【耶魯大學公開課】古希臘歷史::[第1集] 介紹 _

現在我要問你一個問題 為什麼你會在這裡? 也就是說,為什麼我們所有人都要去研究這些古老的基督徒? 我覺得這是合理的 對於一些人,他們正在考慮研究某個題目的學生 他們可以去問為什麼他們要去研究 這是關於什麼? 這是關於我之前提到的那些古老的基督徒 他們值得21世紀人民的關注 我認為,答案必須找到,至少要找到一個答案 事實上,有許多答案,但有些答案 實在太有趣了 但這對我來說,是一個 什麼叫做我想要的? 是一個相反的目標 是一個對我來說的觀察 所以,我會說一個比較不具體的 我認為,這來自於他們的立場 也就是說,對於古老的基督徒來說 這是西方文明的最重要的開始點 這也是西方文明最有力地形成 不僅是西方文明,而是全世界的文明 我認為,這很明顯 無論西方文明的其他特徵 西方文明創造了政府和法律 為人民提供了不可預期的自由 它還創造了一種自然的 科學知識和技術成就 共同創造了早期的健康和物質繁榮 和不可預期的西方文明 我認為,諾貝爾獎頒獎者V.S.Nipaul 一個在印度父母的 在印度父母的 在他提到現代世界的時候 他提到,我們是由西方文明主導形成的 世界上最多的人,他們都知道 他們希望利用西方科學和技術成就 很多人都希望參與他們的政治自由 此外,經驗顯示 社會無法獲得西方科學和技術的豐富益處 如果沒有理由和目標的承諾 與知識的重要性 與它保持的政治自由 並幫助它前進 理由和目標的主要性 因此 西方經驗的兩個特點 似乎對我而言 是世界上幾乎任何地方都需要達到目標的 然而 這並不是一些必要的過程 通過其他文化自行通過的結果 它出自一個獨特的歷史 在這些機會和事件中 經常扮演着重要的角色 因此 這些制度和概念 爲了自由和改善 人類的物質狀態提供的資源 無法栩栩如生 沒有了解它們的起源 以及它們遭遇的挑戰 不屬於西方的民族 想要分享的 具有現代性特徵的東西 必須研究西方文明的概念和歷史 才能達到他們想要的目標 而西方人 我認爲 想要保存這些東西 必須做相同的事情 人類採用的許多文明 有共同的基本特徵 大多數都傾向文化均衡和穩定 理由 雖然在這些文化中 它們採用了各種實際和智慧的方式 但仍然缺乏宗教的獨立性 並缺乏高級的狀態 去挑戰最基本的收到的想法 政府的基本形式 曾經是帝國 在西方 共和國仍然是未知的 領導人 曾經被認爲是神傳 或被宣佈爲神傳的領導人 宗教和政治統治 和信仰 已經完全融合 成爲一個互相支持的統一架架 政府 並沒有受到 宗教理念的分析 而是依靠宗教權力 傳統和力量 個人自由的概念 在人類歷史上 人類經歷過的 最初和最嚴肅的 人類經歷 是在古代的俄羅斯 俄羅斯的城市 叫做普雷斯 是一個國家 他們的國家 和他們的民族 並不大 沒有皇帝 有資源 招募奴役兵 所以民族 必須決定 自己的決鬥時機 作爲公共安全 和公共利益的 他們需要扮演 最重要的政治決策 這樣 第一次 政治生涯 實際上 被髮明 被觀察到 政治語言 來自於 俄羅斯語言 polis 在此之前 沒有語言是需要的 因爲沒有 這樣的東西 這種政治生涯 是由 相對大部分人 而政治生涯的 是俄羅斯人 這樣的國家 當然 不需要 紀律 因爲沒有 巨大的 皇帝 或者 國家的 管理 並沒有 太多的經濟 供應 一個 紀律的 組織 沒有 一個 僧侯的 並沒有 太多的 擔憂 我不是說 沒有擔憂 但是沒有 太多的擔憂 關於 生死之後 這是 其他 文明 中 其他 文明 界限 中 首次 出現 一種 假設的 自然 哲學 基於 觀察 而且 理由 的 現代人 自然 語言 和 哲學 的 即可 調查 或者 儘量 阻擋 大多數將基督徒分開的 是他們對世界的觀點 在其他人眼中的平靜和持續 基督徒和他們的思想風格 經常會注意到分歧 並且做出分別 基督徒看待事情的方式 需要改變 從基督徒以前 知道事情的特殊方式 也就是信仰、詩詞和意識的使用 而不是基督徒更加依賴理論 理論允許持續的理性思考 進入現實的本質 相反的神祕觀點 科學理論 不僅僅是靜修 而是需要世界的準確觀察 以及其他人類 可以批評、分析、改變和正確的理論 這種思考方式的採用 是基督徒對理論的 釋放和奉獻的開始 從那時開始 基督徒對理論的 探索和審查 都展現出了他們所看到的一切 自然、人類和神明 從他們建立他們的國家 直到他們被外星帝國攻略 基督徒也拒絕了任何類型的帝國 他們認為一個人類 能夠運作到最佳的狀態 必須活在一個自由的人類 在一個自由的佈局 擁有法律 是政治社會的產品 而不是某個人或神的虛擬貨幣 這些都是法律和正義的概念 在西方傳統之外 根本沒有發展 直到在西方傳統之外 受到西方的影響 基督徒然而 融合了人類的 自然的高地 基督徒對神明的 最自豪的看法 我稍後會講解 他們對我所認識的任何人 一方面 他們對人類的高地 看起來非常自豪 另一方面 他們融合了人類 以前擁有的可能性 他們融合了 他們對人類 可能性和偉大性的 限制和理解 這個組合 把人類的 現實的偉大性 和可能性 融合了它們的限制 最高的限制 就是死亡 這個組合 組織了人類的 悲慘的視野 形容了 古代的 基督教文明 為了應對它們 他們要求人類 放棄他們的 過度的願望 寫在 Apollo的教堂 Delphi 成為了 俄羅斯人稱之為 宇宙的航空母艦 但它成為了 俄羅斯世界的中心 也被視為 非俄羅斯人 尊重的中心 在俄羅斯世界的邊緣 Delphi的教堂 上面寫了 這句話 知自己 另一句 沒有過度的 我認為 這些組合 真正的意思是 知道自己的限制 如同死亡 然後 進行針對 因為你不是神 你是死亡 在這句話之外 他們依賴了 一個好的政治系統 讓人類能夠 達到他們的能力 這些都是他們的本質 要訓練他們 以德 阻止他們 從惡心中脫離 亞里斯塔特在他的政治上 說得非常明確 作為一個人 我抱歉 作為一個人 當他完美時 他也是最糟糕的時候 他分開了 從法律和正義 而不公平 The justice is most dangerous when it is armed, and man, armed by nature with good sense and virtue, may use them for entirely opposite ends. Therefore, when he is without virtue, man is the most unscrupulous and savage of the animals. Aristotle went on to say that the justice needed to control this dark side of human nature can be found only in a well-ordered society of free people who govern themselves, and the only one that he knew was the polis of the Greeks. The second great strand in the history of the West is the Judeo-Christian tradition, a very different tradition from the one I have just described. Christianity's main roots were in Judaism, a religion that worshipped a single all-powerful deity who is sharply separated from human beings, makes great moral demands upon them, and judges them all, even kings and emperors. Christianity began as a persecuted religion that ultimately captured the Roman Empire only after centuries of hostility towards the empire, towards Rome, towards the secular state in general. It never lost entirely its original character as an insurgent movement, independent of the state and hostile to it, making claims that challenged the secular authority. This too is unique to the West. Just like the Greek experience is unique, this kind of religious organization is to be found nowhere else in human society. So, the union of a universalist religion with a monarch such as the Roman Empire, who ruled a vast empire, could nonetheless have put an end to any prospect of freedom as in other civilizations. Well, the people whom the Romans called barbarians destroyed the Western Empire, and it also destroyed the power of the emperors and their efforts to impose religious and political conformity under imperial control. The emperor in the East was able to do that because they were not conquered by the barbarians, but in the West you have this situation where nobody is fully in charge. And here we have arrived at a second sharp break with the general experience of mankind. The West of the Germanic tribes that had toppled the Roman Empire was weak and it was divided. The barriers to unity presented by European geography and very limited technology made it hard for a would-be conqueror to create a vast empire, eliminating competitors and imposing his will over vast areas. The Christian church might have stepped into the breach and imposed obedience and uniformity because before terribly long all of the West had been Christianized. But the church, in fact, never gained enough power to control the state. Strong enough to interfere with the ambitions of emperors and kings, it never was able to impose its own domination, though some of the popes sure tried. Nobody sought or planned for freedom, but in the spaces that were left by the endless conflicts among secular rulers and between them and the church, there was room for freedom to grow. Freedom was a kind of an accident that came about because the usual ways of doing things were not possible. Into some of that space, towns and cities reappeared and with them new supports for freedom. Taking advantage of the rivalries I've mentioned, they obtained charters from the local powers establishing their rights to conduct their own affairs and to govern themselves. In Italy, some of these cities were able to gain control of the surrounding country and to become city-states resembling those of the ancient Greeks. Their autonomy was assisted by the continuing struggle between popes and emperors, between church and state. Again, a thoroughly unique Western experience. In these states, the modern world began to take form. Although the people were mainly Christians, their life and outlook became increasingly secular. Here, and not only in Italy, but in other cities north of the Alps, arose a worldview that celebrated the greatness and dignity of mankind, which was a very sharp turning away from the medieval Western tradition that put God and life in the hereafter at the center of everything. This new vision is revealed with flamboyant confidence by Pico della Mirandola, a Florentine thinker, who wrote the following, God told man that we, meaning God, have made thee neither of heaven nor of earth, neither mortal nor immortal, so that with freedom of choice and with honor, as though the maker and molder of thyself, thou mayest fashion thyself in whatever shape thou shall prefer. O supreme generosity of God the Father! O highest and the most great felicity of man! To him it is granted to have whatever he chooses, to be whatever he wills. Now this is a remarkable leap, even beyond the humanism of the Greeks, something brand new in the world. According to this view, man is not merely the measure of all things as the Greek sophist protagonist had radically proclaimed in the 5th century. He is, in fact, says Pico, more than mortal. He is unlimited by nature. He is entirely free to shape himself and to acquire whatever he wants. Please observe, too, that it is not his reason that will determine human actions, but his will alone, free of the moderating control of reason. Another Florentine, Machiavelli, moved further in the same direction. For him, and I quote him, fortune is a woman, and it is necessary to hold her down and beat her and fight with her. A notion that the Greeks would have regarded as dangerously arrogant and certain to produce disaster. They would have seen this as an example of the word that they use, and we'll talk about a lot in this course, hubris. This kind of violent arrogance which comes upon men when they see themselves as more than human and behave as though they were divine. Francis Bacon, influenced by Machiavelli, urged human beings to employ their reason to force nature to give up its secrets, to treat nature like a woman, to master nature in order to improve man's material well-being. He assumed that such a course would lead to progress and the general improvement of the human condition, and it was that sort of thinking that lay at the heart of the scientific revolution and remains the faith on which modern science and technology rest. A couple of other English political philosophers, Hobbes and Locke, applied a similar novelty and modernity to the sphere of politics, basing their understanding on the common passions of man for a comfortable self-preservation and discovering something the Greeks had never thought of, something they called natural rights, that belonged to a man either as part of nature or as the gift of a benevolent and reasonable God. Man was seen as a solitary creature, not inherently a part of society. That's totally un-Greek. And his basic rights were seen to be absolute, for nothing must interfere with the right of each individual to defend his life, liberty, and property. Freedom was threatened in early modern times by the emergence of monarchies that might have been able to crush it, but the cause of individual freedom was enhanced by the Protestant Reformation. Another upheaval within Christianity arising from its focus on individual salvation, its inheritance of a tradition of penetrating reason, applied even to matters of faith, and to the continuing struggle between church and state. The English Revolution came about in large part because of King Charles I's attempt to impose an alien religious conformity, as well as tighter political control on his kingdom. But in England, the tradition of freedom and government bound by law was already strong enough to produce effective resistance. From the ensuing rebellion came limited constitutional representative government, and ultimately our modern form of democracy. The example and the ideas it produced encouraged and informed the French and the American revolutions, and the entire modern constitutional tradition. These ideas and institutions are the basis for modern liberal thinking about politics, the individual, and society. Just as the confident view of science and technology as progressive forces improving the lot of humanity and increasing man's capacity to understand and control the universe, has been the most powerful form taken by the western elevation of reason. In the last two centuries, both these most characteristic elements of western civilization have in fact become increasingly under heavy attack. At different times, science and technology have been blamed for the destruction of human community and the alienation of people from nature and from one another, for intensifying the gulf between rich and poor, for threatening the very existence of humanity, either by producing weapons of total destruction or by destroying the environment. At the same time, the foundations of freedom have also come into question. Jefferson and his colleagues could confidently proclaim their political rights as being self-evident and the gift of a creator. By now, in our time, however, the power of religion has faded, and for many, the basis of modern political and moral order has been demolished. Nietzsche announced the death of God, and Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor asserted that when God is dead, all things are permitted. Nihilism rejects any objective basis for society and its morality. It rejects the very concept of objectivity. It even rejects the possibility of communication itself, and a vulgar form of nihilism, I claim, has a remarkable influence in our educational system today, the system rotting from the head down, so chiefly in universities, but all the way down to elementary schools. The consequences of the victory of such ideas, I believe, would be enormous. If both religion and reason are removed, all that remains is will and power, where the only law is the law of tooth and claw. There is no protection for the freedom of weaker individuals, or those who question the authority of the most powerful. There is no basis for individual rights, or for a critique of existing ideas and institutions, if there is no base either in religion or in reason. That such attacks on the greatest achievements of the West should be made by Western intellectuals is perfectly in keeping with the Western tradition. The first crowd to do stuff like that you will find in the 5th century B.C. in Greece, in a movement called the Sophistic Movement. These sophists raised most of the questions that my colleagues are now spending all their time with now. Yet,to me it seems ironic that they have gained so much currency in a time, more or less, in which the achievements of Western reason in the form of science and at a moment when its concept of political freedom seem to be more popular and more desirable to people in and out of Western civilization than ever. Now,I've been saying kind things about Western civilization, but I would not want to deny that there is a dark side to the Western experience and its way of life. To put untrammeled reason and individual freedom at the center of a civilization is to live with the conflict, the turmoil, the instability and the uncertainty that these things create. Freedom was born and has survived in the space created by divisions and conflict within and between nations and religions. We must wonder whether the power of modern weapons will allow it and the world to survive at such a price. Individual freedom, although it has greatly elevated the condition of the people who have lived in free societies, inevitably permits inequalities which are the more galling because each person is plainly free to try to improve his situation and largely responsible for the outcome. Freedom does permit isolation from society and an alienation of the individual at a high cost both to the individual and society. These are not the only problems posed by the Western tradition in its modern form, which is what we live in. Whether it takes the shape of the unbridled claims of Pico della Mirandola of the Nietzschean assertion of the power of the superior individual to transform and shape his own nature or of the modern totalitarian effort to change the nature of humanity by utopian social engineering. The temptation to arrogance offered by the ideas and worldly success of the modern West threatens its own great traditions and achievements. Because of Western civilization's emergence as the exemplary civilization, it also presents problems to the whole world. The challenges presented by freedom and the predominance of reason cannot be ignored nor can they be met by recourse to the experience of other cultures where these characteristics have not been prominent. In other words, to understand and cope with the problems that we all face, we all need to know and to grapple with the Western experience.In my view, we need especially to examine the older traditions of the West that came before the modern era and to take seriously the possibility that useful wisdom can be found there, especially among the Greeks who began it all. They understood the potentiality of human beings, their limitations, and the predicament in which they live. Man is potent and important, yet he is fallible and mortal, capable of the greatest achievements and the worst crimes. He is then a tragic figure, powerful but limited, with freedom to choose and act, but bound by his own nature, knowing that he will never achieve perfect knowledge and understanding, justice and happiness, but determined to continue the search, no matter what. To me, that seems an accurate description of the human condition that is meaningful, not only for the Greeks and their heirs in the West, but for all human beings. It is an understanding that cannot be achieved without a serious examination of the Western experience. The abandonment of such a study or its adulteration for current political purposes would be a terrible loss for all of humanity. At the base, at the root of that civilization stood the Greeks. These are the reasons why I examine their experience and I trust why you are thinking about learning about it. Thank you. I'll see you guys, some of you, next Tuesday.