|

一
我很贊同A. C. Grayling的前言,他說想想那些法國學究,他們用晦澀語言談論生活、性愛和理念,再來看看羅素同類文章,看看他的清明、開放和善意。我尤其在意Grayling這句話:“plain truths can be well and memorably expressed(樸素真理可以充分表述並令人難忘。)”。無獨有偶,我昨天讀到毛姆一段話,出自他的The Summing Up,仿佛正爲羅素下註腳:“I have never had much patience with the writers who claim from the reader an effort to understand their meaning. You have only to go to the great philosophers to see that it is possible to express with lucidity the most subtle reflections.(對於要求讀者費力理解筆下用意的作家,我從來沒有多少耐心。你只要讀過偉大哲學家就會明白,最微妙的思考可以清楚表達。)” 我很慚愧至今才讀羅素。The Conquest of Happiness是我第一本羅素,我沒想到他的文字這麽好這麽美,當然不是一般的美:簡單,明晰,而又深刻,我甚至想大聲讀出來,文字寫到讓讀者有朗誦欲望,我想這是至高境界。而他說的都是常識,不同一般的常識。這個時代有很多常識名家,東西不缺,但是他們比不上羅素。這個時代亦不乏盲從與幻覺,但是羅素告訴我,抛開幻覺,不要盲從。讀了羅素,我更堅信自己並非反常,我更明白理性可貴,孤獨並不可怕。 羅素這本小書一九三零年出版,今天讀來我不覺得過時。書前小序他說並非寫給學者看,書中亦無高深哲理旁徵博引,他開的方子,亦即療治不幸,只是他的切身體驗與觀察。我當然毋須一一引述,我只想摘錄我有興趣的幾段,給我力量的文句,旁及我隨後讀過的另外兩本羅素:Why I am not a Christian(【我爲什麽不是基督徒】),Unpopular Essays(【非流行散文】)。羅素的書不見得放之四海而皆準,may not work in contemporary China,但我喜歡他不合時宜的人文腔,他的審慎樂觀,他對“既定真理”的蔑視,他的科學態度,不會令你心生陰暗或一頭鑽進迷宮,尤其秋天將臨,很快,在我客居的省城,又是噩夢聯翩的暗淡冬日,你更需要一些暖色。 對我來說,最有用當數這段:“To be out of harmony with one’s surroundings is, of course, a misfortune, but it is not always a misfortune to be avoided at all costs. Where the environment is stupid or prejudiced or cruel, it is a sign of merit to be out of harmony with it.”與世不合當然不幸,但這一不幸,並非總是需要不惜代價避開。當你身處愚蠢、充滿偏見或殘酷環境,與世不合是個優點,雖然堅守並非易事:“This isolation is not only a source of pain, it also causes a great dissipation of energy in the unnecessary task of maintaining mental independence against hostile surroundings, and in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred produces a certain timidity in following out ideas to their logical conclusions.”羅素以Bronte姐妹爲例,她倆的小說出版之前,這對姐妹從未遇到同類。但是Emily不受影響,勇敢,堅定,Charlotte雖然有才,她的見識,總是跳不出家庭女教師框架。還有詩人Blake,亦是活在心理孤絕之中,但他跟Emily一樣傑出,足以克服不良影響,因爲他從未懷疑自己。 與世不合的人如何是好(依照原文,應是與周遭不合,但我覺得兩者不妨通用),羅素開的方子令人欣慰,於我而言,一是理論上令我欣慰,二是憑我經歷,我亦相當認同:“These same people, transported into another set where their outlook is not thought strange, will seem to change their character entirely. From being serious, shy and retiring they may become gay and self-confident; from being angular they may become smooth and easy; from being self-centred they may become sociable and extrovert.” 然而當你很難或無法更換環境(包括更換種族、母語),情形未必樂觀,就像羅素在美國旅行所見:“In the most unlikely places, north, south, east, and west, one finds lonely individuals who know from books that there are places where they would not be lonely, but who have no chance to live in such places, and only the rarest opportunity of congenial conversation. Real happiness in such circumstances is impossible to those who are built on a less magnificent scale than Blake and Emily Bronte. If it is to become possible, some way must be found by which the tyranny of public opinion can be either lessened or evaded, and by which members of the intelligent minority can come to know each other and enjoy each other’s society.”當然,最後幾句,Internet或可部分實現,總好過一團漆黑,就像羅素在【非流行散文】書中所寫:“It is very difficult in this modern world to find a place for the individual.”
二
【非流行散文】有篇好看短文“我認識的名人”(Eminent Men I Have Known),羅素說哲學家William James有著完完全全的自然風度(a complete naturalness);自然,在我看來,亦即不裝。而其他名聲稍遜者,譬如羅素的倫理學老師Henry Sidgwick,則有一種智性誠實(intellectual honesty)。他說此君青年時代,爲申請劍橋研究員職位,不得不在英國聖公會條約上簽字(這一職位當時只對簽字者公開),但他後來對宗教有所懷疑,就算毋須公開重申自己信仰依舊,他卻聽從內心呼喚毅然辭職,而正是這一個人舉措,促使相關立法廢除因襲多年的神學框框。還有愛因斯坦,羅素評價極高:“大智與孩童般的單純兼有。我說‘單純’,我並非意指缺少聰慧;我說的是客觀思考的習慣,不考慮一個看法或一個行爲在現世的有利或不利。”(When I say ‘simplicity’, I do not mean anything involving lack of cleverness; I mean the habit of thinking impersonally, without regard for the worldly advantage or disadvantage of an opinion or an action.) 自然風度,智性誠實,大智與孩童般的單純:這些而今安在?尤其是在中國,知識階層早已蕩然,philistine招搖撞騙,不然怎有常凱申孟修斯一類奇觀?除了養活一幫尸位素餐投機取巧奴顔婢膝自我感覺一天好過一天的“大國民”,你很難指望這樣的民族對人類文明繼續有所貢獻。同一文集有篇“論頭腦現代”(On Being Modern-minded),我讀完亦毫不覺得過時:“頭腦現代的人,他雖然深信他這個時代的智慧,但必須設想,他對行使個人能力很是謹慎。他的最高願望,就是首先思考將要思考的事情,說要說的話,感受將要感受的東西;他不想比鄰人有更好想法,不想說更有見識的話,也不想有與某些時髦團體不一樣的情感,他只想在時間上比別人稍稍領先。”這樣的與時俱進,當然不會理解“a mentally solitary life”(內心孤獨的人生)。尤有甚者:“金錢酬勞,還有那些宣傳機構造就的廣爲散播卻又曇花一現的名聲,都在中途給能人設下難以抗拒的誘惑。有人點名,有人仰慕,有媒體經常提及,有路子輕鬆賺到很多錢,這是多麽愜意;當所有這些擺在一個人面前,他發現很難繼續做他覺得最好的工作,並傾向於讓自己的判斷屈從大衆觀點。”(The money rewards and widespread though ephemeral fame which those agencies have made possible places temptations in the way of able men which are difficult to resist. To be pointed out, admired, mentioned constantly in the press, and offered easy ways of earning much money is highly agreeable; and when all this is open to a man, he finds it difficult to go on doing the work that he himself thinks best and is inclined to subordinate his judgment to the general opinion.) 理性,開放,摯誠,堅守獨立人格,不向任何“既定真理”繳械,不論宗教還是政治,不論左派還是右派:羅素不單窮其一生勉力鼓吹,而且身體力行。上世紀四十年代初,因爲早年幾本討論婚姻、教育與宗教的小書,羅素成了美國某些衛道士的眼中釘,他們以法律手段,以褻瀆宗教有傷風化誤人子弟等等冠冕堂皇,成功阻止他執教紐約市立學院。官司打得不亦樂乎,就連一向自由主義的紐約時報亦態度曖昧。還是愛因斯坦說得好:“偉人總是遭遇庸人激烈反對。後者不能明白,一個人可以不盲從傳統偏見,而是誠實勇敢運用自己的智慧。”(Great spirits, have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.) 本文不是書評,只是讀書筆記,或許我該大段引用羅素一篇文章,出自【我爲什麽不是基督徒】:“宗教能否解決我們的問題?”(Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?)。這篇文章寫於一九五四年,冷戰如火如荼,但是羅素對共産主義和宗教的相同謬誤,有清醒與精彩分析:“基督教的辯護者通常覺得,共産主義與基督教迥然不同,並以它的邪惡與基督教國度享有的所謂恩惠相對比。在我看來,這似乎大錯特錯。共産主義的邪惡,跟信仰時代基督教所有的邪惡一樣。格別烏只在數量上與宗教裁判所不同。它的殘忍都是一類,它對俄國人的智性與道德生活的傷害,跟無論何時大行其道的宗教裁判官造成的傷害一樣。共產黨人僞造歷史,教會同樣如此,直到文藝復興。要是教會現在不像蘇維埃政府那麽壞,那是因爲那些攻擊教會的人有了影響:從塔蘭托會議到現在,無論哪種進步,都是它的敵人所致。……理應視爲一種危險的,並非蘇維埃教義本身,而是持有這一教義的方式。它被當成神聖不可侵犯的真理,懷疑它就是有罪,就該受最嚴厲的懲罰。共產黨人就像基督徒,相信他的教義對於救贖必不可少,而正是這一信仰令他可能得救。基督教與共産主義的相似之處,讓兩者互不相容。當兩位科學家意見分歧,他們不會訴諸世俗武力;他們等待更多證據來解決問題,因爲,身爲科學家,他們知道誰也不會一貫正確。但是,當兩位神學家意見不同,由於雙方沒有標準可依,除了彼此仇恨,公開或私下訴諸武力,沒有任何結果。我承認,基督教不像從前那樣有害;不過,這是因爲信得不那麽狂熱了。或許,到時候,共産主義亦會有同樣變化;要是這樣,這一信條將不像現在那麽可憎。但是,如果基督教是美德和社會穩定的基本要素這一觀點在西方盛行,基督教就將再度如中世紀那般作惡;而且,當它變得愈來愈像共産主義,它跟共産主義的和解會愈來愈難。順著這條路下去,世界不會免於災難。”
三
還是回到The Conquest of Happiness這本小書。羅素說文明人的不幸根源,在於過分強調競爭崇尚成功,我極其認同:“現代生活對競爭的強調,與文明標準的普遍衰落相關,就像奧古斯都之後的羅馬必然有過的情形。男人和女人似乎變得不能享受更爲智性的快樂。……所有較爲安靜的樂趣都被抛棄了。(The emphasis upon competition in modern life is connected with a general decay of civilised standards such as must have occurred in Rome after the Augustan age. Men and women appear to have become incapable of enjoying the more intellectual pleasures....All the quieter pleasures have been abandoned.)”這裏所謂文明標準,當然不單衣食住行。羅素以閱讀爲例,五十年前或一百年前,受過教育的人熟知的優秀文學,現今不過幾個教授的研究課題(當然,閣下要是覺得一個時代有一個時代的文化,從前多文盲,現在大學生滿街亂竄,從前沒有Internet,現在上網查資料甚至人肉搜索易如反掌,並反問:郭敬明安妮寶貝難道不算作家?我惟有沈默以表寬容)。要命的是,“這個問題不僅在於個人,也不是哪一個人單獨就可避免。問題來自普遍接受的人生哲學,依照它的看法,人生就是一場競賽,一場競爭,尊敬是要給勝者的。(The trouble does not lie simply with the individual, nor can a single individual prevent it in his own isolated case. The trouble arises from the generally received philosophy of life, according to which life is a contest, a competition, in which respect is to be accorded to the victor.)”更要命的是,一九三零年,羅素預言:這一人生哲學將會無遠弗屆:“接下來的一百年,情形很有可能愈加如此。(this is likely to be increasingly the case for the next hundred years.)”他不幸言中。 這一人生哲學,強調競爭,崇尚成功,若是放在中國這樣畸形的後極權社會,那就更加變態:難怪有權有勢的小小公務員成了萬人爭搶的飯碗(我一位不乏正直的老友在公安局政治部有份閒職,現在終可心安理得:“我不是給共產黨打工,我是給政府打工。”聽了這句“名言”,我瞠目結舌,我謹祝他的奇怪邏輯一路順風),難怪不說假話不拉關係就不能飛黃騰達(我想我毋須闡明拉關係與正常人際交往的區別),價值觀完全顛倒。“在這個現代社會,個人很難找到位置(It is very difficult in this modern world to find a place for the individual.)。”【非流行散文】那篇“論頭腦現代”,還有一段在我讀來無比沈痛的話語:“當戰爭、蕭條和革命在臺上彼此追逐,這個世界的情感調子亦以同樣速度變換。比起從前,公衆事件闖入私人生活更爲強行。斯賓諾莎雖然言論異端,但他可以繼續賣眼鏡和沈思默想,哪怕他的祖國被外敵入侵;要是活在現在,他多半會被征入伍,要麽被投進監獄。因爲這些原因,比起文藝復興以來任何一個時代,一個人需要有更多個人信念的力量,才能站出來反抗他這個時代的潮流。(The emotional tone of the world changes with equal rapidity, as wars, depressions, and revolutions chase each other across the stage. And public events impinge upon private lives more forcibly than in former days. Spinoza, in spite of his heretical opinions, could continue to sell spectacles and meditate, even when his country was invaded by foreign enemies; if he had lived now, he would in all likelihood have been conscripted or put in prison. For these reasons a greater energy of personal conviction is required to lead a man to stand out against the current of his time than would have been necessary in any previous period since the Renaissance.)”站出來?反抗愛國主義、民族主義、拜金主義、極權主義、蒙昧主義……我從沒想過,亦不合我的性情,能在內心反抗這個時代的潮流已屬不易! 我很欣賞羅素一個用語:intellectual rubbish,亦即垃圾智識,出自【非流行散文】一篇幽默長文:“垃圾智識概述”(An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish)。以上這些主義,包括鄙人老友那句“名言”,你只要以冷靜頭腦審視,以不帶惡意的辯論心態端詳,的確配得上垃圾智識這一榮銜。不過,“要是如此信念統統由冷靜科學取代,這個世界或許會失去某些趣味和多樣性(Perhaps the world would lose some of its interest and variety if such beliefs were wholly replaced by cold science.)”。頭腦清醒的人,不一定都要像陀思妥耶夫斯基筆下的人物那麽沈重,你同樣可以活得有趣。我亦喜歡羅素這篇長文講的一則笑話:一八二零年左右,美國有位女先知,住在北紐約州一個湖濱。她向衆多信徒宣稱,自己可在水上行走,並打算某個早晨十一點鐘行此神迹。到了預定時辰,成千上萬信衆擁來湖濱。女先知告訴他們:“你們是不是完全相信我可以在水上行走?”衆人齊聲答道:“我們都信。”女先知於是說:“要是這樣,我就不需要這麽做了。”隨後,所有人深受啓發,歡歡喜喜散了開去。“A wise man will enjoy the goods of which there is a plentiful supply, and of intellectual rubbish he will find an abundant diet, in our own age as in every other.”羅素這句話的大意如右:一個智者會享用供應充足的物品,他會發現,這個時代就跟從前任何一個時代一樣,垃圾智識都是享用不盡。
四 羅素這三本小書,有兩篇文章專門談到教育:“自由與大學”(Freedom and the Colleges),“教師的職責”(The Functions of A Teacher),我還想鈔錄幾段。活到今天,我愈來愈慶倖沒有讀過中國的大學,換句話說,我慶倖自己沒有中毒,或者,說得準確些,幾乎沒有中毒,尤其因爲我感興趣的,正是共產黨至今如生殖器一般依然捂得緊緊的文科。我想這樣總結自己這一經驗並不過分亦不“反智”:我對權威的蔑視,我對教條的懷疑,我對獨立思考的堅持,全都來自我沒受過中國特色的“正規高等教育”(其中多少垃圾智識!)。我現在可以理直氣壯,我不希罕這樣的高等教育,即使機會擺在面前,我亦毫無興趣做學究,做黨棍,做公務員……這些公職人員,雖然不乏好人明白人甚至牛人,雖然我見得不多(亦見得不少),但我知道我跟他們的微妙區別究竟如何,這一區別,並非道德判斷與價值判斷,不過存在決定意識以至潛意識。 一九四零年五月,羅素發表“自由與大學”一文,正是美國衛道士成功阻止他執教紐約市立學院之後。我最感興趣是這段常識,當然同樣不適用於中國:“在國立學校執教的男女教師,不應要求他們表達多數人的看法,儘管多數教師自然而然會這樣做。不僅不應尋求教師意見統一,而且,要是可能,還要避免,因爲教師有多種意見,乃是所有健全教育的基本要素。對於衆說紛紜的問題,只聽到一面之辭,這樣的人不能算做受過教育。在一個民主社會的教育機構執教,最重要的,乃是權衡論辯的能力,還有開放心態,亦即事先準備接受更有道理的任何一方。一旦強行審查教師可能會有的言論,教育就不再服務這一目標,而是傾向培養一幫偏執狂,而非一衆國民。(A man or woman who is to hold a teaching post under the state should not be required to express majority opinions, though naturally a majority of teachers will do so. Uniformity in the opinions expressed by teachers is not only not to be sought, but is, if possible, to be avoided, since diversity of opinion among preceptors is essential to any sound education. No man can pass as educated who has heard only one side on questions as to which the public is divided. One of the most important things to teach in the educational establishments of a democracy is the power of weighing arguments, and the open mind which is prepared in advance to accept whichever side appears the more reasonable. As soon as a censorship is imposed upon the opinions which teachers may avow, education ceases to serve this purpose and tends to produce, instead of a nation of men, a herd of fanatical bigots.)” 羅素論教育,核心還是捍衛獨立人格與思想自由:“自由者與狹隘者的見解之根本區別,在於前者認爲所有問題都可討論,所有意見都可或多或少懷疑之,而後者事先認定,某些觀點絕對不容置疑,絕對不能讓反對這些觀點的意見出聲。(The fundamental difference between the liberal and the illiberal outlook is that the former regards all questions as open to discussion and all opinions as open to a greater or less measure of doubt, while the latter holds in advance that certain opinions are absolutely unquestionable, and that no argument against them must be allowed to be heard.)”所以,“每一個國家,我重申,無論什麽樣的政府,要保持自由,就需要有些社團,在一定限度上獨立於國家之外,重要的是,大學應該歸入這類社團之中。(In every state, I repeat, no matter what its form of government, the preservation of freedom demands the existence of bodies of men having a certain limited independence of the State, and among such bodies it is important that universities should be included.)” 天方夜譚!這個所謂人民共和國成立六十年,前三十年共産主義,屍橫累累,後三十年實用主義,畸形發展,走到今天,就其本土而言,究竟出了多少世界級的文化人與科學家(科學亦需要獨立人格與思想自由),究竟有多少值得誇耀的文化成就(這幾天,你只要去逛逛國營書城,去看看“祖國六十華誕圖書展銷”之類官式擺設,你就知道,這些文化成就,十之八九,都是垃圾智識)?“因爲所有重要的智識進步,都取決於外部意見的某種獨立,當多數人的意志受到宗教一般的尊崇,有如正統教徒對上帝意志的尊崇,這一進步就不可能有。(For all serious intellectual progress depends upon a certain kind of independence of outside opinion, which cannot exist where the will of the majority is treated with that kind of religious respect which the orthodox give to the will of God.)”需要說明的是,羅素所謂多數人的意志,跟中國官員動輒抛出來嚇人的“十三億中國人民的感情“一類套話有所不同。羅素說的是,在民主國家,多數人行使權力,如果不受限制,如果對少數派缺少寬容,亦會如獨裁國家一樣變成暴政。 無論身處民主社會還是獨裁國家,個人內心獨立必不可少;這不是egomania,亦不是爲了大我或爲了上帝抛不開小我。我佩服羅素的清明:“集體智慧,唉,並不足以取代個人才智。反對公認看法的個人,是所有進步的源頭,無論道德還是智識。他們不受歡迎,這本來亦很自然。蘇格拉底,基督,伽利略,他們全都招來正統之人的譴責。(Collective wisdom, alas, is no adequate substitute for the intelligence of individuals. Individuals who opposed received opinions have been the source of all progress, both moral and intellectual. They have been unpopular, as was natural. Socrates, Christ, and Galileo all equally incurred the censure of the orthodox.)”“人類永遠需要新的希望、新的信念和新的思想,但是,在死氣沈沈的一致之中,你不可能指望這些東西出現。(New hopes, new beliefs, and new thoughts are at all times necessary to mankind, and it is not out of a dead uniformity that they can be expected to arise.)”最後這段話,出自“教師的職責”一文:“我們這個時代的騷動,不利於文化的精美之花。……每個體制都應容許漏洞與例外,因爲若非如此,它最終將會摧殘人類之中的佼佼者。(The turbulence of our times is inimical to the fine flower of culture.…Every system should allow loopholes and exceptions, for if it does not it will in the end crush all that is best in man.)” 我很高興讀到眼光銳利的毛姆讚揚羅素,還是出自毛姆的文學自傳The Summing Up(當然,毛姆的讚譽亦非毫無保留,譬如他以建築爲例,說羅素的哲學體系不夠完美,他要的是自足與連貫。當然,毛姆最後亦承認,如此完美令他滿意的哲學書,他根本找不到,除非自己寫一本,但他書讀得愈多,他又愈覺得自己無知):“另一方面,我在伯特蘭·羅素的書中發現一位我很喜歡的作家;他很容易讓人明白,他的英文很好。我懷著欽佩讀他。(On the other hand, in Bertrand Russell I discovered a writer who greatly pleased me; he was easy to understand and his English was good. I read him with admiration.)” 這亦正是我想說的話。 二零零年九月十五日至二十九日 |