巴岱伊論尼采 31

Bataille 31

Bataille on Nietzsche
巴岱伊論尼采 31
PART II
Summit and Decline
巔峰與衰微
XII
And again and again the human species claimed, ‘We definitely don’t have the right to just laugh at anything!” And the most prescient philosophers added, “Not just laughter and joyful prudence, but tragedy and sublime folly too, are among the means and necessities of preserving the species.”–This is consistent!–it follows!
— Gay Science
反復再三,人類的種族宣稱,「我們明確沒有權利對任何事情歡笑!」具有先知之見的哲學家補充說:「不僅是歡笑及歡喜的謹慎,而且悲劇與崇高的愚蠢,都是為了延續人類種族的工具及必需物。」–這是一致性!—它順理成章!
—尼采:歡愉的智慧

MORAL AMBIGUITIES constitute a fairly stable system of equilibrium regarded from the standpoint of existence generally. But we can never completely go back to them. Who would deny that self sacrifice has a place in the scheme of things? Should we be surprised if that involves compromise with well-understood common interests? Still, the existence of morality and the confusion generated by it extend my investigation far beyond such an immediate outlook. In the lengthy and preceding considerations, I don’t know if I’ve made it sufficiently clear how lacerating this last investigation has been. I’ll now develop a viewpoint that, though external to the simple questions I wanted to introduce, nonetheless brings out their implications.

道德的曖昧性組成一個非常穩定的平衡系統,從一般的生命存在的觀點來看。但是我們永遠不會完全回到它們。有誰將會否認:自我犧牲在這些事情的規劃上,佔有一席之地?假如那牽涉到跟大家耳熟能詳的共同利益的妥協,我們應該感到驚奇嗎?雖然如此,道德的存在及被它產生的混淆,將我的探討延伸超越如此當下的觀點。在漫長而在先的考量,我並不知道我是否充分地表達清楚,這個最後的探討始終是裂痕重重。我現在將會發展一個觀點,雖然是外在於我想要介紹的簡單的問題。可是,這個問題顯露它們的內涵。
As long as the excessive impulses to which desire leads can be linked to useful actions or considered to be such (useful, that is, for individuals in decline, who are reduced to the necessity of accumulating strength), there was a way to fulfill the desire for a summit. Thus people of other times made sacrifices, even indulged in orgies while attributing to sacrifice and orgy an efficacy of action that would act to benefit the clan or the state.

只要欲望導致的這些過度的衝動,能夠被連接到有用的行動,或是被認為是這樣(也就是,對於衰微中的個人有用,因為他們被淪落到有必要累積力量),有一個方法滿足想要到達顛峰的欲望。因此,其他時代的人們從事犧性,甚至放縱於狂歡,一方面,又將行動的效率歸功於犧性與狂歡。這個行動的被採取,是為了利益民族或國家。

Any violation of others, like war, possesses a beneficial value so long as it finds success–and rightly so. Beyond narrow, visibly heavy-handed, egotistical political benefits, and despite the possibilities of individual self-sacrifice, the inequities in the division of state wealth (arising from disorder) made people seek some good that would accord with the feeling for justice. Beyond the egotistical state good, salvation (or the concern for personal salvation after death) became the motivation for action and, as well, the means to link action to an ascent to the summit and to a surpassing of self.

其他種類的違背,譬如戰爭,都擁有一個美麗的價值,只有它獲得成功—而且還振振有詞。它超越偏狹的明目張膽的壓制,自體中心的政治利益,儘管個人自我犧牲的可能性,在國家區分的不平等(起源於混亂),會使人們尋求某種的善,以符合正義的感覺。因為超越自體中心的國家的善,救贖就成為行動的動機(或是對於死亡之後的個人救贖的關心),而且也是這個工具,用以連接行動跟到達顛峰的攀登,及自我的超越。

In a general way, personal salvation allowed escape from the lacerations breaking down society. Injustice became tolerable. It allowed the possibility of appeal, and people even began joining together in their effort to fight the results of injustice. Beyond the specific goods considered to be so many motives for action by the state and then the Church (the Church in turn becoming the analog for the state, so that during the Crusades people will die for it), the possibility of radically abolishing the obstacle created by unequal conditions defined a sort of beneficial action and motivated the sacririce of lives.

一般來說,個人的救贖容許從撕裂社會的這些裂痕逃避出來。不公平變得讓人無法忍受。不公平要容許人申訴,人們甚至開始團結在一起,努力去戰鬥不公平的結果。超越被國家及教會認為是行動的許多動機的這些明確的善,(教會反過來成為國家電類似物,所以在十字軍東征時,人們願意為它而死,)不平等情況創造的阻礙,有可能予以強烈地廢除,定義了某種利益的行動,並且激發生命的犧牲。

So throughout history–and in the process of making history–there developed reasons to proceed to the summit and risk ourselves. The difficulty beyond this is to proceed to the summit without motivation and without pretext. As I said, to speak of the summit is to put ourselves in a position of instability. We only discover it by speaking of something else.

有史以來—在創造歷史的過程—要繼續到達顛峰及自我冒險的理由,被發展出來。超越這一點的困難,是要繼續到達顛峰,沒有動機及沒有藉口。如我所說,談論顛峰,就是要將我們自己放置在不穩定的立場。我們憑藉談論某件其他東西,才能發現它。

To put it another way. Because all risk, ascent, and sacrifice, like sensual excess, is loss of strength or expenditure, we have to motivate expenditures each time with promises of advantage, whether illusory or not.

換另外一種方式說,因為所有的冒險,攀登,及犧牲,就像感官的過度,是力量的損失及消耗,我們必須激發消耗的動機,每次都帶著獲得利益的許諾,無論是幻想的利益與否。
Envisaged in a general economy, this situation seems strange.

從一般的經濟學來擬想,這種情況似乎很奇怪。

I can imagine some kind of historical situation in which all possibilities of action are put on hold, kept in reserve, like the agèd when they live beyond life’s limits, abrogating all their further hopes and plans beyond limits already attained. Revolutionary action would found classless society, beyond which further historical action wouldn’t arise.

我能夠想像某種歷史的情況,在那裏,所有行動的可能性都被掌控,被保留,就像老年人,當他們生活在生命的限制之外,取消所有他們更進一步的希望及計畫,超越已經被獲得的極限。革命的行動將會創立一個沒有階級的社會,不可能有更進一步的歷史的行動,超越這個社會。

Or so I assume in any event. Still, I have to make an observation. In a general way, apparently, humanly speaking, the sum of energy produced is always greater than the sum necessary for its production. Hence the continuous and overly full churning out of energy, leading us endlessly to some summit, constituting a baleful element that (largely pointlessly) we attempt to expend for a common good.

或者,我無論如何都認為。可是,我必須從事一種觀察。一般來說,明顯從人道角度來說,被產生的精力的數目總是大過於產生精力的數目。因此,精力繼續而且豐沛的消耗,會永無止盡地引導我們登上某個顛峰,組成我們企圖為一個共同的善而消耗的一個不幸的元素,(大體上這是沒有意義的)。

Governed by concerns with the good and the primacy of the future, the mind considers it repugnant to contemplate squanderings that might be defined as guilty, or useless, or even harmful. Now, since the motivations for action are missing which till now have been pretexts for infinite squandering, it seems humanity is discovering possibilities for rest and for recovery . . . But what then will we do with the excess energies that fall to our lot? . . .

當心靈受到對於善的關心及未來的優先所操控,它會覺得盤算浪費是令人厭惡。這些浪費可能會被定義為罪惡,無用,甚至是有害。現在,因為行動的動機正在喪失,直到現在,這些動機一直是無窮盡浪費的藉口。似乎,人類漸漸發現到休息與恢復的可能性、、、但是我們將如何來處理,降臨到我們命運的這些精力的旺盛?

I’ve tried insidiously to suggest the external ramifications that my question might have. In all honesty, I have to admit that, as it stands–on the level of economic calculation–the question loses in sharpness what it has gained in amplitude. The reality is, the question has changed. The more interest came to be factored in, the more expenditure had to depend on it. That is an obvious dead-end, since in the long run we can’t continue spending to gain–and as I’ve said, the sum of energy produced is always greater. . .

我曾經私下嘗試聯想我的問題可能會有分歧。非常坦白地說,我必須承認,事實上,在經濟盤算的層次,這個牽涉到廣度累積的問題,從敏銳度來看,就自然消失。事實上,這個問題已經改變。越多的利益被算計在裏面,越多的消耗就必須依靠它。那是一種顯而易見的僵局。因為總歸到底,我們無法繼續為了獲得而消費—如我曾經說過,被產生的精力的數目總是大過於、、、

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: