second epilogue-第7部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


which　the　more　this　person　expresses　opinions；　predictions；　and

justifications　of　the　collective　action　that　is　performed；　the　less　is

his　participation　in　that　action。

　　（2）　The　movement　of　nations　is　caused　not　by　power；　nor　by

intellectual　activity；　nor　even　by　a　combination　of　the　two　as

historians　have　supposed；　but　by　the　activity　of　all　the　people　who

participate　in　the　events；　and　who　always　combine　in　such　a　way　that

those　taking　the　largest　direct　share　in　the　event　take　on

themselves　the　least　responsibility　and　vice　versa。

　　Morally　the　wielder　of　power　appears　to　cause　the　event；

physically　it　is　those　who　submit　to　the　power。　But　as　the　moral

activity　is　inconceivable　without　the　physical；　the　cause　of　the　event

is　neither　in　the　one　nor　in　the　other　but　in　the　union　of　the　two。

　　Or　in　other　words；　the　conception　of　a　cause　is　inapplicable　to

the　phenomena　we　are　examining。

　　In　the　last　analysis　we　reach　the　circle　of　infinity…　that　final

limit　to　which　in　every　domain　of　thought　man's　reason　arrives　if　it

is　not　playing　with　the　subject。　Electricity　produces　heat；　heat

produces　electricity。　Atoms　attract　each　other　and　atoms　repel　one

another。

　　Speaking　of　the　interaction　of　heat　and　electricity　and　of　atoms；　we

cannot　say　why　this　occurs；　and　we　say　that　it　is　so　because　it　is

inconceivable　otherwise；　because　it　must　be　so　and　that　it　is　a　law。

The　same　applies　to　historical　events。　Why　war　and　revolution　occur　we

do　not　know。　We　only　know　that　to　produce　the　one　or　the　other　action；

people　combine　in　a　certain　formation　in　which　they　all　take　part；　and

we　say　that　this　is　so　because　it　is　unthinkable　otherwise；　or　in

other　words　that　it　is　a　law。

EP2｜CH8

　　CHAPTER　VIII



　　If　history　dealt　only　with　external　phenomena；　the　establishment

of　this　simple　and　obvious　law　would　suffice　and　we　should　have

finished　our　argument。　But　the　law　of　history　relates　to　man。　A

particle　of　matter　cannot　tell　us　that　it　does　not　feel　the　law　of

attraction　or　repulsion　and　that　that　law　is　untrue；　but　man；　who　is

the　subject　of　history；　says　plainly：　I　am　free　and　am　therefore　not

subject　to　the　law。

　　The　presence　of　the　problem　of　man's　free　will；　though

unexpressed；　is　felt　at　every　step　of　history。

　　All　seriously　thinking　historians　have　involuntarily　encountered

this　question。　All　the　contradictions　and　obscurities　of　history　and

the　false　path　historical　science　has　followed　are　due　solely　to　the

lack　of　a　solution　of　that　question。

　　If　the　will　of　every　man　were　free；　that　is；　if　each　man　could　act

as　he　pleased；　all　history　would　be　a　series　of　disconnected

incidents。

　　If　in　a　thousand　years　even　one　man　in　a　million　could　act　freely；

that　is；　as　he　chose；　it　is　evident　that　one　single　free　act　of　that

man's　in　violation　of　the　laws　governing　human　action　would　destroy

the　possibility　of　the　existence　of　any　laws　for　the　whole　of

humanity。

　　If　there　be　a　single　law　governing　the　actions　of　men；　free　will

cannot　exist；　for　then　man's　will　is　subject　to　that　law。

　　In　this　contradiction　lies　the　problem　of　free　will；　which　from　most

ancient　times　has　occupied　the　best　human　minds　and　from　most

ancient　times　has　been　presented　in　its　whole　tremendous　significance。

　　The　problem　is　that　regarding　man　as　a　subject　of　observation　from

whatever　point　of　view…　theological；　historical；　ethical；　or

philosophic…　we　find　a　general　law　of　necessity　to　which　he　（like

all　that　exists）　is　subject。　But　regarding　him　from　within　ourselves

as　what　we　are　conscious　of；　we　feel　ourselves　to　be　free。

　　This　consciousness　is　a　source　of　self…cognition　quite　apart　from

and　independent　of　reason。　Through　his　reason　man　observes　himself；

but　only　through　consciousness　does　he　know　himself。

　　Apart　from　consciousness　of　self　no　observation　or　application　of

reason　is　conceivable。

　　To　understand；　observe；　and　draw　conclusions；　man　must　first　of

all　be　conscious　of　himself　as　living。　A　man　is　only　conscious　of

himself　as　a　living　being　by　the　fact　that　he　wills；　that　is；　is

conscious　of　his　volition。　But　his　will…　which　forms　the　essence　of

his　life…　man　recognizes　（and　can　but　recognize）　as　free。

　　If；　observing　himself；　man　sees　that　his　will　is　always　directed

by　one　and　the　same　law　（whether　he　observes　the　necessity　of　taking

food；　using　his　brain；　or　anything　else）　he　cannot　recognize　this

never…varying　direction　of　his　will　otherwise　than　as　a　limitation

of　it。　Were　it　not　free　it　could　not　be　limited。　A　man's　will　seems　to

him　to　be　limited　just　because　he　is　not　conscious　of　it　except　as

free。

　　You　say：　I　am　not　and　am　not　free。　But　I　have　lifted　my　hand　and　let

it　fall。　Everyone　understands　that　this　illogical　reply　is　an

irrefutable　demonstration　of　freedom。

　　That　reply　is　the　expression　of　a　consciousness　that　is　not

subject　to　reason。

　　If　the　consciousness　of　freedom　were　not　a　separate　and

independent　source　of　self…consciousness　it　would　be　subject　to

reasoning　and　to　experience；　but　in　fact　such　subjection　does　not

exist　and　is　inconceivable。

　　A　series　of　experiments　and　arguments　proves　to　every　man　that　he；

as　an　object　of　observation；　is　subject　to　certain　laws；　and　man

submits　to　them　and　never　resists　the　laws　of　gravity　or

impermeability　once　he　has　become　acquainted　with　them。　But　the　same

series　of　experiments　and　arguments　proves　to　him　that　the　complete

freedom　of　which　he　is　conscious　in　himself　is　impossible；　and　that

his　every　action　depends　on　his　organization；　his　character；　and　the

motives　acting　upon　him；　yet　man　never　submits　to　the　deductions　of

these　experiments　and　arguments。　Having　learned　from　experiment　and

argument　that　a　stone　falls　downwards；　a　man　indubitably　believes　this

and　always　expects　the　law　that　he　has　learned　to　be　fulfilled。

　　But　learning　just　as　certainly　that　his　will　is　subject　to　laws；

he　does　not　and　cannot　believe　this。

　　However　often　experiment　and　reasoning　may　show　a　man　that　under　the

same　conditions　and　with　the　same　character　he　will　do　the　same

thing　as　before；　yet　when　under　the　same　conditions　and　with　the

same　character　he　approaches　for　the　thousandth　time　the　action　that

always　ends　in　the　same　way；　he　feels　as　certainly　convinced　as　before

the　experiment　that　he　can　act　as　he　pleases。　Every　man；　savage　or

sage；　however　incontestably　reason　and　experiment　may　prove　to　him

that　it　is　impossible　to　imagine　two　different　courses　of　action　in

precisely　the　same　conditions；　feels　that　without　this　irrational

conception　（which　constitutes　the　essence　of　freedom）　he　cannot

imagine　life。　He　feels　that　however　impossible　it　may　be；　it　is　so；

for　without　this　conception　of　freedom　not　only　would　he　be　unable

to　understand　life；　but　he　would　be　unable　to　live　for　a　single

moment。

　　He　could　not　live；　because　all　man's　efforts；　all　his　impulses　to

life；　are　only　efforts　to　increase　freedom。　Wealth　and　poverty；　fame

and　obscurity；　power　and　subordination；　strength　and　weakness；

health　and　disease；　culture　and　ignorance；　work　and　leisure；　repletion

and　hunger；　virtue　and　vice；　are　only　greater　or　lesser　degrees　of

freedom。

　　A　man　having　no　freedom　cannot　be　conceived　of　except　as　deprived　of

life。

　　If　the　conception　of　freedom　appears　to　reason　to　be　a　senseless

contradiction　like　the　possibility　of　performing　two　actions　at　one

and　the　same　instant　of　time；　or　of　an　effect　without　a　cause；　that

only　proves　that　consciousness　is　not　subject　to　reason。

　　This　unshakable；　irrefutable　consciousness　of　freedom；

uncontrolled　by　experiment　or　argument；　recognized　by　all　thinkers　and

felt　by　everyone　without　exception；　this　consciousness　without　which

no　conception　of　man　is　possible　constitutes　the　other　side　of　the

question。

　　Man　is　the　creation　of　an　all…powerful；　all…good；　and　all…seeing

God。　What　is　sin；　the　conception　of　which　arises　from　the

consciousness　of　man's　freedom？　That　is　a　question　for　theology。

　　The　actions　of　men　are　subject　to　general　immutable　laws　expressed

in　statistics。　What　is　man's　responsibility　to　society；　the　conception

of　which　results　from　the　conception　of　freedom？　That　is　a　question

for　jurisprudence。

　　Man's　actions　proceed　from　his　innate　character　and　the　motives

acting　upon　him。　What　is　conscience　and　the　perception　of　right　and

wrong　in　actions　that　follows　from　the　consciousness　of　freedom？

That　is　a　question　for　ethics。

　　Man　in　connection　with　the　general　life　of　humanity　appears

subject　to　laws　which　determine　that　life。　But　the　same　man　apart　from

that　connection　appears　to　free。　How　should　the　past　life　of　nations

and　of　humanity　be　regarded…　as　the　result　of　the　free；　or　as　the

result　of　the　constrained；　activity　of　man？　That　is　a　question　for

history。

　　Only　in　our　self…confident　day　of　the　popularization　of　knowledge…

thanks　to　that　most　powerful　engine　of　ignorance；　the　diffusion　of

printed　matter…　has　the　question　of　the　freedom　of　will　been　put　on

a　level　on　which　the　question　itself　cannot　exist。　In　our　time　the

majority　of　so…called　advanced　people…　that　is；　the　crowd　of

ignoramuses…　have　taken　the　work　of　the　naturalists　who　deal　with

one　side　of　the　question　for　a　solution　of　the　whole　problem。

　　They　say　and　write　and　print　that　the　soul　and　freedom　do　not　exist；

for　the　life　of　man　is　expressed　by　muscular　movements　and　muscular

movements　are　conditioned　by　the　activity　of　the　nerves；　the　soul

and　free　will　do　not　exist　because　at　an　unknown　period　of　time　we

sprang　from　the　apes。　They　say　this；　not　at　all　suspecting　that

thousands　of　years　ago　that　same　law　of　necessity　which　with　such

ardor　they　are　now　trying　to　prove　by　physiology　and　comparative

zoology　was　not　merely　acknowledged　by　all　the　religions　and　all　the

thinkers；　but　has　never　been　denied。　They　do　not　see　that　the　role

of　the　natural　sciences　in　this　matter　is　merely　to　serve　as　an

instrument　for　the　illumination　of　one　side　of　it。　For　the　fact

that；　from　the　point　of　view　of　observation；　reason　and　the　will　are

merely　secretions　of　the　brain；　and