Pierre Abélard was just thirty years old when Anselm died.

彼得·亞伯拉德（Pierre Abélard）在安瑟倫去世時(shí)只有三十歲。

Born into a knightly family in Brittany in 1079, he was educated at Tours and went to Paris in about 1100 to join the school attached to the Cathedral of Notre Dame, run by William of Champeaux.

他出生于1079年的布列塔尼一個(gè)騎士家庭，受教育于圖爾（Tours），并于大約1100年去巴黎加入了由威廉·尚波（William of Champeaux）經(jīng)營(yíng)的附屬于巴黎圣母院（Notre Dame）的學(xué)校。

Falling out with his teacher, he went to Melun to found a school of his own, and later set up a rival school in Paris on Mont Ste Geneviève.

與他的老師鬧翻后，他去了梅倫（Melun）創(chuàng)辦了自己的學(xué)校，后來在巴黎圣日內(nèi)維夫山（Mont Ste Geneviève）上建立了一個(gè)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手的學(xué)校。

From 1113 he was William’s successor at Notre Dame.

從1113年起，他就是威廉在巴黎圣母院的繼任者。

While teaching there he took lodgings with Fulbert, a canon of the Cathedral, and became tutor to his niece Hélo?se.

在那里教書時(shí)，他與富爾貝特（Fulbert），一位大教堂的教士，同住，并成為他侄女埃洛伊斯（Hélo?se）的家庭教師。

He became her lover probably in 1116, and when she became pregnant married her secretly.

他可能在1116年成為她的情人，當(dāng)她懷孕時(shí)，他秘密地娶了她。

Hélo?se had been reluctant to marry, and shortly after the wedding retired to live in a convent.?

埃洛伊斯不愿意結(jié)婚，婚后不久就退隱到修道院生活。

Fulbert, outraged by Abelard’s treatment of his niece, sent two henchmen to his room at night to castrate him.

富爾貝特對(duì)亞伯拉德對(duì)他侄女的處理感到憤怒，于是在夜里派了兩個(gè)打手到他的房間閹割了他。

Abelard became a monk in the abbey of St Denis, near Paris, while Hélo?se took the veil as a nun at Argenteuil.

亞伯拉德成為了巴黎附近圣但尼修道院（St Denis）的一名僧侶，而埃洛伊斯則在阿讓特伊（Argenteuil）當(dāng)了一名修女。

Our knowledge of Abelard’s life up to this point depends heavily upon a long autobiographical letter which he wrote to Hélo?se some years later, History of my Calamities.

我們對(duì)亞伯拉德直到這一點(diǎn)的生活的了解主要依賴于他幾年后寫給埃洛伊斯的一封長(zhǎng)長(zhǎng)的自傳性信件，《我的災(zāi)難史》（History of my Calamities）。

It is the most lively exercise in autobiography since Augustine’s Confessions.

這是自?shī)W古斯丁的《懺悔錄》以來最生動(dòng)的自傳。

?

From St Denis, Abelard continued to teach (partly in order to support Hélo?se). He began to write theology, but his first work, the Theology of the Highest Good, was condemned by a synod at Soissons in 1121 as unsound about the Trinity.

從圣但尼（St Denis）開始，亞伯拉德繼續(xù)教學(xué)（部分是為了支持埃洛伊斯）。他開始寫神學(xué)，但他的第一部作品《至善神學(xué)》（Theology of the Highest Good）在1121年索瓦松（Soissons）的一個(gè)會(huì)議上被譴責(zé)為關(guān)于三位一體的不合理。

After a brief imprisonment Abelard was sent back to St Denis, but made himself unpopular there and had to leave Paris.

在短暫的監(jiān)禁后，亞伯拉德被送回了圣但尼（St Denis），但他在那里不受歡迎，不得不離開巴黎。

From 1125 to 1132 he was abbot of St Gildas, a corrupt and boisterous abbey in a remote part of Brittany.

從1125年到1132年，他是圣吉爾達(dá)斯（St Gildas）的院長(zhǎng)，這是一個(gè)位于布列塔尼偏遠(yuǎn)地區(qū)的腐敗而喧鬧的修道院。

He was miserable there, and his attempts at reform were met with threats of murder.

他在那里很痛苦，他的改革嘗試遭到了謀殺的威脅。

Hélo?se meanwhile had become prioress of Argenteuil, but she and her nuns were made homeless in 1129.

與此同時(shí)，埃洛伊斯成為了阿讓特伊（Argenteuil）的女修道院院長(zhǎng)，但她和她的修女們?cè)?129年被趕出了家園。

Abelard was able to found and support a new convent for them, the Paraclete, in Champagne.

亞伯拉德能夠?yàn)樗齻冊(cè)贑hampagne

建立并支持一個(gè)新的修道院，即帕拉克利特（Paraclete）。

By 1136 he was back in Paris, lecturing once more on Mont Ste Geneviève.

到了1136年，他回到了巴黎，在圣日內(nèi)維夫山（Mont Ste Geneviève）再次講課。

His teaching attracted the critical attention of St Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux and second founder of the Cistercian order, the preacher of the Second Crusade.

他的教學(xué)引起了克萊爾沃（Clairvaux）的院長(zhǎng)、錫斯特會(huì)（Cistercian order）的第二位創(chuàng)始人、第二次十字軍東征的傳教士圣伯納德（St Bernard）的批判性關(guān)注。

St Bernard denounced Abelard’s teaching to the Pope, and had him condemned at a Council at Sens in 1140.

圣伯納德向教皇譴責(zé)亞伯拉德的教導(dǎo)，并在1140年在森斯（Sens）的一次會(huì)議上將他定罪。

Abelard appealed unsuccessfully to Rome against the condemnation, but was ordered to give up teaching and retire to the Abbey of Cluny.

亞伯拉德未能成功地向羅馬上訴反對(duì)這個(gè)定罪，但被命令放棄教學(xué)并退隱到克呂尼（Cluny）修道院。

There, two years later, he ended his days peacefully; his edifying death was described by the Abbot, Peter the Venerable, in a letter to Hélo?se.

在那里，兩年后，他平靜地結(jié)束了他的生命；他的有益的死亡被院長(zhǎng)彼得·尊敬者（Peter the Venerable）在一封寫給埃洛伊斯的信中描述。

Abelard is unusual in the history of philosophy as being also one the world’s most famous lovers, even if he was tragically forced into the celibacy which is more typical of great philosophers, whether medieval or modern.

?亞伯拉德在哲學(xué)史上是不尋常的，因?yàn)樗彩鞘澜缟献钪膽偃酥?，即使他悲劇地被迫進(jìn)入了更典型的偉大哲學(xué)家的獨(dú)身生活，無論是中世紀(jì)的還是現(xiàn)代的。

It is as a lover, an ill-fated Lancelot or Romeo, rather than a philosopher, that he has been celebrated in literary classics.

他作為一個(gè)戀人，一個(gè)命運(yùn)不幸的蘭斯洛特（Lancelot）或羅密歐（Romeo），而不是一個(gè)哲學(xué)家，才在文學(xué)經(jīng)典中被贊頌。

In Pope’s Epistle of Hélo?se to Abelard, Hélo?se, from her chill cloister, reminds Abelard of the dreadful day on which he lay before her, a naked lover bound and bleeding; she pleads with him not to forsake their love.

在蒲柏（Pope）的《埃洛伊斯致亞伯拉德書》（Epistle of Hélo?se to Abelard）中，埃洛伊斯從她寒冷的修道院里，提醒亞伯拉德那個(gè)可怕的日子，他躺在她面前，一個(gè)赤裸、被捆綁和流血的情人；她懇求他不要放棄他們的愛情。

Come! with thy looks, thy words, relieve my woe; Those still at least are left thee to bestow.

來吧！用你的眼神，你的話語(yǔ)，解除我的痛苦；那些至少還留給你去贈(zèng)予。

Still on that breast enamour’d let me lie, Still drink delicious poison from thy eye

讓我仍然沉醉地躺在你的胸懷， 仍然從你的眼睛里喝下甘美的毒藥

Pant on thy lip, and to thy heart be prest; Give all thou canst – and let me dream the rest.

在你的唇上喘息，緊貼你的心臟； 給我你能給的一切——讓我做完剩下的夢(mèng)。

Ah no! instruct me other joys to prize With other beauties charm my partial eyes, Full in my view set all the bright abode And make my soul quit Abelard for God.

啊，不！教導(dǎo)我欣賞其他的快樂 用其他的美麗迷惑我的偏愛之眼， 讓我看到所有明亮的住所 讓我的靈魂為了老天爺而離開亞伯拉德。

?

?

Abelard’s Logic

亞伯拉德的邏輯

Abelard’s importance as a philosopher is due above all to his contribution to logic and the philosophy of language.

亞伯拉德作為一個(gè)哲學(xué)家的重要性首先在于他對(duì)邏輯和語(yǔ)言哲學(xué)的貢獻(xiàn)。

Logic, when he began his teaching career, was studied in the West mainly from Aristotle’s Categories and On Interpretation, plus Porphyry’s introduction and some works of Cicero and Boethius.

當(dāng)他開始他的教學(xué)生涯時(shí)，邏輯在西方主要是從亞里士多德的《范疇論》（Categories）和《論解釋》（On Interpretation），加上波菲利（Porphyry）的引論和西塞羅（Cicero）和波伊修斯（Boethius）的一些著作中學(xué)習(xí)的。

Aristotle’s major logical works were not known, nor were his physical and metaphysical treatises.

亞里士多德的主要邏輯著作并不為人所知，他的物理學(xué)和形而上學(xué)的論文也是如此。

Abelard’s logical researches, therefore, were less well informed than those, say, of Avicenna; but he was gifted with remarkable insight and originality.

因此，亞伯拉德的邏輯研究比那些，比如說，阿維森納（Avicenna）的研究知識(shí)面更少；但他有著非凡的洞察力和創(chuàng)造力。

He wrote three separate treatises of Logic over the period from 1118 to 1140.

他在1118年到1140年期間寫了三部獨(dú)立的邏輯論文。

A major interest of twelfth-century logicians was the problem of universals: the status of a word like ‘man’ in sentences such as ‘Socrates is a man’, and ‘Adam is a man’.

十二世紀(jì)邏輯學(xué)家們的一個(gè)主要興趣是普遍性問題：像“人”這樣的詞在諸如“蘇格拉底是人”和“亞當(dāng)是人”這樣的句子中的地位。

Abelard was a combative writer, and describes his own position on the issue as having evolved out of dissatisfaction with the answer given by successive teachers to the question: what is it that, according to these sentences, Adam and Socrates have in common?

亞伯拉德是一個(gè)好斗的作家，他描述了他自己對(duì)這個(gè)問題的立場(chǎng)是如何從對(duì)連續(xù)教師們對(duì)這個(gè)問題的回答不滿中演變出來的：根據(jù)這些句子，亞當(dāng)和蘇格拉底有什么共同之處？

Roscelin, his first teacher, said that all they had in common was the noun – the mere sound of the breath in ‘man’.

他的第一位老師羅塞林（Roscelin）說，他們所共有的只是名詞——“人”中僅僅是呼吸聲音。

He was, as later philosophers would say, a nominalist, nomen being the Latin word for ‘noun’.

他是，正如后來哲學(xué)家們所說的，一個(gè)唯名論者，nomen是拉丁語(yǔ)中“名詞”的詞。

William of Champeaux, Abelard’s second teacher, said that there was a very important thing which they had in common, namely the human species.

亞伯拉德的第二位老師威廉·尚波（William of Champeaux）說，有一件非常重要的事情是他們共有的，即人類物種。

He was, in the later terminology, a realist, the Latin word for ‘thing’ being res.

他是，在后來的術(shù)語(yǔ)中，一個(gè)實(shí)在論，拉丁語(yǔ)中“事物”的詞是res。

Abelard rejected the accounts of both his teachers, and offered a middle way between them.

亞伯拉德拒絕了他兩位老師的說法，并提出了一條介于他們之間的中間道路。

On the one hand, it was absurd to say that Adam and Socrates had only the noun in common; the noun applied to each of them in virtue of their objective likeness to each other.

一方面，說亞當(dāng)和蘇格拉底只有名詞共同是荒謬的；名詞因?yàn)樗麄冎g的客觀相似性而適用于他們每一個(gè)人。

On the other hand, a resemblance is not a substantial thing like a horse or a cabbage; only individual things exist, and it would be ridiculous to maintain that the entire human species was present in each individual.

另一方面，相似性不是像馬或卷心菜那樣的實(shí)體；只有個(gè)別的事物存在，而且認(rèn)為整個(gè)人類物種存在于每一個(gè)個(gè)體中是荒謬的。

We must reject both nominalism and realism.

我們必須拒絕唯名論和實(shí)在論。

When we maintain that the likeness between things is not a thing, we must avoid it seeming as if we were treating them as having nothing in common; since what in fact we say is that the one and the other resemble each other in their being human, that is, in that they are both human beings.

當(dāng)我們堅(jiān)持說事物之間的相似性不是一件事情時(shí)，我們必須避免它看起來好像我們是把它們當(dāng)作沒有什么共同之處；因?yàn)槲覀儗?shí)際上所說的是，這一個(gè)和那一個(gè)在他們的人性上彼此相似，也就是說，他們都是人類。

We mean nothing more than that they are human beings and do not differ at all in this regard.

我們的意思不過是他們是人類，并且在這方面沒有任何區(qū)別。

Their being human, which is not a thing, is the common cause of the application of the noun to the individuals.

他們的人性，不是一件事情，是將名詞應(yīng)用于個(gè)體的共同原因。

The dichotomy posed by nominalists and realists is, Abelard showed, an inadequate one.

亞伯拉德指出，唯名論者和實(shí)在論者提出的二分法是不充分的。

Besides words and things, we have to take into account our own understanding, our concepts: it is these which enable us to talk about things, and turn vocal sounds into meaningful words.

除了詞語(yǔ)和事物，我們還必須考慮我們自己的理解，我們的概念：正是這些使我們能夠談?wù)撌挛铮l(fā)聲聲音轉(zhuǎn)化為有意義的詞語(yǔ)。

There is no universal man distinct from the universal noun ‘man’; but the sound ‘man’ is turned into a universal noun by our understanding.

沒有與普遍名詞“人”不同的普遍人；但“人”的聲音被我們的理解轉(zhuǎn)化為一個(gè)普遍名詞。

In the same way, Abelard suggests, a lump of stone is turned into a statue by a sculptor; so we can say, if we like, that universals are created by the mind just as we say that a statue is created by its sculptor.

同樣地，亞伯拉德建議，一塊石頭被雕刻家變成了一座雕像；所以我們可以說，如果我們?cè)敢?，共相是由心靈創(chuàng)造出來的，就像我們說雕像是由雕刻家創(chuàng)造出來的一樣。

?

It is our concepts which give words meaning – but meaning itself is not, for Abelard, a simple notion.

是我們的概念賦予詞語(yǔ)意義——但對(duì)于亞伯拉德來說，意義本身并不是一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的概念。

He makes a distinction between what a word signifies and what it stands for.

他區(qū)分了一個(gè)詞所表示的和所指代的。

Consider the word ‘boy’.

考慮這個(gè)詞“男孩”。

Wherever this occurs in a sentence, it signifies the same (‘young human male’).

無論它出現(xiàn)在句子的哪個(gè)地方，它都表示相同的東西（“年輕的人類男性”）。

In ‘a(chǎn) boy is running across the grass’, where it occurs in the subject, it also stands for a boy; whereas in ‘this old man was a boy’, where it occurs in the predicate, it does not stand for anything.

在“一個(gè)男孩正在草地上跑”的句子中，它出現(xiàn)在主語(yǔ)中，它也指代一個(gè)男孩；而在“這個(gè)老人曾經(jīng)是個(gè)男孩”的句子中，它出現(xiàn)在謂語(yǔ)中，它不指代任何東西。

Roughly speaking, ‘boy’ stands for something in a given context only if, in that context, it makes sense to ask ‘which boy?’

粗略地說，“男孩”只有在給定的語(yǔ)境中指代某個(gè)東西時(shí)，才能在那個(gè)語(yǔ)境中問“哪個(gè)男孩？”是有意義的。

Abelard’s treatment of predicates shows many original logical insights.

亞伯拉德對(duì)謂語(yǔ)的處理顯示了許多原創(chuàng)的邏輯洞察。

Aristotle, and many philosophers after him, worried about the meaning of ‘is’ in ‘Socrates is wise’ or ‘Socrates is white’.

亞里士多德和他之后的許多哲學(xué)家都擔(dān)心“蘇格拉底是智慧的”或“蘇格拉底是白色的”中“是”的意義。

Abelard thinks this is unnecessary: we should regard ‘to be wise’ or ‘to be white’ as a single verbal unit, with the verb ‘to be’ simply as part of the predicate.

亞伯拉德認(rèn)為這是沒有必要的：我們應(yīng)該把“是智慧的”或“是白色的”看作一個(gè)單一的動(dòng)詞單位，而動(dòng)詞“是”只是謂語(yǔ)的一部分。

What of ‘is’ when it is equivalent to ‘exists’?

當(dāng)“是”等同于“存在”時(shí)，又該怎么辦呢？

Abelard says that in the sentence ‘A father exists’ we should not take ‘A father’ as standing for anything; rather, the sentence is equivalent to ‘Something is a father’.

亞伯拉德說，在句子“一個(gè)父親存在”中，我們不應(yīng)該把“一個(gè)父親”看作指代任何東西；相反，這個(gè)句子等同于“有些東西是父親”。

This proposal of Abelard’s contained great possibilities for the development of logic, but they were not properly followed up in the Middle Ages, and the device had to await the nineteenth century to be reinvented.

亞伯拉德的這個(gè)提議包含了邏輯發(fā)展的巨大可能性，但它們?cè)谥惺兰o(jì)沒有得到適當(dāng)?shù)母M(jìn)，這個(gè)方法不得不等到十九世紀(jì)才被以新形式出現(xiàn)。

Abelard’s Ethics

亞伯拉德的倫理學(xué)

Abelard was an innovator in ethics no less than in logic.

亞伯拉德在倫理學(xué)方面的創(chuàng)新不亞于他在邏輯方面的創(chuàng)新。

He was the first medieval writer to give a treatise the title Ethics, and unlike his medieval successors he did not have Aristotle’s Ethics to take as a starting point.

他是第一個(gè)給一部論文命名為《倫理學(xué)》的中世紀(jì)作家，與他的中世紀(jì)后繼者不同，他沒有亞里士多德的《倫理學(xué)》作為起點(diǎn)。

But here his innovations were less happy.

但在這里，他的創(chuàng)新就不那么令人高興了。

Abelard objected to the common teaching that killing people or committing adultery was wrong.

亞伯拉德反對(duì)常見的教導(dǎo)，即反對(duì)殺人或犯奸淫是錯(cuò)誤的。

What is wrong, he said, is not the action, but the state of mind in which it is done.

他說，錯(cuò)誤的不是行為，而是做這件事時(shí)的心態(tài)。

It is incorrect, however, to say that what matters is a persons’s will, if by ‘will’ we mean a desire for something for its own sake.

然而，如果我們用“意志”來指一種為了某物本身而對(duì)它的渴望，那么說重要的是一個(gè)人的意志是不正確的。

There can be sin without will (as when a fugitive kills in self-defence) and there can be bad will without sin (such as lustful desires one cannot help).

可以無意而有罪（比如一個(gè)逃亡者為了自衛(wèi)而殺人），也可以有惡意而沒有罪（比如無法控制的淫欲）。

True, all sins are voluntary in the sense that they are not unavoidable, and that they are the result of some desire or other (e.g. the fugitive’s wish to escape).

誠(chéng)然，所有的罪都是自愿的，因?yàn)樗鼈儾皇遣豢杀苊獾?，而且它們是某種欲望或其他東西的結(jié)果（比如逃亡者想逃跑的愿望）。

But what really matters, Abelard says, is the sinner’s intention or consent, by which he means primarily the sinner’s knowledge of what he is doing.

但真正重要的，亞伯拉德說，是罪人的意圖或認(rèn)同，他主要指的是罪人對(duì)他所做的事情的認(rèn)識(shí)。

He argues that since one can perform a prohibited act innocently – e.g. marry one’s sister unaware that she is one’s sister – the evil must be not in the act but in the consent.

他認(rèn)為，既然一個(gè)人可以無辜地做一件被禁止的事——比如娶自己的姐妹而不知道她是自己的姐妹——那么邪惡就不在行為中，而在認(rèn)同中。

‘It is not what is done, but with what mind it is done, that God weighs; the desert and praise of the agent rests not in his action but in his intention.’

“老天爺衡量的不是做了什么，而是用什么心態(tài)去做，行為者的功過和贊譽(yù)不在于他的行為，而在于他的意圖?！?/p>

?

God himself, when he ordered Abraham to kill Isaac, performed a wrong act with a right intention.

老天爺自己，當(dāng)他命令亞伯拉罕殺死以撒時(shí)，做了一個(gè)錯(cuò)誤的行為，但有一個(gè)正確的意圖。

A good intention not carried out may be as praiseworthy as a good action: if, for instance, you resolve to build an almshouse, but are robbed of your money.

一個(gè)沒有實(shí)現(xiàn)的好的意圖可能和一個(gè)好的行為一樣值得贊揚(yáng)：比如，如果你決心建造一個(gè)救濟(jì)院，但是你的錢被搶走了。

Similarly, bad intentions are as blameworthy as bad actions.

同樣地，壞的意圖和壞的行為一樣應(yīng)受譴責(zé)。

Why then punish actions rather than intentions?

那么為什么要懲罰行為而不是意圖呢？

Human punishment, Abelard replies, may be justified where there is no guilt; a woman who has overlain her infant unawares is punished to make others more careful.

亞伯拉德回答說，在沒有罪過的地方，人類的懲罰可能是正當(dāng)?shù)?；一個(gè)無意中壓死她嬰兒的女人被懲罰是為了讓其他人更加小心。

The reason we punish actions rather than intentions is that human frailty regards a more manifest evil as being a greater evil.

我們懲罰行為而不是意圖的原因是，人類的脆弱性認(rèn)為更明顯的邪惡是更大的邪惡。

But God will not judge thus.

但老天爺不會(huì)這樣判斷。

Abelard’s teaching did not exactly amount to ‘It doesn’t matter what you do as long as you’re sincere’, but it did come very close to allowing that the end could justify the means.

亞伯拉德的教導(dǎo)并不完全等于“只要你誠(chéng)實(shí)，你做什么都無所謂”，但它確實(shí)非常接近于允許目的可以使任何手段正當(dāng)化。

But what most shocked his contemporaries was his claim that those who, in good faith, persecuted Christians – indeed those who killed Christ himself, not knowing what they did – were free from sin.

但最讓他的同時(shí)代人震驚的是他聲稱那些出于善意迫害喵咪徒的人是無罪的——甚至那些主動(dòng)殺死救世主的人也無罪，因?yàn)樗麄儾恢浪麄冏隽耸裁础?/p>

This thesis was made the subject of one of the condemnations of Sens.

這個(gè)論點(diǎn)成為了森斯（Sens）譴責(zé)之一的主題。

Abelard experimented in theology no less recklessly than in ethics.

亞伯拉德在神學(xué)上的實(shí)驗(yàn)不比他在倫理學(xué)上的實(shí)驗(yàn)少有冒險(xiǎn)。

One example must suffice: his novel treatment of God’s almighty power.

一個(gè)例子就足夠了：他對(duì)老天爺全能力的新穎處理。

He raised the questions whether God can make more things, or better things, than the things he has made, and whether he can refrain from acting as he does.

他提出了這樣的問題：老天爺能否創(chuàng)造出比他所創(chuàng)造的東西更多或更好的東西，以及他能否不按照他所做的那樣行事。

Whichever way we answer, he said, we find ourselves in difficulty.

無論我們?nèi)绾位卮?，他說，我們都會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)自己陷入困境。

On the one hand, if God can make more and better things than those he has made, is it not mean of him not to do so?

一方面，如果老天爺能夠創(chuàng)造出比他所創(chuàng)造的東西更多和更好的東西，那么他不這樣做難道不是卑鄙嗎？

After all, it costs him no effort!

畢竟，這對(duì)他來說不費(fèi)吹灰之力！

Whatever he does or leaves undone is right and just; hence it would be unjust for him to have acted otherwise than he has done.

無論他做了什么或沒有做什么，都是正確和公正的；因此，如果他沒有按照他所做的那樣行事，那就是不公正的。

So he can only act as he has in fact acted.

所以他只能按照他實(shí)際上所做的那樣行事。

On the other hand, if we take any sinner on his way to damnation, it is clear that he could be better than he is; for if not, he is not to be blamed for his sins.

另一方面，如果我們考慮任何一個(gè)走向滅亡的罪人，顯然他本可以比現(xiàn)在更好；因?yàn)槿绻皇沁@樣，他就無法為自己的罪過負(fù)責(zé)。

But he would be better than he is only if God were to make him better; so there are at least some things which God can make better than he has.

但他只有在老天爺使他變得更好的情況下才能比現(xiàn)在更好；所以至少有一些事情是老天爺可以讓他做得比已經(jīng)做的更好的。

Abelard opts for the first horn of the dilemma.

亞伯拉德選擇了兩難的第一個(gè)方面。

Suppose it is now not raining. Since this has come about by the will of the wise God, it must now not be a suitable time for rain.

假設(shè)現(xiàn)在沒有下雨。 既然這是由智慧的老天爺?shù)囊庵驹斐傻?，那么現(xiàn)在必然不是下雨的合適時(shí)機(jī)。

So if we say God could now make it rain, we are attributing to him the power to do something foolish.

所以如果我們說老天爺現(xiàn)在可以讓它下雨，我們就是在把做愚蠢事情的能力歸于他。

Whatever God wants to do he can; but if he doesn’t want to do something, then he can’t.

老天爺想做什么就能做什么；但如果他不想做什么，那么他就不能。

Critics objected that this thesis was an insult to God’s power: even we poor creatures can act otherwise than we do.

批評(píng)者反對(duì)這個(gè)論點(diǎn)，認(rèn)為這是對(duì)老天爺力量的侮辱：即使是我們這些可憐的生靈也能夠做出與我們?cè)?jīng)所做的不同的行為。

Abelard replied that the power to act otherwise is not something to be proud of, but a mark of infirmity, like the ability to walk, eat, and sin.

亞伯拉德回答說，做出不同行為的能力不是值得驕傲的事情，而是軟弱的標(biāo)志，就像走路、吃飯和受原罪誤導(dǎo)的能力一樣。

We would all be better off if we could only do what we ought to do.

如果我們只能做我們應(yīng)該做的事情，我們都會(huì)更好。

What of the argument that the sinner will be saved only if God saves him, therefore if the sinner can be saved God can save him?

那么關(guān)于罪人只有在老天爺拯救他的情況下才能得救，因此如果罪人可以得救，老天爺就可以拯救他的論證呢？

Abelard rejects the logical principle which underlies the argument, namely, that if p entails q, then possibly p entails possibly q.

亞伯拉德否定了這個(gè)論證所依賴的邏輯原則，即如果p蘊(yùn)含q，那么可能p蘊(yùn)含可能q。

He gives a counterexample. If a sound is heard, then somebody hears it; but a sound can be audible without anyone being able to hear it. (Maybe there is no one within earshot.)

他給出了一個(gè)反例。如果有聲音被聽到，那么就有人聽到了它；但是聲音可以聽得見而沒有人能夠聽到它。 （也許沒有人在聽力范圍內(nèi)。）

Abelard’s discussion of omnipotence is a splendid piece of dialectic; but it cannot be said to amount to a credible account of the concept, and it certainly did not convince his contemporaries, notably St Bernard.

亞伯拉德對(duì)全能的討論是一篇精彩的辯證法；但它不能說是對(duì)這個(gè)概念的一個(gè)可信的解釋，它也沒有說服他的同時(shí)代人，尤其是圣伯納德。

One of the propositions condemned at the Council of Sens was this: God can act and refrain from acting only in the manner and at the time that he actually does act and refrain from acting, and in no other way.

在森斯會(huì)議（Council of Sens）上被譴責(zé)的命題之一是這樣的：老天爺只能以他實(shí)際行動(dòng)和克制行動(dòng)的方式和時(shí)間行動(dòng)和克制行動(dòng)，而不能以其他任何方式。

Averroes

阿維洛伊

Abelard was far the most brilliant Christian thinker of the twelfth century. The other significant philosophers of the age were the Arab Averroes and the Jew Maimonides. Both of them were natives of Cordoba in Muslim Spain, then the foremost centre of artistic and literary culture in the whole of Europe.

亞伯拉德是十二世紀(jì)最杰出的喵咪教思想家。這個(gè)時(shí)代的其他重要哲學(xué)家是阿拉伯人阿維洛伊和猶太人邁蒙尼德。他們都是慕斯琳西班牙科爾多瓦的本地人，當(dāng)時(shí)那里是整個(gè)歐洲最重要的藝術(shù)和文學(xué)文化中心。

Averroes’ real name was Ibn Rushd. He was born in 1126, the son and grandson of lawyers and judges. Little certain is known about his education, but he acquired a knowledge of medicine which he incorporated into a textbook called Kulliyat. He travelled to Marrakesh, where he secured the patronage of the sultan. The sighting there of a star not visible in Spain convinced him of the truth of Aristotle’s claim that the world was round. He acquired a great enthusiasm for all of Aristotle’s philosophy, and the caliph encouraged him to begin work on a series of commentaries on the philosopher’s treatises.

阿維洛伊的真名是伊本·魯什德。他出生于1126年，是律師和法官的兒子和孫子。關(guān)于他的教育，我們知之甚少，但他掌握了醫(yī)學(xué)知識(shí)，并將其融入了一本叫做《全集》的教科書中。他去了馬拉喀什，在那里得到了蘇丹的贊助。在那里看到一顆在西班牙看不見的星星，使他相信了亞里士多德關(guān)于世界是圓的的說法。他對(duì)亞里士多德的所有哲學(xué)產(chǎn)生了極大的熱情，哈里發(fā)鼓勵(lì)他開始寫一系列關(guān)于這位哲學(xué)家著作的注釋。

In 1169 Averroes was appointed a judge in Seville; later he returned to Cordoba and was promoted to chief judge. However, he retained his links with Marrakesh, and went back there to die in 1198, having fallen under suspicion of heresy.

在1169年，阿維洛伊被任命為塞維利亞的法官；后來他回到科爾多瓦，并被提升為首席法官。然而，他保持了與馬拉喀什的聯(lián)系，并在那里去世于1198年，此前他已經(jīng)被懷疑為異端。

?

Earlier in his life, Averroes had had to defend his philosophical activities against a more conservative Muslim thinker, Al-Ghazali, who had written an attack on rationalism in religion, entitled The Incoherence of the Philosophers. Averroes responded with The Incoherence of the Incoherence, asserting the right of human reason to investigate theological matters.

在他的早期生活中，阿維洛伊曾經(jīng)不得不抵御一個(gè)更保守的慕斯琳思想家，阿爾·加扎利，后者曾經(jīng)寫過一本對(duì)宗教理性主義的攻擊，名為《哲學(xué)家的不連貫》。阿維洛伊用《不連貫的不連貫》作為回應(yīng)，斷言人類理性有權(quán)探究神學(xué)問題。

?

Averroes’ importance on the history of philosophy derives from his commentaries on Aristotle. These came in three sizes: short, intermediate, and long.

阿維洛伊在哲學(xué)史上的重要性源于他對(duì)亞里士多德的注釋。這些注釋有三種規(guī)模：短的、中等的和長(zhǎng)的。

For some of Aristotle’s works all three commentaries are extant, for some two, and for some only one; some survive in the original Arabic, some in translations into Hebrew and Latin.

對(duì)于亞里士多德的一些著作，所有三種注釋都是現(xiàn)存的，對(duì)于一些是兩種，對(duì)于一些只有一種；一些保存在原始的阿拉伯文中，一些是翻譯成希伯來文和拉丁文的。

Averroes also commented on Plato’s Republic, but his enormous admiration for Aristotle (‘his mind is the supreme expression of the human mind’) did not extend in the same degree to Plato.

阿維洛伊也對(duì)柏拉圖的《理想國(guó)》發(fā)表了評(píng)論，但他對(duì)亞里士多德（“他的思想是人類思想的最高表達(dá)”）的巨大敬佩并沒有同樣程度地延伸到柏拉圖。

Indeed, he saw it as one of his tasks as a commentator to free Aristotle from Neo-Platonic overlay, even though in fact he preserved more Platonic elements than he realized.

事實(shí)上，他認(rèn)為他作為一個(gè)注釋者的任務(wù)之一就是把亞里士多德從新柏拉圖主義的覆蓋中解放出來，盡管事實(shí)上他保留了比他能意識(shí)到的更多的柏拉圖元素。

Averroes was not an original thinker like Avicenna, but his encyclopaedic work was to prove the vehicle through which the interpretation of Aristotle was mediated to the Latin Middle Ages.

阿維洛伊不像阿維森納那樣是一個(gè)原創(chuàng)性的思想家，但他的百科全書式的作品證明了他是亞里士多德的解釋傳達(dá)給拉丁中世紀(jì)的媒介。

His desire to free Aristotle from later accretions made him depart from Avicenna in a number of ways.

他想要把亞里士多德從后來的增添中解放出來的愿望使他在許多方面與阿維森納分道揚(yáng)鑣。

Thus, he abandoned the series of emanations which in Avicenna led from the first cause to the active intellect, and he denied that the active intellect produced the natural forms of the visible world.

因此，他放棄了從第一因?yàn)榈街鲃?dòng)智力的一系列流出，這在阿維森納那里是導(dǎo)致了主動(dòng)智力產(chǎn)生了可見世界的自然形式。

But in one respect he moved further away than Avicenna from the most plausible interpretation of Aristotle.

但在一個(gè)方面，他比阿維森納更遠(yuǎn)地偏離了亞里士多德最合理的解釋。

After some hesitation, he reached the conclusion that neither the active intellect nor the passive intellect is a faculty of individual human beings; the passive intellect, no less than the active, is a single, eternal, incorporeal substance. This substance intervenes, in a mysterious way, in the mental life of human individuals.

經(jīng)過一些猶豫，他得出結(jié)論，主動(dòng)智力和被動(dòng)智力都不是個(gè)體人類的能力；被動(dòng)智力，不亞于主動(dòng)智力，是一個(gè)單一的、永恒的、無形的實(shí)體。這個(gè)實(shí)體以一種神秘的方式介入人類個(gè)體的精神生活。

It is only because of the role played in our thinking by the individual corporeal imagination that you and I can claim any thoughts as our own.

只有因?yàn)槲覀兊乃季S中個(gè)體的有形想象所起的作用，你和我才能夠聲稱任何思想是我們自己的。

Because the truly intellectual element in thought is non-personal, there is no personal immortality for the individual human being. After death, souls merge with each other.

因?yàn)樗枷胫姓嬲闹橇υ厥欠莻€(gè)人的，所以個(gè)體人類沒有個(gè)人的不朽。死后，靈魂相互融合。

Averroes argues for this in a manner which resembles the Third Man argument in Plato’s Parmenides.

阿維洛伊以一種類似于柏拉圖《帕門尼德》中第三人論證的方式為此辯護(hù)。

Zaid and Amr are numerically different but identical in form.

扎伊德和阿姆爾在數(shù)目上是不同的，但在形式上是相同的。

If, for example, the soul of Zaid were numerically different from the soul of Amr in the way Zaid is numerically different from Amr, the soul of Zaid and the soul of Amr would be numerically two, but one in their form, and the soul would possess another soul.

如果，例如，扎伊德的靈魂在數(shù)目上與阿姆爾的靈魂不同，就像扎伊德在數(shù)目上與阿姆爾不同一樣，那么扎伊德和阿姆爾的靈魂就會(huì)在數(shù)目上是兩個(gè)，但在形式上是一個(gè)，而靈魂就會(huì)擁有另一個(gè)靈魂。

The necessary conclusion is therefore that the soul of Zaid and the soul of Amr are identical in their form. An identical form inheres in a numerical, i.e. a divisible multiplicity, only through the multiplicity of matter. If then the soul does not die when the body dies, or if it possesses an immortal element, it must, when it has left the body, form a numerical unity. At death the soul passes into the universal intelligence like a drop into the sea.

因此必然的結(jié)論是，扎伊德和阿姆爾的靈魂在形式上是相同的。相同的形式只有通過物質(zhì)的多樣性才能存在于一個(gè)數(shù)目上，即一個(gè)可分割的多重性中。如果靈魂在身體死亡時(shí)不死亡，或者如果它擁有一個(gè)不朽的元素，那么它必須在離開身體時(shí)形成一個(gè)數(shù)目上的統(tǒng)一。 死后，靈魂像一滴水一樣進(jìn)入了普遍共在的智力。

Averroes was, at least in intention, an orthodox Muslim. In his treatise On the Harmony between Religion and Philosophy he spoke of several levels of access to the truth. All classes of men need, and can assimilate, the teaching of the Prophet.

阿維洛伊至少在意圖上是一個(gè)正統(tǒng)的慕斯琳。在他的《論宗教與哲學(xué)之間的和諧》一書中，他談到了幾個(gè)層次的通向真理之路。所有階層的人都需要并且能夠吸收先知的教導(dǎo)。

The simple believer accepts the literal word of Scripture as expounded by his teachers. The educated person can appreciate probable, ‘dialectical’ arguments in support of revelation. Finally, that rare being, the genuine philosopher, needs, and can find, compelling proofs of the truth. This doctrine was crudely misunderstood by Averroes’ intellectual posterity as a doctrine of double truth: the doctrine that something can be true in philosophy which is not true in religion, and vice versa.

簡(jiǎn)單的信徒接受他的老師們闡述的圣經(jīng)的字面意義。有教養(yǎng)的人可以欣賞支持啟示的可能的、‘辯證的’論證。最后，那種罕見的存在，真正的哲學(xué)家，需要并且能夠找到令人信服的真理的證明。這個(gè)教義被阿維洛伊的學(xué)者后裔粗暴地誤解為雙重真理的教義：即在哲學(xué)中可以是真的東西在宗教中不一定是真的，反之亦然。

Averroes made little mark on his fellow Muslims, among whom his type of philosophy rapidly fell into disfavour. But after his writings had been translated into Latin, his influence was very great: he set the agenda for the major thinkers of the thirteenth century, including Thomas Aquinas. Dante gave him an honoured place in his Inferno as the author of the great commentary; and Aristotelian scholars, for centuries, referred to him simply as the Commentator.

阿維洛伊在他的慕斯琳同胞中留下了很少的印記，他的哲學(xué)類型很快就失去了人們的青睞。但是在他的著作被翻譯成拉丁文后，他的影響力非常大：他為十三世紀(jì)的主要思想家，包括托馬斯·阿奎那，制定了論綱。但丁在他的《地獄》中給了他一個(gè)榮譽(yù)的位置，作為偉大評(píng)論的作者；而亞里士多德學(xué)者們，幾個(gè)世紀(jì)以來，只是簡(jiǎn)單地稱他為注釋者。