Ethic 188

Ethic 188
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

XIV
第14章

KANTI A N TALES
康德的故事

4
Before I take up the question next time, I would like to end today by making
you sense this in connection with a contemporary example, namely, Kant’s,
which I have already devoted some time to – and it’s not for nothing that it
is contemporary with Sade.

在我下次从事这个问题之前,我今天想要结束,让你们理解这点,关于当代的一个例子。换句话说,康德的例子。我曾经专注一段时间在这个例子。它跟萨德是同时代,并非没有意义。

In the example in question Kant claims to prove the weight of the Law,
formulated by him as practical reason, as something that imposes itself in
purely reasonable terms, that is to say, divorced from all pathological affect,
as he puts it, which means with no motive that appeals to the subject’s interest.
This is a critical exercise that will bring us back to the very center of the
problem we are addressing today.

在受到置疑的这个例子,康德宣称证明法则的重量,由他阐释的作为实践理性的法则,作为某件东西赋加它自己本身,用纯粹理性的术语。换句话说,跟所有的病理的情意脱离。如他所表达它。这意味著,不具有讨好主体的興趣的动机。这是一个批评性的运用,将会带领我们回到我们今天正在处理的难题的核心。

Let me remind you that Kant’s example is made up of two little stories.
The first concerns the individual who is placed in the situation of being executed
on his way out, if he wants to spend time with the lady whom he desires
unlawfully – it’s not a waste of time to emphasize this, because even the
apparently simplest details constitute traps. The other case is that of someone
who lives at the court of a despot and who is put in the position of either
bearing false witness against someone who, as a result, will lose his life or of
being put to death himself if he doesn’t do it.

让我提醒你们,康德的例子由两个小故事组成。第一个故事牵涉到这个个人,他被放置在这个情境:当他走出时,他会被执行死刑。假如他想要花时间跟他非法欲望的这位女人在一块。这并不是时间的浪费,强调这点。因为即使显而易见的单纯的细节,都会形成陷阱。另外一个情境是,某个人生活于暴君的法庭,他被迫做这个选择:要就作虚假的证词,对于某人不利。结果,这个人将会丧失他的生命。要不,假如他不做这个证词,他自己会被处死。

Thereupon, Kant, our dear Kant, tells us in all his innocence, his innocent
subterfuge, that in the first case everyone, every man of good sense, will say
no. For the sake of spending a night with a woman, no one would be mad
enough to accept an outcome that would be fatal to him, since it isn’t a question
of combat but of death by hanging. For Kant, the answer to the question
is not in doubt.

因此,康德,我们亲爱的康德,告诉非常纯真地我们,他的纯真的错误的例子。在第一个例子,每个人,每个具有清楚理智的人,都会说不。为了花费一个晚上跟一位女人在一块,没有人会如此疯狂,以致接受对他将会是致命的结果。因为这并不是博斗的问题,而是吊死刑的问题。对于康德,这个问题的回答并没有受到置疑。

In the other case, whatever the degree of pleasure promised as a result of
bearing false witness or whatever the harshness of the penalty following the
refusal to bear such witness, one can at least assume that the subject stops to
reflect for a moment. One might even conceive that, rather than bear false
witness, the subject will envisage accepting his own death in the name of the
so-called categorical imperative. In effect, if an assault on the goods, the life,
or the honor of someone else were to become a universal rule, that would
throw the whole of man’s universe into a state of disorder and evil.
Can’t we stop here and offer our critique?

在另外一个情况,无论由于作虚假证词的结果,被许诺的快乐有多高,或是跟随着拒绝做虚假证词的惩罚有多严厉,我们至少能够假定,主体会停下来反思一下。我们甚至可以构想,非但没有做虚假见证,主体将会构想接受他自己的死亡,以所谓的范畴的命令。实际上,假如对于货物,生命,或是某个人的恐惧的攻击,变成普遍性的法则,那将会将整个的人的宇宙完全陷入混乱与邪恶。我们在此难道不能停下来提供我们的批判?

The striking significance of the first example resides in the fact that the
night spent with the lady is paradoxically presented to us as a pleasure that
is weighed against a punishment to be undergone; it is an opposition which
homogenizes them. There is in terms of pleasure a plus and a minus. I will
not quote the worst examples – in his Essay on Negative Greatness, Kant
discusses the feelings of the Spartan mother who learns of the death of her
son on the field of honor. And the little mathematical calculation Kant makes
concerning the pleasure the family derives from the glory, from which one
has to deduct the pain felt at the boy’s loss, is quite touching. But it is important
to note that one only has to make a conceptual shift and move the night
spent with the lady from the category of pleasure to that of jouissance, given
that jouissance implies precisely the acceptance of death – and there’s no need
of sublimation – for the example to be ruined.

第一个例子引人注意的重要性,在于这个事实:跟那个女人在一块的夜晚很矛盾地被呈现给予我们,作为一种被衡量的快乐,对比于需要被经历的惩罚。这是一种让它们同等化的对立。用快乐的术语来说,有加法与减法。我将不引述最糟糕的例子。在他的论文「负面的伟大」 康德讨论史巴达人作为母亲的感觉。当她知道她的儿子死于荣誉战场。康德所做到这个小小的数学的计算,关于家庭从这个荣誉获得的快乐。从那里,我们必须推论丧失儿子感觉到的痛苦。这是相当感人的。但是重要的是要注意到,我们只要做一个观念的改变,将跟女人在一块度过一个夜晚,从快乐的范畴移动到欢爽jouissance的范畴,假如考虑到,欢爽确实暗示着接受死亡。那就没有升华的需要,为了让这个例子被毁灭。

In other words, it is enough for jouissance to be a form of evil, for the whole
thing to change its character completely, and for the meaning of the moral
law itself to be completely changed. Anyone can see that if the moral law is,
in effect, capable of playing some role here, it is precisely as a support for the
jouissance involved; it is so that the sin becomes what Saint Paul calls inordinately
sinful. That’s what Kant on this occasion simply ignores.

换句话说,让欢爽成为是邪恶的形式,就足够让整个事情完全改变它的特性,足够让道德法则本身的意义完全地被改变。任何人都能够看出,假如道德法则实际上能够在此扮演某个角色,那确实是作为牵涉到的欢爽的支持。所以这个原罪就成为圣保留所谓的极度的原罪。那是在这个场合,康德仅是忽略的东西。

Then there is the other example, whose little errors of logic should not,
between ourselves, be overlooked. The circumstances involved are somewhat
different. In the first case, pleasure and pain are presented as a single packet
to take or leave, in consideration of which one avoids the risk and gives up
jouissance. In the second case, there is pleasure or pain. It’s not insignificant
that I underline it, for this choice is destined to produce in you a certain
effect of a fortiori, as a result of which you may be deceived about the real
significance of the question.

因此,还有另外一个例子。我们私下而言,它的逻辑的小错误不应被忽略。牵涉到的环境是相当不同。在第一个情境,快乐与痛苦被呈现作为单一包裹,要就接受,要不然拉倒。由于考虑到这个,我们避避这个冒险,并且放弃欢爽。在第二个情况,快乐或痛苦,由你选择。我强调它,并非不重要,因为这个选择注定会在你们身上产生某种更显著理由的效应。由于这个效应的结果,你们可能会被欺骗,关于这个问题的真实的意义。

What’s at issue here? That I attack the rights of another who is my fellow
man in that statement of the universal rule, or is it a question of the false
witness as such?

在此受到争议的什么?我攻击另外一个人的权利。他是我的同胞,就普遍性法则的那个陈述而言。或是问题会使这个虚假的证词本身?

And what if I changed the example a little? Let’s talk about true witness,
about a case of conscience which is raised if I am summoned to inform on my
neighbor or my brother for activities which are prejudicial to the security of
the state. That question is of a kind that shifts the emphasis placed on the
universal rule.

万一我稍微改变这个例子,结果是如何?让我们谈论真实的证人,关于一个良心的个案。这个个案被提出,假如我被召唤去告知我的邻居,或我的兄弟,因为一些对于国家的安全有威胁的活动。那个问题属于会改变放置在普遍性原则的强调。

And I who stand here right now and bear witness to the idea that there is
no law of the good except in evil and through evil, should I bear such witness?

我现在站在这里,见证这个观念:没有善的法则存在,除了在邪恶当中,或通过邪恶。我应该作这个见证吗?

This Law makes my neighbor’s jouissance the point on which, in bearing
witness in this case, the meaning of my duty is balanced. Must I go toward
my duty of truth insofar as it preserves the authentic place of my jouissance,
even if it is empty? Or must I resign myself to this he, which, by making me
substitute forcefully the good for the principle of my jouissance, commands
me to blow alternatively hot and cold? Either I refrain from betraying my
neighbor so as to spare my fellow man or I shelter behind my fellow man so
as to give up my jouissance.
March 20, I960

这个法则让我的邻居的欢爽成为这个要点,当我在这个情况作见证时,我的责任的意义被平衡。我必须朝向我的真理的责任迎向前去吗?因为它保持我的欢爽的真诚的位置,即使那是空洞的位置?或是,我必须顺从于这个他,凭借强迫我用这个善替换我的欢爽的原则,他命令我轮流地选择前者及后者。我要就是抑制著不要背叛我的邻居,为了替我的同胞免过一劫。或是我躲藏在我的同胞背后,为了放弃我的欢爽。
1960年,3月20日

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: