けれども,キリスト教の最悪の特徴は,性に対する態度である-それはあまりにも病的かつあまりにも不自然であり,ローマ帝国が衰退しつつあった時代の文明世界の病いと関連させることによってのみ理解することができる。我々は,時々,キリスト教が女性の地位を改善(向上)させたという趣旨の話を聞くことがある。これは,なしうる限りの,最もひどい歴史の曲解の一つである。女性が極めて厳格な道徳律(倫理規則)を犯してはならないということはこの上もなく重大であると考えられている社会においては,女性は我慢できる地位を享受することができない。修道士たちは,本来女性は誘惑者であると常に見なしてきた。即ち,彼らは,女性は主として不純な情欲をあおる者だと考えてきた。教会の教えは,童貞であること(virginity)は最善であるが,それが不可能な人々には結婚が許されるというのであったし,今なおそうである。
(注:大竹勝訳では,「処女は最善であり・・・」となっているが,前後関係からわかるようにここでは男性の修道士のことを言っており,あきらかに「童貞であること」を指している。「ヴァージン=女性」という思い込みがあるためであろう。大竹氏はシラキュース大学卒で日本翻訳家協会会長をされていたが・・・?) 聖パウロが粗野に表現しているように,「(情欲で)焼き焦がれるよりは,結婚したほうがよい」(という趣旨である)。結婚を解消できないものとし(注:カトリックの教義では離婚を認めていない。),性愛の技術(ars amandi)についてのすべての知識を根絶することによって,教会が認めた唯一の性の形 -快楽はほとんどなく,苦痛は大きくなければならないもの- を確保することに,教会は全力を尽くしたのである。事実,産児制限への反対も同じ動機を持っている。(即ち,)たとえ,女性(婦人)が,疲れきって死ぬまで,一年に一人(have a child a year …)子供をもつ(産む)としても(注:if = even if),結婚生活から多くの喜びを引き出すことを想定するべきではない。それゆえ,産児制限には反対しなければならない(とカトリック教会は考えるのである)(注:荒地出版社刊の大竹訳『宗教は必要か』では,「もし女性が一年間,疲労して死ぬくらいなら,結婚生活からたいした悦びを得られないであろう。それだから,産児制限は奨励されてはならないというのである。」と,文法を無視した,論理的に意味不明の訳をしている。産児制限をしないで毎年子供を産めばどういうことになるか,常識的に想像がつきそうなものである。)
The worst feature of the Christian religion, however, is its attitude toward sex — an attitude so morbid and so unnatural that it can be understood only when taken in relation to the sickness of the civilized world at the time the Roman Empire was decaying. We sometimes hear talk to the effect that Christianity improved the status of women. This is one of the grossest perversions of history that it is possible to make. Women cannot enjoy a tolerable position in society where it is considered of the utmost importance that they should not infringe a very rigid moral code. Monks have always regarded Woman primarily as the temptress; they have thought of her mainly as the inspirer of impure lusts. The teaching of the church has been, and still is, that virginity is best, but that for those who find this impossible marriage is permissible. “It is better to marry than to burn,” as St. Paul brutally puts it. By making marriage indissoluble, and by stamping out all knowledge of the ars amandi, the church did what it could to secure that the only form of sex which it permitted should involve very little pleasure and a great deal of pain. The opposition to birth control has, in fact, the same motive: if a woman has a child a year until she dies worn out, it is not to be supposed that she will derive much pleasure from her married life; therefore birth control must be discouraged.
出典:Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization? 1930
詳細情報:http://russell-j.com/beginner/0466HRMUC-030.HTM
There is nothing accidental about this difference between a church and its founder. As soon as absolute truth is supposed to be contained in the sayings of a certain man, there is a body of experts to interpret his sayings, and these experts infallibly acquire power, since they hold the key to truth. Like any other privileged caste, they use their power for their own advantage. They are, however, in one respect worse than any other privileged caste, since it is their business to expound an unchanging truth, revealed once for all in utter perfection, so that they become necessarily opponents of all intellectual and moral progress. The church opposed Galileo and Darwin; in our own day it opposes Freud. In the days of its greatest power it went further in its opposition to the intellectual life. Pope Gregory the Great wrote to a certain bishop a letter beginning:
“A report has reached us which we cannot mention without a blush, that thou expoundest grammar to certain friends.”
The bishop was compelled by pontifical authority to desist from this wicked labor, and Latinity did not recover until the Renaissance. It is not only intellectually but also morally that religion is pernicious. I mean by this that it teaches ethical codes which are not conducive to human happiness. When, a few years ago, a plebiscite was taken in Germany as to whether the deposed royal houses should still be allowed to enjoy their private property, the churches in Germany officially stated that it would be contrary to the teaching of Christianity to deprive them of it. The churches, as everyone knows, opposed the abolition of slavery as long as they dared, and with a few well-advertised exceptions they oppose at the present day every movement toward economic justice. The Pope has officially condemned Socialism.
出典:Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization? 1930
詳細情報:http://russell-j.com/beginner/0466HRMUC-020.HTM
My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others.
The word religion is used nowadays in a very loose sense. Some people, under the influence of extreme Protestantism, employ the word to denote any serious personal convictions as to morals or the nature of the universe. This use of the word is quite unhistorical. Religion is primarily a social phenomenon. Churches may owe their origin to teachers with strong individual convictions, but these teachers have seldom had much influence upon the churches that they have founded, whereas churches have had enormous influence upon the communities in which they flourished. To take the case that is of most interest to members of Western civilization: the teaching of Christ, as it appears in the Gospels, has had extraordinarily little to do with the ethics of Christians. The most important thing about Christianity, from a social and historical point of view, is not Christ but the church, and if we are to judge of Christianity as a social force we must not go to the Gospels for our material. Christ taught that you should give your goods to the poor, that you should not fight, that you should not go to church, and that you should not punish adultery. Neither Catholics nor Protestants have shown any strong desire to follow His teaching in any of these respects. Some of the Franciscans, it is true, attempted to teach the doctrine of apostolic poverty, but the Pope condemned them, and their doctrine was declared heretical. Or, again, consider such a text as “Judge not, that ye be not judged,” and ask yourself what influence such a text has had upon the Inquisition and the Ku Klux Klan.
What is true of Christianity is equally true of Buddhism. The Buddha was amiable and enlightened; on his deathbed he laughed at his disciples for supposing that he was immortal. But the Buddhist priesthood — as it exists, for example, in Tibet — has been obscurantist, tyrannous, and cruel in the highest degree.
ostered by known methods of education.
出典:Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization? 1930
詳細情報:http://russell-j.com/beginner/0466HRMUC-010.HTM
もし人間が利己心によって動かされるとするならば -少数の聖者を除いて(実際は)そうではないですが- 全人類は協力(協調)することでしょう。(注:人間が,他人を害するよりも「利己心」を重視すれば,つまり,結果として,お互いの「利己心」を尊重しすることになれば,お互い協力しあうことになるであろう,という意味合い。ラッセル『ヒューマン・ソサエティ』に収録された勝部訳のように,’self-interest’ を「利己主義」と訳すとピンとこなくなる。) そうであれば(みな利己心に忠実なら),戦争も,軍隊も,海軍も,原子爆弾もなくなるでしょう。国民Bに対抗する(敵愾心を持つ)国民Aの心を,また,逆に,国民Aに対抗する(対抗心を持つ)国民Bの心を害するために雇用されている多数の宣伝家の人々もなくなるでしょう。それがどれだけ優れているとしても,外国の書籍や思想の(自国への)流入を防ぐために国境(frontiers)に配置されている多数の官僚たちもなくなるでしょう。一つの大企業のほうが(中小企業より)もっと経済的であるところ(現状)で,多くの小企業の存在を保証するべく,関税障壁もなくなるでしょう。もし人々が自分自身の幸福を,隣人の不幸を望んだのと同じ熱心さで望んだとするならば(注:皮肉ですよ),こういうすべてのことがすみやかに起こるでしょう。しかし,皆さんは,そんなユートピア主義者の夢がどんな役に立つのかと言われるでしょう。道徳家たちは我々が完全に利己的ににならないように取り計らうことでしょう。そうして(しかし),我々が利己的にならない限り,至福千年(の到来)は不可能でしょう(until we do the millenium will be impossible)。
The time has come to sum up our discussion. Politics is concerned with herds rather than with individuals, and the passions which are important in politics are, therefore, those in which the various members of a given herd can feel alike. The broad instinctive mechanism upon which political edifices have to be built is one of cooperation within the herd and hostility towards other herds. The co-operation within the herd is never perfect. There are members who do not conform, who are, in the etymological sense, “egregious”, that is to say, outside the flock. These members are those who have fallen below, or risen above, the ordinary level. They are: idiots, criminals, prophets, and discoverers. A wise herd will learn to tolerate the eccentricity of those who rise above the average, and to treat with a minimum of ferocity those who fall below it.
As regards relations to other herds, modern technique has produced a conflict between self-interest and instinct. In old days, when two tribes went to war, one of them exterminated the other, and annexed its territory. From the point of view of the victor, the whole operation was thoroughly satisfactory. The killing was not at all expensive, and the excitement was agreeable. It is not to be wondered at that, in such circumstances, war persisted. Unfortunately, we still have the emotions appropriate to such primitive warfare, while the actual operations of war have changed completely. Killing an enemy in a modern war is a very expensive operation. If you consider how many Germans were killed in the late war, and how much the victors are paying in income tax, you can, by a sum in long division, discover the cost of a dead German, and you will find it considerable. In the East, it is true, the enemies of the Germans have secured the ancient advantages of turning out the defeated population and occupying their lands. The Western victors, however, have secured no such advantages. It is obvious that modern war is not good business from a financial point of view. Although we won both the world wars, we should now be much richer if they had not occurred. If men were actuated by self-interest, which they are not – except in the case of a few saints – the whole human race would cooperate. There would be no more wars, no more armies, no more navies, no more atom bombs. There would not be armies of propagandists employed in poisoning the minds of Nation A against Nation B, and reciprocally of Nation B against Nation A. There would not be armies of officials at frontiers to prevent the entry of foreign books and foreign ideas, however excellent in themselves. There would not be customs barriers to ensure the existence of many small enterprises where one big enterprise would be more economic. All this would happen very quickly if men desired their own happiness as ardently as they desired the misery of their neighbours. But, you will tell me, what is the use of these Utopian dreams ? Moralists will see to it that we do not become wholly selfish, and until we do the millennium will be impossible.
I do not wish to seem to end upon a note of cynicism. I do not deny that there are better things than selfishness, and that some people achieve these things. I maintain, however, on the one hand, that there are few occasions upon which large bodies of men, such as politics is concerned with, can rise above selfishness, while, on the other hand, there are a very great many circumstances in which populations will fall below selfishness, if selfishness is interpreted as enlightened self-interest.
And among those occasions on which people fall below self-interest are most of the occasions on which they are convinced that they are acting from idealistic motives. Much that passes as idealism is disguised hatred or disguised love of power. When you see large masses of men swayed by what appear to be noble motives, it is as well to look below the surface and ask yourself what it is that makes these motives effective. It is partly because it is so easy to be taken in by a facade of nobility that a psychological inquiry, such as I have been attempting, is worth making. I would say, in conclusion, that if what I have said is right, the main thing needed to make the world happy is intelligence. And this, after all, is an optimistic conclusion, because intelligence is a thing that can be fostered by known methods of education.
出典:Bertrand Russell: What Desires Are Politically Important? 1950
詳細情報:http://russell-j.com/beginner/0944WDPI-160.HTM
I do not think it can be questioned that sympathy is a genuine motive, and that some people at some times are made somewhat uncomfortable by the sufferings of some other people. It is sympathy that has produced the many humanitarian advances of the last hundred years. We are shocked when we hear stories of the ill-treatment of lunatics, and there are now quite a number of asylums in which they are not ill-treated. Prisoners in Western countries are not supposed to be tortured, and when they are, there is an outcry if the facts are discovered. We do not approve of treating orphans as they are treated in Oliver Twist. Protestant countries disapprove of cruelty to animals. In all these ways sympathy has been politically effective. If the fear of war were removed, its effectiveness would become much greater. Perhaps the best hope for the future of mankind is that ways will be found of increasing the scope and intensity of sympathy.
出典:Bertrand Russell: What Desires Are Politically Important? 1950
詳細情報:http://russell-j.com/beginner/0944WDPI-150.HTM
There are two ways of coping with fear: one is to diminish the external danger, and the other is to cultivate Stoic endurance. The latter can be reinforced, except where immediate action is necessary, by turning our thoughts away from the cause of fear. The conquest of fear is of very great importance. Fear is in itself degrading; it easily becomes an obsession; it produces hate of that which is feared, and it leads headlong to excesses of cruelty. Nothing has so beneficent an effect on human beings as security. If an international system could be established which would remove the fear of war, the improvement in everyday mentality of everyday people would be enormous and very rapid. Fear, at present, overshadows the world. The atom bomb and the bacterial bomb, wielded by the wicked communist or the wicked capitalist as the case may be, make Washington and the Kremlin tremble, and drive men further along the road toward the abyss. If matters are to improve, the first and essential step is to find a way of diminishing fear. The world at present is obsessed by the conflict of rival ideologies, and one of the apparent causes of conflict is the desire for the victory of our own ideology and the defeat of the other. I do not think that the fundamental motive here has much to do with ideologies. I think the ideologies are merely a way of grouping people, and that the passions involved are merely those which always arise between rival groups. There are, of course, various reasons for hating communists. First and foremost, we believe that they wish to take away our property. But so do burglars, and although we disapprove of burglars our attitude towards them is very different indeed from our attitude towards communists – chiefly because they do not inspire the same degree of fear. Secondly, we hate the communists because they are irreligious. But the Chinese have been irreligious since the eleventh century, and we only began to hate them when they turned out Chiang Kai-shek. Thirdly, we hate the communists because they do not believe in democracy, but we consider this no reason for hating Franco. Fourthly, we hate them because they do not allow liberty; this we feel so strongly that we have decided to imitate them. It is obvious that none of these is the real ground for our hatred. We hate them because we fear them and they threaten us. If the Russians still adhered to the Greek Orthodox religion, if they had instituted parliamentary government, and if they had a completely free press which daily vituperated us, then – provided they still had armed forces as powerful as they have now – we should still hate them if they gave us ground for thinking them hostile. There is, of course, the odium theologicum, and it can be a cause of enmity. But I think that this is an offshoot of herd feeling: the man who has a different theology feels strange, and whatever is strange must be dangerous. Ideologies, in fact, are one of the methods by which herds are created, and the psychology is much the same however the herd may have been generated.
出典:Bertrand Russell: What Desires Are Politically Important? 1950
詳細情報:http://russell-j.com/beginner/0944WDPI-140.HTM
Interwoven with many other political motives are two closely related passions to which human beings are regrettably prone: I mean fear and hate. It is normal to hate what we fear, and it happens frequently, though not always, that we fear what we hate. I think it may be taken as the rule among primitive men, that they both fear and hate whatever is unfamiliar. They have their own herd, originally a very small one. And within one herd, all are friends, unless there is some special ground of enmity. Other herds are potential or actual enemies; a single member of one of them who strays by accident will be killed. An alien herd as a whole will be avoided or fought according to circumstances. It is this primitive mechanism which still controls our instinctive reaction to foreign nations. The completely untravelled person will view all foreigners as the savage regards a member of another herd. But the man who has travelled, or who has studied international politics, will have discovered that, if his herd is to prosper, it must, to some degree, become amalgamated with other herds. If you are English and someone says to you, “The French are your brothers”, your first instinctive feeling will be, “Nonsense. They shrug their shoulders, and talk French. And I am even told that they eat frogs.” If he explains to you that we may have to fight the Russians, that, if so, it will be desirable to defend the line of the Rhine, and that, if the line of the Rhine is to be defended, the help of the French is essential, you will begin to see what he means when he says that the French are your brothers. But if some fellow-traveller were to go on to say that the Russians also are your brothers, he would be unable to persuade you, unless he could show that we are in danger from the Martians. We love those who hate our enemies, and if we had no enemies there would be very few people whom we should love.
All this, however, is only true so long as we are concerned solely with attitudes towards other human beings. You might regard the soil as your enemy because it yields reluctantly a niggardly subsistence. You might regard Mother Nature in general as your enemy, and envisage human life as a struggle to get the better of Mother Nature. If men viewed life in this way, cooperation of the whole human race would become easy. And men could easily be brought to view life in this way if schools, newspapers, and politicians devoted themselves to this end. But schools are out to teach patriotism; newspapers are out to stir up excitement; and politicians are out to get re-elected. None of the three, therefore, can do anything towards saving the human race from reciprocal suicide.
出典:Bertrand Russell: What Desires Are Politically Important? 1950
詳細情報:http://russell-j.com/beginner/0944WDPI-130.HTM
興奮について重大なことは,その非常に多くの形態が破壊的だということです。酒や賭博で過度になることに抵抗できない人々においては,興奮は破壊的なものになります。興奮が暴徒による暴力という形をとる時,それは破壊的になります。また,何にも増して,興奮(状態)が戦争に導く時,それは破壊的になります。興奮(を求める心)は非常に根深い要求ですので,害のないはけ口が手近にないと,この破壊的な種類の有害なはけ口を見出します。現在では,スポーツにそのような罪のないはけ口があり,政治も,憲法の制限内に止めておかれる限り(注:違憲にならない範囲であれば),同様に罪のないはけ口です。しかしこういったはけ口では不十分であり,特に最も人を興奮させる政治の種類(たぐい)は,また,最も有害な種類(たぐい)です。 文明化された生活はまったく飼いならされすぎたものであり,もし文明化された生活が安定するためには,我々の遠い先祖が狩猟によって満足させていた衝動のための罪のないはけロを提供しなければなりません。オーストラリアは,国民の数が少なく,兎(うさぎ)の数は非常に多いところですが,私はオーストラリアの住民が皆,何千頭もの兎を手ぎわよく殺戮することによって,原始的な方法で原始的な衝動を満足させているのを観察しました。 しかし,ロンドンやニューヨーク(のような現代都市)では,原始的な衝動を満足させるための別の方法を発見しなければなりません。私は,あらゆる大都市には,人々が非常に壊れやすいカヌーで下ることのできるような人工の滝や,機械じかけの鮫がいっぱいいるプールが設けられるべきだと考えます。予防戦争(注: a preventive war :敵の有利な戦争開始を予防するために先制して発動する戦争)を擁護しているとわかった者は誰でも一日に2時間この巧妙につくられた怪物どもに責められるべきでしょう。もっと真面目に言えば,興奮を求める心に建設的なはけ口を提供するように努力(注:pains 複数形になっている場合は「骨折り」。)がなされるべきでしょう。世界で何よりも刺激的なのは,突然の発見あるいは発明の瞬間です。時折思われているよりももっと多くの人々がそのような瞬間を経験することが可能です。
What is serious about excitement is that so many of its forms are destructive. It is destructive in those who cannot resist excess in alcohol or gambling. It is destructive when it takes the form of mob violence. And above all it is destructive when it leads to war. It is so deep a need that it will find harmful outlets of this kind unless innocent outlets are at hand. There are such innocent outlets at present in sport, and in politics so long as it is kept within constitutional bounds. But these are not sufficient, especially as the kind of politics that is most exciting is also the kind that does most harm. Civilized life has grown altogether too tame, and, if it is to be stable, it must provide harmless outlets for the impulses which our remote ancestors satisfied in hunting. In Australia, where people are few and rabbits are many, I watched a whole populace satisfying the primitive impulse in the primitive manner by the skillful slaughter of many thousands of rabbits. But in London or New York some other means must be found to gratify primitive impulse. I think every big town should contain artificial waterfalls that people could descend in very fragile canoes, and they should contain bathing pools full of mechanical sharks. Any person found advocating a preventive war should be condemned to two hours a day with these ingenious monsters. More seriously, pains should be taken to provide constructive outlets for the love of excitement. Nothing in the world is more exciting than a moment of sudden discovery or invention, and many more people are capable of experiencing such moments than is sometimes thought.
出典:Bertrand Russell: What Desires Are Politically Important? 1950
詳細情報:http://russell-j.com/beginner/0944WDPI-120.HTM
It is not altogether easy to decide what is the root cause of the love of excitement. I incline to think that our mental make-up is adapted to the stage when men lived by hunting. When a man spent a long day with very primitive weapons in stalking a deer with the hope of dinner, and when, at the end of the day, he dragged the carcass triumphantly to his cave, he sank down in contented weariness, while his wife dressed and cooked the meat. He was sleepy, and his bones ached, and the smell of cooking filled every nook and cranny of his consciousness. At last, after eating, he sank into deep sleep. In such a life there was neither time nor energy for boredom. But when he took to agriculture, and made his wife do all the heavy work in the fields, he had time to reflect upon the vanity of human life, to invent mythologies and systems of philosophy, and to dream of the life hereafter in which he would perpetually hunt the wild boar of Valhalla. Our mental make-up is suited to a life of very severe physical labor. I used, when I was younger, to take my holidays walking. I would cover twenty-five miles a day, and when the evening came I had no need of anything to keep me from boredom, since the delight of sitting amply sufficed. But modern life cannot be conducted on these physically strenuous principles. A great deal of work is sedentary, and most manual work exercises only a few specialized muscles. When crowds assemble in Trafalgar Square to cheer to the echo an announcement that the government has decided to have them killed, they would not do so if they had all walked twenty-five miles that day. This cure for bellicosity is, however, impracticable, and if the human race is to survive – a thing which is, perhaps, undesirable – other means must be found for securing an innocent outlet for the unused physical energy that produces love of excitement. This is a matter which has been too little considered, both by moralists and by social reformers. The social reformers are of the opinion that they have more serious things to consider. The moralists, on the other hand, are immensely impressed with the seriousness of all the permitted outlets of the love of excitement; the seriousness, however, in their minds, is that of sin. Dance halls, cinemas, this age of jazz, are all, if we may believe our ears, gateways to Hell, and we should be better employed sitting at home contemplating our sins. I find myself unable to be in entire agreement with the grave men who utter these warnings. The devil has many forms, some designed to deceive the young, some designed to deceive the old and serious. If it is the devil that tempts the young to enjoy themselves, is it not, perhaps, the same personage that persuades the old to condemn their enjoyment? And is not condemnation perhaps merely a form of excitement appropriate to old age? And is it not, perhaps, a drug which – like opium – has to be taken in continually stronger doses to produce the desired effect? Is it not to be feared that, beginning with the wickedness of the cinema, we should be led step by step to condemn the opposite political party, dagoes, wops, Asiatics, and, in short, everybody except the fellow members of our club? And it is from just such condemnations, when widespread, that wars proceed. I have never heard of a war that proceeded from dance halls.
出典:Bertrand Russell: What Desires Are Politically Important? 1950
詳細情報:http://russell-j.com/beginner/0944WDPI-110.HTM
<寸言>
ラッセルの名言:「戦争,虐殺,迫害は,すべて退屈からの逃避の一部(逃避から生まれたもの)であり,隣人とのけんかさえ,何もないよりはましだと感じられてきた。それゆえ退屈は,人類の罪の少なくとも半分は退屈を恐れることに起因していることから,モラリスト(道徳家)にとってきわめて重要な問題である。」
出典: The Conquest of Happiness, 1930, chap. 4: boredom and excitement.
詳細情報.:http://russell-j.com/beginner/HA14-030.HTM
私は,今や,(これまでのべた以外の)他の動機について検討するところに来ました。これから検討する動機は今まで検討してきた動機ほど根本的なものではありませんが,それでもなお,かなり重要なものです。それらの動機の第一は(人間が)興奮を好むことです。人間は退屈を味わえる能力(注:”their capacity for boredom” 「退屈に耐える能力」と訳している人が多いですが、なぜ「退屈を味わえる点(能力)」としたか,一番下の「考察」を参照してください。)によって獣よりもすぐれていることを示しています。ただし,動物園(注:”at the Zoo” 定冠詞付きかつ大文字のZooとなっているので,ロンドン動物園のことか?)の類人猿を観察していて(in examining),彼らも,もしかすると,この退屈な感情の初歩的なものをもっているかも知れない,と時々思ったことがあります。いずれにしても,経験の示すところでは,退屈(倦怠)から逃れることはほとんど全ての人類の本当に強い欲求の一つです。白人が,まだ損なわれていない未開人と初めて接触をする時に,白人は彼らに,福音の光明からパンプキン・バイにいたるまで,あらゆる種類の便益(恩恵)を提供します。けれども,我々としては残念なことながら,そういったものは大部分の未開人には全然興味がありません。我々がもたらす贈り物のなかで彼らが本当に価値があると思うものは人を酔わせる酒であり,それは,野蛮人に,生まれて初めて,ほんのつかの間,死ぬよりは生きていた方がましだという錯覚を与えることができます。アメリカ・インディアンは,白人による影響をいまだ受けていなかった頃,パイプを我々のように穏やかに吸うのではなく,めちゃくちゃに深く肺まで吸い込み,そのために失神してしまいました。そうして,ニコチンによる刺激が失敗する(効果がなくなる)と,愛国的な雄弁家が一族を扇動し,近くの種族を攻撃させました。これが,(気質により)我々なら競馬や総選挙から得るような,全ての楽しみを一族に与えました。ギャンブルの楽しみはほとんどすべて興奮することのなかにあります。(フランス人の)フック氏は,冬の万里の長城で,中国の商人が,全ての現金を失うまでギャンブル(賭け事)をやり続け,次に全ての商品を失い,ついには自分の服を脱いで裸になって寒さのため死んでしまうまでギャンブル(賭け事)をにふける姿を描写しています。原始的なアメリカ・インディアン部族の場合と同様,文明人にとっても,戦争が勃発した時に,民衆に拍手をさせるのは,主として興奮を求める心である,と私は思います。この感情は -戦争勃発の結果は時としてもっと重大ではありますが- フットボール試合(に熱狂する時)とそっくりです。
I come now to other motives which, though in a sense less fundamental than those we have been considering, are still of considerable importance. The first of these is love of excitement. Human beings show their superiority to the brutes by their capacity for boredom, though I have sometimes thought, in examining the apes at the Zoo, that they, perhaps, have the rudiments of this tiresome emotion. However that may be, experience shows that escape from boredom is one of the really powerful desires of almost all human beings. When white men first effect contact with some unspoilt race of savages, they offer them all kinds of benefits, from the light of the gospel to pumpkin pie. These, however, much as we may regret it, most savages receive with indifference. What they really value among the gifts that we bring to them is intoxicating liquor which enables them, for the first time in their lives, to have the illusion for a few brief moments that it is better to be alive than dead. Red Indians, while they were still unaffected by white men, would smoke their pipes, not calmly as we do, but orgiastically, inhaling so deeply that they sank into a faint. And when excitement by means of nicotine failed, a patriotic orator would stir them up to attack a neighbouring tribe, which would give them all the enjoyment that we (according to our temperament) derive from a horse race or a General Election. The pleasure of gambling consists almost entirely in excitement. Monsieur Huc describes Chinese traders at the Great Wall in winter, gambling until they have lost all their cash, then proceeding to lose all their merchandise, and at last gambling away their clothes and going out naked to die of cold. With civilized men, as with primitive Red Indian tribes, it is, I think, chiefly love of excitement which makes the populace applaud when war breaks out; the emotion is exactly the same as at a football match, although the results are sometimes somewhat more serious.
出典:Bertrand Russell: What Desires Are Politically Important? 1950
詳細情報:http://russell-j.com/beginner/0944WDPI-100.HTM
<考察>
『ヒューマン・ソサエティ』(玉川大学出版部)の勝部訳では,”capacity for boredom” のところを「人間は,退屈に耐える能力では,獣どもよりすぐれている。」と訳されています(インターネット上にはこのように訳されている例が非常に多くあります。Yahoo 知恵袋で模範解答?としてだされている例は酷い誤訳であり,参考になりません。 http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1014297440
それから,主婦の友社のノーベル文学賞全集第22巻「ラッセル、チャーチル」に収められた大竹勝訳では「人間は倦怠をもよおすという能力によって動物(注:人間も動物であり,ラッセルは’brutes’ と書いているのですから,「獣」と訳して欲しいところ)よりもすぐれている」と訳されています。 * capacity (n):受容力,収容能力;容量;知的能力;達成(産出,抵抗)しうる能力;一定の処理(作用)が可能な性質(状態)
日常,日本語では「キャパがない」といった使い方をする場合は、収納能力や自分の処理能力がない(限界だ)という意味合いで使うことが多い。それでは,”capacity for boredom” は「退屈に耐える能力」でしょうか? 単語に多くの意味がある場合には,前後関係が重要であるとともに、論理的におかしくなる訳はさけなければなりません。
ラッセルは,「政治的に重要な人間の欲求や動機」について考察しており、上記の文章では「興奮を好む」ということも大きな動機になる,と言っています。人間は刺激や興奮を求め、戦争だけでなく,フットボールなどのスポーツでも我を忘れてしまうことが多々あり、危険なことが少なくありません。つまり、退屈に耐えられずに刺激を求めるのが人間の性(さが)です。
ラッセルの有名な言葉に次の言葉もあります。
Wars, pogroms, and persecutions have all been part of the flight from boredom; even quarrels with neighbours have been found better than nothing. Boredom is therefore a vital problem for the moralist, since at least half the sins of mankind are caused by the fear of it.(戦争,虐殺,迫害は,すべて退屈からの逃避の一部(→逃避から生まれたもの)であり,隣人とのけんかさえ,何もないよりはましだと感じられてきた。それゆえ退屈は,人類の罪の少なくとも半分は退屈を恐れることに起因していることから,モラリスト(道徳家)にとってきわめて重要な問題である。)
これを読めば、ラッセルの文章を,勝部氏のように「人間は,退屈に耐える能力では,獣どもよりすぐれている。」と訳すことなどとうてい考えらません。
いや、その前に、論理的におかしくないでしょうか? 人間に近い動物(猿など)を除いて、動物は「退屈などという感情を感じることはない」のではないでしょうか?(つまり「退屈を味わえない!」 また,人間のように(人間ほど)退屈に耐えられない動物って何でしょうか? 退屈に耐えられない牛や馬やクジラ??