我們翻譯這篇文章的理由
很多人認為哲學家應該比常人更懂得寬容、心存更多的善意、更富有同理心，在討論哲學問題的時候，不應該存在言語刻薄的鬥爭。然而，激烈的戰鬥未必是件壞事，在這個過程中雙方能夠更加深入地了解自己，也許會找到自己未曾發現的突破點。
——徐嘉茵
👇
戰鬥的哲學家：發現自己，練習死亡
作者：Agnes Callard
譯者： 鄒世昌 & 邵海靈
校對：徐嘉茵
策劃：王津雨 & 徐嘉茵
Is Philosophy Fight Club?
戰鬥吧！哲學家
Once an esteemed philosopher was mean to me. He began by dismissing the value of the question I was asking, then disparaged the distinctions I drew as ill-conceived, then scorned my evident lack of technical competence, then brushed aside a number of my central claims as non-sequiturs and ended—by this point, his anger was apparent—by saying he couldn’t see how there was anything of value in my talk. There was no missing the insinuation it had been a mistake for his department to invite me. Afterwards, at dinner, his colleagues fell over themselves apologizing for his behavior, praising both the talk and how well I had handled the abuse.
曾經有一位受人尊敬的哲學家對我很刻薄。他先是否定了我提出的問題的價值，然後把我提出的不同觀點貶損為「考慮不周」，接著嘲笑我明顯缺乏技術能力，並把我的一些核心觀點批作瞎猜——此時他的怒氣已經擺在臉上了——最後表示他在我的言論中看不到任何有價值的東西。他毫不掩飾地表現出他的部門邀請我是個錯誤。在之後的晚宴上，他的同事紛紛為他的行為道歉，並把我的言論以及我面對羞辱的得體應對大大稱讚了一番。
insinuation [ɪnˌsɪnjuˈeʃən] n. an indirect (and usually malicious) implication 影射；含蓄的批評
I didn’t have the guts to tell them the truth, which was that while they had loved my talk, the Mean Philosopher was the one who had understood it. That goes for the manifest content of my talk — his complaints were, in fact, well-founded—and, much more importantly, its animating spirit: provocation. For some reason, he was the only one in the room who heard the invitation to fight me on this one. He didn’t just understand my talk, he understood me. The best part was that his insight didn’t rise to the level of consciousness—he was irritated by my pugnacious tone and reacted angrily. And I responded with equal sincerity.
我沒有勇氣告訴他們真相，雖然他們喜歡我的講論，但只有那位刻薄的哲學家真正理解了我的話。他不僅聽懂了我那些話的表層含義——事實上，他的抱怨是有充分根據的——更重要的是，他領會了我那席話的內在精髓：挑釁。由於某種原因，他是房間裡唯一聽出我的挑釁以為並奮起迎戰的人。他不僅聽懂了我的言論，而且理解了我的心。最妙的一點是，他都沒有意識到自己有這樣優秀的洞察力——他只是被我好鬥的語氣激怒了，並做出了憤怒的反應。而我也以同樣的真誠回應了他。
pugnacious[pʌɡˈneʃəs] adj. ready and able to resort to force or violence 好戰的，好鬥的，好挑釁的
This was years ago, but the five minutes of heated back and forth that followed are burned into my memory. Time seemed to slow down; the rest of the room faded from view; the sentences flew between us, each one carrying the weight of the world on it. What could be better than a good old-fashioned philosophy battle?
這是幾年前的事了，但那5分鐘的激烈爭吵卻深深地印在了我的記憶裡。時間似乎慢了下來，房間的其餘東西都從視野中消失了，我們之間唇槍舌戰，每句話都承載著整個世界的重量。還有什麼比一場古典式的哲學之戰更美妙的呢？
I understand that at most times and places one should endeavor to give constructive rather than destructive criticism; to play nicely with others; to be accommodating and generous and understanding; to help people overcome their faults and problems rather than use those weaknesses as an opening for attack. Instead of 「no, but,」 try 「yes, and.」 Smile. We’re all in this together. No fighting, no biting. Let’s build something. I accept that these are the rules of 「regular life.」 I smile plenty. But I want philosophy to be an escape ticket from kindergarten morality.
我明白，在大多數的時候和場合，一個人都應該努力給予建設性的批評，而不是破壞性的批評；應該與他人友好相處；應該通融、慷慨和善解人意；應該幫助人們克服他們的缺點和問題，而不是利用這些弱點作為攻擊的突破口。不要說「不，但是」，試著說「是的，還有」。要微笑。我們其實並無不同。不許打架，不許咬人。讓我們構建一些東西。我承認這些是「正常生活」的規則。我笑得很勤快。但我想讓哲學成為一張升級通關卡，讓我們超越幼兒園水平的道德觀，踏上更高的臺階。
Most philosophers don’t think philosophy needs more fighting and more biting. They think we should be moving in the opposite, less 「gladiatorial」 direction: more charity, more supportiveness, more philanthropy, kindness and empathy. Sometimes when I argue with such people, they make the following point: being pugnacious produces bad philosophy. If you are out to trip up your interlocutor, you will misconstrue her arguments and produce flimsy counterarguments. Charitable interpretations are what lead to deep engagement. I think there is some truth to this: careful, generous critique is how we avoid the cheap victory of a superficial scar. If you’re talking a Trojan Horse of philanthropy, kindness and empathy for the sake of ultimate violence, destruction and meaningful victory, I can get on board with that.
大多數哲學家認為哲學不需要更多的鬥爭和撕咬。他們認為，我們應該朝著相反的方向前進，少一些「角力」：更多的寬容、更多的支持、更多的慈善、善意和同理心。有時候，當我和這樣的人爭論時，他們會提出以下觀點：好鬥會產生糟糕的哲學。如果你想絆倒對方，你就會誤解她的觀點，你的反駁也會站不住腳。寬容的理解才能讓雙方深入地參與討論。我認為這是有一定道理的：謹慎、寬宏大量的批評使我們得以避免用表面的傷疤換取廉價的勝利。如果你送出一匹滿載慈悲、善良和同情的特洛伊木馬，目的是為了最終的暴力、破壞和有意義的勝利，那我是可以接受的。
Some philosophers do not dismiss fighting out of hand, but hold refutation and disputation to exist for the sake of ultimate and more meaningful accord and agreement. How do we decide whether we should be nice in order to be mean, or vice versa? We might compare the two approaches with respect to the goal of philosophical activity: securing answers to philosophical questions. I think fighting wins that fight, so to speak. But I am not going to make that case here. I am interested in offering you a different kind of argument, one that foregrounds the distinctiveness of the activity of philosophy, considered as a form of human interaction. In fact, in order to make my case at the proper level of generality, let me even set aside philosophy for a minute, and just consider what fighting is, and why we do it.
有些哲學家並不排斥失控的鬥爭，而是主張為了最終的、更有意義的一致和協議而存在反駁和爭論。我們如何決定是否應該為了變得刻薄而變得友善，或者是相反？我們可以就哲學活動的目標比較這兩種方法：為了得到哲學問題的答案。可以說，我認為只有戰鬥才能贏得戰鬥。但我不打算在這裡討論這個問題。我很想給你們提供一種不同的論證，一種強調哲學活動的特殊性的論證，它被認為是人類互動的一種形式。事實上，為了使我的觀點具有適當的普遍性，讓我先把哲學放在一邊，考慮一下什麼是戰鬥，以及我們為什麼要戰鬥。
Is violence generally a good way to solve problems? I』ll admit that some signs point towards no. Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) described war as politics continued by another means, but that is a little like saying crawling is running continued by another means. Yes: a worse one. Take a simplified, schematic case: if you and I are both after the same quantum of value—ideally I』d like all of it, and so would you—we might come to blows. But this is a mistake: it would be better to negotiate. Fighting itself has a cost, which subtracts from the total. Think of it this way: assume the total is one hundred dollars, and the cost of fighting is ten dollars. Wouldn’t you take a 100 percent chance of fifty dollars over a 50 percent chance of ninety dollars? Admittedly, if one of us was antecedently likelier to win, she would not accept a fifty-fifty split. But in that case we should use that information, including the degree of likelihood, to keep negotiating until we come up on a split that both of us can rationally agree to. No reason to lose the ten dollars.
總的來說，暴力是不是解決問題的好辦法？我承認有些證據指向的是否定回答。普魯士將軍卡爾·馮·克勞塞維茨（1780-1831）將戰爭描述為政治的另一種延續方式，但這有點像說爬行是跑步的另一種延續方式。沒錯，一種較為糟糕的方式。舉一個簡化的例子：如果你和我都追求同樣的價值——我的理想目標是全部獨吞，你也一樣——我們就可能會打起來。但這是錯誤的：進行談判才是更好的辦法。戰鬥本身是有代價的，這個代價會從總數中扣除。這樣想：假設總共有100美元，而戰鬥的成本是10美元。難道你會放著100%分到50美元的方案不要，而去爭取那得到90美元的50%的機會嗎？誠然，如果我們中間有一個人本來就更有可能獲勝，他可能不會接受對半平分的方案。但在這種情況下，我們應該利用這些信息，包括可能性的大小，繼續談判，直到我們達成雙方都能理智地接受分成的比率。何必白白損失十美元呢？
Fighting is a non-ideal way to allocate an independently valuable resource — something we resort to when negotiations break down. This is a good critique of fighting. But it doesn’t extend to the case where the resource lacks independent value and is sought after precisely because it provides an occasion for fighting. Sometimes I want what you want, because you want it, indeed because that means I can fight you for it. And the reason I want to fight you is to know which one of us is stronger. In this sort of case I would reject a fifty-fifty division not because I believe I know I can get a better one, but precisely because I don’t believe I know, and finding out whether I can is my true goal.
戰鬥是一種並不理想的解決方式——當雙方要分配一項具有獨立價值的資源而協商無果時，只能退而求其次，訴諸兵刃相見的對抗。這段評論固然總結得很好，但當資源不具有獨立的價值，且雙方展開爭奪的唯一原因就是它為雙方創造了一決勝負的時機，那在這種情況下，上述定義就不再適用了。有時就是因為你想要，所以我偏偏要來和你爭，說白了，我就是要藉此機會跟你幹一仗。而我之所以要跟你打，就是為了決出你我之間孰強孰弱。倘若情形是這樣，五五分成的方案我是不會考慮的，不是因為我相信自己能分到更大一杯羹，而是恰恰相反——因為我不知道自己能否超過你。而通過戰鬥來發現自己的實力，才是我真正的目的。
In such cases, the battle prize is knowledge of one’s own mettle. We want to come to terms with the potential we have in us, a potential that will be left forever unknown until it’s tested in the most extreme terms against the best opponent possible. That is a problem to which fighting is quite an efficient and rational solution. The only real way to know how hard I can fight is to fight as hard as I can. As Aristotle says, actuality is conceptually prior to potentiality.
在這樣的情況下，你的戰利品就是對自身實力的認識。要與自身達成和解，就要知道自己的潛能到底有多少。而除非你在最絕望的處境中與最強大的對手殊死一搏過，否則就永遠不會知道準確的答案。通過戰鬥來尋求解答其實是有效而理性的做法。要想知道我打起來有多拼命，就要拼盡全力打一架，這是唯一可靠的方法。正如亞里斯多德所言：現實在概念上先於潛能。
Whether fighting is rational or not depends on the status of the precise, certain knowledge of relative strength that only the actual fight can provide: Is it desired merely instrumentally, or for its own sake? Fighting, done right, is a form of inquiry. And that brings us back to philosophy.
一場戰鬥是否理性，取決於交戰雙方如何看待對彼此實力的精準認知：你是把實力的高下作為達到目的的手段，還是把一決高下作為唯一的目的？而雙方的實力只有雙方打過一架才能見分曉。戰鬥如果進行得法，就是求知的途徑，由此我們能回過頭來，思考什麼是哲學。
Do you want to know the outcome of the battle between me and the Mean Philosopher? Sorry to disappoint you, but he won. I lost. Again. I usually lose. This is not me being humble; it is an objective fact that I am a loser. I have been debating since high school, where I was the first person to become team captain having lost more rounds than she won. And my team was one of the strongest in the area: the team captains before (and, I suspect, after) me won state and national competitions for which my losing record prevented me from even qualifying.
你想知道我和那個刻薄的哲學家戰鬥下來的結果嗎？抱歉讓你失望了，但是他贏了。我又輸了，一如既往。不是我謙虛，這就是事實：我是一個屢戰屢敗的魯蛇。從高中開始我就在辯論隊裡打比賽，並且在歷任隊長裡，打輸的次數比贏多，我有幸是第一個。而我們的辯論隊還算那個片區裡實力最強的隊伍之一：前任（我猜也包括後任）隊長都贏過州賽乃至全國大賽，而我因為輸得太多，連參加這些大賽的資格都被取消了。
譯者註：
臺灣多使用魯蛇或滷蛇，取自英文「loser」的諧音，批踢踢網站(PTT)鄉民通常以此來諷刺當今貧富差距的現象，尤其是在工作上不順遂、低收入、沒有愛人者。相對地，有成就、或日子過得不錯的人，例如：富二代、公務員、受異性歡迎者等則被鄉民諷刺為溫拿（「winner」）、而嘲諷者就反被消遣是loser，例如：失業、低薪（如月薪只有臺幣22,000元或更低）、交不到女友等，之後就逐漸出現「魯蛇」的諧音用法取代loser。後來貶義色彩漸淡，也會有鄉民以「小魯」或「小蛇」（第一人稱自謙『小弟』的變化）自稱，或使用「本魯蛇」、「本魯」、「本蛇」（本人）等。
摘自維基百科詞條：「輸家男」
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/輸家男
So how did I get elected captain? I was competing against debaters who were good at winning, which I was not. But I was great at losing. And greatness shines forth. (It was a landslide.) In the intervening quarter century, I』ve only become greater. Losing is where it’s at. You never know just how strong an idea is, just how much scrutiny it will withstand, until the moment when it gives way. Don’t get me wrong, it also hurts. Every time. The animating force behind the idea is your own mind—your cognitive essence. When you lose, you experience just how far your capacity to think takes you, which is to say, you experience it giving out. That’s when it washes over you: the feeling of not knowing what you are talking about, the empty nothingness of your own mind.
既然如此，我是怎麼當選隊長的？我的對手都是擅長打比賽的人，我不擅長贏，但我擅長輸呀！這就是我發光發熱的地方（熱到燒成一團焦）。賽季尚未過半，我已愈來愈強，而打輸比賽是關鍵所在。你永遠不會知道一個觀點有多強勢，能夠經受住多少質問和考驗——直到你放棄它的那一刻。不要誤會我，打輸也會傷心的。每次都會。給觀點注入生命的，是你自己的頭腦——你在認知層面的本質。在你輸掉的那一刻，才能體會到你的思維能力究竟能帶你走多遠。換句話說，你要經歷自己彈盡糧絕、黔驢技窮的那一刻。這也是你被失敗感徹底淹沒的一刻：你已然不知自己是在說什麼，那種思想完全空洞的虛無與寂滅。
When you die, you don’t experience that nothingness—I guess you sidle right up to the promised land, but then, before you know it, you’re dead. The tragedy of physical violence is that by the time you kill 』em, they’re gone. If you defeat your opponent in a duel of knives or pistols, the death you give her is one she can’t receive. Words are more powerful, because the loser feels her loss, all the way through, from beginning to end.
瀕死之人是不會經歷那種虛無的——我想那時你會直接踏入神所應許的天堂，但在此之前，在你尚未踏入的時候，你已經死了。血腥搏鬥的悲劇在於：你殺死他們的那一刻，他們也永久失去意識了。如果你在一場決鬥中用短刀或手槍幹掉了對手，你給他的死亡是他感受不到的。相比之下，話語的能力就強大得多，因為失敗的一方仍能感受到失敗帶來的痛苦，從開始直到結束。
Socrates undersold philosophy when he described it as a preparation for death. Philosophy done right is death. The other kind of death is a simulacrum, a mere half death. If you want to know what it’s like to be nothing, nonexistent, don’t sit around waiting for the inevitable. Instead, lose. The upside of winning is pleasure and glory, but the cost of always winning is never getting to know how much more was in you. The only way to find the limit is to cross it. But you can’t lose unless you fight your heart out. Which is why I say, more fighting, more biting.
蘇格拉底說，哲學是為死亡做準備，可見他明白哲學的本質。哲學如果探討得法，結局就是死亡。肉體的死亡只是幻影，充其量不過死了一半。如果你要體會那種虛無、空洞、萬念俱滅的感覺，不要混吃等死，起來找人打一架，輸掉一場爭論吧。得勝會帶來榮譽和滿足，但時常得勝的代價是你永遠不知道自己還有多少未曾發揮的潛能。發現自身極限的唯一方法就是越過它。但你必須拼死一搏才能打輸。所以我說，讓戰鬥和廝殺來得更猛烈些吧！
👇
點評
通篇讀完後，我覺得作者講了三層意思：一、不去戰鬥，真理如何越辯越明；二、為了「發現自己」，我們必須去戰鬥。少有比戰鬥更好的辦法；三、哲學戰鬥就是「練習死亡」，讓我們「為失敗而拼死一搏」，抵達自我的極限。
第一層意思好懂，不贅述。第二層意思也不難領略，想必我們都有在極限中發現自我潛能的經歷。這裡最想談一談的是第三層。
蒙田隨筆錄中有一篇《探討哲學就是練習死亡》。開篇是這樣寫的：
西塞羅說，探究哲理就是為死亡作思想準備，因為研究和沉思從某種意義上說可使我們的心靈脫離軀體，心靈忙忙碌碌，但與軀體毫無關係，這有點像是在學習死亡，與死亡很相似
你說這和「練習死亡」有什麼關係？我說，當你「拼盡全力地失敗」後，世界將為你打開一扇窗戶。透過這扇窗戶，「心靈將脫離軀體」，你將意識到人生的本質：
「哀吾生之須臾，羨長江之無窮~~~」
那麼，該怎麼辦呢？我不知道。至少有以下幾種態度可供參考：
蘇格拉底，論證靈魂的不朽：
狄蘭·託馬斯，咒罵光明的消逝：
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
不要溫和地走進那個良夜，
老年應當在日暮時燃燒咆哮；
怒斥，怒斥光明的消逝。
尼採，凡是不把他置於死地的東西，都使他變得更堅強有力：
我提請諸位注意：我生命力最低下之日，也就是我不再當悲觀主義者之時。因為，自我再造的本能禁止我創立一種貧乏的和洩氣的哲學……那麼我們到底憑什麼去識別卓絕之人呢？！一個卓絕的人會使我們產生賞心悅目之感。因為他是由一塊既堅硬光潤，又香氣襲人的奇木雕琢成的。他只享受對他身心有益的東西；一旦超過這個尺度，他的歡愉、他的欲望也就戛然而止了。他發現了抗禦損傷的良藥，他善於化偶然之害為有益。凡是不把他置於死地的東西，都使他變得更堅強有力。他本能地匯集所見、所聞、所經驗的一切，他就是總和。因為他就是遴選淘汰的原則，他濾掉了許多東西。無論是看書、處人，或是欣賞景物，他胸中自有定見。因為凡是經他選中、認可的東西，他便給予尊重。他對各種刺激反應遲緩，慢條斯理，這是長期的謹慎和有意的高傲造成的──他去體驗迫切的刺激，他避而遠之。他既不相信「噩運」，也不相信「過失」；他能對付自己，也能對付別人；他懂得忘卻──他堅強到足以使一切都不可避免地變為使自身得到最大利益的東西。──那好吧！我是頹廢者的對立物，因為我方才所講的正是夫子自道。
尼採：我為什麼這樣智慧
布羅茨基，「最終結果就是精確和謙恭」：
因為，苦悶就是時間對你們的價值體系的入侵。它會將你們的存在置入它的視角，其最終結果就是精確和謙恭。應當指出，前者會導致後者。你們關於自己的尺寸知道得越多，你們就會更謙恭、更同情地面對你們的同類，面對那粒塵土，它或是仍在陽光中飄飛，或是已靜靜落上你們的桌面。唉，有多少生命都變成了這樣的塵土啊！不是從你們的角度，而是從它們的角度看。
布羅茨基：《頌揚苦悶》
還有很多啦，歡迎補充。最後我要附圖一張，嘗試穿透一下次元壁：
2019年6月24日
伍豪
✨
✨
✨
微信公眾號：取經號
微博：取經號JTW
網站：qujinghao.com
✨