《人生的意義》The Meaning Of Life

[英]特里 伊格爾頓 /著

?

第一章?????? 提問與回答

?

不過問題是值得探究的，因?yàn)樵谂卸ㄊ裁纯梢猿洚?dāng)答案時(shí)，問題的本質(zhì)很重要。

Yet questions are worth examine, since the nature of a question is important in determine what might count as an answer to it.

?

一個(gè)愚蠢的問題只能招來一個(gè)同樣愚蠢的答案。提出正確的問題能夠打開一片嶄新的知識(shí)領(lǐng)域，并使其他極其重要的問題隨之浮現(xiàn)。

It is well known what kind of answer a silly question provokes. Posing the right kind of question can open up a whole new continent of knowledge, bringing other vital queries tumbling in its wake.

?

只有當(dāng)我們向現(xiàn)實(shí)發(fā)問的時(shí)候，現(xiàn)實(shí)才會(huì)按發(fā)問的類型回應(yīng)我們。

Reality will only respond to us in accordance with the kinds of inquiries we put to it.

?

悲劇乃是諸多無樂觀方案的人生意義問題中最有力的之一。在所有藝術(shù)形式中，悲劇最徹底、最堅(jiān)定地直面人生的意義問題，大膽思考那些最恐怖的答案。最好的悲劇是對(duì)人類存在之本質(zhì)的英勇反思，其源流可追溯至古希臘文化，這種文化認(rèn)為人生脆弱、危險(xiǎn)、極易受到打擊。

One of most powerful meaning-of-life questions without an up-beat solution is known as tragedy. Of all artistic forms, tragedy is the one that confronts the meaning-of-life question most searchingly and unswervingly, intrepidly prepared as it is to entertain the most horrific of responses to it. Tragedy as its finest is a courageous reflection on the fundamental nature of human existence, and has its origin in an ancient Greek culture in which life is fragile, perilous, and sickeningly vulnerable.

?

在這片危險(xiǎn)地帶原本能幫助你站穩(wěn)腳跟的人性力量，可能經(jīng)常失去控制，以至于與你敵對(duì)并使你墮落。正是在這種令人恐懼的處境下，索福克勒斯《俄狄浦斯王》中的歌隊(duì)唱出了陰沉的尾章：“沒有人是快樂的，直到死亡的最后一刻，人才算擺脫痛苦?！?/p>

The very human powers which might allow you to find a foothold in this unstable terrain continually threaten to spin out of control, turning against you and bringing you low. It is in these fearful conditions that the Chorus of Sophocles’ Oedipus the King delivers its final gloomy judgement:‘Count no men happy till he dies, free of pain at last.’

?

感覺你的人生意義屬于一個(gè)更大的整體，這和強(qiáng)烈的自我意識(shí)并不矛盾。

Feeling that the meaning of your life is a function of a greater whole is not at all incompatible with having a robust sense of selfhood.

?

置身于發(fā)達(dá)的后現(xiàn)代資本主義社會(huì)的實(shí)用主義和市儈氣息中，加上它對(duì)遠(yuǎn)大圖景和宏大敘事的懷疑、對(duì)形而上事物的固執(zhí)的驅(qū)魅，“人生”和許多其他總體性概念一樣已經(jīng)名聲掃地。我們被誘使只考慮生活中的小問題，不去思考大問題——諷刺的是，與此同時(shí)，那些試圖毀滅西方文明的人做法恰恰相反。在西方資本主義與激進(jìn)的伊斯蘭世界的沖突中，信仰的缺乏直面著信仰的過剩。西方世界發(fā)現(xiàn)自己正在遭受一種狂熱的形而上層面的攻擊，而自己卻處于可以說是在哲學(xué)上被解除了武裝的歷史時(shí)刻。關(guān)涉信念之處，后現(xiàn)代主義寧愿輕裝上路：后現(xiàn)代主義誠然有各種各樣的信念，但沒有信仰。

In the pragmatist, streetwise climate of advanced postmodern capitalism, with its scepticism of big pictures and ground narratives, its hard-nosed disenchantment with the metaphysical, ‘life’ is among a series of discredited totalities. We are invited to think small rather than big- ironically, at just the point when some of those out to destroy Western civilization are doing exactly the opposite. In the conflict between Western capitalism and radical Islam, a paucity of believe squares up to an excess of it. The West finds itself faced with a full-blooded metaphysical onslaught at just the historical point that it has, so to speak, philosophically disarmed. As far as belief goes, postmodernism prefers to travel light: it has beliefs, to be sure, but it does not have faith.

?

20世紀(jì)之所以有比以往多數(shù)時(shí)期更為痛苦的關(guān)于存在之意義的思考，一個(gè)原因或許在于，這個(gè)世紀(jì)的人命薄如紙。這是史上最血腥的時(shí)代，數(shù)以百萬計(jì)的無辜生命遇害。如果生命在實(shí)際生活中如此被貶低，那么，人們自然想要在理論上質(zhì)問其意義。

One reason why the twentieth century brooded on the meaning existence more agonizedly than most epochs may be because it held human so appallingly cheap. It was by far the bloodiest epoch on historical record, with millions of unnecessary deaths. If life is so drastically devalued in practice, one might well expect its meaning to be questioned in theory.

?

愛、宗教信仰以及對(duì)家族血緣與文化的眷戀：很難找到比這更為根本的生命理由。事實(shí)上，許多世紀(jì)以來，許多人愿意為了這些理由而獻(xiàn)出生命或亮出屠刀。公共領(lǐng)域自身越是日益喪失意義，人們就越是急切地想追求這些價(jià)值。事實(shí)和價(jià)值似乎分離了，前者變成了公共事務(wù)，后者則屬于私人事務(wù)。

Love religious faith, and the preciousness of one’s kin and culture: it was hard to find more fundamental reasons for living than these. In fact, a great many people over the centuries have been ready to die, or prepared to kill, in their name. People turned to these values all the more eagerly as the public domain itself became increasingly drained of meaning. Fact and value seemed to have split apart, leaving the former a public affair and the latter a private one.

?

但這里有一個(gè)諷刺。文化、宗教和性越是被迫充當(dāng)衰落的公共價(jià)值的替身，它們就越無力扮演這種角色。意義越是集中在象征領(lǐng)域，這一領(lǐng)域就越是被意義施加的壓力所扭曲。結(jié)果，生命的這三個(gè)象征領(lǐng)域都開始顯出病證。

Yet there was an irony here. The more culture, religion, and asexuality were faced to act as substitutes for fading public value, the less they were able to do so. The more meaning was concentrated in the symbolic realm, the more that realm was twisted out of true by the pressures that this exerted on it. As a result, all three areas of symbolic life began to exhibit pathological symptoms.

?

事情還有另一面。如果說象征領(lǐng)域已從公共領(lǐng)域中脫離了出來，那么它仍然遭受著后者的侵?jǐn)_。性被包裝成了市場(chǎng)上販賣的牟利商品，文化則成為逐利的大眾媒體的主角。藝術(shù)變成了金錢、權(quán)力、地位和文化資本的事。各地文化現(xiàn)在成了旅游產(chǎn)業(yè)包裝和販?zhǔn)鄣漠愑蝻L(fēng)情。甚至宗教也把自己改造成營(yíng)利的產(chǎn)業(yè)，電視里的福音傳道者們從虔誠而天真的窮人手中騙取血汗錢。

There is another aspect to the story. If the symbolic realm was split odd from the public one, it was also invaded by it. Sexuality was packaged as a profitable commodity in the marketplace, while culture meant for the most part profit-hungry mass media. Culture were now exotically packaged and peddled by the tourist industry. Even religion turned itself into a profitable industry, as TV evangelists conned the pious and gullible poor out if their hard-earned dollars.

?

文明焚毀，歷史崩潰之際，你想混混日子，或者擺弄擺弄自己的花園，已經(jīng)不再像以前那樣行之有效了。

Fiddling while civilization burnt, or cultivating one’s garden while history crumbled around you, no longer appeared to be such feasible options as they had been before.

?

又或許，人生時(shí)不時(shí)地會(huì)改變目的，就像我們所做的那樣。我們不應(yīng)該預(yù)設(shè)，那些給定的或內(nèi)在的意義總是固定不變、獨(dú)一無二。

Or perhaps life changes its purpose from time to time just as we do. We should not suppose that the given or innate must be fixed and singular.

?

對(duì)尼采或王爾德來說，我們所有人（只要有勇氣）都能成為以自己為作品的偉大藝術(shù)家，手中握著泥土，把自己捏塑成某個(gè)精致而獨(dú)特的形象。關(guān)于這一點(diǎn)，我認(rèn)為傳統(tǒng)智慧的觀點(diǎn)是，人生的意義不是預(yù)先規(guī)定好的，而是人為建構(gòu)出來的；我們每一個(gè)人都有極為不同的建構(gòu)方式.

For Nietzsche or Oscar Wiled, we could all (had we but the daring) be supreme artists of ourselves, clay in our own hands, waiting to fashion ourselves into some exquisitely unique shape. The conventional wisdom on this matter, I take it, is that the meaning of life is not prefabricated but constructed; and that each of us can do this in very different ways.