19世紀是屬于德國哲學(xué)家的年代，他們搶著(zhù)將代表各自理念的浴巾鋪在沙灘上的一個(gè)個(gè)躺椅上。這是一場(chǎng)驚心動(dòng)魄、超級混亂的躺椅爭奪戰：第一個(gè)來(lái)到沙灘上的是康德，他淘氣地將自己那張巨大的夜空般深藍色的浴巾鋪在了幾乎所有的躺椅上。但是沒(méi)多久，穿著(zhù)沙灘短褲的黑格爾就狂奔了過(guò)來(lái)，準備搞點(diǎn)兒大動(dòng)靜。不過(guò)最先要干的事情，當然是把睡著(zhù)的康德身下的那塊浴巾給抽出來(lái)了。如果此時(shí)黑格爾認為他已經(jīng)hold住了整個(gè)沙灘的話(huà)，他就大錯特錯了。他沒(méi)想到叔本華這貨也叫囂著(zhù)參與到了這場(chǎng)混戰之中，并且把黑格爾的很多浴巾掀翻在地，換上了自己的浴巾，然后一個(gè)人坐下了。至于尼采剛到這兒的時(shí)候，二話(huà)不說(shuō)就把自己的浴巾順手鋪在叔本華旁邊，然后一邊呲牙咧嘴地笑著(zhù)，一邊往康德和黑格爾身上扔沙子。2
As you can see, the 19th century is by no means a time of philosophical uniformity or even passivity. On the contrary, it saw an incredible rollercoaster ride in the mood, views and style of philosophical activity. It was a time when some of the greatest philosophers of the Western tradition utterly disagreed, contradicting each other, at times trying to unravel and to ridicule each other’s theories.
正如上面談到的情形，19世紀的哲學(xué)從來(lái)就不是一個(gè)大一統或者被動(dòng)接受的年代。恰恰相反，我們似乎可以看到哲學(xué)活動(dòng)的氣氛、觀(guān)點(diǎn)和風(fēng)格都被一輛神奇的過(guò)山車(chē)所駕馭著(zhù)，大起大落、風(fēng)起云涌。這是一個(gè)西方各大哲學(xué)家分庭抗禮、針?shù)h相對的年代，大家都尋思著(zhù)要拆對方的臺。
Immanuel Kant is no doubt a difficult and, as Peter Rickman argues in his article, often misunderstood philosopher. Only narrowly counting as a 19th century philosopher (he died in 1804) he both produced a monumental philosophical structure and ripped the world apart in his Critical Philosophy: into what is knowable and what isn’t, into what is achievable and what can never be done, into what we can be and what we’d like to but will never be. Humans are forever torn between wanting to know yet being unable to know, wanting to make the most of themselves as civilised humans yet being constantly reduced to a more base existence by their nature.
伊曼努爾•康德無(wú)疑是個(gè)刺兒頭，正如彼得•瑞克曼在文章中討論的那樣，他經(jīng)常誤導其他哲學(xué)家們。作為一個(gè)只能算是打了19世紀擦邊球的哲學(xué)家（他死于1804年），他以他的“批判哲學(xué)”建立了一套里程碑式的哲學(xué)系統并且重構了整個(gè)世界，深入討論了：什么可知，什么不可知；什么可行，什么不可行；我們可以是什么，以及我們想成什么，但不可能做到。人們總是糾結于“想知道”那些“不可能知道”的東西，想成為文明的人，但經(jīng)常又因為他們的本性而淪為再低級不過(guò)的一種“存在”罷了。 于是黑格爾就不高興了：跟那些試圖構建系統的同道中人們（如謝林和費希特）一樣，他不能忍受康德主義的這種不爽的結論，試圖尋求一種解脫。對黑格爾來(lái)說(shuō)，這個(gè)解脫便來(lái)自于歷史：就算作為個(gè)體的人無(wú)法獲得絕對知識或其他“完人”的屬性，歷史的進(jìn)程也會(huì )使人類(lèi)逐漸到達那個(gè)境界。黑格爾仔細地從細節上推敲并解釋了思想和現實(shí)是如何同時(shí)出現的，例如羅杰·鄧肯文章中關(guān)于人類(lèi)的自我意識論證。于是黑格爾將哲學(xué)定義為：“被把握在思想中的它的時(shí)代”（《法哲學(xué)原理》）。羅伯特·華萊士在其文章中指出，甚至是上帝也不能凌駕于歷史之上，并提供了一個(gè)幫助我們理解宗教現象的新感受。 亞瑟·叔本華與黑格爾同時(shí)任教于柏林大學(xué)，盡管坐了很久的冷板凳。他這樣描述他的對手：“一個(gè)平庸、毫無(wú)主見(jiàn)、令人做嘔、不學(xué)無(wú)術(shù)的江湖騙子。”他認為黑格爾“毀了整整一代人”。在羅杰·考德威爾關(guān)于叔本華的文章中，他揭示了到底是什么使這位可愛(ài)的、迷人的、令人無(wú)法抗拒的哲學(xué)家堅持走自己的路的。與其他哲學(xué)家觀(guān)察世界的運行模式、并對現實(shí)進(jìn)行理性分析的角度不同，叔本華認為整個(gè)世界都是被一種非理性的“意欲”所驅動(dòng)的。當霍亂席卷柏林的時(shí)候，那位奉行樂(lè )觀(guān)主義并相信世界按照某種邏輯運行的黑格爾掛掉了，而叔本華這位悲觀(guān)主義、非理性主義者活了下來(lái)。 “Nothing is true, all is permitted,” announces Friedrich Nietzsche, and thus snubs most great thinkers of the past. Where Kant had sought to discover the timeless foundations of morality, Nietzsche recommends a repeated “re-evaluation of all values”. Where Hegel had believed in an absolute truth to be revealed in the course of history, Nietzsche believed that which we call ‘truth’ to be nothing but our “irrefutable errors.” Uncompromising yet complex and subtle, Nietzsche never ceases to captivate his readers, both as a philosopher and as an individual, of whose passion and drive Eva Cybulska gives us an enlightening glimpse. “萬(wàn)物皆虛，萬(wàn)事皆允，”弗里德里希·尼采如是說(shuō)，以此給過(guò)去的大多數思想家潑了一盆冷水?？档铝D尋求永恒的道德基礎，而尼采提出要反復“重估一切價(jià)值”；黑格爾相信存在于歷史之中的絕對真理，而尼采認為我們所謂的“真理”只不過(guò)是“暫時(shí)不能駁倒的錯誤”罷了。盡管尼采有一種決不妥協(xié)的性格，但是他那些豐富而精妙的作品一直吸引著(zhù)大量的讀者。同時(shí)作為一名哲學(xué)家和一名被尼采的激情所感染的忠實(shí)讀者，伊娃·賽布爾斯卡將給我們打開(kāi)一扇通往尼采的大門(mén)。 I leave you here on the beach with the four greats, perhaps sitting in between deckchairs, perhaps equipped with a towel, perhaps joining in Nietzsche’s sand throwing. In any case I hope you’ll have fun and the more time you spend here, the more you may discover that if you want to understand the 21st century it can be a very good idea to look to the 19th century. 現在，我就把你們留在沙灘上跟這四個(gè)巨人待著(zhù)吧，你可以在這些躺椅之中找個(gè)地兒坐著(zhù)，也可以自備一條浴巾，還可以跟尼采一起“扔沙子”?？傊?，我希望你們在這里玩的開(kāi)心。在這里花的時(shí)間越多，你的發(fā)現也就越多。如果你想讀懂21世紀，那么回頭看看19世紀絕對是一個(gè)好主意。 undefined By jiongcaicaiundefined Arts Tower, Sheffield, UK 2011-9-20Hegel disagreed: like many of his fellow 19th century system builders, such as Schelling and Fichte, he could not bear these Kantian tensions, and sought a resolution. For Hegel, this resolution came from history. Even if human individuals could not achieve absolute knowledge or any other kind of human perfection, the processes of history would allow them to get there. Hegel explains in meticulous detail how thought and reality emerge together, such as in the case of human self-consciousness, demonstrated in Roger Duncan’s article. Hegel thus defines philosophy as “its time grasped in thought.” Robert Wallace emphasises that not even God is excused from history and shows how this can help us make new sense of the phenomenon of religion.
Arthur Schopenhauer, lecturing at the University of Berlin at the same time as Hegel, though to much less popular acclaim, refered to his rival as “a flat, uninspired, disgustingly-revolting, ignorant charlatan”, who he deemed responsible for the “detriment of an entire scholarly generation.” In his article on Schopenhauer, Roger Caldwell reveals more about what made this charming but irresistibly fascinating individual tick. Rather than seeing a pattern, logos or even rationality in the process of reality, Schopenhauer believed the world to be driven by an a-rational ‘will’. When the cholera came to Berlin, the optimist and believer in the logical workings of the world, Hegel, died, whereas, Schopenhauer, the pessimist and irrationalist, escaped.
聯(lián)系客服
