envelopes. I imagine you probably have plenty of other assignments and tests at school.

I shall now tell you about the long period from Aristotle near the end of the fourth century B.C. right up to the early Middle Ages around A.D. 400. Notice that we can now write both B.C. and A.D. because Christianity was in fact one of the most important, and the most mysterious, factors of the period.

Aristotle died in the year 322 B.C., at the time when Athens had lost its dominant role. This was not least due to the political upheavals resulting from the conquests of Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.).

Alexander the Great was the King of Macedonia. Aristotle was also from Macedonia, and for a time he was even the young Alexander's tutor. It was Alexander who won the final, decisive victory over the Persians. And moreover, Sophie, with his many conquests he linked both Egypt and the Orient as far east as India to the Greek civilization.

This marked the beginning of a new epoch in the history of mankind. A civilization sprang up in which Greek culture and the Greek language played a leading role. This period, which lasted for about 300 years, is known as Hellenism. The term Hellenism refers to both the period of time and the Greek-dominated culture that prevailed in the three Hellenistic kingdoms of Macedonia, Syria, and Egypt.

However, from about the year 50 B.C., Rome secured the upper hand in military and political affairs. The new superpower gradually conquered all the Hellenistic kingdoms, and from then on Roman culture and the Latin language were predominant from Spain in the west to far into Asia. This was the beginning of the Roman period, which we often refer to as Late Antiquity. But remember one thing--before the Romans managed to conquer the Hellenistic world, Rome itself was a province of Greek culture. So Greek culture and Greek philosophy came to play an important role long after the political influence of the Greeks was a thing of the past.

Religion, Philosophy and ScienceHellenism was characterized by the fact that the borders between the various countries and cultures became erased. Previously the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Syrians, and the Persians had worshipped their own gods within what we generally call a "national religion." Now the different cultures merged into one great witch's caldron of religious, philosophical, -and scientific ideas.

We could perhaps say that the town square was replaced by the world arena. The old town square had also buzzed with voices, bringing now different wares to market, now different thoughts and ideas. The new aspect was that town squares were being filled with wares and ideas from all over the world. The voices were buzzing in many different languages.

We have already mentioned that the Greek view of life was now much more widespread than it had been in the former Greek cultural areas. But as time went on, Oriental gods were also worshipped in all the Mediterranean countries. New religious formations arose that could draw on the gods and the beliefs of many of the old nations. This is called syncretism or the fusion of creeds.

Prior to this, people had felt a strong affinity with their own folk and their own city-state. But as the borders and boundaries became erased, many people began to experience doubt and uncertainty about their philosophy of life. Late Antiquity was generally characterized by religious doubts, cultural dissolution, and pessimism. It was said that "the world has grown old."

A common feature of the new religious formations during the Hellenistic period was that they frequently contained teachings about how mankind could attain salvation from death. These teachings were often secret. By accepting the teachings and performing certain rituals, a believer could hope for the immortality of the soul and eternal life. A certain insight into the true nature of the universe could be just as important for the salvation of the soul as religious rituals.

So much for the new religions, Sophie. But philosophy was also moving increasingly in the direction of "salvation" and serenity. Philosophic insight, it was now thought, did not only have its own reward; it should also free mankind from pessimism and the fear of death. Thus the boundaries between religion and philosophy were gradually eliminated.

In general, the philosophy of Hellenism was not star-tlingly original. No new Plato or Aristotle appeared on the scene. On the contrary, the three great Athenian philosophers were a source of inspiration to a number of philosophic trends which I shall briefly describe in a moment.

Hellenistic science, too, was influenced by a blend of knowledge from the various cultures. The town of Alexandria played a key role here as a meeting place between East and West. While Athens remained the center of philosophy with still functioning schools of philosophy after Plato and Aristotle, Alexandria became the center for science. With its extensive library, it became the center for mathematics, astronomy, biology, and medicine.

Hellenistic culture could well be compared to the world of today. The twentieth century has also been influenced by an increasingly open civilization. In our own time, too, this opening out has resulted in tremendous upheavals for religion and philosophy. And just as in Rome around the beginning of the Christian era one could come across Greek, Egyptian, and Oriental religions, today, as we approach the end of the twentieth century, we can find in all European cities of any size religions from all parts of the world.

We also see nowadays how a conglomeration of old and new religions, philosophies, and sciences can form the basis of new offers on the "view-of-life" market. Much of this "new knowledge" is actually the flotsam of old thought, some of whose roots go back to Hellenism.

As I have said, Hellenistic philosophy continued to work with the problems raised by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Common to them all was their desire to discover how mankind should best live and die. They were concerned with ethics. In the new civilization, this became the central philosophical project. The main emphasis was on finding out what true happiness was and how it could be achieved. We are going to look at four of these philosophical trends.

The Cynics

The story goes that one day Socrates stood gazing at a stall that sold all kinds of wares. Finally he said, "What a lot of things I don't need!"

This statement could be the motto for the Cynic school of philosophy, founded by Antisthenes in Athens around 400 B.C.

Antisthenes had been a pupil of Socrates, and had become particularly interested in his frugality.

The Cynics emphasized that true happiness is not found in external advantages such as material luxury, political power, or good health. True happiness lies in not being dependent on such random and fleeting things. And because happiness does not consist in benefits of this kind, it is within everyone's reach. Moreover, having once been attained, it can never be lost.

The best known of the Cynics was Diogenes, a pupil of Antisthenes, who reputedly lived in a barrel and owned nothing but a cloak, a stick, and a bread bag. (So it wasn't easy to steal his happiness from him!) One day while he was sitting beside his barrel enjoying the sun, he was visited by Alexander the Great. The emperor stood before him and asked if there was anything he could do for him. Was there anything he desired? "Yes," Diogenes replied. "Stand to one side. You're blocking the sun." Thus Diogenes showed that he was no less happy and rich than the great man before him. He had everything he desired.

The Cynics believed that people did not need to be concerned about their own health. Even suffering and death should not disturb them. Nor should they let them-selves be tormented by concern for other people's woes. Nowadays the terms "cynical" and "cynicism" have come to mean a sneering disbelief in human sincerity, and they imply insensitivity to other people's suffering.
25
 楼主| 发表于 2019-1-19 11:50:38 | 只看该作者
The Stoics

The Cynics were instrumental in the development of the Stoic school of philosophy, which grew up in Athens around 300 B.C. Its founder was Zeno, who came originally from Cyprus and joined the Cynics in Athens after being shipwrecked. He used to gather his followers under a portico. The name "Stoic" comes from the Greek word for portico (stoo). Stoicism was later to have great significance for Roman culture.

Like Heraclitus, the Stoics believed that everyone was a part of the same common sense--or "logos." They thought that each person was like a world in miniature, or "microcosmos," which is a reflection of the "macro-cosmos."

This led to the thought that there exists a universal right-ness, the so-called natural law. And because this natural law was based on timeless human and universal reason, it did not alter with time and place. In this, then, the Stoics sided with Socrates against the Sophists.

Natural law governed all mankind, even slaves. The Stoics considered the legal statutes of the various states merely as incomplete imitations of the "law" embedded in nature itself.

In the same way that the Stoics erased the difference between the individual and the universe, they also denied any conflict between "spirit" and "matter." There is only one nature, they averred. This kind of idea is called monism (in contrast to Plato's clear dualism or two-fold reality).

As true children of their time, the Stoics were distinctly "cosmopolitan," in that they were more receptive to contemporary culture than the "barrel philosophers" (the Cynics). They drew attention to human fellowship, they were preoccupied with politics, and many of them, notably the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 121-180), were active statesmen. They encouraged Greek culture and philosophy in Rome, one of the most distinguished of them being the orator, philosopher, and statesman Cicero (106-43 B.C.). It was he who formed the very concept of "humanism"--that is, a view of life that has the individual as its central focus. Some years later, the Stoic Seneca (4 B.C.-A.D. 65) said that "to mankind, mankind is holy." This has remained a slogan for humanism ever since.

The Stoics, moreover, emphasized that all natural processes, such as sickness and death, follow the unbreakable laws of nature. Man must therefore learn to accept his destiny. Nothing happens accidentally. Everything happens through necessity, so it is of little use to complain when fate comes knocking at the door. One must also accept the happy events of life unperturbed, they thought. In this we see their kinship with the Cynics, who claimed that all external events were unimportant. Even today we use the term "stoic calm" about someone who does not let his feelings take over.

The Epicureans

As we have seen, Socrates was concerned with finding out how man could live a good life. Both the Cynics and the Stoics interpreted his philosophy as meaning that man had to free himself from material luxuries. But Socrates also had a pupil named Aristippus. He believed that the aim of life was to attain the highest possible sensory enjoyment. "The highest good is pleasure," he said, "the greatest evil is pain." So he wished to develop a way of life whose aim was to avoid pain in all forms. (The Cynics and the Stoics believed in enduring pain of all kinds, which is not the same as setting out to avoid pain.)

Around the year 300 B.C., Epicurus (341-270) founded a school of philosophy in Athens. His followers were called Epicureans. He developed the pleasure ethic of Aristippus and combined it with the atom theory of Democritus.

The story goes that the Epicureans lived in a garden. They were therefore known as the "garden philosophers." Above the entrance to this garden there is said to have hung a notice saying, "Stranger, here you will live well. Here pleasure is the highest good."

Epicurus emphasized that the pleasurable results of an action must always be weighed against its possible side effects. If you have ever binged on chocolate you know what I mean. If you haven't, try this exercise: Take all your saved-up pocket money and buy two hundred crowns' worth of chocolate. (We'll assume you like chocolate.) It is essential to this exercise that you eat it all at one time. About half an hour later, when all that delicious chocolate is eaten, you will understand what Epicurus meant by side effects.

Epicurus also believed that a pleasurable result in the short term must be weighed against the possibility of a greater, more lasting, or more intense pleasure in the long term. (Maybe you abstain from eating chocolate for a whole year because you prefer to save up all your pocket money and buy a new bike or go on an expensive vacation abroad.) Unlike animals, we are able to plan our lives. We have the ability to make a "pleasure calculation." Chocolate is good, but a new bike or a trip to England is better.

Epicurus emphasized, though, that "pleasure" does not necessarily mean sensual pleasure--like eating chocolate, for instance. Values such as friendship and the appreciation of art also count. Moreover, the enjoyment of life required the old Greek ideals of self-control, temperance, and serenity. Desire must be curbed, and serenity will help us to endure pain.

Fear of the gods brought many people to the garden of Epicurus. In this connection, the atom theory of Democritus was a useful cure for religious superstitions. In order to live a good life it is not unimportant to overcome the fear of death. To this end Epicurus made use of Democritus's theory of the "soul atoms." You may perhaps remember that Democritus believed there was no life after death because when we die, the "soul atoms" disperse in all directions.

"Death does not concern us," Epicurus said quite simply, "because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist." (When you think about it, no one has ever been bothered by being dead.)

Epicurus summed up his liberating philosophy with what he called the four medicinal herbs:

The gods are not to be feared. Death is nothing to worry about. Good is easy to attain. The fearful is easy to endure.

From a Greek point of view, there was nothing new in comparing philosophical projects with those of medical science. The intention was simply that man should equip himself with a "philosophic medicine chest" containing the four ingredients I mentioned.

In contrast to the Stoics, the Epicureans showed little or no interest in politics and the community. "Live in seclusion!" was the advice of Epicurus. We could per-haps compare his "garden" with our present-day communes. There are many people in our own time who have sought a "safe harbor"--away from society.

After Epicurus, many Epicureans developed an overemphasis on self-indulgence. Their motto was "Live for the moment!" The word "epicurean" is used in a negative sense nowadays to describe someone who lives only for pleasure.

Neoplatonism

As I showed you, Cynicism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism all had their roots in the teaching of Socrates. They also made use of certain of the pre-Socratics like Heraclitus and Democritus.

But the most remarkable philosophic trend in the late Hellenistic period was first and foremost inspired by Plato's philosophy. We therefore call it Neoplatonism.

The most important figure in Neoplatonism was Plotinus (c. 205-270), who studied philosophy in Alexandria but later settled in Rome. It is interesting to note that he came from Alexandria, the city that had been the central meeting point for Greek philosophy and Oriental mysticism for several centuries. Plotinus brought with him to Rome a doctrine of salvation that was to compete seriously with Christianity when its time came. However, Neoplatonism also became a strong influence in mainstream Christian theology as well.

Remember Plato's doctrine of ideas, Sophie, and the way he distinguished between the world of ideas and the sensory world. This meant establishing a clear division between the soul and the body. Man thus became a dual creature: our body consisted of earth and dust like everything else in the sensory world, but we also had an immortal soul. This was widely believed by many Greeks long before Plato. Plotinus was also familiar with similar ideas from Asia.

Plotinus believed that the world is a span between two poles. At one end is the divine light which he calls the One. Sometimes he calls it God. At the other end is absolute darkness, which receives none of the light from the One. But Plotinus's point is that this darkness actually has no existence. It is simply the absence of light--in other words, it is not. All that exists is God, or the One, but in the same way that a beam of light grows progressively dimmer and is gradually extinguished, there is somewhere a point that the divine glow cannot reach.

According to Plotinus, the soul is illuminated by the light from the One, while matter is the darkness that has no real existence. But the forms in nature have a faint glow of the One.

Imagine a great burning bonfire in the night from which sparks fly in all directions. A wide radius of light from the bonfire turns night into day in the immediate area; but the glow from the fire is visible even from a distance of several miles. If we went even further away, we would be able to see a tiny speck of light like a far-off lantern in the dark, and if we went on moving away, at some point the light would not reach us. Somewhere the rays of light disappear into the night, and when it is completely dark we see nothing. There are neither shapes nor shadows.

Imagine now that reality is a bonfire like this. That which is burning is God--and the darkness beyond is the cold matter that man and animals are made of. Closest to God are the eternal ideas which are the primal forms of all creatures. The human soul, above all, is a "spark from the fire." Yet everywhere in nature some of the divine light is shining. We can see it in all living creatures; even a rose or a bluebell has its divine glow. Furthest away from the living God are earth and water and stone.

I am saying that there is something of the divine mystery in everything that exists. We can see it sparkle in a sunflower or a poppy. We sense more of this unfathomable mystery in a butterfly that flutters from a twig--or in a goldfish swimming in a bowl. But we are closest to God in our own soul. Only there can we become one with the great mystery of life. In truth, at very rare moments we can experience that we ourselves are that divine mystery.

Plotinus's metaphor is rather like Plato's myth of the cave: the closer we get to the mouth of the cave, the closer we get to that which all existence springs from. But in contrast to Plato's clear two-fold reality, Plotinus's doctrine is characterized by an experience of wholeness. Everything is one--for everything is God. Even the shadows deep down in Plato's cave have a faint glow of the One.

On rare occasions in his life, Plotinus experienced a fusion of his soul with God. We usually call this a mystical experience. Plotinus is not alone in having had such experiences. People have told of them at all times and in all cultures. The details might be different, but the essential features are the same. Let us take a look at some of these features.


26
 楼主| 发表于 2019-1-19 11:51:31 | 只看该作者
……一丝火花……
虽然哲学老师已经开始把信直接送到老树篱内,但星期一早晨苏菲仍习惯性地看了看信箱。
里面是空的,这并不让人意外,她开始沿着苜蓿巷往前走。
突然间她看到人行道上有一张照片。照片中有一辆白色的吉普车,上面插着一支印有联合国字样的蓝色旗帜。那不是联合国的旗帜吗?
苏菲把照片翻过来,发现这是一张普通的明信片。上面写着“请苏菲代转席德”,贴着挪威邮票,并盖着一九九O年六月十五日星期五“联合国部队”的邮戳。
六月十五日!这天正是苏菲的生日呀!
明信片上写着:
亲爱的席德:
我猜想你可能仍在庆祝你的十五岁生日。或者你接到信时,已经是第二天的早上了。无论如何,你都会收到我的礼物。就某个角度看,那是一份可以用一辈子的礼物。不过,我想向你再说一声生日快乐。也许你现在已经明白我为何把这些明信片寄给苏菲了。我相信她一定会把它们转交给你的。
P.S:妈妈说你把你的皮夹弄丢了。我答应你我会给你一百五十块钱做为补偿。还有,在学校放暑假前你也许可以重办一张学生证。
爱你的爸爸
苏菲站在原地不动。上一张明信片邮戳上的日期是几号?她隐约记得那张海滩风景明信片上的邮戳日期也是六月——虽然这两张明信片相隔了一个月。不过她并没有看清楚。
她看了一下腕表,然后便跑回家中。她今天上学是非迟到不可了。
苏菲进了门便飞奔到楼上的房间,在那条红色丝巾的下面找到了第一张写给席德的明信片。是的,上面的日期也是六月十五日,就是苏菲的生日,也是学校放暑假的前一天。
她跑到超级市场去和乔安会合时,心里涌出无数个问号。
这个席德是谁?她爸爸为什么会认定苏菲可以找到她?无论如何,他把明信片寄给苏菲,而不直接寄给他的女儿是说不通的。
苏菲想这绝不可能是因为他不知道自己女儿的地址。会是谁在恶作剧吗?他是不是想找一个陌生人来当侦探和信差,以便在女儿生日那天给她一个惊喜呢?这就是他提前一个月让她准备的原因吗?
他是不是想让她这个中间人成为他女儿的新朋友,并以此做为送给她的生日礼物呢?难道她就是那个“可以用一辈子”的礼物吗?
如果这个开玩笑的人真的在黎巴嫩,他何以能够得知苏菲的地址?还有,苏菲和席德至少有两件事是相同的。第一,如果席德的生日也是六月十五日,那她们俩就是同一天出生的。第二,她们俩的父亲都远在天边。
苏菲觉得自己被拉进一个不真实的世界。也许,有时候人还真的不得不相信命运。不过,她还不能太早下结论。这件事可能仍然有个缘故。但是,如果席德住在黎乐桑,艾伯特是如何找到她的皮夹的呢?黎乐桑离这儿有好几百英里呀!同时,这张明信片为什么会躺在苏菲家门口的人行道上?它是不是在邮差来到苏菲家的信箱时由他的邮袋里掉出来的?如果这样,为什么他别的不掉,偏偏掉这一张?
在超市等候的乔安好不容易才看到苏菲出现。她忍不住说:
“你疯了吗?”
“对不起!”
乔安紧紧皱起眉头,像学校老师一样。
“你最好给我解释清楚。”
“都是联合国的缘故。”苏菲说。“我在黎巴嫩被敌方部队拘留了。”
“少来。我看你是谈恋爱了。”
她们没命似的跑到学校。
第三节课时考了苏菲昨天没有时间准备的宗教知识这门课。
题目如下:
生命与容忍的哲学   
1.试列举我们可以确实知道的一些事物。然后再列举一些我们只能相信的事物。
2.请说明影响一个人的生活哲学的因素。
3.“良知”的意义为何?你认为每一个人都有同样的良知吗?
4.何谓价值的轻重?
苏菲坐在那儿想了很久才开始作答。她可以运用她从艾伯特那儿学到的观念吗?她不得不这样做,因为她已经有好几天没有打开宗教知识的教科书了。她一开始作答后,答案仿佛自然而然就从她的笔端流出来一般。
她写道:我们可以确定的事包括月亮不是由绿乳酪做成的、月球较黑的那一面也有坑洞、苏格拉底和耶稣基督两人都被判死刑、每一个人都迟早会死、希腊高城宏伟的神殿是在公元前五世纪波斯战争后兴建的,还有古希腊最重要的神论是戴尔菲的神论。至于我们不能确知的事物,苏菲举的例子包括;其他星球上是否有生物存在、世间是否真有上帝、人死后是否还有生命、耶稣是上帝之子或者只是一个聪明人。在举出这些例子后,苏菲写道:“我们当然无法确知这世界从何而来。宇宙就好像是一只被魔术师从帽子里拉出来的大白兔。哲学家努力沿着兔子毛皮中的一根细毛往上爬,希望能一睹伟大魔术师的真面目。虽然他们不一定会成功,但如果所有哲学家都像叠罗汉一般一层一层往上叠,则他们就可以愈接近兔子毛皮的顶端。果真如此,在我认为,有一天他们也许真的可以爬到顶端。P.S:圣经中有一个东西很像是兔子的细毛,那就是巴别塔。这个塔最后被伟大的魔术师摧毁了,因为他不希望这些微不足道的人类爬出他一手创造出的兔子的毛皮。”
第二个问题是:“请说明影响一个人的生活哲学的因素。”苏菲认为教养与环境很重要。生在柏拉图时代的人们所具有的生活哲学与现代人不同,因为他们生活的时代和环境与我们的不同。另外一个因素是人们选择的经验种类。一般常识不是由环境决定的,而是每一个人都具备的。也许我们可以把我们的环境和社会情况与柏拉图的洞穴相比较。一个人若运用他的聪明才智,将可以使自己脱离黑暗。不过这样的路程需要一些勇气,苏格拉底就是一个很好的例子,显示一个人如何运用自己的聪明才智使自己不受当时思想主流的影响。最后,苏菲写道:“在当今这个时代,来自各个地方、各种文化的人们交流日益密切。基督徒、伊斯兰教徒与佛教徒可能住在同一栋公寓中。在这种情况下,接受彼此的信仰要比去问为什么大家不能有一致的信仰更加重要。”
嗯,答得不坏!苏菲心想。她觉得自己已经运用她从哲学老师
那儿学来的知识答出了一些重点,她只要加上一些自己的常识与她从别处听来或读到的东西就成了。
现在,她专心答第三道问题:“良知是什么?你认为每个人都有同样的良知吗?”
这个问题他们在课堂上已经讨论过很多次了。苏菲答道:“良知是人们辨别善恶是非的能力。我个人的看法是:“每一个人天生都具备这种能力。换句话说,良知是与生俱来的。苏格拉底应该也会持同样的看法。不过良心对人的影响因人而异。在这方面我们可以说诡辩学振的主张不无道理。他们认为是非的观念主要是由个人成长环境决定的。相反的,苏格拉底则相信每一个人的良心都一样。也许这两种观点都没有错。虽然并不是每一个人在大庭广 众之下赤身露体时都会感到羞愧,但大多数人在欺负别人后多少都会良心不安。不过,我们也不要忘记,具有良知和运用良知是两回事。有时有些人做起事来一副无耻的模样,但我相信他们内心深处还是有某种良知存在的。就像某些人看起来似乎没有大脑的样子,但这只是因为他们不用脑筋罢了。P.S:常识和良心不像肌肉一样。你不去用它,它就会愈来愈萎缩。”
现在只剩下一个问题了:“何谓价值的轻重?”这也是他们最近—时常讨论的一个主题。举例来说,开着车子迅速往来各地也许是很重要的,但如果驾驶车辆会导致森林遭到砍伐、自然环境受到污染等后果,我们就必须要作个选择。在仔细考量之后,苏菲的结论是:
维护森林的健康和环境的纯净要比能够节省上班途中的交通时间更有价值。她另外又举了一些例子。最后,她写道:“我个人认为哲学这门课要比英文文法更重要。因此,如果学校能将哲学课列入课程,并且略微减少英文课的时间,他们对价值轻重的判断就是正确的。”
最后一次课间休息时,老师把苏菲拉到一旁。
“我已经看过了你宗教课考试的试卷。”他说,“你那一份放在整沓试卷的最上面。”
“我希望它能给你一些启发。”
“这就是我要跟你谈的。你的答案在许多方面都很成熟,让我非常讶异。同时你有很多自己的想法。不过,苏菲,你有没有做作业呢?”
苏菲有点心虚。
“嗯,你不是说一个人要有自己的看法吗?”
“是啊,我是说过……不过这总有个限度。”
苏菲看着老师的眼睛。她觉得在最近经历了这些事情后,她应该可以这样做。
“我已经开始研究哲学了。”她说,“这使我有了一些形成自己意见的基础。”
“不过这让我很难给你的考卷打分数。要不是D,要不就是A。”
“因为我要不就答得很对,要不就错得很多。你的意思是这样吗?”
“那就算你A好了。”老师说。“不过下一次你可要做作业。”
那天下午苏菲放学后一回到家,把书包丢在门前台阶上后,就马上跑到密洞中。果然有一个棕色的信封躺在虬结的树根上。信封的边缘已经干了。可以想见汉密士已经把信送来很久了。
她拿了信,进了前门,喂宠物后就上楼。回房后,她躺床上拆阅艾伯特的信:   

希腊文化

苏菲,我们又上课了。在读完有关自然派哲学家、苏格拉底、柏拉图与亚理斯多德的理论后,你对欧洲哲学的基础应该已经很熟悉了。因此,从现在起,我将省略掉用白色的信封所装的前导式问题。更何况,我想学校给你们的作业和考试可能已经够多了。
今天我要介绍的是从公元前第四世纪末亚理斯多德时期,一直到公元四百年左右中世纪初期的这一段很长的时期。请注意,我们如今讲公元前、公元后乃是以耶稣降生的前后来区分,而事实上,基督教也是这个时期内最重要、最神秘的因素之一。
亚理斯多德于公元前三二二年去世,当时雅典人已经失去了挽治者的地位。这一部分原因是亚历山大大帝(公元前三五六~公元前三二三年)征服各地后引发的政治动乱所致。
亚历山大大帝是马其顿的国王。亚理斯多德也是马其顿人,甚至曾经担任亚历山大小时候的私人教师。亚历山大后来打赢了对波斯人的最后一场决定性的战役。更重要的是,他征服各地的结果使得埃及、东方(远至印度)的文明与希腊的文明得以结合在一起。
在人类的历史上,这是一个新纪元的开始。一个新文明诞生了。在这个文明中,希腊的文化与希腊的语言扮演了主导的角色。
这段时期维持了大约三百年,被称为“希腊文化”。这个名词除了指这段时期外,也指在马其顿、叙利亚与埃及这三个希腊王国风行的以希腊为主的文化。
然而,自从大约公元前五O年以后,罗马在军事与政治上逐渐占了上风。这个新的超级强权逐渐征服了所有的希腊王国。从此以后,从西边的西班牙到东边的亚洲等地,都以罗马文化与拉丁文为主。这是罗马时期(也就是我们经常所说的“近古时期”)的开始。
不过,我们不可以忘记一件事:在罗马人征服希腊世界之前,罗马本身也受到希腊文化的影响。因此,直到希腊人的政治势力衰微很久以后,希腊文化与希腊哲学仍然继续扮演了很重要的角色。

宗教、哲学与科学

希腊文化的特色在于国与国、文化与文化之间的界线泯灭了。
过去希腊、罗马、埃及、巴比伦、叙利亚、波斯等各民族各有我们一般所说的“国教”,各自崇奉不同的神明。但如今这些不同的文化都仿佛在女巫的咒语之下熔成一炉,汇聚形成各种宗教、哲学与科学概念。
我们可以说希腊过去的市中心广场已经被世界舞台所取代。
从前的市镇广场是一片人声嘈杂的景象,有人贩售各种商品,有人 宣扬各种思想与概’念。如今的市镇广场依旧充斥着来自世界各地的货品与思想,只不过嘈杂的人声中夹杂了各国的语言。
我们曾经提到在这个时候,希腊人的人生哲学影响的地区与范围已经比过去扩大许多。不过,逐渐的,地中海地区的各个国家也开始崇奉东方的神祗。也许是在众多古国原有宗教信仰的交互影响之下,新的宗教兴起了。
我们称这种现象为“信仰的混合”(syncretism)或“信仰的交互激荡”(the fusion of creeds)。
在此之前,人们都认同自己所属的城邦。但随着疆界之分逐渐泯灭,许多人开始怀疑自己的社会所持的生命哲学。一般而言,近古时期的特色就是充满了宗教质疑、文化解体与悲观主义。当时的人说:“世界已经衰老了。”希腊文化时期形成的各宗教信仰有一个共同的特征,就是他们经常教导人应该如何获得救赎,免予一死。
这些教义通常都是以秘密的方式传授。信徒只要接受这些教导,并进行某些仪式,就可望获得不朽的灵魂与永远的生命。但为了达成灵魂的救赎,除了举行宗教仪式外,也有必要对宇宙真实的本质有
某种程度的了解。
关于新宗教,我们就谈到这里了。不过在这个时期,哲学也逐渐朝“救赎”与平安的方向发展。当时的人认为,哲学的智慧不仅本身有其好处,也应该能使人类脱离悲观的心态与对死亡的恐惧。因此,宗教与哲学之间的界线逐渐消失了。
整体来说,我们不得不承认希腊文化的哲学并没有很大的原创性。在这个时期中,并未再出现一个柏拉图或亚理斯多德。相反的,许多学派乃是受到雅典三大哲学家的启发。待会儿,我将略微描述这些学派。
希腊的科学同样地也受到各种不同文化的影响。亚力山卓(A1exandria)由于位居东西方的交会点,因此在这方面扮演了关键性的角色。在这个时期,由于雅典城内有一些继柏拉图与亚理斯多德之后的哲学学派,因此雅典仍是哲学中心,而亚力山卓则成为科学中心。那里有规模宏大的图书馆,使得亚力山卓成为数学、天文学、生物学与医学的重镇。
当时的希腊文化可与现代世界相提并论。二十世纪的文明愈趋开放后,造成了宗教与哲学百花齐放的现象。在基督纪元开始前后,生活在罗马的人们也可以见识到希腊、埃及与东方的各种宗教,就像在二十世纪末期的我们可以在欧洲各大小城市发现来自世界各地的宗教一般。
今天我们也可以看到新旧宗教、哲学与科学融合之后,如何形成了新的生命哲学。这些所谓的“新知识”实际上只是旧思想的残渣而已,其中有些甚至可以追溯至希腊时代。
正如我刚才所说的,希腊哲学仍旧致力于解决苏格拉底、柏拉图与亚理斯多德等人提出的问题。他们都同样亟欲找寻人类最佳的生、死之道。他们关心人的伦理与道德。在这个新的文明中,这个问题成为哲学家研讨的重心。他们最关心的乃是何谓真正的幸福以及如何获致这种幸福。下面我们将认识其中四个学派。

犬儒学派

据说,有一天苏格拉底站在街上,注视着一个贩卖各种商品的摊子。最后他说:“这些东西中有太多是我根本不需要的啊!”
这句话可以做为犬儒派哲学的注解。这个学派是在公元前四百年左右由雅典的安提塞尼斯(Antisthenes)所创。安提塞尼斯曾受教于苏格拉底门下,对于苏格拉底节俭的生活方式特别有兴趣,犬儒派学者强调,真正的幸福不是建立在外在环境的优势——如丰裕的物质、强大的政治力量与健壮的身体——之上。真正幸福的人不依赖这些稍纵即逝的东西。同时,由于幸福不是由这类福祉构成的,因此每一个人都可以获致幸福,更重要的是,一旦获得了这种幸福,就不可能失去它。
最著名的犬儒派人士是安提塞尼斯的弟子戴奥基尼斯(Dio—gzenes),据说他住在一个木桶中,除了一袭斗篷、一支棍子与一个面包袋之外,什么也没有,(因此要偷取他的幸福可不容易!)有一天他坐在木桶旁,舒服地晒着太阳时,亚历山大大帝前来探望他。
亚历山大站在他的前面,告诉他只要他想要任何东西,他都可以赐予他。戴奥基尼斯答道:“我希望你闪到旁边,让我可以晒到太阳。”
就这样,戴奥基尼斯证明他比亚历山大这位伟大的将军要更富裕,也更快乐,因为他已经拥有了自己想要的一切。
犬儒学派相信,人们毋需担心自己的健康,不应该因生老病死而苦恼,也不必担心别人的痛苦而让自己活受罪。
于是,到了今天,“犬儒主义”这些名词的意思变成是对人类真诚的轻蔑不信,暗含对别人的痛苦无动于衷的态度与行为。

斯多葛学派

犬儒学派促进了斯多葛学派的发展。后者在公元三百年左右兴起于雅典。它的创始人是季诺(Zeno)。此人最初住在塞浦勒斯,在一次船难后来到雅典,加入犬儒学派。他经常在门廊上聚集徒众。斯多葛(Stoic)这个字就是源自希腊文stoa(门廊)这个字。这个学派后来对于罗马文化有很大的影响。
就像赫拉克里特斯一样,斯多葛派人士相信每一个人都是宇宙常识的一小部分,每一个人都像是一个“小宇宙”(microcosmos),乃是“大宇宙”(macrocosmos)的缩影。
他们因此相信宇宙间有公理存在,亦即所谓“神明的律法”。由于此一神明律法是建立在亘古长存的人类理性与宇宙理性之上,因此不会随时空而改变。在这方面,斯多葛学派的主张与苏格拉底
相同,而与诡辩学派相异。
斯多葛学派认为,全体人类(包括奴隶在内)都受到神明律法的管辖。在他们眼中,当时各国的法律条文只不过是模仿大自然法则的一些不完美法条罢了。
斯多葛学派除了否认个人与宇宙有别之外,也不认为“精神”与“物质”之间有任何冲突。他们主张宇宙间只有一个大自然。这种想法被称为“一元论”(monism),与柏拉图明显的“二元论”(du—alism)或“双重实在论”正好相反。
斯多葛学派人士极富时代精神,思想非常开放。他们比那些“木桶哲学家”(犬儒学派)更能接受当代文化,他们呼吁人们发扬“民胞物与”的精神,也非常关心政治。他们当中有许多人后来都成为活跃的政治家,其中最有名的是罗马皇帝奥瑞里亚斯(MarcusAurelluS,公元一二一年~一八O年)。他们在罗马提倡希腊文化与希腊哲学,其中最出类拔萃的是集演讲家、哲学家与政治家等各种头衔于一身的西塞罗(Cicero,公元前一O六年~公元前四三年),所谓“人本主义”(一种主张以个人为人类生活重心的哲学)就是由他创立的。若干年后,同为斯多葛学派的塞尼卡(Seneca,公元前四年~公元六五年)表示:“对人类而言,人是神圣的。”这句话自此成为人本主义的口号。
此外,斯多葛学派强调,所有的自然现象,如生病与死亡,都只是遵守大自然不变的法则罢了,因此人必须学习接受自己的命运。
没有任何事物是偶然发生的,每一件事物发生都有其必要性,因此当命运来敲你家大门时,抱怨也没有用。他们认为,我们也不能为生活中一些欢乐的事物所动。在这方面,他们的观点与犬儒学派相似,因为后者也宣称所有外在事物都不重要。到了今天,我们仍用“斯多葛式的冷静”(stoic calm)来形容那些不会感情用事的人。

伊比鸠鲁学派   

如上所述,苏格拉底关心的是人如何能够过着良好的生活,犬儒学派与斯多葛学派将他的哲学解释成“人不能沉溺于物质上的享受”。不过,苏格拉底另外一个弟子阿瑞斯提普斯(Aristippus)则认为人生的目标就是要追求最高度的感官享受。“人生至善之事乃是享乐。”他说,“至恶之事乃是受苦。”因此他希望发展出一种生活方式,以避免所有形式的痛苦为目标。(犬儒学派与斯多葛学派认为人应该忍受各种痛苦,这与致力避免痛苦是不同的。)
公元前三百年左右,伊比鸠鲁(Epicurus,公元前三四一年--
公元前二七O年)在雅典创办了“伊比鸠鲁学派”。他将阿瑞斯提普斯的享乐主义加以发展,并与德谟克里特斯的原于论结合起来。
由于传说中伊比鸠鲁住在一座花园里,因此这个学派的人士又被称为“花园哲学家”。据说,在这座花园的入口处上方有二块告示牌写着:“陌生人,你将在此地过着舒适的生活。在这里享乐乃是至善之事物。”
伊比鸠鲁学派强调在我们考量一个行动是否有乐趣时,必须同时斟酌它可能带来的副作用。如果你曾经放怀大嚼巧克力,你就会明白我的意思。如果你不曾这样做过,那么你可以做以下练习:
把你存的两百元零用钱全部拿来买巧克力(假设你很爱吃巧克力),而且把它一次吃完(这是这项练习的重点)。大约半个小时以后当所有美味的巧克力都吃光了之后,你就会明白伊比鸠鲁所谓的“副作用”是什么意思了。
伊比鸠鲁并且相信在追求较短暂的快乐时,必须考虑是否另有其他方式可以获致更大、更持久或更强烈的快乐(譬如你决定一年不吃巧克力,因为你想把零用钱存起来买一辆新的脚踏车或去海外度一次豪华假期)。人类不像动物,因为我们可以规划自己的生活。我们有能力从事“乐趣的计算”。巧克力固然好吃,但买一辆新脚踏车或去英国旅游一趟更加美妙。
尽管如此,伊比鸠鲁强调,所谓“乐趣”并不一定指感官上的快乐,如吃巧克力等。交朋友与欣赏艺术等也是一种乐趣。此外,我们若要活得快乐,必须遵守古希腊人自我规范、节制与平和等原则。自我的欲望必须加以克制,而平和的心境则可以帮助我们忍受痛苦。
当时有许多人由于惧怕神明而来到伊比鸠鲁的花园。这是因为德谟克里特斯的原子理论可以有效祛除宗教迷信,而为了好好生活,克服自己对死亡的恐惧是很重要的。于是,伊比鸠鲁便运用德谟克里特斯有关“灵魂原于”的理论来达到这个目的。你也许还记得,德谟克里特斯相信人死后没有生命,因为当我们死时,“灵魂原子”就四处飞散。
“死亡和我们没有关系,”伊比鸠鲁扼要地说,“因为只要我们存在一天,死亡就不会来临。而当死亡来临时,我们也不再存在了。”(说到这点,我们好像从没听说过有谁得了死亡这种病。)
伊比鸠鲁以他所谓的“四种药草”来总结他的哲学:
“神不足惧,死不足忧,祸苦易忍,福乐易求。”
对于希腊人而言,伊比鸠鲁将哲学与医学相提并论的做法并不新鲜。他的主旨是:人应该拥有一个“哲学的药柜”,储存以上四种药方。
与斯多葛学派截然不同的是,伊比鸠鲁学派对于政治或团体生活并不感兴趣。伊比鸠鲁劝人要“离群索居”。我们也许可以将他的“花园”比做时下的一些公社。我们这个时代确实也有许多人离开社会,前往某处去寻求“避风的港湾”。
在伊比鸠鲁之后,许多伊比鸠鲁学派的人士逐渐沉溺于自我放纵。他们的格言是“今朝有酒今朝醉”。Epicurean这个字如今已具有贬意,被人们用来形容那些专门追求享乐的人。

新柏拉图派哲学

我们已经了解犬儒学派、斯多葛学派及伊比鸠鲁学派与苏格拉底哲学的渊源。当然这些学派也采纳了若干苏格拉底之前的哲学家——如赫拉克里特斯与德谟克里特斯等人——的学说。
然而,希腊文化末期最令人瞩目的哲学学派主要仍是受到柏拉图学说的启发,因此我们称之为新柏拉图派哲学。
新柏拉图派哲学最重要的人物是普罗汀(Plotinus,约公元二O五年~二七O年)。他早年在亚力山卓研读哲学,后来在罗马定居;当时,亚力山卓成为希腊哲学与东方神秘主义的交会点已经有好几百年了。普罗汀从那儿将他的“救赎论”(doctrine of salvation)带到罗马。此一学说后来成为基督教的劲敌。不过,新柏拉图派哲
学对基督教神学也具有很大的影响力。
苏菲,你还记得柏拉图的理型论吗?你应该记得他将宇宙分为理型世界与感官世界。这表示他将肉体与灵魂区分得很清楚。在这种情况下,人乃成为二元的造物:我们的身体就像感官世界,所有的事物一般是由尘与土所构成,但我们的灵魂却是不朽的。早在粕拉图之前,许多希腊人就已经持此观念,而亚洲人也有类似的看法。普罗汀对这点相当熟悉。
普罗汀认为,世界横跨两极。一端是他称为“上帝”的神圣之光,另一端则是完全的黑暗,接受不到任何来自上帝的亮光。不过,普罗汀的观点是:这个黑暗世界其实并不存在,它只是缺乏亮光照射而已。世间存在的只有上帝。就像光线会逐渐变弱,终至于熄灭一样,世间也有一个角落是神圣之光无法普照的。
根据普罗汀的说法,灵魂受到此一神圣之光的照耀,而物质则位于并不真正存在的黑暗世界,至于自然界的形式则微微受到神圣之光的照射。
让我们想象夜晚升起一堆野火的景象。此时,火花四散,火光将黑夜照亮。从好几英里外望过来,火光清晰可见。但如果我们再走远一些,就只能看到一小点亮光,就像黑暗中远处的灯笼一样。
如果我们再继续走下去,到了某一点时,我们就再也看不见火光了。此时火光已消失在黑夜中。在这一片黑暗之中,我们看不见任何事物,看不见任何形体或影子。
你可以想象真实世界就像这样一堆野火。发出熊熊火光的是“上帝”,火光照射不到的黑暗之处则是构成人与动物的冷冷的物质。最接近上帝的是那些永恒的观念。它们是所有造物据以做成的根本形式。而人的灵魂则是那飞散的“火花”。大自然的每一处或多或少都受到这神圣之光的照耀。我们在所有的生物中都可以见到这种光,就连一朵玫瑰或一株风铃草也不例外。离上帝最远的则是那些泥土、水与石头。
我的意思是说:世间存在的每一样事物都有这种神秘的神圣之光。我们可以看到它在向日葵或罂粟花中闪烁着光芒。在一只飞离枝头的蝴蝶或在水缸中漫游穿梭的金鱼身上,我们可以看到更多这种深不可测的神秘之光。然而,最靠近上帝的还是我们的灵魂。唯有在灵魂中,我们才能与生命的伟大与神秘合而为一。事实上,在某些很偶然的时刻中,我们可以体验到自我就是那神圣的神秘之光。
昔罗汀的比喻很像柏拉图所说的洞穴神话:我们愈接近洞,就愈接近宇宙万物的源头。不过,与柏拉图的二元论相反的是,普罗汀理论的特色在于万物一体的经验。宇宙间万事万物都是一体,因为上帝存在于万事万物之中。即使在柏拉图所说的洞穴深处的影子中也有微弱的上帝之光。
普罗汀一生中曾有一两次灵魂与上帝合而为一的体验,我们通常称此为神秘经验。除了普罗汀之外,也有人有过这种经验。事实上,古今中外都有人宣称他们有过同样的体验。细节也许不同,但都具有同样的特征。现在让我们来看看这些特征。

神秘

神秘经验是一种与上帝或“天地之心”合而为一的体验。许多宗教都强调上帝与整个宇宙之间的差距,但在神秘主义者的体验中,这种差距并不存在。他(她)们有过与“上帝”合而为一的经验。
他们认为,我们通常所称的“我”事实上并不是真正的“我”。有时在一刹那间,我们可以体验到一个更大的“我”的存在。有些神秘主义者称这个“我”为“上帝”,也有人称之为“天地之心”、“大自然”或“宇宙”。当这种物我交融的情况发生时,神秘主义者觉得他们失去了自我”,像一滴水落入海洋一般进入上帝之中。一位印度的神秘主义者有一次如此形容他的经验:“过去,当我的自我存在时,我感觉不到上帝。如今我感觉到上帝的存在,自我就消失了。”基督教的神秘主义者塞伦西亚斯(Silesius,公元一六二四年~一六七七年)则另有一种说法:“每一滴水流入海洋后,就成为海洋。同样的,当灵魂终于上升时,则成为上帝。”
你也许会反驳说,“失去自我”不可能是一种很愉快的经验。我明白你的意思。但重点是,你所失去的东西比起你所得到的东西是显得多么微不足道。你所失去的只是眼前这种形式的自我,但同时你却会发现自己变得更广大。你就是宇宙。事实上,你就是那天地之心,这时你也就是上帝。如果你失去了“苏菲”这个自我,有一点可以让你觉得比较安慰的是:这个“凡俗的自我”乃是你我无论如何终有一天会失去的。而根据神秘主义者的说法,你的真正的“自我”——这个你唯有放弃自我才能感受到的东西——却像一股神秘的火焰一般,会燃烧到永恒。
不过,类似这样的神秘经验并不一定会自动产生。神秘主义者也许必须透过“净化与启蒙”才能与上帝交流。其方式包括过着简朴的生活以及练习静坐。之后,也许有一天他们可以达到目标,并宣称:“我就是上帝。”
神秘主义在世界各大宗教中都见得到。来自各种不同文化的人们所描述的神秘经验往往极为相似。唯有在神秘主义者试图为他们的神秘经验寻求宗教或哲学上的解释时,文化差异才会显现出来。
西方(犹太教、基督教与伊斯兰教)的神秘主义者强调,他们见到的是一个人形的上帝。他们认为,尽管上帝存在于大自然与人的灵魂中,但他也同时超越万物之上。东方(印度教、佛教与中国的宗教)的神秘主义者则较强调他们的神秘经验乃是一种与上帝或“天地之心”水乳交融的经验。
神秘主义者可以宣称:“我就是天地之心”或“我即上帝”,因为上帝不仅存在于天地万物之中,他本身就是天地万物。
神秘主义在印度尤其盛行。早在柏拉图之前,印度就已经有了浓厚的神秘主义色彩。曾促使印度教传入西方的一位印度人余维卡南达(SwamiVivekenanda)有一次说道:
“世界上有些宗教将那些不相信上帝以人形存在于众生之外的人称为无神论者。同样的,我们也说那些不相信自己的人是无神论者。因为,我们认为,所谓无神论就是不相信自己灵魂的神圣与可贵。”
神秘经验也具有道德价值。曾任印度总统的拉德哈克里希南(SarvepalliRadhakrishnan)曾说:“你当爱邻如己,因你的邻人就是你,你是在幻觉中才将他当成别人。”
我们这个时代有些不信仰任何特定宗教的人也曾有过神秘经验。他们会突然感受到某种他们称之为“宇宙意识”或“大感觉”(oceanicfeeUng)的事物,觉得自己脱离时空,“从永恒的观点”来感受这个世界。
苏菲坐在床上,想感受一下自己的身体是否仍然存在。当她读着柏拉图与神秘主义的哲学时,开始觉得自己在房间内到处飘浮,飘到窗外、愈飘愈远,浮在城镇的上空,从那儿向下看着广场上的人群,然后不断飘着,飘到地球的上方、飘到北海和欧洲的上空,再继续飘过撒哈拉沙漠与非洲大草原。
她觉得整个世界就好像一个人一般,而感觉上这个人就是她自己。她心想,世界就是我。那个她过去经常觉得深不可测、令人害怕的辽阔宇宙,乃是她的“自我”。如今,宇宙依然庄严辽阔,但这个广大的宇宙却是她自己。
这种不寻常的感觉稍纵即逝,但苏菲相信她永远也忘不了。那种感觉就像是她体内的某种东西从她的额头进裂而出,与宇宙万物融合在一起,就像一滴颜料使整罐水染上色彩一般。
这种感觉过后,人就像作了一个美梦,醒来时感到头痛一般,当苏菲意识到自己的躯壳仍然存在,且正坐在床上时,内心不免略微感到失望。由于刚才一直趴在床上看信,她的背现在隐隐作痛。
不过,至少她已经体验到这种令她难忘的感觉了。
最后,她振作精神,站了起来。她所做的第一件事就是在信纸上打洞。并把它放进讲义夹内。然后,便走到花园里去。
花园中鸟儿们正在歌唱,仿佛世界才刚诞生。老旧兔笼后的几株桦树叶子是如此嫩绿,仿佛造物主尚未完成调色的工作。
世间万物果真都是一个神圣的“自我”吗?她的灵魂果真是那神圣之火的“火花”吗?苏菲心想,如果这一切都是真的,那么她确实是一个神圣的造物了。

27
 楼主| 发表于 2019-1-20 13:00:18 | 只看该作者
The Postcards

I'm imposing a severe censorship on myself

Several days went by without any word from the philosophy teacher. Tomorrow was Thursday, May 17-- Norway's national day. School would be closed on the 18th as well. As they walked home after school Joanna suddenly exclaimed, "Let's go camping!"

Sophie's immediate reaction was that she couldn't be away from the house for long. But then she said, "Sure, why not?"

A couple of hours later Joanna arrived at Sophie's door with a large backpack. Sophie had packed hers as well, and she also had the tent. They both had bedrolls and sweaters, groundsheets and flashlights, large-size thermos bottles and plenty of their favorite food.

When Sophie's mother got home around five o'clock, she gave them a sermon about what they must and must not do. She also insisted on knowing where they were going to set up camp.

They told her they intended to make for Grouse Top. They might be lucky enough to hear the mating call of the grouse next morning.

Sophie had an ulterior motive for choosing that particular spot. She thought that Grouse Top must be pretty close to the major's cabin. Something was urging her to return to it, but she didn't dare go alone.

The two girls walked down the path that led from the little cul-de-sac just beyond Sophie's garden gate. They chatted about this and that, and Sophie enjoyed taking a little time off from everything having to do with philosophy.

By eight o'clock they had pitched their tent in a clearing by Grouse Top. They had prepared themselves for the night and their bedrolls were unfolded. When they had eaten their sandwiches, Sophie asked, "Have you ever heard of the major's cabin?"

"The major's cabin?"

"There's a hut in the woods somewhere near here ... by a little lake. A strange man lived there once, a major, that's why it's called the major's cabin."

"Does anyone live there now?"

"Do you want to go and see?"

"Where is it?"

Sophie pointed in among the trees.

Joanna was not particularly eager, but in the end they set out. The sun was low in the sky.

They walked in between the tall pine trees at first, but soon they were pushing their way through bush and thicket. Eventually they made their way down to a path. Could it be the path Sophie had followed that Sunday morning?

It must have been--almost at once she could point to something shining between the trees to the right of the path.

"It's in there," she said.

They were soon standing at the edge of the small lake. Sophie gazed at the cabin across the water. All the windows were now shuttered up. The red building was the most deserted place she had seen for ages.

Joanna turned toward her. "Do we have to walk on the water?"

"Of course not. We'll row."

Sophie pointed down into the reeds. There lay the rowboat, just as before.

"Have you been here before?"

Sophie shook her head. Trying to explain her previous visit would be far too complicated. And then she would have to tell her friend about Alberto Knox and the philosophy course as well.

They laughed and joked as they rowed across the water. When they reached the opposite bank, Sophie made sure they drew the boat well up on land.

They went to the front door. As there was obviously nobody in the cabin, Joanna tried the door handle.

"Locked... you didn't expect it to be open, did you?"

"Maybe we can find a key," said Sophie.

She began to search in the crevices of the stonework foundation.

"Oh, let's go back to the tent instead," said Joanna after a few minutes.

But just then Sophie exclaimed, "Here it is! I found it!"

She held up the key triumphantly. She put it in the lock and the door swung open.

The two friends sneaked inside as if they were up to something criminal. It was cold and dark in the cabin.

"We can't see a thing!" said Joanna.

But Sophie had thought of that. She took a box of matches out of her pocket and struck one. They only had time to see that the cabin was deserted before the match went out. Sophie struck another, and this time she noticed a stump of candle in a wrought-iron candlestick on top of the stove. She lit it with the third match and the little room became light enough for them to look around.

"Isn't it odd that such a small candle can light up so much darkness?" said Sophie.

Her friend nodded.

"But somewhere the light disappears into the dark," Sophie went on. "Actually, darkness has no existence of its own. It's only a lack of light."

Joanna shivered. "That's creepy! Come on, let's go..."

"Not before we've looked in the mirror."

Sophie pointed to the brass mirror hanging above the chest of drawers, just as before.

"That's really pretty!" said Joanna.

"But it's a magic mirror."

"Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?"

"I'm not kidding, Joanna. I am sure you can look in it and see something on the other side."

"Are you sure you've never been here before? And why is it so amusing to scare me all the time?"

Sophie could not answer that one.

"Sorry."

Now it was Joanna who suddenly discovered something lying on the floor in the corner. It was a small box. Joanna picked it up.

"Postcards," she said.

Sophie gasped.

"Don't touch them! Do you hear--don't you dare touch them!"

Joanna jumped. She threw the box down as if she had burnt herself. The postcards were strewn all over the floor. The next second she began to laugh.

"They're only postcards!"

Joanna sat down on the floor and started to pick them up. After a while Sophie sat down beside her.

"Lebanon ... Lebanon ... Lebanon ... They are all postmarked in Lebanon," Joanna discovered.

"I know," said Sophie.

Joanna sat bolt upright and looked Sophie in the eye.

"So you have been here before!"

"Yes, I guess I have."

It suddenly struck her that it would have been a whole lot easier if she had just admitted she had been here before. It couldn't do any harm if she let her friend in on the mysterious things she had experienced during the last few days.

"I didn't want to tell you before we were here."

Joanna began to read the cards.

"They are all addressed to someone called Hilde Moller Knag."

Sophie had not touched the cards yet.

"What address?"

Joanna read: "Hilde Moller Knag, c/o Alberto Knox, Lillesand, Norway."

Sophie breathed a sigh of relief. She was afraid they would say c/o Sophie Amundsen.

She began to inspect them more closely.

"April 28 ... May 4 ... May 6 ... May 9 ... They were stamped a few days ago."

"But there's something else. All the postmarks are Norwegian! Look at that... UN Battalion ... the stamps are Norwegian too!"

"I think that's the way they do it. They have to be sort of neutral, so they have their own Norwegian post office down there."

"But how do they get the mail home?"

"The air force, probably."

Sophie put the candlestick on the floor, and the two friends began to read the cards. Joanna arranged them in chronological order and read the first card:

Dear Hilde, I can't wait to come home to Lillesand. I expect to land at Kjevik airport early evening on Midsummer Eve. I would much rather have arrived in time for your 15th birthday but I'm under military command of course. To make up for it, I promise to devote all my loving care to the huge present you are getting for your birthday.

With love from someone who is always thinking about his daughter's future.

P.S. I'm sending a copy of this card to our mutual friend. I know you understand, Hilde. At the moment I'm being very secretive, but you will understand.

Sophie picked up the next card:

Dear Hilde, Down here we take one day at a time. If there is one thing I'm going to remember from these months in Lebanon, it's all this waiting. But I'm doing what I can so you have as great a 15th birthday as possible. I can't say any more at the moment. I'm imposing a severe censorship on myself. Love, Dad.

The two friends sat breathless with excitement. Neither of them spoke, they just read what was written on the cards:

My dear child, What I would like best would be to send you my secret thoughts with a white dove. But they are all out of white doves in Lebanon. If there is anything this war-torn country needs, it is white doves. I pray the UN will truly manage to make peace in the world some day.

P.S. Maybe your birthday present can be shared with other people. Let's talk about that when I get home. But you still have no idea what I'm talking about, right? Love from someone who has plenty of time to think for the both of us.

When they had read six cards, there was only one left. It read:

Dear Hilde, I am now so bursting with all these secrets for your birthday that I have to stop myself several times a day from calling home and blowing the whole thing. It is something that simply grows and grows. And as you know, when a thing gets bigger and bigger it's more difficult to keep it to yourself. Love from Dad.

P.S. Some day you will meet a girl called Sophie. To give you both a chance to get to know more about each other before you meet, I have begun sending her copies of all the cards I send to you. I expect she will soon begin to catch on, Hilde. As yet she knows no more than you. She has a girlfriend called Joanna. Maybe site can be of help?

After reading the last card, Joanna and Sophie sat quite still staring wildly at each other. Joanna was holding Sophie's wrist in a tight grip.

"I'm scared," she said.

"So am I."

"When was the last card stamped?"

Sophie looked again at the card.

"May 16," she said. "That's today."

"It can't be!" cried Joanna, almost angrily.

They examined the postmark carefully, but there was no mistaking it... 05-16-90.

"It's impossible," insisted Joanna. "And I can't imagine who could have written it. It must be someone who knows us. But how could they know we would come here on this particular day?"

Joanna was by far the more scared of the two. The business with Hilde and her father was nothing new to Sophie.

"I think it has something to do with the brass mirror."

Joanna jumped again.

"You don't actually think the cards come fluttering out of the mirror the minute they are stamped in Lebanon?"

"Do you have a better explanation?"

"No."

Sophie got to her feet and held the candle up in front of the two portraits on the wall. Joanna came over and peered at the pictures.

"Berkeley and Bjerkely. What does that mean?"

"I have no idea."

The candle was almost burnt down.

"Let's go," said Joanna. "Come on!"

"We must just take the mirror with us."

Sophie reached up and unhooked the large brass mirror from the wall above the chest of drawers. Joanna tried to stop her but Sophie would not be deterred.

When they got outside it was as dark as a May night can get. There was enough light in the sky for the clear outlines of bushes and trees to be visible. The small lake lay like a reflection of the sky above it. The two girls rowed pensively across to the other side.

Neither of them spoke much on the way back to the tent, but each knew that the other was thinking intensely about what they had seen. Now and then a frightened bird would start up, and a couple of times they heard the hooting of an owl.

As soon as they reached the tent, they crawled into their bedrolls. Joanna refused to have the mirror inside the tent. Before they fell asleep, they agreed that it was scary enough, knowing it was just outside the tent flap. Sophie had also taken the postcards and put them in one of the pockets of her backpack.

They woke early next morning. Sophie was up first. She put her boots on and went outside the tent. There lay the large mirror in the grass, covered with dew.

Sophie wiped the dew off with her sweater and gazed down at her own reflection. It was as if she was looking down and up at herself at the same time. Luckily she found no early morning postcard from Lebanon.

Above the broad clearing behind the tent a ragged morning mist was drifting slowly into little wads of cotton. Small birds were chirping energetically but Sophie could neither see nor hear any grouse.

The girls put on extra sweaters and ate their breakfast outside the tent. Their conversation soon turned to the major's cabin and the mysterious cards.

After breakfast they folded up the tent and set off for home. Sophie carried the large mirror under her arm. From time to time she had to rest--Joanna refused to touch it.

As they approached the outskirts of the town they heard a few sporadic shots. Sophie recalled what Hilde's father had written about war-torn Lebanon, and she realized how lucky she was to have been born in a peaceful country. The "shots" they heard came from innocent fireworks celebrating the national holiday.

Sophie invited Joanna in for a cup of hot chocolate. Her mother was very curious to know where they had found the mirror. Sophie told her they had found it outside the major's cabin, and her mother repeated the story about nobody having lived there for many years.

When Joanna had gone, Sophie put on a red dress. The rest of the Norwegian national day passed quite normally. In the evening, the TV news had a feature on how the Norwegian UN battalion had celebrated the day in Lebanon. Sophie's eyes were glued to the screen. One of the men she was seeing could be Hilde's father.

The last thing Sophie did on May 17 was to hang the large mirror on the wall in her room. The following morning there was a new brown envelope in the den. She tore it open at once and began to read.
28
 楼主| 发表于 2019-1-20 13:00:53 | 只看该作者
明信片

......我对自己实施严格的检查制度 ......
好几天过去了,哲学老师都没有来信。明天就是五月十七日星期四,挪威的国庆日了。学校从这天起放假,一直放到十八日。
放学回家途中,乔安突然说:“我们去露营吧!”
苏菲本来想说她不能离家太久,但不知怎的,她却说道:“好呀!”
几个小时后,乔安背了一个大登山背包来到苏菲家门口。苏菲已经打包完毕。她带了一顶帐篷,他们两人也都各自带了睡袋、毛衣、睡垫、手电筒、大热水瓶,以及很多心爱的食物。
五点钟左右,苏菲的妈妈回到家。她谆谆告诫两人,要求她们遵守一些应该注意的事项。她并且坚持要知道她们扎营的地点。
于是,她们告诉她两人计划到松鸡顶去。如果运气好的话,也许第二天早上可以听到松鸡求偶的叫声。
事实上,苏菲之所以选择去松鸡顶是有“阴谋”的。在她印象中,松鸡顶离少校的小木屋不远。她心里有一股冲动要回到那座木屋,不过她也明白自己不敢一个人去。
于是,她们两人从苏菲家花园门口那条小小的死巷子出发,沿着一条小路走下去。一路上,她们谈天说地。苏菲觉得暂时不用思考哲学之类问题的感觉还真不错。
探险 八点时,她们已经在松鸡顶上的一块平地搭好帐篷,准备过夜了。她们的睡袋已经打开。吃完三明治后,苏菲说;“乔安,你有没有听说过少校的小木屋?”
“少校的小木屋?”
“这附近的树林里有一座木屋……就在一座小湖边。以前曾经有一个怪人住在那里,是一个少校。所以人家才叫它‘少校的小木屋’。”
“现在有没有人住呢?”
“我们去看看好不好?”
“在哪里呢?”
苏菲指着树林间。
乔安不是非常热中,但最后她们还是去了。这时夕阳已经低垂天际。
最初,她们在高大的松树间走着,不久就经过一片浓密的灌木林,最后走到了下面的一条小路。苏菲心想,这是我星期天早上走的那条路吗?一定是的。她几乎立刻就看到路右边的树林间有某个东西在闪烁。
“就在那儿。”她说。
很快地她们就到了小湖边。苏菲站在那儿,看着对岸的木屋。
红色的小木屋如今门窗紧闭,一片荒凉景象。
乔安转过身来,看着她。
“我们要怎么过湖?用走的吗?”
“当然不了,我们可以划船过去。”
苏菲指着下面的芦苇丛。小舟就像从前一般躺在那儿。
“你来过吗?”
苏菲摇摇头。她不想提上次的事,因为那太复杂了,怎么也说不清楚。同时,如果说了,她也不得不告诉乔安有关艾伯特和哲学课的事。
她们划船过湖,一路说说笑笑。当她们抵达对岸时,苏菲特别小心地把小舟拉上岸。
她们走到小屋的前门。屋里显然没有人,因此乔安试着转动门柄。
“锁住了……你不会以为门是开着的吧?”
“也许我们可以找到钥匙。”
于是她开始在屋子底下的石缝间搜寻。
几分钟后,乔安说:“算了,我们回帐篷去吧就在这时,苏菲叫了一声:“我找到了。、就在这儿!”
她得意地高举着那把钥匙。然后,她把它插进锁里,门就开了。
两人蹑手蹑脚地走进去,好像做什么坏事一般。木屋里又冷又黑。
“什么也看不到!”乔安说。
不过,苏菲是有备而来。她从口袋里拿出了一盒火柴擦亮一根。在火光熄灭之前的那一刹那,她们看清楚小屋内空无一人。苏菲擦亮另一根火柴,这次她注意到炉子上有一座锻铁做的烛台,上面有半截蜡烛。她用第三根火柴把蜡烛点亮,于是小屋里才有了一点光线,让她们可以看清四周。
“这样一根小小的蜡烛却可以照亮如此的黑暗,这不是很奇怪吗?”苏菲说。
乔安点点头。
“不过你看在某个地方光芒就消失了。”她继续说。
“事实上黑暗本身是不存在的。它只是缺少光线的照射罢了。”
乔安打了一个冷颤。“有点恐怖耶!我们走吧!”
“我们要看看镜子才能走。”
苏菲指着依旧挂在五斗柜上方的那面铜镜。
“很漂亮耶广乔安说。
“可是它是一面魔镜。”
“魔镜!魔镜!告诉我,这世界上谁最美丽?”
“乔安,我不是开玩笑。我敢说只要你看着它,就会看到镜子里有东西。”
“你确定你没来过吗?还有,你为什么那么喜欢吓我?”
苏菲答不出来。
“对不起。”
这回是乔安突然发现靠墙角的地板上有个东西。那是个小盒子,乔安把它捡了起来。
“是明信片耶!”她说。
苏菲吃了一惊。
“别碰它!你听到了吗?千万不要碰!”
乔安跳了起来,像被火烧到一样赶紧把盒子丢掉。结果明信片撒了一地。乔安随即笑了起来。
“只不过是一些明信片罢了尸 乔安坐在地板上,开始把那些明信片捡起来。
过了一会儿,苏菲也坐在她身旁。
“黎巴嫩……黎巴嫩……黎巴嫩……他们全都盖着黎巴嫩的 邮戳。”乔安说。
“我知道。”苏菲说。
乔安猛然坐直,看着苏菲的眼睛。
“原来你到过这里。”
“是的,我想是吧!”
苏菲突然想到,如果她承认来过这里,事情会变得容易得多。
即使她让乔安知道最近这几天来发生在她身上的神秘事情,也不会有什么坏处的。
“我们来之前,我并不想让你知道。”
乔安开始看那些明信片。
“这些卡片都是写给一个名叫席德的人。”
苏菲没碰那些卡片。
“地址是什么?”
乔安念了出来:“挪威Lillesand,请艾伯特代转席德。”
苏菲松了一口气。她刚才还怕信上会写“请苏菲代转”。
她开始仔细检查这些明信片。
“你看,四月二十八日……五月四日……五月六日……五月九日……这些邮票都是前几天才贴的。”
“还有,上面盖的通通都是挪威的邮戳!你再看……联合国部队……连邮票也是挪威的!”
“我想他们大概都是这样。为了要感觉自然一些,他们在那边也设了他们专用的挪威邮局。”
“但他们是怎么把信寄回家的呢?”
“也许是通过空军吧!”
他们在那边
苏菲把烛台放在地板上,两人开始看这些明信片。乔安把它们按照时间先后的顺序排好,先读第一张:
亲爱的席德:
我真的很盼望回到我们在黎乐桑的家。我预定仲夏节黄昏在凯耶维克机场着陆。虽然很想早些抵达以便参加你十五岁生日庆祝会,但我有军令在身。为了弥补这点,我答应你我会全心准备给你的那份大生日礼物。
爱你并总是考虑到你的前途的老爸P.S:我会把另一张同样的明信片送到我们共同的朋友那儿。
我想你会了解的,席德。目前的情况看起来虽然是充满了神秘,但我想你会明白的。
苏菲拿起了第二张:
亲爱的席德:
在这里,我们的时间过得很慢。如果这几个月在黎巴嫩的日子有什么事情值得记忆的话,那就是等待的感觉。不过我正尽全力使你有一个很棒的十五岁生日。
目前我不能说太多。我绝对不能泄漏天机。
爱你的老爸   
苏菲与乔安坐在那儿,兴奋得几乎喘不过气来。两人都没有开口,专心看着明信片。
亲爱的孩子:
我最想做的事是用一只白鸽将我心里的秘密传递给你,不过黎巴嫩连一只白鸽也没有。我想这个备受战火摧残的国家最需要的也就是白鸽。我祈祷有一天联合国真的能够创造世界和平。
P.S:也许你可以与别人分享你的生日礼物。等我回到家再谈这件事好了。你还是不明白我在说些什么,对不对?我在这里可是有很多时间为咱俩打算呢! 老爸他们一连读了六张,现在只剩下最后一张了。上面写道:
亲爱的席德:
我现在内心满溢有关你生日的秘密,以致我一天里不得不好几次克制自己不要打电话回家,以免把事件搞砸了。那是一件会愈长愈大的事物。而你也知道,当一个东西愈长愈大,你就愈来愈难隐藏它了。
P.S:有一天你会遇见一个名叫苏菲的女孩。为了让你们两人在见面前有机会认识,我已经开始将我写给你的明信片寄一份给她。我想她应该可以很快赶上。目前她知道得不比你多。她有一个朋友名叫乔安,也许她可以帮得上忙。
读了最后一张明信片后,乔安与苏菲静静坐着不动,彼此瞪大了眼睛对望。乔安紧紧地抓着苏菲的手腕。
“我有点害怕。”她说。
“我也是。”
“最后一张明信片盖的是什么时候的邮戳?”
苏菲再看看卡片。
“五月十六日,”她说。“就是今天。”
“不可能!”乔安大声说,语气中几乎有些愤怒。
他们仔细地看了邮戳。没错,上面的日期的确是一九九O五月十六日。
“这是不可能的。”
乔安坚持。“何况我也想不出来这会是谁写的。一定是一个认识我们两个的人。但他是怎么知道我们会在今天来到这里的?”
乔安比苏菲更害怕,苏菲却已经习惯了。
“我想这件事一定与那面铜镜有关。”
乔安再度跳起来。
“你的意思不是说这些卡片在黎巴嫩盖了邮戳后就从镜子里飞出来吧?”
“难道你有更好的解释吗?”
“没有。”
苏菲站起身来,举起蜡烛照着墙上的两幅画。
“‘柏克莱’和‘柏客来’这是什么意思?”
“我也不知道。”
蜡烛快要烧完了。
“我们走吧广乔安说。“走呀!”
“我们得把镜子带走才行。”
苏菲踮起脚尖,把那面大铜镜从墙壁的钩子上取下。乔安想要 阻止她,但苏菲可不理会。
当她们走出木屋时,天色就像寻常五月的夜晚一样黑。天边仍 有一些光线,因此她们可以很清楚地看到灌木与树林的轮廓。小湖 静静躺着,仿佛是天空的倒影。划向彼岸时,两个人都心事重重。
回到帐篷途中,乔安与苏菲都不太说话,但彼此心里明白对方一定满脑子都是方才所见的事。沿途不时有受惊的鸟呱喇飞起。有几次她们还听到猫头鹰“咕!咕!”的叫声。
她们一到帐篷就爬进睡袋中。乔安不肯把镜子放在帐篷里。入睡前,两人一致认为那面镜子是满可怕的,虽然它只是放在帐篷人口。苏菲今天也拿走了那些明信片,她把它们放在登山背包的口袋里。
第二天上午她们起得很早。苏菲先醒过来。她穿上靴子,走出帐篷。那面镜子就躺在草地上,镜面沾满了露水。
苏菲用毛衣把镜子上的露水擦干,然后注视着镜中的自己。她感觉仿佛自己正同时向下、向上地看着自己。还好她今天早晨没有收到从黎巴嫩寄来的明信片。
在帐篷后面的平原上方,迷离的晨雾正缓缓飘移,逐渐形成许多小小片的棉絮。小鸟儿一度哗然,仿佛受到惊吓,但苏菲既未看到也未听见任何猛禽的动静。 两人各加了一两件毛衣后,便在帐篷外用早餐。她们谈话的内容很快转到少校的小木屋和那些神秘的明信片。
吃完早餐后,她们卸下帐篷,打道回府。苏菲手臂下挟着那面大镜子。她不时得停下来休息一下,因为乔安根本不愿碰它。
她们快走到市郊时,听到间歇的枪声。苏菲想起席德的父亲提到的那备受战火摧残的黎巴嫩。她突然发现自己是多么幸运,能够生在一个和平的国家。后来,她才发现那些“枪声”原来是有人放烟火庆祝仲夏节的声音。
到家后,苏菲邀请乔安进屋里喝一杯热巧克力。苏菲的妈妈很好奇她们是在哪里发现那面镜子的,苏菲说他们是在少校的木屋外面捡到的,妈妈于是又说了一遍那里已有许多年无人居住等等的话。
乔安走后,苏菲穿上一件红洋装。那天虽是仲夏节,但与平常也没什么两样。到了晚上,电视新闻有个专题报道描写挪威驻黎巴嫩的联合国部队如何庆祝仲夏节。苏菲的眼睛一直盯着荧屏不放,她想她看到的那些人中有一个可能是席德的父亲。
五月十七日那天,苏菲做的最后一件事便是把那面大镜子挂在她房间的墙上。第二天早上,密洞中又放了一个棕色的信封,苏菲将信打开,开始看了起来。
29
 楼主| 发表于 2019-1-20 13:03:05 | 只看该作者
Two Cultures

... the only way to avoid floating in a vacuum 

It won't be long now before we meet, my dear Sophie. I thought you would return to the major's cabin--that's why I left all the cards from Hilde's father there. That was the only way they could be delivered to her. Don't worry about how she will get them. A lot can happen before June 15.

We have seen how the Hellenistic philosophers recycled the ideas of earlier philosophers. Some even attempted to turn their predecessors into religious prophets. Plotinus came close to acclaiming Plato as the savior of humanity.

But as we know, another savior was born during the period we have just been discussing--and that happened outside the Greco-Roman area. I refer to Jesus of Nazareth. In this chapter we will see how Christianity gradually began to permeate the Greco-Roman world--more or less the same way that Hilde's world has gradually begun to permeate ours.

Jesus was a jew, and the Jews belong to Semitic culture. The Greeks and the Romans belong to Indo-European culture. European civilization has its roots in both cultures. But before we take a closer look at the way Christianity influenced Greco-Roman culture, we must examine these roots.

THE INDO-EUROPEANS

By Indo-European we mean all the nations and cultures that use Indo-European languages. This covers all European nations except those whose inhabitants speak one of the Finno-Ugrian languages (Lapp, Finnish, Estonian, and Hungarian) or Basque. In addition, most Indian and Iranian languages belong to the Indo-European family of languages.

About 4,000 years ago, the primitive Indo-Europeans lived in areas bordering on the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. From there, waves of these Indo-European tribes began to wander southeast into Iran and India, southwest to Greece, Italy, and Spain, westward through Central Europe to France and Britain, northwestward to Scandinavia and northward to Eastern Europe and Russia. Wherever they went, the Indo-Europeans assimilated with the local culture, although Indo-European languages and Indo-European religion came to play a dominant role.

The ancient Indian Veda scriptures and Greek philosophy, and for that matter Snorri Sturluson's mythology are all written in related languages. But it is not only the languages that are related. Related languages often lead to related ideas. This is why we usually speak of an Indo-European "culture."

The culture of the Indo-Europeans was influenced most of all by their belief in many gods. This is called polytheism. The names of these gods as well as much of the religious terminology recur throughout the whole Indo-European area. I'll give you a few examples:

The ancient Indians worshipped the celestial god Dyaus, which in Sanskrit means the sky, day, heaven/ Heaven. In Greek this god is called Zeus, in Latin, Jupiter (actually iov-pater, or "Father Heaven"), and in Old Norse, Tyr. So the names Dyaus, Zeus, lov, and Tyr are dialectal variants of the same word.

You probably learned that the old Vikings believed in gods which they called Aser. This is another word we find recurring all over the Indo-European area. In Sanskrit, the ancient classical language of India, the gods are called asura and in Persian Ahura. Another word for "god" is deva in Sanskrit, claeva in Persian, deus in Latin and tivurr in Old Norse.

In Viking times, people also believed in a special group of fertility gods (such as Niord, Freyr, and Freyja). These gods were referred to by a special collective name, vaner, a word that is related to the Latin name for the goddess of fertility, Venus. Sanskrit has the related word van/, which means "desire."

There is also a clear affinity to be observed in some of the Indo-European myths. In Snorri's stories of the Old Norse gods, some of the myths are similar to the myths of India that were handed down from two to three thousand years earlier. Although Snorri's myths reflect the Nordic environment and the Indian myths reflect the Indian, many of them retain traces of a common origin. We can see these traces most clearly in myths about immortal potions and the struggles of the gods against the monsters of chaos.

We can also see clear similarities in modes of thought across the Indo-European cultures. A typical likeness is the way the world is seen as being the subject of a drama in which the forces of Good and Evil confront each other in a relentless struggle. Indo-Europeans have therefore often tried to "predict" how the battles between Good and Evil will turn out.

One could say with some truth that it was no accident that Greek philosophy originated in the Indo-European sphere of culture. Indian, Greek, and Norse mythology all have obvious leanings toward a philosophic, or "speculative," view of the world.

The Indo-Europeans sought "insight" into the history of the world. We can even trace a particular word for "insight" or "knowledge" from one culture to another all over the Indo-European world. In Sanskrit it is vidya. The word is identical to the Greek word idea, which was so important in Plato's philosophy. From Latin, we have the word video, but on Roman ground the word simply means to see. For us, "I see" can mean "I understand," and in the cartoons, a light bulb can flash on above Woody Woodpecker's head when he gets a bright idea. (Not until our own day did "seeing" become synonymous with staring at the TV screen.) In English we know the words wise and wisdom--in German, wissen (to know). Norwegian has the word viten, which has the same root as the Indian word vidya, the Greek idea, and the Latin video.

All in all, we can establish that sight was the most important of the senses for Indo-Europeans. The literature of Indians, Greeks, Persians, and Teutons alike was characterized by great cosmic visions. (There is that word again: "vision" comes from the Latin verb "video."} It was also characteristic for Indo-European culture to make pictures and sculptures of the gods and of mythical events.

Lastly, the Indo-Europeans had a cyc//c view of history. This is the belief that history goes in circles, just like the seasons of the year. There is thus no beginning and no end to history, but there are different civilizations that rise and fall in an eternal interplay between birth and death.

Both of the two great Oriental religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, are Indo-European in origin. So is Greek philosophy, and we can see a number of clear parallels between Hinduism and Buddhism on the one hand and Greek philosophy on the other. Even today, Hinduism and Buddhism are strongly imbued with philosophical reflection.

Not infrequently we find in Hinduism and Buddhism an emphasis on the fact that the deity is present in all things (pantheism) and that man can become one with God through religious insight. (Remember Plotinus, Sophie?) To achieve this requires the practice of deep self-communion or meditation. Therefore in the Orient, passivity and seclusion can be religious ideals. In ancient Greece, too, there were many people who believed in an ascetic, or religiously secluded, way of life for the salvation of the soul Many aspects of medieval monastic life can be traced back to beliefs dating from the Greco-Roman civilization.

Similarly, the transmigration of the soul, or the cycle of rebirth, is a fundamental belief in many Indo-European cultures. For more than 2,500 years, the ultimate purpose of life for every Indian has been the release from the cycle of rebirth. Plato also believed in the transmigration of the soul.

The Semites

Let us now turn to the Semites, Sophie. They belong to a completely different culture with a completely different language. The Semites originated in the Arabian Peninsula, but they also migrated to different parts of the world. The Jews lived far from their home for more than 2,000 years. Semitic history and religion reached furthest away from its roots by way of Christendom, although Semitic culture also became widely spread via Islam.

All three Western religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--share a Semitic background. The Muslims' holy scripture, the Koran, and the Old Testament were both written in the Semitic family of languages. One of the Old Testament words for "god" has the same semantic root as the Muslim Allah. (The word "allah" means, quite simply, "god.")

When we get to Christianity the picture becomes more complicated. Christianity also has a Semitic background, but the New Testament was written in Greek, and when the Christian theology or creed was formulated, it was influenced by Greek and Latin, and thus also by Hellenistic philosophy.

The Indo-Europeans believed in many different gods. It was just as characteristic for the Semites that from earliest times they were united in their belief in one God. This is called monotheism. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all share the same fundamental idea that there is only one God.

The Semites also had in common a linear view of history. In other words, history was seen as an ongoing line. In the beginning God created the world and that was the beginning of history. But one day history will end and that will be Judgment Day, when God judges the living and the dead.

The role played by history is an important feature of these three Western religions. The belief is that God intervenes in the course of history--even that history exists in order that God may manifest his will in the world, just as he once led Abraham to the "Promised Land," he leads mankind's steps through history to the Day of Judgment. When that day comes, all evil in the world will be destroyed.

With their strong emphasis on God's activity in the course of history, the Semites were preoccupied with the writing of history for many thousands of years. And these historical roots constitute the very core of their holy scriptures.

Even today the city of Jerusalem is a significant religious center for Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike. This indicates something of the common background of these three religions.

The city comprises prominent (Jewish) synagogues, (Christian) churches, and (Islamic) mosques. It is therefore deeply tragic that Jerusalem should have become a bone of contention--with people killing each other by the thousand because they cannot agree on who is to have ascendancy over this "Eternal City." May the UN one day succeed in making Jerusalem a holy shrine for all three religions! (We shall not go any further into this more practical part of our philosophy course for the moment. We will leave it entirely to Hilde's father. You must have gathered by now that he is a UN observer in Lebanon. To be more precise, I can reveal that he is serving as a major. If you are beginning to see some connection, that's quite as it should be. On the other hand, let's not anticipate events!)

We said that the most important of the senses for Indo-Europeans was sight. How important hearing was to the Semitic cultures is just as interesting. It is no accident that the Jewish creed begins with the words: "Hear, O Israel!" In the Old Testament we read how the people "heard" the word of the Lord, and the Jewish prophets usually began their sermons with the words: "Thus spake Jehovah (God)." "Hearing" the word of God is also emphasized in Christianity. The religious ceremonies of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all characterized by reading aloud or "reciting."

I also mentioned that the Indo-Europeans always made pictorial representations or sculptures of their gods. It was just as characteristic for the Semites that they never did. They were not supposed to create pictures or sculptures of God or the "deity." The Old Testament commands that the people shall not make any image of God. This is still law today both for Judaism and Islam. Within Islam there is moreover a general aversion to both photography and art, because people should not compete with God in "creating" anything.

But the Christian churches are full of pictures of Jesus and God, you are probably thinking. True enough, Sophie, but this is just one example of how Christendom was influenced by the Greco-Roman world. (In the Greek Orthodox Church--that is, in Greece and in Russia-- "graven images," or sculptures and crucifixes, from Bible stories are still forbidden.)

In contrast to the great religions of the Orient, the three Western religions emphasize that there is a distance between God and his creation. The purpose is not to be released from the cycle of rebirth, but to be redeemed from sin and blame. Moreover, religious life is characterized more by prayer, sermons, and the study of the scriptures than by self-communion and meditation.

Israel

I have no intention of competing with your religion teacher, Sophie, but let us just make a quick summary of Christianity's Jewish background.

It all began when God created the world. You can read how that happened on the very first page of the Bible. Then mankind began to rebel against God. Their punishment was not only that Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden of Eden--Death also came into the world.

Man's disobedience to God is a theme that runs right through the Bible. If we go further on in the Book of Genesis we read about the Flood and Noah's Ark. Then we read that God made a covenant with Abraham and his seed. This covenant--or pact--was that Abraham and all his seed would keep the Lord's commandments. In exchange God promised to protect all the children of Abraham. This covenant was renewed when Moses was given the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai around the year 1200 B.C. At that time the Israelites had long been held as slaves in Egypt, but with God's help they were led back to the land of Israel.

About 1,000 years before Christ--and therefore long before there was anything called Greek philosophy--we hear of three great kings of Israel. The first was Saul, then came David, and after him came Solomon. Now all the Israelites were united in one kingdom, and under King David, especially, they experienced a period of political, military, and cultural glory.

When kings were chosen, they were anointed by the people. They thus received the title Messiah, which means "the anointed one." In a religious sense kings were looked upon as a go-between between God and his people. The king could therefore also be called the "Son of God" and the country could be called the "Kingdom of God."

But before long Israel began to lose its power and the kingdom was divided into a Northern kingdom (Israel) and a Southern kingdom (Judea). In 722 B.C. the Northern kingdom was conquered by the Assyrians and it lost all political and religious significance. The Southern kingdom fared no better, being conquered by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. Its temple was destroyed and most of its people were carried off to slavery in Babylon. This "Babylonian captivity" lasted until 539 B.C. when the people were permitted to return to Jerusalem, and the great temple was restored. But for the rest of the period before the birth of Christ the Jews continued to live under foreign domination.

The question Jews constantly asked themselves was why the Kingdom of David was destroyed and why catastrophe after catastrophe rained down on them, for God had promised to hold Israel in his hand. But the people had also promised to keep God's commandments. It gradually became widely accepted that God was punishing Israel for her disobedience.

From around 750 B.C. various prophets began to come forward preaching God's wrath over Israel for not keeping his commandments. One day God would hold a Day of Judgment over Israel, they said. We call prophecies like these Doomsday prophecies.

In the course of time there came other prophets who preached that God would redeem a chosen few of his people and send them a "Prince of Peace" or a king of the House of David. He would restore the old Kingdom of David and the people would have a future of prosperity.

"The people that walked in darkness will see a great light," said the prophet Isaiah, and "they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined." We call prophecies like these prophecies of redemption.

To sum up: The children of Israel lived happily under King David. But later on when their situation deteriorated, their prophets began to proclaim that there would one day come a new king of the House of David. This "Messiah," or "Son of God," would "redeem" the people, restore Israel to greatness, and found a "Kingdom of God."


30
 楼主| 发表于 2019-1-20 13:03:41 | 只看该作者


Paul

A few days after Jesus had been crucified and buried, rumors spread that he had risen from the grave. He thereby proved that he was no ordinary man. He truly was the "Son of God."

We could say that the Christian Church was founded on Easter Morning with the rumors of the resurrection of Jesus. This is already established by Paul: "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain and your faith is also vain."

Now all mankind could hope for the resurrection of the body, for it was to save us that Jesus was crucified. But, dear Sophie, remember that from a Jewish point of view there was no question of the "immortality of the soul" or any form of "transmigration"; that was a Greek--and therefore an Indo-European--thought. According to Christianity there is nothing in man--no "soul," for example-- that is in itself immortal. Although the Christian Church believes in the "resurrection of the body and eternal life," it is by God's miracle that we are saved from death and "damnation." It is neither through our own merit nor through any natural--or innate--ability.

So the early Christians began to preach the "glad tidings" of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Through his mediation, the "Kingdom of God" was about to be-come a reality. Now the entire world could be won for Christ. (The word "christ" is a Greek translation of the Hebrew word "messiah," the anointed one.)

A few years after the death of Jesus, the Pharisee Paul converted to Christianity. Through his many missionary journeys across the whole of the Greco-Roman world he made Christianity a worldwide religion. We hear of this in the Acts of the Apostles. Paul's preaching and guidance for the Christians is known to us from the many epistles written by him to the early Christian congregations.

He then turns up in Athens. He wanders straight into the city square of the philosophic capital. And it is said that "his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry." He visited the Jewish synagogue in Athens and conversed with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. They took him up to the Areopagos hill and asked him: "May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean."

Can you imagine it, Sophie? A Jew suddenly appears in the Athenian marketplace and starts talking about a savior who was hung on a cross and later rose from the grave. Even from this visit of Paul in Athens we sense a coming collision between Greek philosophy and the doctrine of Christian redemption. But Paul clearly succeeds in getting the Athenians to listen to him. From the Areopa-gos--and beneath the proud temples of the Acropolis-- he makes the following speech:

"Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things. And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him and find him, though he be not far from every one of us. For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent:

Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given as-surance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."

Paul in Athens, Sophie! Christianity has begun to penetrate the Greco-Roman world as something else, something completely different from Epicurean, Stoic, or Neoplatonic philosophy. But Paul nevertheless finds some common ground in this culture. He emphasizes that the search for God is natural to all men. This was not new to the Greeks. But what was new in Paul's preaching is that God has also revealed himself to mankind and has in truth reached out to them. So he is no longer a "philosophic God" that people can approach with their understanding. Neither is he "an image of gold or silver or stone"--there were plenty of those both on the Acropolis and down in the marketplace! He is a God that "dwelleth not in temples made with hands." He is a personal God who intervenes in the course of history and dies on the Cross for the sake of mankind.

When Paul had made his speech on the Areopagos, we read in the Acts of the Apostles, some mocked him for what he said about the resurrection from the dead. But others said: "We will hear thee again of this matter." There were also some who followed Paul and began to believe in Christianity. One of them, it is worth noting, was a woman named Damaris. Women were amongst the most fervent converts to Christianity.

So Paul continued his missionary activities. A few decades after the death of Jesus, Christian congregations were already established in all the important Greek and Roman cities--in Athens, in Rome, in Alexandria, in Ephesos, and in Corinth. In the space of three to four hundred years, the entire Hellenistic world had become Christian.

The Creed

It was not only as a missionary that Paul came to have a fundamental significance for Christianity. He also had great influence within the Christian congregations. There was a widespread need for spiritual guidance.

One important question in the early years after Jesus was whether non-Jews could become Christians without first becoming Jews. Should a Greek, for instance, observe the dietary laws? Paul believed it to be unnecessary. Christianity was more than a Jewish sect. It addressed itself to everybody in a universal message of salvation. The "Old Covenant" between God and Israel had been replaced by the "New Covenant" which Jesus had established between God and mankind.

However, Christianity was not the only religion at that time. We have seen how Hellenism was influenced by a fusion of religions. It was thus vitally necessary for the church to step forward with a concise summary of the Christian doctrine, both in order to distance itself from other religions and to prevent schisms within the Christian Church. Therefore the first Creed was established, summing up the central Christian "dogmas" or tenets.

One such central tenet was that Jesus was both God and man. He was not the "Son of God" on the strength of his actions alone. He was God himself. But he was also a "true man" who had shared the misfortunes of mankind and actually suffered on the Cross.

This may sound like a contradiction. But the message of the church was precisely that God became man. Jesus was not a "demigod" (which was half man, half god). Belief in such "demigods" was quite widespread in Greek and Hellenistic religions. The church taught that Jesus was "perfect God, perfect man."

Postscript

Let me try to say a few words about how all this hangs together, my dear Sophie. As Christianity makes its entry into the Greco-Roman world we are witnessing a dramatic meeting of two cultures. We are also seeing one of history's great cultural revolutions.

We are about to step out of antiquity. Almost one thousand years have passed since the days of the early Greek philosophers. Ahead of us we have the Christian Middle Ages, which also lasted for about a thousand years.

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.

"It is the only way to become a human being. It is the only way to become more than a naked ape ..."

Sophie sat for a while staring into the garden through the little holes in the hedge. She was beginning to understand why it was so important to know about her historical roots. It had certainly been important to the Children of Israel.

She herself was just an ordinary person. But if she knew her historical roots, she would be a little less ordinary.

She would not be living on this planet for more than a few years. But if the history of mankind was her own history, in a way she was thousands of years old.
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

QQ|Archiver|手机版|导航中医药 ( 官方QQ群:110873141 )

GMT+8, 2024-5-5 20:13 , Processed in 0.067210 second(s), 12 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

© 2001-2017 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表