バートランド・ラッセル『反俗評論集-人類の将来』の中の「知的戯言の概要(1943) 」(松下彰良・訳) 020 - Bertrand Russell: Unpopular Essays, 1950
知的戯言の概要(1943) n.2
時代の風潮は、もはや計算の上手な少年を人間は理性的であり魂は少なくともその一部分は不滅であることの証拠にすることを許さない以上、我々は(人間が理性的動物である)他の理由を探すことにしよう。 まずどこを探したら良いだろうか? いかにも意気揚々と(triumphantly)世界を現在の状態にまで導いてきた著名な政治家のなかに探したらよいだろうか? あるいは、文学者を選んだら良いだろうか? それとも哲学者のなかか? これらは全てそれぞれの主張する権利(claims)をもっているが、私は、正しくものを考える全ての人々が、人間のうちで最良であるばかりでなく最も賢いと認める人々、即ち、聖職者(clergy)から始めるべきだと考える。もし、「彼ら(聖職者達)」が理性的ででないとしたら、それよりもさらに劣る人間である我々にどんな希望があるだろうか? そうして(しかも)、悲しいかな、私は敬意を評して言うが ― 彼ら(聖職者達)の知恵があまり明らかではなかった時代があったのである。そうして、おかしなことを言うようだが、それらの時代というのは特に牧師の力が最大であった時代なのである。 |
Outline of Intellectual Rubbish (1943), n.2Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive; it was, that some people can do sums. He thought that there are three kinds of soul: the vegetable soul, possessed by all living things, both plants and animals, and concerned only with nourishment and growth; the animal soul, concerned with locomotion, and shared by man with the lower animals; and finally the rational soul, or intellect, which is the Divine mind, but in which men participate to a greater or less degree in proportion to their wisdom. It is in virtue of the intellect that man is a rational animal. The intellect is shown in various ways, but most emphatically by mastery of arithmetic. The Greek system of numerals was very bad, so that the multiplication table was quite difficult, and complicated calculations could only be made by very clever people. Nowadays, however, calculating machines do sums better than even the cleverest people, yet no one contends that these useful instruments are immortal, or work by divine inspiration. As arithmetic has grown easier, it has come to be less respected. The consequence is that, though many philosophers continue to tell us what fine fellows we are, it is no longer on account of our arithmetical skill that they praise us.Since the fashion of the age no longer allows us to point to calculating boys as evidence that man is rational and the soul, at least in part, immortal, let us look elsewhere. Where shall we look first? Shall we look among eminent statesmen, who have so triumphantly guided the world into its present condition? Or shall we choose the men of letters? Or the philosophers? All these have their claims, but I think we should begin with those whom all right thinking people acknowledge to be the wisest as well as the best of men, namely the clergy. If they fail to be rational, what hope is there for us lesser mortals? And alas - though I say it with all due respect - there have been times when their wisdom has not been very obvious, and, strange to say, these were especially the times when the power of the clergy was greatest. |