It is first persecuted1, and not accepted. Then the fables2 of the fall of man, and of the first angel, are invented, and these fables are believed to be the teaching of Christ. The fables are absurd, they have no foundation whatever, but by virtue3 of them men are led to believe that they may continue to live in an evil way, and none the less consider themselves as saved by Christ. This conclusion is so agreeable to the mass of weak men who have no affection
for moral effort, that the system is eagerly accepted, not only as true, but even as the Divine truth as revealed by God himself. And the invention becomes the groundwork on which for centuries theologians build their theories.
Then by degrees these learned men diverge4 by various channels into special systems of their own, and finally endeavour to overthrow5 each other's theories. They begin to feel there is something amiss, and cease to understand what they themselves are talking about. But the crowd still requires them to expound6 its favourite instruction; and thus the theologians, pretending both to understand and believe what they are saying, continue to dispense7 it.
In process of time, however, the conclusions drawn8 from theological conceptions cease to be necessary to the masses, who, then, peeping into the very sanctuaries9 of their augurs10, discover them to be utterly11 void of those glorious and indubitable truths which the mysteries of theology had seemed to be, and see instead that there is nothing there but crude deception12, and they marvel13 at their own blindness.
The same happened to philosophy, not in the sense of the wisdom of men like Confucius or Epictetus, but with professional philosophy which humoured the instincts of the crowd of rich and idle people. Not long ago a moral philosophy was in fashion in the learned world, according to which it appeared that everything that is, is reasonable; that there is neither good nor evil; that man has not to struggle with evil, but has merely to manifest the spirit of the age, some in military service, some in courts of justice, and some on the violin.
Many and various were the expressions of human wisdom known to the men of the nineteenth century,—of Rousseau, Pascal, Lessing, and Spinoza; and all the wisdom of antiquity14 was expounded15, but none of its systems laid hold of the crowd. We cannot say that Hegel's success was due to the harmony of his theory. We had no less harmonious16 theories from Descartes, Leibnitz, Fichte, and Schopenhauer.
There was only one reason for the fact that this doctrine17 became for a short time the belief of the civilized18 world, the same reason that caused the success of the theory of the fall and redemption of man; to wit, that the deductions19 of this philosophical20 theory humoured the weak side of men's nature. It said, “All is reasonable, all is good; nobody is to blame for any thing.”
As at first with the church upon theological foundations, so also, with the philosophy of Hegel for a base,
a Babel's tower was built (some who are behind the age are still sitting upon it); and here again was a confusion of tongues, men feeling that they themselves did not know of what they were talking, but were trying to conceal22 their ignorance and keep up their prestige before the crowd; and here again the masses found confirmation23 of their accepted teachings, and believed that whatever might seem to them bewildering and contradictory24 is as clear as day-light on philosophic21 altitudes. In the same way, the time came when this doctrine wore out and a new one replaced it. It had become useless, and the crowd peeped into the mysterious temples of the teachers, and saw there was nothing there—nor ever had been, but obscure and unmeaning words. I have seen this in my own day.
When I began life, Hegelianism was the order of the day; it was in the very air you breathed; it found its expression in newspapers and magazines, in lectures on history and on law, in novels, in tracts25, in art, in sermons, in conversation. A man who did not know Hegel had no right to open his mouth; those who desired to learn the truth were studying Hegel,—every thing pointed27 to him; and lo! forty years have elapsed and nothing is left of him; there is no remembrance of him; all is as though he had never existed. And the most remarkable28 of all is, that just as false Christianity, so also Hegelianism has fallen, not because someone refuted or overthrew29 it; no, it is now as it was before, but both have only become no longer necessary for the learned, educated world.
If at the present time we speak to any man of modern culture about the fall of the angel, of Adam, about atonement, he does not argue or deny;—he simply asks, amazed, “What angel? Adam? What for? What atonement? What is all this to me?”
So also with Hegelianism. No one of our day will argue its theses. He will only inquire, “What Spirit?” “Where did it come from?” “With what purpose?” “What good will it do me?” Not very long ago the sages30 of Hegelianism were solemnly teaching the crowd; and the crowd, understanding nothing, blindly believed all, finding the confirmation of what suited them, and thinking that what seemed to them to be not quite clear or even contradictory, was clearer than day on the heights of philosophy: but time went on, the theory was worn out, a new one appeared in its place, the former one was no longer demanded, and again the crowd looked into the mysterious temples of the augurs and saw there
was nothing there, and that nothing had ever been there but words, very dark and meaningless.
This happened within my memory. These things happened, we are told, because they were ravings of the theological and metaphysical period, but now we have a critical, positive science which will not deceive us, because it is based upon induction31 and experience; now our knowledge is no longer uncertain as it formerly32 was, and it is only by following it that one can find the answer to all the questions of life.
But this is exactly what was said by the old teachers, and they certainly were no fools, and we know that among them were men of immense intellect; and within my memory the disciples33 of Hegel said exactly the same thing, with no less assurance and no less acknowledgment on the side of the crowd of so-called educated people. And such men as our Herzen, Stankievich, Bylinsky, were no fools either. But why, then, has this wonderful thing happened, that clever men preached with the greatest assurance and the crowd accepted with veneration34, only groundless and meaningless doctrines35? The reason is only that these doctrines justified36 men in their bad mode of living.
A very commonplace English writer, whose books are now almost forgotten and recognized as the emptiest of all empty ones, wrote a tract26 upon population, in which he invented an imaginary law that the means of living do not increase with the increase of population. This sham37 law the author dressed out with the formul? of mathematics which have no foundation whatever, and published it. Judged by the lightness of mind and the want of talent displayed in this treatise38 we might have supposed that it would have passed unnoticed and been forgotten as all other writings of the same author have been; but it turned out quite differently. The author who wrote it became at once a scientific authority, and has maintained this position for nearly half a century. Malthus! The Malthusian theory,—the law of the increase of population in geometrical progression, and the increase of means of living in arithmetical progression, and the natural and prudent39 means of restraining the increase of population,—all these became scientific, undoubted truths which have never been verified, but, accepted as axioms, have served for further deductions.
Thus learned and educated men were deceived; whereas in the crowd of idle men there was a blind and religious trust in the great laws discovered by Malthus. How did this happen? These statements seem to be scientific deductions
which have nothing in common with the instincts of the crowd.
But they are only sacred to those who believe science to be something self-existent and infallible, like the Church, and not merely the thoughts of weak men liable to mistakes, who only for importance' sake call their own thoughts and words by a pompous40 word, science. It was only necessary to draw practical conclusions from the Malthusian theory in order to see that it was quite a human one with very determinate aims.
The deductions which were directly drawn from this theory were the following: The miserable41 condition of working-people does not come from the cruelty, egotism, and unreasonableness42 of rich and powerful men, but it exists according to an unchangeable law which does not depend upon man, and, if anybody is to blame, it is the starving working-people themselves: why do these fools come into the world when they know that they will not have enough to eat? and therefore the wealthy and powerful classes are not at all to blame for any thing, and they may quietly continue to live as they have done.
This conclusion, being pleasant to the crowd of idle men, induced the learned dons to overlook the incorrectness and total arbitrariness of the deductions; and the crowd of educated, i.e., idle people, instinctively43 guessing to what these deductions led, greeted the theory with delight, set upon it the seal of truth, and cherished it during half a century. The reason for all this was, that these doctrines justified men in their bad mode of life.
Is not the same cause at the bottom of the self-assurance of men of the new positive, critical, experimental science, and of the reverent44 regard of the crowd to what they preach? At first it seems strange that the theory of evolution (like the theory of atonement in theology, it serves for the majority of men as a popular expression of the new teaching) should justify45 men in their false lives, and it would seem that the scientific theory has only to do with facts, and does nothing but observe facts. But it only seems so.
It had been so with theological teaching; theology seemed to be occupied only with doctrines and to have nothing to do with the lives of men. It had been so with philosophy, which also seemed to be occupied only with facts.
It had been so with the teaching of Hegel on a large scale, and with the theory of Malthus on a small one. Hegelianism seemed to be occupied merely with its logical constructions and to have nothing to do with the lives of
men; and the theory of Malthus seemed to be occupied exclusively with statistics.
But it only seemed so.
Modern science also claims to be occupied exclusively with facts: it studies facts.
But what facts? Why some facts and not others?
The disciples of the modern science are very fond of saying with a solemn assurance, “We study facts alone,” imagining that these words have some meaning.
To study facts alone is quite impossible, because the number of facts which may be objects of our study, are, in the strict sense of the word, countless46.
Before beginning to study facts, one must have some theory according to which the facts are studied; that is, determining which shall be selected from the countless number of facts. And this theory indeed exists and is even very definitely expressed, though many of the agents of modern science ignore it; that is, do not want to know it, or really do not know it;—sometimes pretend not to know it.
Thus matters stood before with all most important beliefs.
The basis of each is always given in theory; and so-called learned men seek only further deductions from the various bases given to them, though sometimes they ignore even these.
But a fundamental theory must always be present, and so it is also now. Modern science selects its facts on the ground of a determinate theory, which sometimes it knows, sometimes does not wish to know, sometimes really does not know; but which exists. The theory is this: Mankind is an undying organism, having each his special calling for the service of the whole. As the cells, growing into an organism, divide among themselves the labour of the struggle for existence of the whole organism, increase one capacity, and diminish another, and all together form an organ in order better to satisfy the wants of the whole organism; and as among social animals,—ants and bees,—the individuals divide the labour among themselves (queen-bees lay eggs, drone-bees fecundate, working-bees labour for the life of the whole),—so also in mankind and in human societies there take place the same differentiation47 and integration48 of the parts. And therefore, in order to find the law of man's life, we must study the laws of the lives and development of organisms. And in these we find the following laws: That each phenomenon is followed by more than one
consequence. The failure of uniformity. The law of uniformity and diversity; and so on.
All this seems to be very innocent, but we need only draw deductions from these observations of facts in order to see at once to what they are tending. These facts lead to one thing,—the acknowledgement of humanity or human society as an organism, and hence to the acknowledgment of the division of activities in human society as organic, that is necessary; and as there exist in human societies many cruelties and vices49, therefore these phenomena50 must not be considered as cruelties and vices, but must be accepted as inevitable51 facts confirming a general law—i.e., that of “division of labour.” Moral philosophy used also to justify every cruelty and wickedness; but there it became philosophical, and therefore incorrect. According to science, however, the same thing turns out to be scientific, and therefore unquestionable.
How can we help accepting such a fine theory! We need only look at human society merely as something to be observed, and we may quietly devour52 the labour of perishing men, calming ourselves with the idea that our activity as a dancing-master, a lawyer, a doctor, a philosopher, an actor, an investigator53 of the theory of mediumism and of forms of atoms, and so on, is a functional54 activity of the organism of mankind and therefore there can be no question whether it is just that I should continue to live doing only what is pleasant, just as there can be no question whether the division of labour between a mental and a muscular cell is fair or not. How can we help accepting such a nice theory which enables us afterwards to put our consciences into our pockets forever, and live a completely unbridled, animal life, feeling under our feet a firm, scientific support? And it is upon this new belief that the justification55 of idleness and the cruelty of men is built.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
persecuted
|
|
| （尤指宗教或政治信仰的）迫害(~sb. for sth.)( persecute的过去式和过去分词 )； 烦扰，困扰或骚扰某人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
fables
|
|
| n.寓言( fable的名词复数 )；神话，传说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
diverge
|
|
| v.分叉，分歧，离题，使...岔开，使转向 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
overthrow
|
|
| v.推翻，打倒，颠覆；n.推翻，瓦解，颠覆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
expound
|
|
| v.详述；解释；阐述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
dispense
|
|
| vt.分配，分发；配(药)，发(药)；实施 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
sanctuaries
|
|
| n.避难所( sanctuary的名词复数 )；庇护；圣所；庇护所 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
augurs
|
|
| n.（古罗马的）占兆官( augur的名词复数 )；占卜师，预言者v.预示，预兆，预言( augur的第三人称单数 )；成为预兆；占卜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
utterly
|
|
| adv.完全地，绝对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
deception
|
|
| n.欺骗，欺诈；骗局，诡计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
marvel
|
|
| vi.(at)惊叹vt.感到惊异；n.令人惊异的事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
antiquity
|
|
| n.古老；高龄；古物，古迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
expounded
|
|
| 论述，详细讲解( expound的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
harmonious
|
|
| adj.和睦的，调和的，和谐的，协调的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
civilized
|
|
| a.有教养的，文雅的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
deductions
|
|
| 扣除( deduction的名词复数 )； 结论； 扣除的量； 推演 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
philosophical
|
|
| adj.哲学家的，哲学上的，达观的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
philosophic
|
|
| adj.哲学的，贤明的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
conceal
|
|
| v.隐藏，隐瞒，隐蔽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
confirmation
|
|
| n.证实，确认，批准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
contradictory
|
|
| adj.反驳的，反对的，抗辩的；n.正反对，矛盾对立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
tracts
|
|
| 大片土地( tract的名词复数 )； 地带； （体内的）道； （尤指宣扬宗教、伦理或政治的）短文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
tract
|
|
| n.传单，小册子，大片(土地或森林) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
overthrew
|
|
| overthrow的过去式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
sages
|
|
| n.圣人( sage的名词复数 )；智者；哲人；鼠尾草（可用作调料） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
induction
|
|
| n.感应，感应现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
disciples
|
|
| n.信徒( disciple的名词复数 )；门徒；耶稣的信徒；（尤指）耶稣十二门徒之一 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
veneration
|
|
| n.尊敬，崇拜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
doctrines
|
|
| n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 )；教义；学说；（政府政策的）正式声明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
sham
|
|
| n./adj.假冒(的)，虚伪(的) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
treatise
|
|
| n.专著；(专题)论文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
prudent
|
|
| adj.谨慎的，有远见的，精打细算的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
pompous
|
|
| adj.傲慢的，自大的；夸大的；豪华的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
miserable
|
|
| adj.悲惨的，痛苦的；可怜的，糟糕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
unreasonableness
|
|
| 无理性； 横逆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
instinctively
|
|
| adv.本能地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
reverent
|
|
| adj.恭敬的，虔诚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
countless
|
|
| adj.无数的，多得不计其数的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
differentiation
|
|
| n.区别，区分 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
integration
|
|
| n.一体化，联合，结合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
vices
|
|
| 缺陷( vice的名词复数 )； 恶习； 不道德行为； 台钳 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
phenomena
|
|
| n.现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
devour
|
|
| v.吞没；贪婪地注视或谛听，贪读；使着迷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
investigator
|
|
| n.研究者，调查者，审查者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
functional
|
|
| adj.为实用而设计的，具备功能的，起作用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
justification
|
|
| n.正当的理由；辩解的理由 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |