Ethic 228

Ethic 228

The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学
Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

XVII 第17章

The function of the good
善的功用

UT I L I T Y AND JOUISSANCE
实用与欢爽

We have now reached the crossroads of utilitarianism.

我们现在已经到达功利主义的十字路口。

Jeremy Bentham’s thought is not the simple continuation of that gnoseology
to which a whole tradition tirelessly devoted itself in order to reduce the
transcendental or supernatural dimension of the progress of knowledge that
supposedly needed elucidating. Bentham, as that work of his which has recently
drawn some attention, The Theory of Fictions, shows, is the man who approaches
the question at the level of the signifier.

杰瑞米、边沁的思想并不是那种知识论哲学的单纯的延续,整个的传统孜孜不倦地致力于在知识论哲学,为了简化知识进步的超验与超自然的维度,因为它们被认为是需要诠释。边沁最近引人注意到他的那本著作「幻想的理论」显示,他从这个能指的层层探究这个问题。

With relation to institutions in their fictive or, in other words, fundamentally
verbal dimension, his search has involved not attempting to reduce to
nothing all the multiple, incoherent, contradictory rights of which English
jurisprudence furnishes an example, but, on the contrary, observing on the
basis of the symbolic artifice of these terms, which are themselves also creators
of texts, what there is there that may be used to some purpose, that is to
say, become, in effect, the object of a division. The long historical development
of the problem of the good is in the end centered on the notion of how
goods are created, insofar as they are organized not on the basis of so-called
natural and predetermined needs, but insofar as they furnish the material of
a distribution; and it is in relation to this that the dialectic of the good is
articulated to the degree that it takes on effective meaning for man.

相关于这些机构,在它们幻想,也就是说,基本上是文辞的维度,边沁的研究已经牵涉到,并没有要将所有的多重性,不一贯的互相牴触的权利,简化成为空无。英国司法供应一个权利互相牴触的例子,而是相反地,他根据这些术语的象征巧匠观察,这些术语本身也是文本的创造者。他观察有什么东西可被用来充当某种目的。换句话说,它们实际上成为某种分裂的目标。善的问题漫长的历史的发展,最后集中在这个观念:善如何被创造,因为它们被组织,并不是根据所谓的自然与预先注定的需要。而是它们供应分配的材料。相关于这个,善的辩证法被表达,甚至它对于人形成有效用的意义。

Man’s needs find their home on the level of utility, which involves that
portion of the symbolic text that may be of some use. At this stage there is
no problem; the greatest utility for the greatest number – such indeed is the
law in the light of which the problem of the function of goods is organized.
At this level we find ourselves, in effect, prior to the moment when the subject
puts his head through the holes in the cloth. The cloth is so made that
the greatest number of subjects possible may put their heads and their limbs
through it.

人的需求在功利的层次找到他们的家园。这牵涉到可能会有点用途的象征文本的部分。在那个阶段,并没有问题:对于最大多数的最大利益就是善。从法则的观点,确实是这样,善的功用的问题被组织。在这个层次,我们发现我们自己,实际上,先前于这个时刻,当主体将他的头穿过布的这些洞。这块布被形成:尽可能的最大多数的主体,可能将他们的头与他们的四肢穿过它。

Yet all this talk wouldn’t mean anything if things didn’t start functioning
differently. Now in this thing, whether it be rare or not, but in any case a
made thing, in all this wealth finally – whatever its correlative in poverty –
there is from the beginning something other than use value. There is its
jouissance use.

可是,所以这些谈论将没有丝毫意义,假如事情并没有开始以不同方式发挥功用。现在,在这件事情,无论它罕见与否,但是无论如何,有一件被形成的东西,最后在所有这个财富当中—无论它会牵涉到贫穷方面的什么—从一开始,就有某件东西,不同于实用价值。那就是「欢爽用途」的价值。

As a result, the good is articulated in a wholly different way. The good is
not at the level of the use of the cloth. The good is at the level where a subject
may have it at his disposal.

结果,善被表达,用完全不同的方式。善并不是处于布的用途的层次。善处于这个层次,主体可能拥有它可支配的层次。

The domain of the good is the birth of power. The notion of control of the
good is essential, and if one foregrounds this, everything is revealed concerning
the meaning of the claim made by man, at a certain point in his history,
once he has managed to achieve control of himself.

善的领域就是权力的诞生。善的控制的观念是基本的,假如我们以这个作为前景,每样东西会被显露出来,关于人从事这个宣称的意义。在历史的某个时刻,一旦他成功与完成对他自己的控制。

It was Freud, not me, who took upon himself the task of unmasking what
this has effectively meant historically. To exercise control over one’s goods,
as everyone knows, entails a certain disorder, that reveals its true nature,
i.e., to exercise control over one’s goods is to have the right to deprive others
of them.

是弗洛依德,不是我。弗洛依德替他自己承担起这个工作:揭露这种善在历史上的实际意义。众所周知,为了对自己的善从事控制,会涵盖某种的混乱,这种混乱会显露善的真实特性,也就是说,对自己的善从事控制,就是拥有权利剥夺掉别人的这种权利。

There is, I think, no point in making you sense the fact that historical
destiny is played out around such a situation. The whole question concerns
the moment when one can consider that this process has come to an end. For
this function of the good engenders, of course, a dialectic. I mean that the
power to deprive others is a very solid link from which will emerge the other
as such.

我认为,让你们理解这个事实,并没有多大意义:历史的命运就是环绕这一种情况在扮演。整个的问题都关系到这个时刻,当我们能够认为,这个过程已经结束。因为,这个善的功用当然会产生一种辩证法。我的意思是,剥夺别人的权力,就是一个很牢固的关联,他者的本身会从那个关联里出现。

Remember what I once told you concerning privation, which has subsequently
caused a problem for some of you. You will see clearly in this connection
that I don’t say anything by chance.

请你们记住,我曾经告诉过你们的东西,关于被剥夺。对于你们一些人,这种被剥夺随后会引起问题。你们将会清楚地看出,关于这点,我保持沉默,并非是偶然的。

Opposing privation to frustration and castration, I said that it was a function
instituted as such in the symbolic order, to the extent that nothing is
deprived of nothing – which doesn’t prevent the good one is deprived of from
being wholly real. The important thing is to recognize that the depriving
agent is an imaginary function. It is the little other, one’s fellow man, he who
is given in the relationship that is half rooted in naturalness of the mirror
stage, but such as he appears to us there where things are articulated at the
level of the symbolic.

当我将被剥夺跟挫折与阉割相提并论时,我说,它的本身被安置于符号象征秩序的功用,甚至空无被剥夺空无。这并没有阻止我们被剥夺的善的功用,不能成为完整地真实。重要的事情是要体认出,剥夺的这个代理者是一个想象的功用。他被给予这个小他者,我们的同胞,因为这个关系一半根源于镜子阶段的自然性,但是我们觉得,他以镜子阶段的自然性,在符号象征的层次,事情被表达。

There is a fact observed in experience that one always
has to remember in analysis, namely, what is meant by defending one’s goods
is one and the same thing as forbidding3 oneself from enjoying them.
The sphere of the good erects a strong wall across the path of our desire.
It is, in fact, at every moment and always, the first barrier that we have to
deal with.

在精神分析经验,我们观察到一个事实: 在精神分析,我们总是必须记得,换句话说,替自己的善辩护的意义,同时也是禁止自己去享受那些善。善的领域竖立起一道坚固的墙壁,跨越我们欲望的途径。事实上,就在每个时刻,这总是我们必须要处理的第一道障碍。

陈春雄译
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: