Ethic 182

Ethic 182
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

XIV
第14章

FOOL AND KNAVE
傻瓜与恶棍

THE TRUTH ABOUT TRUTH
关于真理的真理

WHY JOUISSANCE IS EVIL1
为什么欢爽是邪恶

SAINT MARTIN
圣马丁

KANTI A N TALES
康德的故事

2
To the extent that a sensitive subject such as ethics is not nowadays separable
from what is called ideology, it seems to me appropriate to offer here some
clarification of the political meaning of this turning point in ethics for which
we, the inheritors of Freud, are responsible

像伦理学这样的敏感议题,跟今天所谓的意识形态会混淆不清。我觉得这是适当的,在此提供某些的澄清,对于伦理学的这个转捩点的政治意义。我们作为弗洛依德的继承人,要负这个责任。

That is why I spoke of master-fools. This expression may seem impertinent,
indeed not exempt from a certain excess. I would like to make clear here what in my view is involved.

那就是为什么我谈到主人-傻瓜。这个表达似乎并不中肯。确实无法免除某种的过度。我想要在此澄清我认为会牵涉到的东西。

There was a time, an already distant time right at the beginning of our
Society, you will remember, when we spoke of intellectuals in connection
with Plato’s Meno. I would like to make a few condensed comments on the
subject, but I believe they will prove to be illuminating.

有段时间,已经非常遥远的时间,在我们的社会的开始,你们将会记得,当我们谈论到关于柏拉图的「芝诺」的知识份子。我想要从事几句精炼的评论,对于这个议题。但是我相信它们证明是具有启发性。

It was noted then that, for a long time now, there have been left-wing
intellectuals and right-wing intellectuals. I would like to give you formulas
for them that, however categorical they may appear at first sight, might
nevertheless help to illuminate the way.

我们因此注意到,现在有段长时间,曾经有左派的知识份子与右派的知识份子。我想要给予你们有关他们的公式。乍然一看,他们它们似乎非常范畴性质,可是,它们有助于启发途径。

“Fool” (sot) or, if you like, “simpleton” (demeuri) – quite a nice term for
which I have a certain fondness – these words only express approximately a
certain something for which the English language and its literature seem to
me to offer a more helpful signifier – I will come back to this later. A tradition
that begins with Chaucer, but which reaches its full development in the
theater of the Elizabethan period is, in effect, centered on the term “fool.”2
The “fool” is an innocent, a simpleton, but truths issue from his mouth
that are not simply tolerated but adopted, by virtue of the fact that this “fool”
is sometimes clothed in the insignia of the jester. And in my view it is a
similar happy shadow, a similar fundamental “foolery,” that accounts for the
importance of the left-wing intellectual.

「傻瓜」或是「笨蛋」,这是我有点喜欢的一个很好的术语。这些字词仅是大约表的某种东西。我觉得英文语言及其文章似乎提供更加有帮助的能指。我后来再回头谈论这个。从乔塞开始时的传统,但是到达它充分的发展,在伊莉莎白时期的戏院。实际上,它集中在傻瓜这个术语。「傻瓜」是一位纯真者,一个笨蛋,但是真理从他的嘴巴发出,不仅被容忍,而且被採纳,由于这个事实:这位「傻瓜」有时穿着弄臣的标志。我认为,这是一个同样的快乐的阴影,一个基本的「傻瓜动作」,解释为什么左派知识份子的重要性。

And I contrast this with the designation for that which the same tradition
furnishes a strictly contemporary term, a term that is used in conjunction
with the former, namely, “knave” – if we have the time, I will show you the
texts, which are numerous and unambiguous.

我用这个指称跟这个对照。这个相同的传统供应给它一个非常当代的术语。这一个术语被使用,跟前者有关联,也就是「恶棍」。假如我们有时间,我将跟你们显示这些无数而清楚的文本。

At a certain level of its usage “knave” may be translated into French as
valet, but “knave” goes further. He’s not a cynic with the element of heroism
implied by that attitude. He is, to be precise, what Stendhal called an
“unmitigated scoundrel.” That is to say, no more than your Mr. Everyman,
but your Mr. Everyman with greater strength of character.

在它的用途的某个层次,「恶棍」可以被翻译成为法文,作为valet,但是「恶棍」意义更深。他并不是一位愤世者,具有那个态度暗示的英雄主义的因素。准确地说,他史坦达尔所谓的「实实在在的坏蛋」。换句话说,仅仅是你们的日常人物,但是你们的日常人物具有较强的人格力量。

Everyone knows that a certain way of presenting himself, which constitutes
part of the ideology of the right-wing intellectual, is precisely to play
the role of what he is in fact, namely, a “knave.” In other words, he doesn’t
retreat from the consequences of what is called realism; that is, when required,
he admits he’s a crook.

众所周知,某种呈现他自己的方式,形成右派知识份子的意识形态的部分。那确实就是要扮演他实质上所谓的「恶棍」的角色。换句话说,他并没有从所谓的现实主义的结果撤退下来。换句话说,当被要求的时候,他承认他是骗子。

This is only of interest if one considers things from the point of view of
their result. After all, a crook is certainly worth a fool, at least for the entertainment
he gives, if the result of gathering crooks into a herd did not inevitably
lead to a collective foolery. That is what makes the politics of rightwing
ideology so depressing.

只有当我们从他们的结果的观点来考虑事情,这才会引起興趣。毕竟,犯罪者确实值得当傻瓜,至少,对于他给予的娱乐,假如将骗子聚集成一群,并不必然导致形成一个傻瓜集团。那就是为什么右翼的意识形态的政治如此令人沮丧的地方。

But what is not sufficiently noted is that by a curious chiasma, the “foolery”
which constitutes the individual style of the left-wing intellectual gives
rise to a collective “knavery.”

但是并没有充分被注意到的是,凭借一个耐人寻味的罅隙,这个「傻瓜行为」形成左翼知识份子的个人风格,产生一个「恶棍集团」。

What I am proposing here for you to reflect on has, I don’t deny, the
character of a confession. Those of you who know me are aware of my reading
habits; you know which weeklies lie around on my desk. The thing I
enjoy most, I must admit, is the spectacle of collective knavery exhibited in
them – that innocent chicanery, not to say calm impudence, which allows
them to express so many heroic truths without wanting to pay the price. It is
thanks to this that what is affirmed concerning the horrors of Mammon on
the first page leads, on the last, to purrs of tenderness for this same Mammon.

我不否认,我在此跟你们建议要反思的问题,拥有忏悔的特质。你们那些了解我的人们,知道我的阅读习惯,你们知道我的书桌上摆着怎样的周刊。我必须承认,我最喜欢的东西,是恶棍集团的景象被展示在它们上面。那个纯真的骗术,更不用说,镇定的不谨慎。让他们表达这么多的英雄式的真理,而没有想要付出代价。由于这个,关于在第一页,对于财神的恐惧所被肯定的东西,在最后一页,导致对于这位相同的财神温情讨好。

Freud was perhaps not a good father, but he was neither a crook nor an
imbecile. That is why one can say about him two things which are disconcerting
in their connection and their opposition. He was a humanitarian –
who after checking his works will contest that? – and we must acknowledge
it, however discredited the term might be by the crooks on the right. But,
on the other hand, he wasn’t a simpleton, so that one can say as well, and we
have the texts to prove it, that he was no progressive.

弗洛依德或许并不是一位好父亲,但是他既不是骗子,也不是白痴。那就是为什么关于他我们能够说两件令人困窘的事情,跟他们有关,也对他们不利。他是一位人道主义者。阅读过他的著作之后,有谁会怀疑这点?我们必须承认它,无论这个术语是多么不光彩,由于右翼知识份子这部的骗子。但是在另一方面来说,他并不是傻瓜。所以,我们也能够说,我们拥有文本来证明它。他并不是什么进步份子。

I am sorry but it’s a fact, Freud was in no way a progressive. And as far as
this is concerned, there are even some extraordinarily scandalous things in
his writings. From the pen of one of our guides, the little optimism manifested for the perspectives opened by the masses is certainly apt to shock, but it is indispensable for us to remember that, if we want to know where we stand.

我很抱歉,这是一个事实。弗洛依德根本不是进步份子。就这个术语而言,在他的著作里,甚至还有一些特别丑闻的事情。从我们一位引导者的笔端,这个小小的乐观主义被展现,作为群众展开的观点。它确实倾向于令人震撼,但是这是无可免除的,我们要记住,假如我们想要知道我们的立场在哪里。

You will see in what follows the usefulness of such remarks, which may
appear crude.

你们将会看出,跟随在这些的谈论的用途之后是什么,那看起来可能你简陋。

One of my friends and patients had a dream which bore the traces of some
yearning or other stimulated in him by the formulations of this seminar, a
dream in which someone cried out concerning me, “But why doesn’t he tell
the truth about truth?”

我的一位朋友与病人曾做过一个梦。那个梦带有某些渴望的痕迹,由于这个研讨班的阐述在他的身上所激发。在这一个梦当中,某个人大声喊叫关于我,「他为什么不说出有关真理的真理?」

I quote this, since it is an impatience that I have heard expressed by a great
many in other forms than dreams. The formula is true to a certain extent – I
perhaps don’t tell the truth about truth. But haven’t you noticed that in
wanting to tell it – something that is the chief preoccupation of those who
are called metaphysicians – it often happens that not much truth is left?
That’s what is so risky about such a pretension. It is a pretension that so
easily lands us at the level of a certain knavery. And isn’t there also a certain
“knavery,” a metaphysical “knavery,” when one of our modern treatises on
metaphysics, under this guise of the truth about truth, lets a great many
things by which truly ought not to be let by?

我引述这个,因为这是一种不耐烦,我曾经听过被许多人表达,用不仅是梦的方式。这个公式真实到某个程度。我或许没有说出有关真理的真理。但是你们难道没有注意到,当我想要说出它时,那是某件东西,那些所谓的形上物理学家的主要关注,经常发生的是,并没有很多真理被留下?那就是有关如此的伪装,如此岌岌可危。那一种伪装如此容易让我们降落到某种恶棍的层次。难道不是也有某种的「恶棍」,形上学的「恶棍」,当一篇探讨形上学的现代论文,以有关真理的真理作为伪装,让很多不应该被引导的事情被引导?

I am content to tell the truth of the first stage and to proceed step by step.
When I say that Freud is a humanitarian but not a progressive, I say something
true. Let’s try to follow the thread and take another true step.

我很满足地说出第一阶段的真理,并且逐步前进。当我说弗洛依德是一位人道主义者,而不是一位进步份子。我说出某件真实的东西。让我们尝试追寻这个脉络,採取另外的真实的步骤。

We started out from the truth, which we must take to be a truth if we
follow Freud’s analysis, that we know God is dead.

我们从真理开始,我们必须将这个真理视为是一个真理,假如我们遵循弗洛依德的精神分析,我们知道上帝已经死了。

However, the next step is that God himself doesn’t know that. And one
may suppose that he never will know it because he has always been dead.
This formula nevertheless leads us to something that we have to resolve here,
to something that remains on our hands from this adventure, something that
changes the bases of the ethical problem, namely, that jouissance still remains
forbidden as it was before, before we knew that God was dead.

可是,下一步就是,上帝自己并不知道自己已经死了。我们可能认为,上帝永远不会知道它,因为他总是已经死了。可是,这个公式引导我们到某件我们在此必须要解决的东西。引导我们到某件从这个冒险开始就一直在我们手中的东西,某件改变伦理学问题的基础的东西。换句话说,享乐jouissance依旧始终被禁止,如同以前那样。在我们知道上帝已经死亡之前。

That’s what Freud says. And that’s the truth – if not the truth about truth,
then at least the truth about what Freud has to say.

那就是弗洛依德所说的。那就是真理—虽然并不是有关真理的真理。至少是有关弗洛依德必须说出的真理。

As a result, if we continue to follow Freud in a text such as Civilization
and Its Discontents, we cannot avoid the formula that jouissance is evil. Freud
leads us by the hand to this point: it is suffering because it involves suffering
for my neighbor.

结果,假如我们继续遵循弗洛依德,在「文明与其不满」这样的文本。我们无法避免这个公式:欢爽是邪恶。弗洛依德引导我们的手到达这一点。这是痛苦,因为它牵涉到作为我的邻居的痛苦。

This may shock you, upset certain habits, cause consternation among the
happy souls. But it can’t be helped; that’s what Freud says. And he says it at
the point of origin of our experience. He wrote Civilization and Its Discontents
to tell us this. That’s what was increasingly announced, promulgated, publicized,
as analytical experience progressed. It has a name; it’s what is known
as beyond the pleasure principle. And it has effects that are by no means
metaphysical; they oscillate between a “certainly not” and a “perhaps.”

这可能让你们惊吓,扰乱某些习惯,引起快乐的灵魂们困窘。但是这是不得已的事,那就是弗洛依德所说的内容。他说出它,在我们精神分析经验的起源的时刻。他写「文明及其不满」来告诉我们这些。那是逐渐被宣佈,被陈述,被公开的东西,随着精神分析经验的进展。它有一个名字;那就是众所周知的「超越快乐原则」。它具有的影响决非是形上学。它们摇摆于「当然没有」与「或许」之间。

Those who like fairy stories turn a deaf ear to talk of man’s innate tendencies
to “evil, aggression, destruction, and thus also to cruelty.” And Freud’s
text goes on: “Man tries to satisfy his need for aggression at the expense of
his neighbor, to exploit his work without compensation, to use him sexually
without his consent, to appropriate his goods, to humiliate him, to inflict
suffering on him, to torture and kill him.”3

那些喜欢仙女童话故事的人们,拒绝倾听这种谈论:「人的本质具有邪恶,侵凌性,毁灭的倾向,因此也具有残酷的倾向。」弗洛依德的文本继续说:「人尝试满足他的侵凌性的需求,以牺牲他的邻居作为代价,剥削他的工作,没有给予补偿,没有经过人家同样就利用他的性,侵夺他的货物,羞辱他,给予对方痛苦,折磨及杀死他。

If I hadn’t told you the title of the work from which this passage comes, I
could have pretended it was from Sade. Moreover, my upcoming lecture will,
in effect, concern the Sadean account of the problem of morality.
For the time being, we will stick to Freud. Civilization and Its Discontents
concerns the effort to rethink the problem of evil once one acknowledges that
it is radically altered by the absence of God. This problem has always been
avoided by the moralists in a way that is literally calculated to arouse our
disgust once we have been alerted to the terms of the experience.

假如我当时没有告诉你们我引述的这个段落的这本著作的书名,我本来可以伪装那是从萨德引述而来。而且,我即将来临的这场演说,事实上,将会牵涉到萨德对于道德问题的描述。目前,我们将会留在弗洛依德这里。「文明及其不满」牵涉到这个努力,要重新思考邪恶的问题,一旦我们承认,它因为上帝的缺席而会强烈地改变。这个问题总是被道德家避免,用的方式实质上被设计要引起我们的厌恶,一旦我们已经警觉到这个经验的这些术语。

Whoever he might be, the traditional moralist always falls back into the
rut of persuading us that pleasure is a good, that the path leading to good is
blazed by pleasure. The trap is striking, for it has a paradoxical character
that lends it its air of audacity. One is, so to speak, swindled in the second
degree; one assumes there is just a hidden drawer, and one is pleased to have
found it, but one is screwed even more when one has found it than if one
hadn’t even suspected its existence. Something that is relatively rare, for
everyone can see that there’s something fishy.

无论他是谁,传统的道德家总是掉回这个窠臼,说服我们,快乐的是好的。通往善的途径受到快乐所标示。这个陷阱引人注意,因为它具有一种矛盾的特性,有助于它的胆大妄为的气氛。可以说,我们受到二级程度的欺骗。我们认为,有一个隐藏的抽屉,我们很高兴已经找到它。但是我们甚至更加地受到挫败,当我们已经找到它,比起假如我们从来没有怀疑过它的存在。某件东西相对地稀少,因为每个人都能看出,有某件出乎意料之外的东西。

What does Freud have to say about this? Even before the formulations of
Beyond the Pleasure Principle, it is evident that the first formulation of the
pleasure principle as an unpleasure principle, or least-suffering principle,
naturally embodies a beyond, but that it is, in effect, calculated to keep us
on this side of it rather than beyond it. Freud’s use of the good can be summed
up in the notion that it keeps us a long way from our jouissance.

关于这点,弗洛依德必须说什么?即使是在「超越快乐原则」阐释之前,显而易见地,快乐原则的首次阐释作为不快乐原则,或最少量痛苦原则,它自然地具体表现一种超越。但是事实上,它被设计要保持我们在它的这一边,而不是超越它。弗洛依德使用善可以被总结在这个观念里,它让我们跟我们的「欢爽」距离遥远。

Nothing is more obvious in our clinical experience. Who is there who in
the name of pleasure doesn’t start to weaken when the first half-serious step
is taken toward jouissance? Isn’t that something we encounter directly everyday?
One can understand, therefore, the dominance of hedonism in the moral
teachings of a certain philosophical tradition, whose motives do not seem to
us to be absolutely reliable or disinterested.

在我们的临床经验,这是最明显不过的事情。以快乐的名义,有谁没有开始软化,当最初的半严肃的步骤被採取,朝向欢爽?这难道不是我们日常生活直接遭遇到的东西?我们因此能够理解享乐主义的优势,在某个哲学传统的道德的教喻。我们觉得它们的动机似乎并不绝对可靠,或公正。

In truth, it isn’t because they have emphasized the beneficial effects of
pleasure that we criticize the so-called hedonist tradition. It is rather because
they haven’t stated what the good consisted of. That’s where the fraud is.

事实上,这并不是因为它们曾经强调快乐的有利的效果,我们批评这个所谓的享乐主义的传统。相反地,是因为它们并没有陈述这个善由什么组成。那就是欺诈所在。

In the light of this one can understand that Freud was literally horrified by
the idea of love for one’s neighbor. One’s neighbor in German is der Nachste.
“Du sollst den Nachsten lieben wie sich selbst” – that’s how the commandment,
“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” is expressed in German.
Freud underlines the excessive side of this by means of an argument that
starts from several different points, which are, in fact, one and the same.

从这个观点,我们能够理解,弗洛依德实质上受到惊吓,对于邻居之爱的观念。我们的邻居在德文是der Nachste. “Du sollst den Nachsten lieben wie sich selbs。那就是十戒用德文表达的方式,弗洛依德强调这个的过度的一面,凭借一个从好几个不同观点出发的论点。事实上,那些不同观点就是相同的观点。

In the first place, the neighbor, whose fundamental nature is, as you have
seen, revealed in Freud’s writings, is bad. But that’s not all there is to it.
Freud also says – and it shouldn’t make you smile just because it is expressed
in a somewhat sparse manner – my love is something precious and I’m not
going to give it whole to whomever claims to be what he is, simply because
he happened to come by.

首先,如你们曾经看见,在弗洛依德的著作显示的邻居的基本特性是不好的。但是那并不是它的全部内涵。弗洛依德也说(你们可能会心一笑,因为它被表达,用故作轻松的态度):「我的爱是某件珍贵的东西,我没有要将它全部给予任何他宣称是他生命本质的人,仅是因为他偶然经过。」

Freud makes comments about this that are quite right, moving comments
on the subject of what is worth loving. He reveals how one must love a friend’s
son because, if the friend were to lose his son, his suffering would be intolerable.

弗洛依德对于这个发表相当正确的评论,动人的评论,针对什么值得爱的这个议题。他显示,我们必须如何爱一位朋友的儿子,因为万元朋友丧失他的儿子,他的痛苦将会无法忍受。

The whole Arisotelian conception of the good is alive in this man who
is a true man; he tells us the most sensitive and reasonable things about what
it is worth sharing the good that is our love with. But what escapes him is
perhaps the fact that precisely because we take that path we miss the opening
on to jouissance.

整个的亚里斯多德的善的观念,在作为一位真实的人的这个人身上生龙活现。他告诉我们最敏感最合理的事情,关于什么值得分享我们的爱的善行。但是他没有理解的是,或许这个事实:确实是因为你採取那条途径,我们错过通往欢爽的入口。

It is in the nature of the good to be altruistic. But that’s not the love of thy
neighbor. Freud makes us feel this without articulating it fully. We will now
attempt, without forcing anything, to do so in his stead.

它在于利他主义的善的特性里。但是那并不是对你的邻居之爱。弗洛依德让我们感觉这个,但是并没有充分表达它。我们现在将会企图代替他这样做,没有丝毫强迫。

We can found our case on the following, namely, that every time that
Freud stops short in horror at the consequences of the commandment to love
one’s neighbor, we see evoked the presence of that fundamental evil which
dwells within this neighbor. But if that is the case, then it also dwells within
me. And what is more of a neighbor to me than this heart within which is
that of my jouissance and which I don’t dare go near? For as soon as I go near
it, as Civilization and Its Discontents makes clear, there rises up the unfathomable
aggressivity from which I flee, that I turn against me, and which in
the very place of the vanished Law adds its weight to that which prevents me
from crossing a certain frontier at the limit of the Thing.

我们能够将我们的个案以下作为基础。换句话说,每次弗洛依德恐惧地突然停止,对于邻居之爱的命令的结果,我们看到驻居在这个邻居之内的那个基本的邪恶的存在被召唤。但是假如情况是这样,那么它也驻居在我之内。对我而言,这个邻居,除了这个心之外,还有什么?在这个心之内,是我的欢爽的邻居,我不敢靠近?当我一靠近它,如同「文明及其不满」所清楚表达的,产生这个深不可测的侵凌性,我避之唯恐不及。我转而攻击我。就在这个消失的法则的位置,它增加它的重量,到阻止我不能跨越某个边界的东西,在物象的限制。

As long as it’s a question of the good, there’s no problem; our own and our
neighbor’s are of the same material. Saint Martin shares his cloak, and a great
deal is made of it. Yet it is after all a simple question of training; material is
by its very nature made to be disposed of – it belongs to the other as much
as it belongs to me. We are no doubt touching a primitive requirement in the
need to be satisfied there, for the beggar is naked. But perhaps over and
above that need to be clothed, he was begging for something else, namely,
that Saint Martin either kill him or fuck him. In any encounter there’s a big
difference in meaning between the response of philanthiropy and that of love.

只要这是善的问题,就没有难题。我们自己与我们邻居的难题是属于相同的材料。圣马丁分享他的外衣,赋予它许多的价值。可是,它毕竟是一个训练的单纯问题。材料是根据它自己的特性被迫要被处理。它属于大他者,如同它属于我。我们无可置疑,碰触到一个原始的要求,在那里被满足的需要。因为乞丐是赤裸的。但是或许尤其重要的是,那个穿上衣服的需要。他正在乞求某件其他的东西。换句话说,圣马丁要就杀死他,要不就跟他作爱。无论是什么遭遇,意义上有很大的差异,在慈善的回应与爱的回应之间。

It is in the nature of the useful to be utilized. If I can do something in less time and with less trouble than someone near me, I would instinctively do it
in his place, in return for which I am damned for what I have to do for that
most neighborly of neighbors who is inside me. I am damned for having
assured him to whom it would cost more time and trouble than me, what
precisely? – some measure of ease that only means something because I imagine
that, if I had that ease or absence of work, I would make the best possible
use of it. But it is far from proven that I would know how to do so, even if I
had all the power required to satisfy myself. Perhaps I would simply be bored.

它在这个能够被利用的有用途的特性里。假如我能够做某件事情,在较少的时,较少的麻烦,比起靠近我的某个人,我本能地会代替他去做它。为了回报这个,我被诅咒因为我必须做的事情,因为在我之内的邻居的最邻近的东西。我被诅咒,因为曾经让他确定,他将会耗费比我更多的时间与麻烦。那确实是什么?某个程度的自在,仅是意味着某件事情,因为我想象,假如我拥有那个自在,或工作的欠缺,我会尽量利用它。但是这根本没有被证明,我会知道如何这样做。即使我拥有所有被要求的力量,来满足我自己。或许,我仅是感到无聊。

Consequently, by granting others such power, perhaps I am just leading
them astray. I imagine their difficulties and their sufferings in the mirror of
my own. It is certainly not imagination that I lack; it is, if anything, tenderness,
namely, what might be called the difficult way, love for one’s neighbor.
And here again you may note how the trap of the same paradox occurs to us
in connection with the so-called discourse of utilitarianism.

结果,凭借给予别人如此的力量,或许我正在引导他们迷失。我想象他们的困难与他们的痛苦,在我自己的镜子里。这确实不是我欠缺的想象,那是温柔,也就是说,所谓的困难的方式,对于邻居之爱。在此,你们可能注意到,这个相同悖论的陷阱发生到我们身上,关于所谓的功利主义的辞说。

I began my lectures this year with the onerous topic of the utilitarians, but
the utilitarians are quite right. They are countered with something that, in
effect, only makes the task of countering them much more difficult, with a
sentence such as “But, Mr. Bentham, my good is not the same as another’s
good, and your principle of the greatest good for the greatest number comes
up against the demands of my egoism.” But it’s not true. My egoism is quite
content with a certain altruism, altruism of the kind that is situated on the
level of the useful. And it even becomes the pretext by means of which I can
avoid taking up the problem of the evil I desire, and that my neighbor desires
also. That is how I spend my life, by cashing in my time in a dollar zone,
ruble zone or any other zone, in my neighbor’s time, where all the neighbors
are maintained equally at the marginal level of reality of my own existence.
Under these conditions it is hardly surprising that everyone is sick, that civilization
has its discontents.

我今年开始我的演讲,从功利主义这个难以承担的议题。但是功利主义并不完全正确。它们被反驳,用某件实际上仅是让反驳它们的这个工作更加困难。用一个句子,譬如,「但是,边沁先生,我的最大多数人的善,跟另外一个人的最大多数的善并不相同。你的最大多数人的最大的善,跟我的自我主义的要求相冲突。」但这不是真实的。我的自我主义相当满足于某种的利他主义。这种利他主义被定位在有用途的层次。这甚至变成是这个藉口,凭借这个藉口,我能够避免从事我欲望的邪恶的难题,我的邻居也渴望的邪恶。那就是我度过我一生的方式。凭借将我的时间,在金元地区,卢比地区,或任何其他地区,兑换成现金,在我的邻居的时间。在那里,所有的邻居同样被维持在我自己的经验的现实界的边缘。在这些情况之下,每个人都生病,自是不足为奇,文明有其不满。

It is a fact of experience that what I want is the good of others in the image
of my own. That doesn’t cost so much. What I want is the good of others
provided that it remain in the image of my own. I would even say that the
whole tiling deteriorates so rapidly that it becomes: provided that it depend
on my efforts. I don’t even need to ask you to go very far into your patients’
experience: if I wish for my spouse’s happiness, I no doubt sacrifice my own,
but who knows if her happiness isn’t totally dissipated, too?

这是一个经验的事实,我想要的东西就是别人的善,用我自己的形象。那并没有花费许多。我想要的东西,就是别人善,只要它始终是在我自己的形象里。我甚至说,整个的瓦恶化得如此之快,以致它变成:只要它依靠我自己的努力,我甚至不需要要求你们到远处,进入你们的病人的经验。假如我希我获得我的配偶的幸福,我无可置疑地,牺牲我自己的幸福。但是有谁知道,他的幸福是否也完全地被扩散?

Perhaps the meaning of the love of one’s neighbor that could give me the
true direction is to be found here. To that end, however, one would have to
know how to confront the fact that my neighbor’s jouissance, his harmful,
malignant jouissance, is that which poses a problem for my love.

或许,对于邻居之爱的意义,能够给予我这个真实的方向,能够在这里被找到。可是,为了这个目标,我们将必须知道如何面对这个事实:我们的邻居的欢爽,他的伤害人的,恶意的欢爽,是对于我的爱形成一种难题。

It wouldn’t be difficult at this point to take a leap in the direction of the
excesses of the mystics. Unfortunately, many of their most notable qualities
always strike me as somewhat puerile.

在这个时刻,这将不会很困难从事一个跳跃,朝著神秘主义的过度。不幸地,许多他们最引人注意的特质总是给我的印象,作为是相当幼稚。

No doubt the question of beyond the pleasure principle, of the place of the
unnameable Thing and of what goes on there, is raised in certain acts that
provoke our judgment, acts of the kind attributed to a certain Angela de
Folignio, who joyfully lapped up the water in which she had just washed the
feet of lepers – I will spare you the details, such as the fact that a piece of
skin stuck in her throat, etc. – or to the blessed Marie Allacoque, who, with
no less a reward in spiritual uplift, ate the excrement of a sick man. The
power of conviction of these no doubt edifying facts would vary quite a lot if
the excrement in question were that of a beautiful girl or if it were a question
of eating the come of a forward from your rugby team. In other words, the
erotic side of things remains veiled in the above examples.

无可置疑,超越快乐原则的这个问题,无以名状的物象的位置,以及那里所进行的东西,在某些的引起我们的判断的行动里被提出,那些行动被归属于某些的降福天使。我就跟你们省略过细节。譬如这个事实,一块皮被塞在她的喉咙,等等。或是被归属于被祝福的玛丽亚、阿拉克奎。他拥有同样的一个酬劳,在精神的提升,他吃病人的粪便。这些无可置疑具有启蒙的事实的信心的力量,变化各有千秋,假如受到置疑的这个粪便是一位美丽女孩的粪便,或是假如他吃的是你们的足球队的前锋的精液。换句话说,事情的性爱的一面,始终被遮蔽在以上的例子里。

That is why I will have to back up a little. We are now on the threshold of
exploring something which has after all attempted to break down the doors
of the hell within. Its claim to do so is clearly much greater than ours. Yet it
is our concern, too. And that is why, in order to show you step by step the
ways in which access to the problem of jouissance may be envisaged, I will
lead you through what someone by the name of Sade has had to say about it.

那就是为什么我将必须稍微支持一下。我们现在处于探索某件东西的门槛,毕竟 这个东西曾经企图冲破内部地狱的那些门。显而易见,它宣称如此做,比起我们的宣称伟大得多。可是,这也是我们的关心。那就是为什么,为了逐步跟你们显示,接近欢爽的难题可能被拟想的方式。我将引导你们通过以萨德之名的某个人所必需说到它的事情。

I would certainly need a couple of months to talk about Sadism. I will not
talk about Sade as eroticist, for he is definitely an inferior eroticist. The path
of jouissance with a woman is not necessarily to subject her to all the acts
practiced on poor Justine. On the other hand, in the domain of the articulation
of ethical questions, it seems to me that Sade has some very solid things
to say, at least in connection with the problem that currently concerns us.

我确实需要两三个月来谈论萨德主义。我将不会谈论萨德作为性爱狂。因为他明确是一位差劲的性爱狂。跟一位女人的欢爽的途径,未必是强迫她从事对于可怜的贾斯丁所做的行动。在另一方面,在伦理问题的表达的领域,我觉得,萨德拥有某些的正确的话要说,至少关于目前跟我们息息相关的难题。

雄伯译
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: