搜索选项 页码 [ 第 13 页 共 42 页 ]

9、西岛岩盔王

7、地中之盐岩盔王

5、乌库

3、瑶光滩左路

1、孤云阁右路

P43：

毛泽东3月下旬的谈话，重要精神之一是反对“右派”，一些工作组按照自己对“右派”的理解，过分严重地打击了向党委、向工作组发难者。毛泽东主张“横扫一切牛鬼蛇神”，一些工作组把有这样那样问题或所谓“问题”的同志看成“牛鬼蛇神”而加以打击。毛泽东号召批判所谓“反动学术权威”，一些工作组就狠狠打击所谓“反动学术权威”。

------------

工作组的“精神分裂”在此进一步加剧。现实情况是，毛的意见无人愿意反对，因此，承载着刘、邓路线和任务的工作组也不得不寻求毛语录的支持。但是，正如造反派不堪承受毛的理想一样，工作组在这一面上也如此不堪，以致他们只能互扣帽子，把毛的理想当成纯粹的战术武器。

P36：

拥护工作组者仗着人多势众，反对工作组者仗着《人民日报》社论的支持，各不相让。他们双方都引用毛泽东语录，证明自己的正确。他们也有一致的地方，那就是批斗“反动的‘学术权威’”和不包括当权者在内的“牛鬼蛇神”。工作组自然地站在拥护工作组的一边，压制或打击（甚至过重地打击）反对工作组者，犹如火上加油，反对工作组者就更加反对工作组。反对工作组者有“尚方宝剑”，人少、受压而毫无畏惧。中央报刊不间断地鼓动造反，使造反者扬眉吐气。工作组和大多数人指望中央会判明造党的领导的反者是错误的，这一天却不到来，他们越来越觉得不可理解。造反者对大多数人无可奈何，就把一切怨恨倾泄于工作组，他们甚至驱赶工作组。

------------

工作组确实背负了许多故事，由此可见一斑。

P33：

学校的动乱，就是在6月1日晚以后出现的。各地少数青年学生在上述一系列事件的直接影响下，响应号召，起来造反。造反者总的来说虽是少数，但是有恃无恐。个别学校还不一定是少数，如西安交大师生员工6月2日贴出了大字报万余张，矛头主要针对校党委。反对学校党委或党支部，批判专家、学者、权威，这些“革命行动”在高等学校中普遍发生，波及一些中等学校，不几日就使许多学校的领导和教学工作瘫痪或基本瘫痪。

------------

在任何时代，任何的国家和政府，要动员中下层起来反对“既得利益者”，何其容易。

P5：

毛泽东在《五·七指示》里，勾勒出他锁向往的、憧憬的社会。这是怎样一个社会呢？这是以阶级斗争为纲的、限制和逐步消灭分工的、限制和逐步消灭商品的、在分配上大体平均的社会，是自给自足或半自给自足的、小而全的、封闭式的社会。毛泽东的构想，大体上是军事共产主义的模式……中国已经进入社会主义社会，时间已经到了60年代，怎么可以以“抗日根据地”为理想境界呢？如果说这在军队中或许可以实行的话，那末怎么可以要求全国与军队一律呢？

------------

这种原始共产主义是毛泽东的过去，也是他的理想，脱离这一点就不能理解他。他的时间已经到1966年，但仍活在1936年。他要重现解放前苏区的日子，就如同在资本主义的现金流下呼唤往昔的田园牧歌。

前言P4：

李泽厚说：“把文化大革命简单归结为少数野心家的阴谋或上层最高领导的争权，是肤浅而不符合实际的。”“就这场‘革命’的发动着、领导者毛泽东来说，情况也极为复杂。既有追求新人新世界的理想主义一面，又有重新分配权力的政治斗争的一面；既有憎恶和希望粉碎官僚机器，改煤炭‘部’为煤炭‘科’的一面，又有怀疑‘大权旁落’有人‘篡权’的一面；既有追求永葆革命热情、奋斗精神（即所谓‘反修防修’）的一面，又有渴望做‘君师合一’的世界革命的导师和领袖的一面。既有‘天理’又有‘人欲’；二者是混在一起的。”这里正确地指出了情形的复杂，而其核心是“追求新人新世界的理想主义”，其他或居于从属地位，或由此派生。即以渴望做世界革命的导师和领袖而言，也与自认为把马克思主义发展到一个崭新的阶段紧密关联。

“尼采对爱与同情持否定态度，这最典型的体现在他对女人的态度上。”莫先生是的确没读懂尼采的书，也许是根本没读多少尼采的书。其实尼采并没有否定爱和同情，他否定的是世俗的、虚伪的爱和同情。说尼采不宽容吗？对于普通的个人，尼采倒是十分宽容的。他攻击基督教最烈，但他与最虔诚的基督徒也有着和睦的关系。莫先生这里列举尼采对女人的态度，是的，尼采总是强烈地批判女性，但是作为一个真正的哲学家，这有什么错吗？莫先生还发问：“不知他对抚育他的母亲持何态度。”可见莫先生是的确没读过尼采的书，据我所知，尼采一样的批判他的母亲，如果莫先生知道了这一点，也许就不再会如此诘问吧！但是，对于哲学问题，莫先生要把母亲拉出来放在女人的位置上，这合适吗？可知莫先生太鄙俗，请不要把“女人”和“母亲”这两个概念混淆了！女性与男性的智性差别问题是一个哲学家所首先应该认识到的，至于莫先生当然只能看到生理的差别了。

莫先生完全很擅长道听途说，“罗素认为尼采对女人的态度折射出了他自身的某种虚弱——尼采终生未娶，有人怀疑他患有厌女症或恐女症。”这简直有些道理，“终生未娶”，那么笛卡尔、霍布士、莱布尼茨、洛克、休谟、康德、叔本华这些人也一定是患有厌女症了，而恰恰这些患有厌女症的人却成了历史上伟大的哲学家，是不是这厌女症还和哲学有一定关系？或许莫先生会假设，假设莫先生自己也患厌女症，那也极可能成为一伟大哲学家了。莫先生不知私下是否叹息这件事？自己竟没得到这样的机会，不然便可一举成名，甚而伟大了！莫先生还丢给尼采一句话：“认识你自己。”但是请相信，尼采看到这句话恐怕要比莫先生早得多了！莫先生还是把这句话留给自己好一些！

“尼采的著作里颇多惊世骇俗之语，因而恶之者斥之为‘狂人’。设身处地想想，我们真的应该谅解他的偏激之处。他自幼身体多病，35岁时已不得不因病退职，44岁时精神失常，此后大部分时间在精神病院度过，并且至死不愈。他是一个不幸的病人，我们有什么理由去计较一个病人的偏激呢？……这难道不是一个生命奇迹吗？难道不值得我们肃然起敬吗？”

读到这里，我们就不由得愤怒了。这竟是完全浅陋鄙俗的见解，这甚至不是什么见解，这完全是一个无赖流氓的粗言烂语。莫先生自己是个什么样的人呢？他还显得大肚能容，不去计较“一个病人的偏激”。这简直无耻之极，一个无知之徒还要计较什么呢？还赞叹什么“生命奇迹”，还佯装“肃然起敬”，听来不禁肉麻，好似一头驴子看到有大学教授夸金庸，于是它也夸赞金庸：“哇，你的书写得好啊！你太棒了！”不理解事物本身，往往从别处微小处无关处下手，钻空子，这难道不是卑鄙又低俗者的一贯行径吗？莫先生在这里就是如此，他不懂尼采的哲学，却引用尼采多病的事实反诬尼采“偏激”。一个真心探求人生意义、生命哲学的哲学家难道没有摆脱“自私”与“嫉妒”这些小人心理吗？卑微的庸俗之徒岂不是处处思索着自己的健康状况和财产状况？但他对人生、在哲学上能有怎样高深的见解呢？不会的，不会有什么见解的，他除了庸俗还是庸俗，他恰是这样做的：当一个提出深刻思想的哲学家生了病，因为他不懂其思想而致的一种不满的情绪使他立刻找到了借口，“此人偏激，因病而致。”我想，我们不必再为描述这种人的荒唐行径而浪费时间了，我们常常碰得到，我们常常又可以一眼看穿他们的通身。

“近一百年过去了，时间已证明尼采是一位伟人。”瞧瞧，一切都是莫先生无知的证据。时间是什么东西？时间可以证明某一事物的成败，但某一事物的伟大都有其本质，这本质才足以称伟大，这本质有其伟大的作用，而时间只能证明其变化与存在。尼采哲学的本质是什么？这本质有何作用？莫先生对这些全然无知，他只听得外界纷纷攘攘地谈论尼采，有说尼采伟大的，有说尼采不好的，于是他也说尼采伟大，又附上一些听到的尼采的坏处，最后以一句：“时间已证明尼采是一位伟人”来作结。他觉得这样很完满了，可以忽悠人了。莫先生东拉西扯，扯上了时间，尼采是生于19世纪，距莫先生的确已有百年之遥，于是莫先生以这百年时间作据理直气壮。但若尼采恰生在了当代，与莫先生同时代，不知莫先生又如何评价呢？显然他是不能再说“时间已证明……”这样的话了。

至此，我们应该可以对莫先生的这篇序有一个清楚的认识了，也可以对莫先生的轮廓有一个清晰的影像了。这是一篇多么荒唐的序文，莫先生竟是多么的无知、多么的庸俗，他偏偏要登大雅之堂，他又不诚实，他虚伪透顶，他是个彻底的骗子，我们应该鄙视他！

作为一个人，要诚实！作为一名学者，更要诚实！

What's wrong with Nietzsche's philosophy from a modern perspective?

I will answer this honestly and without embellishment. I will answer looking on modernity, and what it is, from the outside (or, as modern people should say, objectively).

What is wrong with Nietzsche’s philosophy is that he’s an intellectual elitist. What is wrong with it is that it is not modern, it is not democratic, it is not vulgar. People are constantly failing to read him in proper context, or add context that shouldn’t be there. Intertextuality is a fine thing, but only once we properly understand it. If you want to understand Homer, you must not first read Vergil. And if you want to properly understand Nietzsche, please don’t be the butt-wad that brings in post-modernism. A post-modernist can talk about Nietzsche, a Nietzschean must try very hard to ignore post-modernism, lest he sees things that are simply not there. To put it plainly: it is quite okay to use Nietzsche and his ideas for your own work, but it is rather lacking in taste to subject a serious interpretation of Nietzsche to anachronistic concepts – those will not give you what Nietzsche intended, but what you can take from him regardless.

But also, if you want to properly understand Vergil, you must first read Homer. Arma virumque cano directly references both μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος (the opening line of the Iliad), as well as ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον (the opening line of the Odyssey); and if we are to truly understand what Vergil is saying here, we must know those lines. We must know that ‘Arms and the man I sing’ is a merging of ‘The wrath sing, goddess, of Peleus' son, Achilles’ and ‘Tell me, O Muse, of the man of many devices’, to understand Vergil is saying he’ll compose a work that is both the Iliad and the Odyssey; that he’s saying he’ll try to topple Homer and best him at his own game.

In that same vein, Nietzsche must be understood in the context of the works that influenced him. That is about 3000 years’ worth of literature. Now, I’m not saying we must read everything written in the last 3000 years; we could ignore Spanish lit entirely and not be any worse off. But one can hardly attempt to interpret Nietzsche without a thorough understanding of the Ancients (an understanding that is deeper than I myself possess, even though I’m working on it intensively). For example (and at this point I feel like I’m saying this every time I write about Nietzsche), he draws heavily from Theognis of Megara, a Greek elegiac poet from the Archaic period, who is utterly unknown to nearly every philosopher. And why should they be familiar with some long dead noble that was wont to write about drinking, partying and how the vulgar rabble of Megara took all his stuff in their popular revolution and made him a pauper? Like anyone would ever take seriously his ethical stances on what is proper behaviour for a noble, and how most people are too accursed to ever live up to that, so their morality is different, more vulgar, pleasure obsessed and filled with hate for their betters. To take such observations as relevant, one would have to assume they can tell us something about what can be thought of as sociology of ethics - an observational approach to how morality comes to be in a community and how it develops further.

“Um… Who would do that? Like, we all totally know that morality is like, something that bad to the bone philosophers make up, when they go all lame-o-rama. Gag me with a spoon. And stop spazzing with the natural sciences and sociology, that’s like totally last year, this Nietzsche guy sure as heck wasn’t doing something so grody to the max. Like whatever.” – Chelsey from the Valley

And, like I said elsewhere, most modern philosophers today don’t bother with anything older than Descartes. And it shows in that, even if they are sufficiently familiar with Greek philosophy to know a thing or two about Herakleitos, they don’t take him seriously to such extreme, they can’t comprehend that anyone else could, and should therefore be interpreted in a similar way. After all, what value could there be in Hreakleitos Skoteinos, or, in Latin translation, Heraclitus the Obscure? That his idea of the fundamental principle of the universe aligns well with the current state of affairs in quantum mechanics be damned. He’s old, he’s outdated, he’s weird and difficult to understand, and why should we bother with something that for a thousand years of Christianity was soundly ignored? So these modern philosophers fail to understand Nietzsche, and that may very well be considered his greatest offense in the context of modernity.

But those parts that are at least partially understood, those go against the delicate and cowardly* taste of modernity as well. Nietzsche likes war, as is sometimes mentioned, and people today just don’t have the stomach for it. Nietzsche detests democracy, and equality. And people today can’t stand that. They all fear that if democracy were taken from them, they would be among the ones found lacking in whatever quality we might use to decide who gets to vote and who doesn’t. Intelligence would be a good idea, and most people will agree – as long as they think their level of intelligence would be sufficient to retain their voting rights. They also don’t like to ask the hard questions about equality. Let’s give an example we’re all familiar with: American Civil War. I think we can all agree that slavery is bad and that we think Lincoln’s heart was in the right place about freeing them. But here’s the twist: he failed. The equality that most people think of when they talk about that war, is equality on paper. “Lincoln freed the slaves,” they say. “Lincoln fucked the slaves” I reply. Equality of that kind means squat, or the 60s wouldn’t have happened. Those people were freed, they were made equal. But anyone who’s lived a hard life knows that most of us would rather not be equal and have a roof over our head, than go hungry and cold, and “enjoy” some abstract equality. It is on that account that Athenian peasants hated Solon, when he passed a law preventing them to sell themselves into indentured slavery. But, it’s out of fashion, to think about such things, much less say them, and don’t even think about writing them. If, after all that, you even sign them, don’t be surprised.**

One last thing. Anthropologists have long since come to the conclusion, that progress is not a linear thing. That people and societies can develop in different directions. But most people today still think in terms of a linear progress, mostly because their idea of progress is predominantly technological. Nietzsche went in a different direction than nearly any philosopher before him. It is also a different direction than the one taken by most modern philosophers. But, as they think philosophy is a zero sum game, they think Nietzsche is wrong. In this, even modern philosophers are no better than the people who thought that being Christians made them better than those people that weren’t, or that having gunpowder made the better than those people that didn’t have it.

So what’s wrong with Nietzsche from a modern perspective? That he’s not modern.

*I plan to further expound on the presence of cowardice in modern mentality (especially ethics) and my objection to it in the near future, if my obligations will allow, in a post on one of my blogs. So be on the lookout, if you’re interested in this.

**This is a reference to an old Soviet joke among the intelligentsia: Don’t think. If you think, don’t say. If you say, don’t write. If you write, don’t sign. If you think, say, write and sign, don’t be surprised.