精選
Excerpt：王爾德的〈社會主義下人的靈魂〉
2019/10/28 05:22
瀏覽1,314
迴響0
推薦12
引用0
Excerpt：王爾德的〈社會主義下人的靈魂〉
A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.
未來世界的藍圖若沒納入鳥托邦，根本就不值一哂，因它是人類向來努力追求的國度。當人類抵達該地向外遠眺，望見更好的國度，方能再度啟航。進步就是實現鳥托邦的過程。
——王爾德，〈社會主義下人的靈魂〉
去年讀過羅格‧布雷格曼 (Rutger Bregman) 的《改變每個人的3個狂熱夢想》(Utopia for Realists: And How We Can Get There) ，作者多次提到王爾德，而他的那一篇〈社會主義下人的靈魂〉(The Soul of Man under Socialism) 長達1萬4千多字，卻是遲遲沒有認真讀過，也就無法整理出摘要。
話說《大英百科全書》(Encyclopædia Britannica) 關於 “anarchism” (無政府主義) 有這麼一段說明：
https://www.britannica.com/topic/anarchism/Anarchism-as-a-movement-1870-1940
In England, the Irish poet and dramatist Oscar Wilde declared himself an anarchist and, under Kropotkin’s inspiration, wrote the essay “The Soul of Man Under Socialism” (1891).
雖然大學時期讀過的克魯泡特金 (Kropotkin) 的那一本《無政府主義》早已在書櫃中雲深不知處，但經由王爾德的這一篇論文，總是可以勾起一點回憶。
這幾天終於下定決心讀完〈社會主義下人的靈魂〉，以下參照原文及《深淵書簡》附錄的中譯本，對照後進行摘要。
Ps. 在此，個人極力推薦《深淵書簡》(De Profundis)，這一本可以說是王爾德相當重要的作品。
Oscar Wilde Archive
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/
https://www.books.com.tw/products/0010747767
深淵書簡——王爾德獄中情書（全新中譯本，收錄首次中譯王爾德論社會主義與說謊兩文、紀德寫王爾德）
De Profundis
作者：王爾德
原文作者：Oscar Wilde
譯者：林步昇
出版社：麥田
出版日期：2017/04/01
語言：繁體中文
作者簡介
王爾德（Oscar Wilde，1854-1900）
十九世紀九十年代極富盛名的作家，創作領域包括詩、小說與戲劇，其中，唯一一部小說《格雷的畫像》首次發表於1890年，此後的散文〈社會主義下人的靈魂〉也極為成功，童話集《快樂王子與其他故事》，亦廣為人知。
王爾德因同性戀情入獄的遭遇，成為同志平權運動史上的重要指標；他於獄中撰寫的情書〈深淵書簡〉，句句流露出思考的哲學與人性處境，有人譽為「情書」，也有人指出，這是王爾德的「自我批判敍事」，「人性探索紀錄」，亦名列《衛報》百大名作。本書同時收錄〈社會主義下人的靈魂〉、〈說謊的式微〉，讀者將可全面理解王爾德寫作的美學與藝術高度。另從紀德寫〈我眼中的王爾德〉一文，目睹當代人對文豪的仰慕與嘆息，是見證歐陸美學運動精采人物的第一手紀錄。
【Excerpt】
Oscar Wilde 1891
The Soul of Manunder Socialism
王爾德 1891
〈社會主義下人的靈魂〉
The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody. In fact, scarcely anyone at all escapes.
Now and then, in the course of the century, a great man of science, like Darwin; a great poet, like Keats; a fine critical spirit, like M. Renan; a supreme artist, like Flaubert, has been able to isolate himself, to keep himself out of reach of the clamorous claims of others, to stand ‘under the shelter of the wall,’ as Plato puts it, and so to realise the perfection of what was in him, to his own incomparable gain, and to the incomparable and lasting gain of the whole world. These, however, are exceptions.
社會主義體制的最大優點，無疑是卸除了為他人而活的卑賤義務。現今社會中，我們被這項義務壓得喘不過氣，鮮少有人可以倖免。
誠然，本世紀不時仍有偉人的出現，舉凡科學家達爾文、詩人濟慈、評論家勒南、小說家福樓拜，都能離群索居，自外於眾人的喧囂，並如柏拉圖所言，站在「高牆的保護之下」，最後臻於自我實現，這不僅是個人空前的收穫，也為世人帶來長遠的卓越貢獻。然而，這些人終究是鳳毛麟角。
……
They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.
But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good; and at last we have had the spectacle of men who have really studied the problem and know the life – educated men who live in the East End – coming forward and imploring the community to restrain its altruistic impulses of charity, benevolence, and the like. They do so on the ground that such charity degrades and demoralises. They are perfectly right. Charity creates a multitude of sins.
舉例而言，一般人解決貧窮間題的方法，就是設法讓窮人不要餓死，或像某個先進的學派主張要討窮人開心。
但這根本解決不了問題，反而會惡化既有的困境。真正的目標應是致力重建社會，杜絕任何一絲貧窮的可能。但利他的美德卻阻礙了目標的實現。這就好比善待奴隸的奴隸主最不可取，這讓受苦的人無法察覺該制度的醜惡，也讓有意蓄奴的人難以理解其可怕。是故，就英格蘭現狀而言，傷害社會最深的人，正是致力於慈善的人。如今，我們終於看到真正通曉問題、深知生活現實的人——即住在貧窮倫敦東區的飽學之士——紛紛出來懇請大眾克制行善、慈悲等利他的衝動，理由是這會貶低自尊、傷風敗俗。他們所言甚是，慈善是萬惡的淵藪。
(……)
But it may be asked how Individualism, which is now more or less dependent on the existence of private property for its development, will benefit by the abolition of such private property. The answer is very simple. It is true that, under existing conditions, a few men who have had private means of their own, such as Byron, Shelley, Browning, Victor Hugo, Baudelaire, and others, have been able to realise their personality more or less completely. Not one of these men ever did a single day’s work for hire. They were relieved from poverty. They had an immense advantage. The question is whether it would be for the good of Individualism that such an advantage should be taken away. Let us suppose that it is taken away. What happens then to Individualism? How will it benefit?
It will benefit in this way. Under the new conditions Individualism will be far freer, far finer, and far more intensified than it is now. I am not talking of the great imaginatively-realised Individualism of such poets as I have mentioned, but of the great actual Individualism latent and potential in mankind generally. For the recognition of private property has really harmed Individualism, and obscured it, by confusing a man with what he possesses. It has led Individualism entirely astray. It has made gain not growth its aim. So that man thought that the important thing was to have, and did not know that the important thing is to be. The true perfection of man lies, not in what man has, but in what man is.
但也許有人會問：如今個體主義的發展，多少仰賴著私有財產制度，倘若真的廢除私有財產，怎麼可能裨益個體主義呢？答案很簡單。就當前情況而言，某些擁有私產的人士，諸如拜倫、雪萊、雨果、白朗寧、波特萊爾等人，確實能夠達到自我實現，唯有程度多寡的差別。他們不曾受雇做過一天苦工，也不曾嘗過貧窮的滋味，在社會上擁有極大優勢。問題在於，萬一這項優勢不再，是否有利於個體主義？姑且假設這項優勢被剝奪了，個體主義會產生什麽變化？又將從中獲得什麼益處？
所謂的益處就是：一旦取消私人財產制度，個體主義將遠比現在更加自由、更加完善和更加牢固。我所指的並非前述詩人於創意層面實踐的個體主義，而是潛藏於全人類中、真正偉大的個體主義。社會對私有財產的認可，使得個人被自身財富所迷惑，確實已損及個體主義，也蒙蔽其真正意涵。私有財產讓個體主義偏離正軌，獲利成為唯一目標，不再重視成長。人們誤以為追求財富是人生目標，孰不知活出自我才是關鍵。人類真正完美的狀態，並非取決於擁有什麼，而是在於本質為何。
……
With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.
只要廢除了私有財產制度，我們就會有美好又健全的個體主義，不會再有人浪費時間去攢積財物和相關象徵，反而能夠好好生活，這是世間最難能可貴的事；許多人只是活著，其餘一概不知。
(……)
And so he who would lead a Christlike life is he who is perfectly and absolutely himself. He may be a great poet, or a great man of science; or a young student at a University, or one who watches sheep upon a moor; or a maker of dramas, like Shakespeare, or a thinker about God, like Spinoza; or a child who plays in a garden, or a fisherman who throws his net into the sea. It does not matter what he is, as long as he realises the perfection of the soul that is within him. All imitation in morals and in life is wrong. Through the streets of Jerusalem at the present day crawls one who is mad and carries a wooden cross on his shoulders. He is a symbol of the lives that are marred by imitation. Father Damien was Christlike when he went out to live with the lepers, because in such service he realised fully what was best in him. But he was not more Christlike than Wagner when he realised his soul in music; or than Shelley, when he realised his soul in song. There is no one type for man. There are as many perfections as there are imperfect men. And while to the claims of charity a man may yield and yet be free, to the claims of conformity no man may yield and remain free at all.
因此，追隨基督腳步生活的人，是皆完完全全忠於自我的人。他們可能是偉大的詩人、科學家、大學生、曠野上的牧羊人，甚或劇作家莎士比亞、研究神學的哲人史賓諾沙、花園裡嬉戲的孩童、撒網入海的漁民等等，是誰並不重要，擁有完美的內在靈魂才是重點。道德或人生是不能模仿的。今日的耶路撒冷，有名患失心瘋的男子在街頭緩步拖行，肩上扛著木十字架，象徵因模仿而受害的生命。戴梅恩神父與麻瘋患者共同生活時，便已體現基督的精神，透過服務奉獻，展現美好的本性。不過同樣體現基督精神的還有作曲家華格納，他在音樂中揮灑自我；還有雪萊，他在詩歌中活岀靈魂。這並沒有單一模式可循。世上有多少個活出自我的靈魂，就有多少個抱持缺憾的靈魂。一般人即使投入慈善，仍可能保有心靈自由，但只要盲目從眾，就無法擁有自由了。
(……)
But the modern world has schemes. It proposes to do away with poverty and the suffering that it entails. It desires to get rid of pain, and the suffering that pain entails. It trusts to Socialism and to Science as its methods. What it aims at is an Individualism expressing itself through joy. This Individualism will be larger, fuller, lovelier than any Individualism has ever been. Pain is not the ultimate mode of perfection. It is merely provisional and a protest. It has reference to wrong, unhealthy, unjust surroundings. When the wrong, and the disease, and the injustice are removed, it will have no further place. It will have done its work. It was a great work, but it is almost over. Its sphere lessens every day.
Nor will man miss it. For what man has sought for is, indeed, neither pain nor pleasure, but simply Life. Man has sought to live intensely, fully, perfectly. When he can do so without exercising restraint on others, or suffering it ever, and his activities are all pleasurable to him, he will be saner, healthier, more civilised, more himself. Pleasure is Nature’s test, her sign of approval. When man is happy, he is in harmony with himself and his environment. The new Individualism, for whose service Socialism, whether it wills it or not, is working, will be perfect harmony. It will be what the Greeks sought for, but could not, except in Thought, realise completely, because they had slaves, and fed them; it will be what the Renaissance sought for, but could not realise completely except in Art, because they had slaves, and starved them. It will be complete, and through it each man will attain to his perfection. The new Individualism is the new Hellenism.
……但現代社會有許多的計畫：欲消弭貧窮，以及貧窮帶來的艱困；欲消除痛苦，以及伴隨痛苦的折磨；欲訴諸社會主義和科學，作為解決問題的良方。這些計畫的最終目標，就是要能透過幸福來表達個體價值，比過去涵蓋得更寬廣、更完滿也更為美好。痛苦並非實現自我的最終型態，僅僅是一時的個人抵抗。當一切寃屈、疾患和不公全都消除，痛苦也就會失去原本的地位；縱然痛苦成就了許多人，但終將步入歷史，影響也日漸縮小。
世人也不會緬懷痛苦，因其追求的既非痛苦亦非享樂，而是單純的人生，亦即活得認真、充實和美滿。任何人只要達到這個境界，不去干涉他人也不遭受箝制、任何活動都樂在其中，就會更加理智、健康、文明且貼近秉性。生活喜樂與否是上天對人的檢驗，也是祂表示認可的象徵。當人類活得快樂，就能跟自我與環境和睦共處。新的個體主義在社會主義的協助下，將會達到完全和諧的狀態。這將是希臘人夢寐以求的理想，卻因蓄養奴隸而難以企及，只能在思想上實現；這也是文藝復時期的理想，卻因任奴隸挨餓而功虧一簣，只能在藝術上實現。個體主義終將發展成熟，人人都能臻於自我實現。新的個體主義就是新的希臘精神。
A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.
未來世界的藍圖若沒納入鳥托邦，根本就不值一哂，因它是人類向來努力追求的國度。當人類抵達該地向外遠眺，望見更好的國度，方能再度啟航。進步就是實現鳥托邦的過程。
——王爾德，〈社會主義下人的靈魂〉
去年讀過羅格‧布雷格曼 (Rutger Bregman) 的《改變每個人的3個狂熱夢想》(Utopia for Realists: And How We Can Get There) ，作者多次提到王爾德，而他的那一篇〈社會主義下人的靈魂〉(The Soul of Man under Socialism) 長達1萬4千多字，卻是遲遲沒有認真讀過，也就無法整理出摘要。
話說《大英百科全書》(Encyclopædia Britannica) 關於 “anarchism” (無政府主義) 有這麼一段說明：
https://www.britannica.com/topic/anarchism/Anarchism-as-a-movement-1870-1940
In England, the Irish poet and dramatist Oscar Wilde declared himself an anarchist and, under Kropotkin’s inspiration, wrote the essay “The Soul of Man Under Socialism” (1891).
雖然大學時期讀過的克魯泡特金 (Kropotkin) 的那一本《無政府主義》早已在書櫃中雲深不知處，但經由王爾德的這一篇論文，總是可以勾起一點回憶。
這幾天終於下定決心讀完〈社會主義下人的靈魂〉，以下參照原文及《深淵書簡》附錄的中譯本，對照後進行摘要。
Ps. 在此，個人極力推薦《深淵書簡》(De Profundis)，這一本可以說是王爾德相當重要的作品。
Oscar Wilde Archive
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/
https://www.books.com.tw/products/0010747767
深淵書簡——王爾德獄中情書（全新中譯本，收錄首次中譯王爾德論社會主義與說謊兩文、紀德寫王爾德）
De Profundis
作者：王爾德
原文作者：Oscar Wilde
譯者：林步昇
出版社：麥田
出版日期：2017/04/01
語言：繁體中文
作者簡介
王爾德（Oscar Wilde，1854-1900）
十九世紀九十年代極富盛名的作家，創作領域包括詩、小說與戲劇，其中，唯一一部小說《格雷的畫像》首次發表於1890年，此後的散文〈社會主義下人的靈魂〉也極為成功，童話集《快樂王子與其他故事》，亦廣為人知。
王爾德因同性戀情入獄的遭遇，成為同志平權運動史上的重要指標；他於獄中撰寫的情書〈深淵書簡〉，句句流露出思考的哲學與人性處境，有人譽為「情書」，也有人指出，這是王爾德的「自我批判敍事」，「人性探索紀錄」，亦名列《衛報》百大名作。本書同時收錄〈社會主義下人的靈魂〉、〈說謊的式微〉，讀者將可全面理解王爾德寫作的美學與藝術高度。另從紀德寫〈我眼中的王爾德〉一文，目睹當代人對文豪的仰慕與嘆息，是見證歐陸美學運動精采人物的第一手紀錄。
【Excerpt】
Oscar Wilde 1891
The Soul of Manunder Socialism
王爾德 1891
〈社會主義下人的靈魂〉
The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody. In fact, scarcely anyone at all escapes.
Now and then, in the course of the century, a great man of science, like Darwin; a great poet, like Keats; a fine critical spirit, like M. Renan; a supreme artist, like Flaubert, has been able to isolate himself, to keep himself out of reach of the clamorous claims of others, to stand ‘under the shelter of the wall,’ as Plato puts it, and so to realise the perfection of what was in him, to his own incomparable gain, and to the incomparable and lasting gain of the whole world. These, however, are exceptions.
社會主義體制的最大優點，無疑是卸除了為他人而活的卑賤義務。現今社會中，我們被這項義務壓得喘不過氣，鮮少有人可以倖免。
誠然，本世紀不時仍有偉人的出現，舉凡科學家達爾文、詩人濟慈、評論家勒南、小說家福樓拜，都能離群索居，自外於眾人的喧囂，並如柏拉圖所言，站在「高牆的保護之下」，最後臻於自我實現，這不僅是個人空前的收穫，也為世人帶來長遠的卓越貢獻。然而，這些人終究是鳳毛麟角。
……
They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.
But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good; and at last we have had the spectacle of men who have really studied the problem and know the life – educated men who live in the East End – coming forward and imploring the community to restrain its altruistic impulses of charity, benevolence, and the like. They do so on the ground that such charity degrades and demoralises. They are perfectly right. Charity creates a multitude of sins.
舉例而言，一般人解決貧窮間題的方法，就是設法讓窮人不要餓死，或像某個先進的學派主張要討窮人開心。
但這根本解決不了問題，反而會惡化既有的困境。真正的目標應是致力重建社會，杜絕任何一絲貧窮的可能。但利他的美德卻阻礙了目標的實現。這就好比善待奴隸的奴隸主最不可取，這讓受苦的人無法察覺該制度的醜惡，也讓有意蓄奴的人難以理解其可怕。是故，就英格蘭現狀而言，傷害社會最深的人，正是致力於慈善的人。如今，我們終於看到真正通曉問題、深知生活現實的人——即住在貧窮倫敦東區的飽學之士——紛紛出來懇請大眾克制行善、慈悲等利他的衝動，理由是這會貶低自尊、傷風敗俗。他們所言甚是，慈善是萬惡的淵藪。
(……)
But it may be asked how Individualism, which is now more or less dependent on the existence of private property for its development, will benefit by the abolition of such private property. The answer is very simple. It is true that, under existing conditions, a few men who have had private means of their own, such as Byron, Shelley, Browning, Victor Hugo, Baudelaire, and others, have been able to realise their personality more or less completely. Not one of these men ever did a single day’s work for hire. They were relieved from poverty. They had an immense advantage. The question is whether it would be for the good of Individualism that such an advantage should be taken away. Let us suppose that it is taken away. What happens then to Individualism? How will it benefit?
It will benefit in this way. Under the new conditions Individualism will be far freer, far finer, and far more intensified than it is now. I am not talking of the great imaginatively-realised Individualism of such poets as I have mentioned, but of the great actual Individualism latent and potential in mankind generally. For the recognition of private property has really harmed Individualism, and obscured it, by confusing a man with what he possesses. It has led Individualism entirely astray. It has made gain not growth its aim. So that man thought that the important thing was to have, and did not know that the important thing is to be. The true perfection of man lies, not in what man has, but in what man is.
但也許有人會問：如今個體主義的發展，多少仰賴著私有財產制度，倘若真的廢除私有財產，怎麼可能裨益個體主義呢？答案很簡單。就當前情況而言，某些擁有私產的人士，諸如拜倫、雪萊、雨果、白朗寧、波特萊爾等人，確實能夠達到自我實現，唯有程度多寡的差別。他們不曾受雇做過一天苦工，也不曾嘗過貧窮的滋味，在社會上擁有極大優勢。問題在於，萬一這項優勢不再，是否有利於個體主義？姑且假設這項優勢被剝奪了，個體主義會產生什麽變化？又將從中獲得什麼益處？
所謂的益處就是：一旦取消私人財產制度，個體主義將遠比現在更加自由、更加完善和更加牢固。我所指的並非前述詩人於創意層面實踐的個體主義，而是潛藏於全人類中、真正偉大的個體主義。社會對私有財產的認可，使得個人被自身財富所迷惑，確實已損及個體主義，也蒙蔽其真正意涵。私有財產讓個體主義偏離正軌，獲利成為唯一目標，不再重視成長。人們誤以為追求財富是人生目標，孰不知活出自我才是關鍵。人類真正完美的狀態，並非取決於擁有什麼，而是在於本質為何。
……
With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.
只要廢除了私有財產制度，我們就會有美好又健全的個體主義，不會再有人浪費時間去攢積財物和相關象徵，反而能夠好好生活，這是世間最難能可貴的事；許多人只是活著，其餘一概不知。
(……)
And so he who would lead a Christlike life is he who is perfectly and absolutely himself. He may be a great poet, or a great man of science; or a young student at a University, or one who watches sheep upon a moor; or a maker of dramas, like Shakespeare, or a thinker about God, like Spinoza; or a child who plays in a garden, or a fisherman who throws his net into the sea. It does not matter what he is, as long as he realises the perfection of the soul that is within him. All imitation in morals and in life is wrong. Through the streets of Jerusalem at the present day crawls one who is mad and carries a wooden cross on his shoulders. He is a symbol of the lives that are marred by imitation. Father Damien was Christlike when he went out to live with the lepers, because in such service he realised fully what was best in him. But he was not more Christlike than Wagner when he realised his soul in music; or than Shelley, when he realised his soul in song. There is no one type for man. There are as many perfections as there are imperfect men. And while to the claims of charity a man may yield and yet be free, to the claims of conformity no man may yield and remain free at all.
因此，追隨基督腳步生活的人，是皆完完全全忠於自我的人。他們可能是偉大的詩人、科學家、大學生、曠野上的牧羊人，甚或劇作家莎士比亞、研究神學的哲人史賓諾沙、花園裡嬉戲的孩童、撒網入海的漁民等等，是誰並不重要，擁有完美的內在靈魂才是重點。道德或人生是不能模仿的。今日的耶路撒冷，有名患失心瘋的男子在街頭緩步拖行，肩上扛著木十字架，象徵因模仿而受害的生命。戴梅恩神父與麻瘋患者共同生活時，便已體現基督的精神，透過服務奉獻，展現美好的本性。不過同樣體現基督精神的還有作曲家華格納，他在音樂中揮灑自我；還有雪萊，他在詩歌中活岀靈魂。這並沒有單一模式可循。世上有多少個活出自我的靈魂，就有多少個抱持缺憾的靈魂。一般人即使投入慈善，仍可能保有心靈自由，但只要盲目從眾，就無法擁有自由了。
(……)
But the modern world has schemes. It proposes to do away with poverty and the suffering that it entails. It desires to get rid of pain, and the suffering that pain entails. It trusts to Socialism and to Science as its methods. What it aims at is an Individualism expressing itself through joy. This Individualism will be larger, fuller, lovelier than any Individualism has ever been. Pain is not the ultimate mode of perfection. It is merely provisional and a protest. It has reference to wrong, unhealthy, unjust surroundings. When the wrong, and the disease, and the injustice are removed, it will have no further place. It will have done its work. It was a great work, but it is almost over. Its sphere lessens every day.
Nor will man miss it. For what man has sought for is, indeed, neither pain nor pleasure, but simply Life. Man has sought to live intensely, fully, perfectly. When he can do so without exercising restraint on others, or suffering it ever, and his activities are all pleasurable to him, he will be saner, healthier, more civilised, more himself. Pleasure is Nature’s test, her sign of approval. When man is happy, he is in harmony with himself and his environment. The new Individualism, for whose service Socialism, whether it wills it or not, is working, will be perfect harmony. It will be what the Greeks sought for, but could not, except in Thought, realise completely, because they had slaves, and fed them; it will be what the Renaissance sought for, but could not realise completely except in Art, because they had slaves, and starved them. It will be complete, and through it each man will attain to his perfection. The new Individualism is the new Hellenism.
……但現代社會有許多的計畫：欲消弭貧窮，以及貧窮帶來的艱困；欲消除痛苦，以及伴隨痛苦的折磨；欲訴諸社會主義和科學，作為解決問題的良方。這些計畫的最終目標，就是要能透過幸福來表達個體價值，比過去涵蓋得更寬廣、更完滿也更為美好。痛苦並非實現自我的最終型態，僅僅是一時的個人抵抗。當一切寃屈、疾患和不公全都消除，痛苦也就會失去原本的地位；縱然痛苦成就了許多人，但終將步入歷史，影響也日漸縮小。
世人也不會緬懷痛苦，因其追求的既非痛苦亦非享樂，而是單純的人生，亦即活得認真、充實和美滿。任何人只要達到這個境界，不去干涉他人也不遭受箝制、任何活動都樂在其中，就會更加理智、健康、文明且貼近秉性。生活喜樂與否是上天對人的檢驗，也是祂表示認可的象徵。當人類活得快樂，就能跟自我與環境和睦共處。新的個體主義在社會主義的協助下，將會達到完全和諧的狀態。這將是希臘人夢寐以求的理想，卻因蓄養奴隸而難以企及，只能在思想上實現；這也是文藝復時期的理想，卻因任奴隸挨餓而功虧一簣，只能在藝術上實現。個體主義終將發展成熟，人人都能臻於自我實現。新的個體主義就是新的希臘精神。
自訂分類：Selected & Extracts
你可能會有興趣的文章：
限會員,要發表迴響,請先登入
