中英對(duì)照文本

譯校：FungChuh

Modern science, medicine, political freedom, the market economy—all of them, we’re told, are the result of a sort of miracle that took place 250 years ago. That miracle is called the Enlightenment, a moment in history when philosophers suddenly overthrew religious dogma and tradition and replaced it with human reason. Harvard professor Steven Pinker puts it this way: “Progress is a gift of the ideals of the Enlightenment.” 

現(xiàn)代科學(xué)，醫(yī)學(xué)，政治自由，市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)——我們被告知它們?nèi)慷际前l(fā)生在 250 年前的某個(gè)奇跡的結(jié)果。這個(gè)奇跡被稱為啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)，在歷史上的這一個(gè)時(shí)刻，哲學(xué)家們突然拋棄了宗教信條和傳統(tǒng)，并以人類理性取代了它。哈佛教授史蒂芬·平克這樣說：「進(jìn)步是啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)理念的禮物。」

There’s just one problem with this claim. It isn’t really true.

這個(gè)說法只有一個(gè)問題。它其實(shí)不是真的。

Consider the U.S. Constitution, which is frequently said to be a product of Enlightenment thought. But you only need to read about English common law—which Alexander Hamilton and James Madison certainly did—to see that this isn’t so. Already in the 15th-century, the English jurist John Fortescue elaborated the theory of “checks and balances,” due process, and the role of private property in securing individual freedom and economic prosperity. Similarly, the U.S. Bill of Rights has its sources in English common law of the 1600s.

想一下美國(guó)憲法，它經(jīng)常被認(rèn)為是啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)思想的產(chǎn)物。但你只需要閱讀一下英國(guó)普通法——亞歷山大·漢密爾頓和詹姆斯·麥迪遜的確讀過——就知道事實(shí)并非如此。早在十五世紀(jì)，英國(guó)法學(xué)家約翰·福蒂斯丘就闡述過「制約與平衡」理論、正當(dāng)程序，以及私有產(chǎn)權(quán)在保障個(gè)人自由和經(jīng)濟(jì)繁榮的作用。同樣地，美國(guó)權(quán)利法案的根源可追溯至 1600 年代的英國(guó)普通法。

Or consider modern science and medicine. Long before the Enlightenment, tradition-bound English kings sponsored path-breaking scientific institutions such as the Royal College of Physicians, founded in 1518, and the Royal Society of London, founded in 1660.

或是想想現(xiàn)代科學(xué)和醫(yī)學(xué)。早在啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)以前，擁護(hù)傳統(tǒng)的英國(guó)國(guó)王就資助開創(chuàng)性的科研機(jī)構(gòu)，例如成立于 1518 年的皇家內(nèi)科醫(yī)學(xué)院，還有成立于 1660 年的倫敦皇家學(xué)會(huì)。

The truth is that statesmen and philosophers, especially in England and the Netherlands, articulated the principles of free government centuries before America was founded.

事實(shí)是政治家和哲學(xué)家們，尤其是英國(guó)和荷蘭的，在美國(guó)建國(guó)數(shù)世紀(jì)以前就清楚表述過自由政治的原則。

So why give the Enlightenment all the credit? Apparently because it doesn’t look good to admit that the best and most important parts of modernity were given to us by individuals who nearly all held conservative religious and political beliefs.

那么，為什么把一切都?xì)w功于啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)呢？顯然，是因?yàn)槲覀儾缓贸姓J(rèn)現(xiàn)代最好和最重要的部分是幾乎都持有保守主義宗教及政治信仰的人帶給我們的。

The claim that all good things come from the Enlightenment is most closely associated with the late-18th-century German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. For Kant, reason is universal, infallible, and independent of experience. 

與所有好事物都來自啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)這一說法關(guān)系最密切的是 18 世紀(jì)晚期的德國(guó)哲學(xué)家，伊曼努爾·康德。在康德看來，理性是普遍的，不可能出錯(cuò)的，并且是獨(dú)立于經(jīng)驗(yàn)的。

His extraordinarily dogmatic philosophy insisted that there can be only one correct answer to every question in science, morality and politics. And that to reach the one correct answer, mankind had to free itself from the chains of the past—that is, from history, tradition and experience.

他極其教條式的哲學(xué)堅(jiān)稱，對(duì)于所有科學(xué)、道德與政治問題，都只能有唯一一個(gè)正確答案。而為了得出那唯一的正確答案，人類必須擺脫過去的枷鎖——即是，擺脫歷史，傳統(tǒng)和經(jīng)驗(yàn)。

But this Enlightenment view is not only wrong, it’s dangerous. Human reason, when cut loose from the constraints imposed by history, tradition and experience, produces a lot of crazy notions.

但這種啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)觀點(diǎn)不僅是錯(cuò)誤的，它也是危險(xiǎn)的。人類理性，如果擺脫了歷史，傳統(tǒng)與經(jīng)驗(yàn)的約束，會(huì)產(chǎn)生很多瘋狂的觀念。

The abstract Enlightenment philosophy of Jean Jacques Rousseau is a good example. It quickly pulled down the French state, leading to the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, and the Napoleonic Wars. Millions died as Napoleon’s armies sought to rebuild every government in Europe in light of the one correct political theory he believed was permitted by Enlightenment philosophy.

讓-雅克·盧梭的抽象啟蒙哲學(xué)就是個(gè)好例子。它很快推翻了法國(guó)政府，帶來了法國(guó)大革命，雅各賓專政和拿破侖戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。數(shù)百萬人因拿破侖軍隊(duì)試圖重建歐洲所有政府而喪生。全是由于拿破侖所相信受啟蒙哲學(xué)認(rèn)可的唯一正確的政治理論。 

Today’s cheerleaders for the Enlightenment tend to skip this part of the story. They also pass over the fact that the father of communism, Karl Marx, saw himself as promoting universal reason as well. His new “science” of economics ended up killing tens of millions of people in the 20th century. So did the supposedly scientific race theories of the Nazis. The greatest catastrophes of modernity were engineered by individuals who claimed to be exercising reason.

今天的啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)擁護(hù)者會(huì)避開這部分故事。他們也會(huì)避而不談一個(gè)事實(shí)，共產(chǎn)主義之父，卡爾·馬克思，也自稱自己是在促進(jìn)普遍理性。他的新經(jīng)濟(jì)「科學(xué)」最終導(dǎo)致 20 世紀(jì)數(shù)以千萬人的死亡。同樣的還有納粹所謂科學(xué)的種族理論。現(xiàn)代化的最大災(zāi)難是由自稱在實(shí)踐理性的人帶來的。

In contrast, most of the progress we’ve made comes from conservative traditions openly skeptical of human reason. The Enlightenment’s critics, including John Selden, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Edmund Burke, emphasized the unreliability of “abstract reasoning” and urged us to stick close to custom, history, and experience in all things.

相反，我們?nèi)〉玫拇蠖鄶?shù)進(jìn)步來自于公開質(zhì)疑人類理性的保守主義傳統(tǒng)。啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)的批評(píng)者們，其中包括約翰·塞爾登，大衛(wèi)·休謨，亞當(dāng)·斯密和埃德蒙·伯克，強(qiáng)調(diào)「抽象推理」的不可靠性，并極力主張我們?cè)谒惺虑樯暇o遵習(xí)俗，歷史和經(jīng)驗(yàn)。

Which brings us to the heart of what’s wrong with today’s idolization of the Enlightenment. Its leading figures were not skeptics open to what history and experience might teach us.

由此帶我們來到今天對(duì)啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)的偶像化問題的核心。它的領(lǐng)軍人物們不是懷疑論者，不會(huì)重視歷史和經(jīng)驗(yàn)的可能帶給我們的教訓(xùn)。

Their aim was to create their own system of supposedly infallible truths independent of experience. And in that pursuit, they were as rigid as the most dogmatic medievals.

他們的目的是建立自己所謂獨(dú)立于經(jīng)驗(yàn)的，不可能出錯(cuò)的真理體系。在這一追求中，他們就和最迷信教條的中世紀(jì)人一樣頑固。

Anglo-Scottish conservatives had a very different goal. They defended national and religious tradition, even as they cultivated what they called a “moderate skepticism”—a combination that became known as “common sense.”

盎格魯蘇格蘭保守主義者有個(gè)非常不一樣的目標(biāo)。他們捍衛(wèi)民族與宗教傳統(tǒng)，同時(shí)他們培育了自己所稱的「溫和懷疑主義」——兩者的結(jié)合在后來被稱為「常識(shí)」。

I think a lot about common sense these days, as I see American and European elites clamoring for “Enlightenment Now.” They rush to embrace every fashionable new “ism”—socialism, feminism, environmentalism, and so on—declaring them to be universal certainties and the only “politically correct” way of thinking. They display contempt towards those who won’t embrace their dogmas, branding them “unenlightened,” “illiberal,” “deplorable,” and worse.

我這些天常常在思考常識(shí)，因?yàn)槲铱吹矫绹?guó)和歐洲精英們叫喊著「當(dāng)下的啟蒙」。他們迫不及待地?fù)肀袝r(shí)髦的新「主義」——社會(huì)主義，女權(quán)主義，環(huán)保主義，等等等等——宣稱自己是普遍確定的，是唯一「政治正確」的思考方式。他們對(duì)那些不接受他們教條的人嗤之以鼻，罵他們是「未開化的」，「狹隘的」，「可悲的」，甚至更糟的。

But these new dogmas deserve to be greeted with some of that old Anglo-Scottish skepticism.

但這些新的教條也值得以古老的盎格魯蘇格蘭懷疑主義眼光看待。

Enlightenment overconfidence in reason has led us badly astray too many times.

啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)對(duì)理性的過分自信太多次帶我們走向歧途。

I’m Yoram Hazony, author of The Virtue of Nationalism, for Prager University.

我是尤倫·哈佐尼，The Virtue of Nationalism 的作者，為 PragerU 制作。