2/18/2019

Odyssey 10.133-405

開學第一日。中級古希臘文課程開始研讀荷馬史詩奧德賽第十卷。我們要一字一句讀女巫基爾希如何把酒足飯飽 的人們變成豬,趕進豬舍,奧德修斯又如何拯救他的同伴變回人。滿心祝福班上三位同學!

1/31/2019

Aristotle's Philosophical Development


The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle
Chapter 1 
Life and Work Sections VI to V Translation

Jonathan Barnes

清華哲學所 朱健樂 翻譯
(非常謝謝朱健樂同學慷慨分享他的翻譯筆記) 


IV. ARISTOTLE'S PHILOSOPHICAL DEVELOPMENT
四、亞里士多德的哲學發展

Did Aristotle view all or most of his works as parts of, or contributions towards, some systematic whole? Was he as systematic worker, a systematic thinker, a systematic writer? Is there such thing as “Aristotelianism”?

亞里士多德是否將他的全部或大部分著作或功績視為某些體系的一部分? 他是系統性的工作者、系統性的思想家、系統性的作家嗎? 是否存在「亞里士多德主義」這樣的東西?

For centuries these questions were answered with a confident affirmative — and you were then given an outline of Aristotelian system of thought. Twentieth-century scholarship has by and large preferred what seems to be a more sophisticated approach to the texts. It is a mere truism that Aristotle cannot written all his works in the same week; and it is a fact that there are difference — perhaps even downright contradictions and inconsistencies — among the works and within the works. (Thus there are two quite different accounts of pleasure within what we call Nicomachean Ethics. The question “Can you prove definitions?” is answered in contradiction ways in the Topics and the Posterior Analytics.) From the truism and the fact scholars inferred, safely enough, that Aristotle’s thought must have changed in the course of his life; and they attempted, more audaciously, to write a history of his intellectual development. Instead of a static and systematic Aristotle, we have dynamic figure.

幾個世紀以來,這些問題得到了肯定的肯定回,然後你被給出了亞里士多德思想體系的簡述,二十世紀的學術界基本上傾向於對文本採用更為複雜的方法,亞里士多德不能在同一周寫下他的所有著作,這是一個無可置疑的事實。而事實上,在著作和著作中存在差異 ,甚至可能是徹頭徹尾地矛盾和不一致。(因此,我們在 Nicomachean Ethics 中有兩種完全不同的法。「你能證明定義嗎?」這個問題,在 Posterior Analytics Topics 中的回答是互相矛盾的。)無可置疑地,學者安全地推斷,亞里士多德的思想一定在他的生命中發生了變化;他們更大膽地試圖寫下他的知識發展史,我們有動態的形象,而不是靜態和系統性形象的亞里士多德。

The modern conclusion, that Aristotle’s philosophical ideas must have developed and that the surviving works represent different strata of this thought, will no doubt seem blindingly obvious — surely every philosopher's thought develops and leaves traces of its development in his writings? And as an abstract thesis — as the formal claim that Aristotle sometimes changed his mind — it can scarcely be denied. Yet it has proved surprisingly difficult to make the abstract concrete and to add matter to the form — to describe the actual development of Aristotle’s ideas.

現代的結論,即亞里士多德的哲學思想必定早已經發展好,而倖存的著作代表了這種思想的不同階層,無疑這是非常明顯的。當然,每個哲學家的思想都會在他的著作中發展並留下其發展的痕跡吧? 作為一篇抽象的論文,正如亞里士多德有時會改變他的主張,這幾乎不可否認。然而事實證明,令人驚訝地難以使抽象的具體容以及在形式上添加容,以描述亞里士多德思想的實際發展。

The pioneer of “developmental studies” was the German scholar Werner Jaeger. His Book Aristotle — Fundamentals of His Development, which was first published in German in 1923, determined the course of Aristotelian scholarship for half a century. Jaeger started from two facts about Aristotle’s career: first, the fact that Aristotle was Plato’s pupil and spent some twenty years as an apprentice in the Academy; secondly, the fact that after Plato’s death, Aristotle immersed himself in empirical studies, and notably in detailed biological research. Thus Aristotle moved from Platonism to empiricism. As a young man in the Academy, he fell under the philosophical influence of Plato — how could be not have done? And for a while he embraced Platonism, transcendent ideas and all — how else might the young man have reacted? As he matured, he gradually came to find Plato’s metaphysical notions less than satisfactory. Methodological reflection and the actual practice of philosophizing led him more and more in the direction of empiricism: of an empirical method, which gave observation the authority over theory, and of an empiricist epistemology, which insisted that all our concepts all all our knowledge must ultimately be based on the data of perception. This empiricism was confirmed during his scientific interlude in the eastern Aegean, where he was preoccupied by his zoological studies. When he returned to Athens and to philosophy, the empiricism stuck — it marked the whole of his thought, most notably his political theorizing.

「發展性研究」的先驅是德國學者 Werner Jaeger,他的著作 Aristotle — Fundamentals of His Development,於1923年首次以德文出版,確定了半個世紀的研究亞里斯多德的學術發展歷程。Jaeger 從亞里士多德職業生涯的兩個事實開始:首先,亞里士多德是柏拉圖的學生,並在學院度過了二十年的學徒;其次,在柏拉圖去世後,亞里士多德沉浸在實證研究中,特別是在詳細的生物學研究中。因此,亞里士多德從柏拉圖主義轉向經驗主義,作為學院裡的一個年輕人,在柏拉圖的哲學影響下,他怎麼可能沒有受到影響?有一段時間他接受了柏拉圖主義,超驗的想法和所有,這個年輕人怎麼可能做出反抗?隨著他的成熟,他逐漸發現柏拉圖的形而上學觀念並不令人滿意。方法論的反思和哲學的實踐使他越來越朝著經驗主義的方向發展:一種經驗方法,它賦予觀察的優先性而不是理論,以及一種經驗主義的知識論,它堅持認為我們所有的所有概念都必須最終基於感知數據。這種經驗主義在他在愛琴海東部進行科學活動期間得到了證實,他在那裡專注於他的動物學研究。當他回到雅典和哲學時,經驗主義陷入困境,這標誌著他的整個思想,尤其是他的政治理論。

Holding in mind this general thesis, which postulates a move from Platonism to empiricism, Jaeger then scrutinized the surviving works. The thesis allowed him to date them (or their parts) relatively to one another: if A is more empirical than B then A came after B; if B is more Platonist than A, then B came before A. And once the works have thus been arranged in chronological order, the general thesis may be enlarged into a specific history: we may read Aristotle’s writings in the order in which he wrote them, and hence reconstruct his intellectual biography in living detail.

考慮到這個一般的論點,該論文假定從柏拉圖主義到經驗主義,Jaeger 然後仔細檢了倖存的著作。論文允許他們互相制定相對的日期(或他們的部分):如果 A B 更接近經驗主義,那麼 A 來自 B;如果 B A 更加柏拉圖主義,那麼 B 就在 A 之前出現。一旦著作按照時間順序排列,一般的論文可能會擴大到一個特定的歷史:我們可以按照他寫作的順序讀亞里士多德的著作,從而在生活細節中重建他的知識傳記。

Most scholars have taken Jaeger’s work seriously. Some have accepted not only the general thesis but also most of the detailed story with which Jaeger himself supplemented it. Others think that the general thesis is roughly right, but prefer a different set of details: they disagree over the dating of this or that work, over the degree of empiricism to be found here and the degree of Platonism there. Yet others dislike not only Jaeger’s detailed story but also his general thesis; but they nevertheless applaud his method and his principles: he was right at bottom — only his facts were false. We should rather imagine that Aristotle was an Angry Young Man, who vigorously contested his master’s metaphysics and advocated a robust empiricism — and who later mellowed and reflected again on his master’s contentions and discovered that Platonism was not so bad a philosophy after all. Not from Platonism to empiricism, but from empiricism to Platonism.

大多數學者認真對待 Jaeger 的工作,有些人不僅接受了一般性論文,而且接受了 Jaeger 自己補充的大部分詳細故事,其他人認為一般性論文大致正確,但更偏好其他的細節:他們不同意對這個或那個著作的過度制定日期,在這裡找到的經驗主義程度和那裡的柏拉圖主義程度存在分歧。然而,其他人不僅不喜歡 Jaeger 的詳細故事,也不喜歡他的一般性論文;但他們仍然讚賞他的方法和他的原則:他在方法上是正確的,只是他得出的事實是錯誤的。我們應該想像亞里士多德是一個憤怒的年輕人,他激烈地爭論他的老師的形上學,並提倡一個強大的經驗主義,後來他對老師的爭論再次成熟和反思,並發現柏拉圖主義畢竟不是那麼差的哲學,不是從柏拉圖主義到經驗主義,而是從經驗主義到柏拉圖主義。

For my own part, I am mildly sceptical of the whole enterprise. It is entirely reasonable to think, on general grounds, that Aristotle’s views changed: perhaps they matured or perhaps they fell off — or perhaps they simply changed. And in a few individual cases it may be possible to establish with some degree of probability that this particular bit of text was written before that particular bit of text. But I doubt if we are in a position to say much more than this; and certainly no intellectual biography thus far written has commanded — or has deserved to command — general support.

就我個人而言,我對整個體系持柔和的懷疑態度。從一般的角度來看,認為亞里士多德的觀點發生了變化是完全合理的:或許它們已經成熟,或者它們可能已經衰落,或許它們只是簡單地改變了。在少數個案中,有可能以某種程度的概率在這些特定的文本之前已經寫入那些特定的文本,但我懷疑我們是否能夠說出比這更多的容;當然,到目前為止,沒有任何知識傳記能作為指導,或者能作為一般的支持。

There are good reasons for scepticism. First, we know little enough about Aristotle’s youthful attitude to Plato. To be sure, Aristotle was profoundly influenced by his master, and the surviving works are steeped in Plato’s thought — there are innumerable allusions to Plato’s writings and to Plato’s ideas, some of them explicit and most of them implicit; there are passages in which particular Platonic texts are submitted to a sustained criticism (thus the Politics criticizes the Republic and the Laws); there are centrally Aristotelian texts for which Plato’s views are evidently a main source of inspiration and of  puzzlement (thus the last two books of the Metaphysics are largely) moved by Platonic notions about mathematics); and — more vaguely but more importantly — whole area of Aristotle’s philosophical interests were shaped and determined by Plato’s philosophical interests. Aristotle’s debt to Plato is not in doubt. But it was not merely a youthful debt — for these loans were never repaid or repudiated; nor was its currency belief —for the passages in question do not show Aristotle up as a Platonist, as an adherent of Plato’s main doctrines.

懷疑主義是有充分理由的。首先,我們對亞里士多德年輕時對柏拉圖的態度,可以肯定的是,亞里士多德深受他的老師的影響,而倖存的著作沉浸在柏拉圖的思想中,柏拉圖的著作和柏拉圖的思想中有無數的暗示,其中一些是明確的,另外大多數是隱含的;有些段落中特定的柏拉圖文本被拿出來持續地批評(因此 Politics 批評 Republic Laws);有一些亞里士多德的中心文本,柏拉圖的觀點顯然是靈感和困惑的主要來源(因此,形上學的最後兩本書在很大程度上被柏拉圖式的數學概念所發);而且,更模糊但更重要的是,亞里士多德哲學興趣的整個領域是由柏拉圖的哲學興趣塑造和決定的,亞里士多德對柏拉圖的債務毫無疑問的,但這不僅僅是一項年輕的債務,因為這些貸款從未被償還或否定;也不是它貨幣的信仰,因為有關段落並沒有將亞里士多德視為柏拉圖主義者,而是柏拉圖主要學的捍衛者。

What matter in the present context are Aristotle’s early writings: these survive only in a few fragments do not contain enough to show what sort of a philosopher the young Aristotle was; in particular, they prove neither that he was a Platonist nor that he was not a Platonist. (Indeed, it is usually difficult to be sure how accurately these “fragments” report Aristotle’s own words; and even when it is reasonably plain that Aristotle wrote this or that particular sentence, it is likely that the sentence will be open to two or three incompatible and equally plausible interpretations.) It is still possible that some of these early works will be recovered — on a forgotten library shelf or in the sands of Egypt. But until that splendid event, we had better remain silent about the earlier part of Aristotle’s career.

在目前的背景下,亞里士多德的早期著作中的問題是:這些只能在一些片段中存活下來,並不足以顯示出年輕的亞里士多德是甚麼樣的哲學家;特別是它們既證明不了他是柏拉圖主義者,也證明不了他不是柏拉圖主義者。(事實上,通常很難確定這些「片段」如何準確地報告亞里士多德自己的話;而且即使亞里士多德寫出這個或那個特定的句子是相當明顯的,這句話很可能會生兩三個不相容但卻等同的詮釋。這些早期的著作仍有可能在一個被遺忘的圖書館書架或埃及的沙灘上得到回復,但是直到那個精彩的事件,我們最好對亞里士多德職業生涯早期的部分保持沉默。

A second reason for skepticism concerns the dating, whether absolute or relative, of the surviving works. There is very little to go on. None of Aristotle’s works was explicitly dated by its author, nor does any external source date any of them for us. There are no diaries or letter to tell us about Aristotle’s modes and habits of composition. There are, it is true, several reference in the works to historical events; and an historical reference of this sort offers us, in principle, a terminus post quem — that is to say, it fixes the earliest date at which the work containing it could have been written. Thus if the Posterior Analytics casally refers to a battle which took place in a certain year, we shall be inclined to infer that the Posterior Analytics was written between that year and Aristotle’s death. But references of this sort are in fact surprisingly rare; and in any case, inference from them — for reason which should already by clear — are far from reliable. Even if we made all possible inferences and treated all as reliable, we should not have got very far towards establishing a chronology of Aristotle’s works.

懷疑論的第二個原因涉及倖存著作的日期,無論是對的還是相對的,只有很少空間可以繼續,亞里士多德的著作中沒有一項被作者明確註明日期,也沒有任何外部來源為我們制定日期,沒有日記或信件可以告訴我們亞里士多德的寫作方式和習慣。確實,在著作中有一些可以作為參考的歷史事件;這種類型的歷史參考在原則上為我們提供了一個最終的日期,也就是,它確定了包含它的著作寫作的最早日期。因此,如果 Posterior Analytics 是指在某一年發生的戰鬥,我們將傾向於推斷 Posterior Analytics 是在那一年與亞里士多德的死亡之間寫成的。但是這類參考實際上是罕見的;在任何情況下,他們的推斷,原因應該是明確的,遠非於可靠。即使我們做出了所有可能的推論並將其視為可靠的,我們也不應該在建立亞里士多德著作的年表方面走到很遠。

It might be said, with some justice, that only the relative chronology matters from a philosophical point of view: if we are concerned to interpret Aristotle’s philosophical views, then it may well be important to know whether the Eudemian Ethics was written before or after the Nicomachean Ethic; but it will be of far less interest to know that one was written in this year and the other in that. Now it may seem as if we possess a quantity of solid and objective evidence for the relative dating of Aristotle’s works. For Aristotle quite often refers to his own writings — in the course of a discussion he will quite often say, “I have already dealt with this point in such-an-such a place” or else “I shall deal with this matter elsewhere.” And these internal cross-references should enables us to date the works relative to one another: if A refers back to B, then B must have been written before A; and if A refers forward to B, then B must have been written after A.

可以,在某種正義的情況下,在哲學的角度只有相對的年代學可以談:如果我們關注的是解釋亞里士多德的哲學觀點,那麼了解 Eudemian Ethic 是否是在 Nicomachean Ethic 之前或之後編寫是很重要的;但是我們並沒有興趣得知這一部確切的寫作時間是在哪一年,或另一部是在哪一年。現在看來,我們似乎擁有大量有關亞里士多德著作相對年代的可靠和客觀的證據,因為亞里士多德經常提到他自己的著作,在討論過程中,他經常會:「我已經在這樣一個地方處理了這一點」,或者「我將在其他地方處理這件事」,而這些部交叉引用應該能讓我們相互比較著作的日期:如果 A 引用 B,那麼 B 必須在 A 之前寫好;如果 A 轉載 B,則 B 必須在 A 之後寫好。

But the cross-references are a disappointment and a delusion. If we collect and compare them all, we shall find that they are inconsistent — they imply that A was written before A. Moreover, the vast majority of them are readily detachable from their contexts: they look for all the world like later additions to the text, inserted either by Aristotle himself or by a later editor, and then the “chronology” which they suggest concerns not the order in which Aristotle composed the work, but rather the order in which he or his editor supposed that his audience would hear or read them. Most scholars now agree the cross-references cannot be used to date the texts in which they are embedded.

但交叉引用(以推斷日期的這種方法)是一種失望和妄想,如果我們收集並比較它們,我們會發現它們是不一致的,因為它們暗示 A是在 A 之前寫的。更多的是,它們大多數都可以從它們的上下文中輕易地拆分出來:它們怎麼看都像是後期的編輯,就像由亞里士多德本人後來添加或後來編輯插入的文本,然後他們建議的「年代學」並不是亞里士多德創作著作的順序,而是他或他的編輯者認為他的聽眾會聽到或者讀它們的順序,大多數學者現在同意交叉引用不能用於它們所嵌入的文本的日期。

What other evidence might be called upon to support a relative chronology? Sophisticated modern scholarship sometimes appeals to what is called “stylometry.” The “style” which stylometry measures is not self-conscious literary artifice; rather, it is concerned with linguistic facts which no reader or author normally notices. (A stylometric might consider, say, the average length of sentences in different works, or the average number of sentences which end with a participle, or the spread of particles and prepositions and conjunctions.) Suppose, then that the “style” of A turns out to be markedly different from the “style” of B. (A’s sentences are on average considerably longer than B’s; A has a decided penchant for one or two particles which are rare in B; and so on.) Then on plausible explanation of this difference will be that A and B were written at different periods. And if a third work C, can be shown to lie between A and B in these stylistic dimensions, then it will become tempting to hypothesize that C was written between A and B.

可能還需要哪些其他證據來支持相對的年代學?尖端的現代學術界有時會受所謂的「風格測量學」所吸引,風格測量所衡量的「風格」不是自覺的文學手法;相反,它關注的是沒有讀者或作者通常注意到的語言事實。(例如,風格測量學可能會考慮不同作品中句子的平均長度,或以分詞結尾的平均句子數,或者助詞,介詞和連詞的分散程度。)假設 A 的「風格」與 B 的「風格」明顯不同(A 的句子平均比 B 的長得多;A 相比起 B 中罕見的一個或兩個助詞有著決定性的優先地位,如此類推)。然後,對這種差異的合理解釋將是 A B 是在不同的時期寫的,如果第三部作品 C 在這些風格維度中可以顯示出位於 A B 之間,那麼很有可能 C 是在 A B 之間寫的。

Stylometry makes use of computer searches and it employs subtle statistical tests. For these reasons it has attracted several cranks and repelled many scholars.But there is no doubt that is, in general, a potentially serious business. Here, the question is whether it has a serious application to Aristotle’s works. And there are I think, reasons for giving the question a moderately pessimistic answer — reasons which I shall postpone for a paragraph or two.

風格測量學使用計算機搜索,它採用微妙的統計測試。由於這些原因,它吸引了許多奇想並擊退了許多學者。但毫無疑問,這通常是一項有潛力且重要的事務,在這裡的問題是它是否對亞里士多德的作品有重要的應用。而且我認為,給出這個問題的理由是一個適度悲觀的答案,我推遲一兩段落才給出我的理由。

Traditional scholars have traditionally appealed to “philosophical” rather than to “stylistic” arguments, arguments which tend to run somewhat on the following lines: Suppose that A is inconsistent with B, or that A addresses the same issue as B but in a different fashion — then A is latter than B provided that A is more mature han B. Now in its most general form, this sort of argument is quite hopelessly crude. For the judgement that A is “more mature” than B is disquietingly subjective; and the assumption that as philosophers grow older they “mature” — and mature in a more or less linear fashion — needs only to be stated to be hissed off the stage. There is a restricted version of the argument which seems rather more promising. Suppose that A solves a problem which B left unsolved — then A is later than B. Or rather (to avoid any indeterminacy or subjectectivity of judgement): Suppose that B says, “Here is a problem which I cannot solve, viz…,” while A says, “I have now solved the old problem, thus,,,” In such a case we may surely date A after B. No doubt — but our “philosophical” argument now has virtually no practical utility; for there are virtually no Aristotelian texts which pair off in the way the restricted version of the argument requires.

傳統學者傳統上呼籲(我們應該關注)「哲學」而不是「風格」的論證,這些論證傾向於以下的步驟:假設 A B 不一致,或者 A 以不同的方式解決了與 B 相同的問題,那麼就證明了 A B 更晚,並證明了 A B 更成熟,在最一般的形式中,這種論證是毫無希望且粗暴的。對於判斷 A B 更「成熟」的判斷是令人不安的主觀;並且假設隨著哲學家年齡的增長,他們「成熟」,而成熟或多或少是一種線性的時尚,它只會在舞台上被發出噓聲(意指這個判斷的方法是失敗的)。現在有一個嚴謹版本的論證似乎更有希望,假設 A 解決了 B 未解決的問題,那麼 A B 晚。或者更確切地(為了避免判斷的任何不確定性或主觀性),假設 B :「這是一個我無法解決的問題,即...」, 而當 A :「我現在已經解決了這個老問題,因此...」在這種情況下,我們肯定會制定 A 的日期在 B 之後。毫無疑問,但是我們的「哲學」論證現在幾乎沒有實際效用,因為幾乎沒有亞里士多德的文本,能與論證的嚴謹版本所要求的方式配合。

Is there no hope for a via media between the hopelessly crude and the uselessly impractical? There is; and in a few cases it seems to me that tolerably plausible arguments are available. But these few cases are indeed few.

通過媒介的方法是否已經界乎於沒有希望與不切實?有希望的,而且在少數情況下,在我看來,可以獲得足可信的論據,但這幾個案例確實很少。

There is a third general reason for scepticism about chronological hypotheses. I have already rehearsed the plausible hypothesis that Aristotle’s surviving the writings are working drafts, papers which underwent various revisions and modifications at their author’s hands. We might well wonder when Aristotle revised his stuff — at the end of a morning’s work? After a week’s reflection? Months, years, decades later? And we might equally wonder how often he made revisions. These are real enough questions — and, again, we cannot answer them except by speculation and conjecture. But the mere fact — or perhaps I should say the presumed fact — of the revision has its consequences for the question of Aristotelian chronology.

對於懷疑論存在著第三個按時間順序排列假設的普遍原因,我已經複述了這樣的一個似是而非的假設,即亞里士多德在這些著作中倖存下來的是他的草稿,這些寫作在作者的手中經過了各種修正和修改,我們可能想知道亞里士多德甚麼時候修改他的東西,在早上工作結束時? 經過一周的反思? 幾個月、幾年、幾十年後? 我們可能同樣想知道他修改的頻率,這些都是真正的問題,而且,除了推測和猜想之外,我們再也無法回答這些問題。 但是,唯一的事實是,或許我應該是假定的事實,修訂版對亞里士多德時間順序問題生了影響。

Suppose that work A was begin in 350, heavily revised a couple of years later, lightly retouched in about 340, and finally rethought a decade later. Suppose that work B was begun in 345, revised carefully in 335, looked at again a year or so later, and then abandoned. Well, which was written first, A or B? If you are going to produce a chronology of Aristotle’s writings, will you put A before B (on the grounds that the first version of A preceded the first version of B) or will you put B before A (on the grounds that the final — let us not say definitive — version of B was later than the final version of A)? Pretty clearly, you will say neither of these things; for pretty clearly, it is absurd to talk about chronology in these terms at all. If Aristotle’s texts were subject to revision of the sort I have sketched, then it makes no sense to ask whether A came before or after B — and hence it makes no sense to attempt to provide a chronology of Aristotle's writings.

假設工作 A 開始於 350 年,幾年後進行了大量修改,在大約 340 年後進行了輕微修改,最後重新思考十年之後。假設工作 B 開始於 345,在 335 中仔細修改,一年後再看一遍,然後停止。 那麼,首先被寫成的是 A 還是 B? 如果你要製作亞里士多德著作的年代學,你會把 A 放在 B 之前(理由是 A 的第一個版本先於 B 的第一個版本)還是你會把 B 放在 A 之前(讓我們不明確的,理由是 B 的最終版本晚於 A 的最終版本)? 很明顯,你不會這些東西;而且很明顯,用這些術語來談論年代學是荒謬的。如果亞里士多德的文本需要修改成我所描述的那樣,那麼在 詢問 A 是否在 B 之前或之後沒有道理,因此嘗試提供亞里士多德作品的年代學是沒有意義的。

For these reasons, then I incline to scepticism. But I do not, alas (typo), want to advocate anything as exciting as a radical scepticism. Here and there, as I have said, we can indeed make chronological claims which have a certain plausibility to them; and some of these claims are not without philosophical significance. (For example, I believe that the core of the theory of demonstration which is expounded in An. Post was developed before the polished theory of syllogistic which is expounded in An. Pr; and I believe that this has some bearing on the way in which we should interpret some of Aristotle’s views about the nature of science.) But claims of this sort will rarely be made with any confidence; they cannot yield a chronology of Aristotle’s writings; and they will not amount to anything which we could call an intellectual biography.

基於這些原因,我傾向於持懷疑態度,但是我也不想提倡像激進懷疑論一樣那麼激動的事情,正如我所,我們確實可以在各處按時間順序提出對它們有某種合理性的主張,其中一些主張並非沒有哲學意義。(例如,我相信在 An.Post 中闡述的示範理論的核心是在 An.Pr 中闡述的完整的三段論之前開展的,我相信這對於它的方式有一些影響,我們應該解釋一些亞里士多德對於科學本質的觀點。)但這種法對人來缺乏信心,他們無法得出亞里士多德作品的年代學,它們不會構成我們稱之為知識傳記的任何東西。


V. ARISTOTLE SYSTEM OF THOUGHT
五、亞里士多德的思想體系


Less than a century ago, most scholars — as I have already said — would have unhesitatingly affirmed that Aristotle was a system-builder and that his thought formed a unified whole. That traditional orthodoxy was supplanted, and it was supposed instead that Aristotle’s thought was a dynamic and developing affair. But there is a false antithesis in the air; for it is evident that development and system-building cannot be antithetical attributes, inasmuch as even the most rigid of systematic philosophers will have developed — he will not have been born with a silver system in his mouth. Thus the dynamic Aristotle and the systematic Aristotle should not be thought of as irreconcilable enemies: perhaps the youthful Aristotle was developing precisely into a mature system-builder.

不到一個世紀以前,大多數學者,正如我已經過的,會毫不猶豫地肯定亞里士多德是一個體系建設者,他的思想形成了一個統一的整體。傳統的正統觀念被取代了,而人們認為亞里士多德的思想是充滿活力和持續發展的,但是在對空存在著一種錯誤的對立,因為顯而易見的是,發展和體系建設並不是處於對立的狀態,因為即使是最系統性的哲學家也是發展出來的,他不會在出生時已經擁有一個銀製的體系在他的口裡(比哲學家們的思想體系必然是發展出來的)。因此,動態化的亞里士多德和系統化的亞里士多德不應該被認為是不可調和的敵人:也許年輕的亞里士多德正在發展成為一個成熟的體系建設者。

Nonetheless, two facts might be thought to tell against the traditional supposition that there was an Aristotelian system. First, consider the fact that only a small proportion of Aristotle’s work has actually survived. This does not, of course, show that Aristotle had no system — but it surely does make it difficult to believe that we can recover that system: we only possess a few of the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, and they do not suffice to determine the original picture, or even its rough outlines. We might conjecture that Aristotle was a system-builder (or that he was not): we should be rash to venture any thoughts about the shape of his system.

儘管如此,有兩個事實可能可以證明存在著亞里士多德體系的傳統假設。首先,考慮一下亞里士多德的一小部分著作確實保存下來的事實。當然,這並不表明亞里士多德沒有一個體系,但這肯定會讓人難以相信我們可以回復那個體系:我們只擁有拼圖遊戲的一些碎片,而且它們不足以確定原始圖片,甚至乎粗略的輪廓。我們可能會猜測亞里士多德是一個體系建設者(或者他不是):我們應該草率地勇於提出他思考體系的形狀。

This line of thought has a rare quality — it is too pessimistic. It assumes, in effect, that chance has determined which bits of Aristotle have survived and which perished; but this is not so. Our Aristotle — the collection of Aristotle’s surviving works — owes its origin not to the ravages and the generosities of chance, but to the work of ancient scholar; for, as I have said, it is highly probable that our corpus is based on the selection made by Andronicus, a selection presumably made with the intention of providing a reasonably full and a reasonably balanced account of Aristotle’s philosophy. If this is true, then it is reasonable to look for a system in our corpus if it was ever reasonable to look for a system in Aristotle’s thought. Of course, our corpus may still be a distorted thing; for ancient scholars were no less blind and no less free from bias than their modern successors. But it is not merely hopeless to search for a system.

這種思路具有罕見的性質,它過於悲觀。實際上,它有效地假設已經確定了亞里士多德的部分著作存活下來,而且部分著作已經摧毀的可能性,但事實並非如此。我們的亞里士多德,亞里士多德的倖存著作的集合,它的起源不是出於摧毀和偶然的機會,而是源於古代學者的功勞,因為正如我所,我們的語料庫極有可能是基於 Andronicus 所作的選擇,這種選擇可能是為了提供一個相當充分和合理平衡的亞里士多德哲學法的一種選擇。如果這是真的,而且如果在亞里士多德的思想中找到一個體系是合理的,那麼在我們的語料庫中尋找一個體系是合理的。當然,我們的語料庫可能仍然是一個扭曲的東西,對於古代學者來,他們的現代接班人並不是那麼盲目,同樣也沒有偏見,但搜索體系不僅僅是存無希望的。

Secondly, consider again the character of Aristotle’s surviving writings. If Aristotle revised his material every so often, if he actually went on rewriting and rethinking until his last days, then surely his thought was far too fluid and far too flexible to constitute a system. So, at least, many modern scholars have imagined;and they have therefore portrayed an unsystematic Aristotle.

其次,再次考慮亞里士多德的倖存作品的特徵,如果亞里士多德經常修改他的著作,如果他真的繼續改寫並重新思考直到他的最後生涯,那麼他的思想肯定太過流動而且太多變動,無法構成一個體系。 所以,至少許多現代學者已經想到了,因此他們描繪了一個非系統性的亞里士多德。

The unsystematic Aristotle is customarily characterized by the word “aporetic” (or “aporematic”). “Aporia” is the Greek for “puzzle” or “difficulty,” and Aristotle himself frequently uses the noun and its various cognates: he frequently surveys the aporiai, the puzzles or problems in a determined area — and then tries to solve them. An aporetic philosopher is a philosopher who supposes that puzzle-stating and puzzle-solving from the heart of philosophical activity: philosophers of this strain are not supposed to construct elaborate edifices, they are not expected to present their “system” of things; they are not even supposed to produce “theories”; rather in this area and in that, detailed and diverse problems present themselves to philosophical mind, and the philosopher’s principal task, or perhaps his sole taks, is to solve these problems — or to dissolves them.

非系統性亞里士多德通常以「aporetic」(或「aporematic」)這個詞為特徵。 「Aporia」是希臘語中的「謎題」或「難題」,而亞里士多德本人經常使用名詞及其各種同源詞:他經常調難題,確定區域中的謎題或問題,然後嘗試解決它們。 一位謎題哲學家,是一位從事哲學活動、核心處理謎題和解謎的哲學家:這種哲學的哲學家不應該構建精心設計的大廈,他們不應該提出他們的「體系」的東西; 他們甚至不應該生「理論」; 而在這個領域,其中細節和多樣化的問題出現在哲學思想中,而哲學家的主要任務,或者也許是他唯一的任務,就是解決這些問題,或者消除它們。

Was Aristotle aporetic in this sense? Certainly, aporiai often buoy the course of his philosophical voyage — thus (to take the most prominent example) the third book (Book Beta) of the Metaphysics consists of a sequence of aporiai which certain philosophical notions seems to generate. Certainly, too Aristotle’s occasional remarks on philosophical methodology insinuate an aporetic attitude. Thus:

亞里士多德作為謎題處理者合理嗎?當然,謎題處理通常合乎他的哲學之旅, 因此(以最突出的例子),第三部書(Beta版)的 Metaphysics 由一系列的謎題所組成,其中似乎生出某些哲學概念,當然亞里士多德在哲學方法論上的偶爾備註,暗示了這種謎題狀態。

Here {i.e, in discussing akrasia, or lack of self-control} as elsewhere we must first set out what seems to be the case; then, having first discussed the puzzles, we must try if possible to maintain the truth of all the reputable opinions on the matter — or if not, then of most and the most authoritative. For if we resolve the difficulties and leave the reputable opinions intact, we shall have offered a sufficient proof of the matter. (NE 1145B1-7)

在這裡 { 換句話,在討論自制力,或缺乏自我控制 } 時,我們必須首先列出似乎是這樣的情況;然後,在首先討論這些難題之後,我們必須盡可能地保持所有有關此事的著名意見的真實性,如果不這樣做,那麼就保持大多數和最具權威性的,因為如果我們解決困難並保留完整的著名意見,我們就能為這件事提供充分的證據。

You set out “what seems to be the case” — which includes all the “reputable opinions” on the matter; you then survey the puzzles which this material engenders; you try to resolve the difficulties without disturbing too many of the reputable opinions. And then? And then nothing: your philosophical task is over.

你列出了「似乎的案例」 ,其中包括有關此事的所有「著名意見」,然後你調這種材料生的謎題,你試圖在不干擾太多有著名意見的情況下解決謎題。然後?甚麼都沒有:你的哲學任務結束了。

More generally, in reading through Aristotle’s works, you do not gain the impression that you are gradually becoming familiar with a systematica construction. On the contrary, you seem to be led through a series of exhibition rooms, each stocked with problems and difficulties: the problems and difficulties can be looked at from this angle and from that; they are taken up and examined; different analyses are essayed; various attempts at a solution are offered. But — for the most part — nothing systematic seems to emerge, and sometimes nothing definitive emerges. Rather, Aristotle is still searching for the answer — and inviting us to search with him.

更一般地,在讀亞里士多德的作品時,你不會生一種印象,即你逐漸熟悉一種系統化的結構。相反,你似乎被引導通過一系列展廳,每個展廳都存在問題和困難:問題和困難可以從不同的角度中看出來,他們被拿起並接受檢,它們被試圖作不同的分析,提供了各種解決方案。但是在大多數情況下,似乎沒有任何系統性的出現,有時候沒有任何東西明確的出現。相反,亞里士多德仍然在尋找答案,並邀請我們與他一起搜索。

All this is ture — up to a point; and it also helps to explain why Aristotle has had such as powerful attraction for a certain sort of modern — and aporetic — philosopher. But the truth in it is the Metaphysics — Aristotle is indeed predominantly aporetic. But elsewhere  — in the Prior Analytics, say or in the de Caelo — the discussion is less puzzlebound and less tentative, and there are straightforward passage of solid doctrine. And in most of his works, he is betwixt and between. On the one hand. it is clear that he surviving works are not concerned to present a perfected system of thought: the corpus is certainly not systematic in this sense. On the other hand, there is some reason to ascribe to Aristotle the conviction that, in principle the problems with which he was grappling could be solved, the obscurities through which he was stumbling could be illuminated, and the knowledge towards which he — like every natural man — was stretching out his hands could eventually be grasped and organized and contemplated as a totality. There was as system in posse but not in esse; a virtual but not an actual system.

所有這些都是真的,並達到一定程度,而且它也有助於解釋為甚麼亞里士多德對某種現代和謎題哲學家具有強大的吸引力。但其中的真相是在 Metaphysics,亞里士多德確實主要是處理謎題的。但是在其他地方,在 Prior Analytics中,或在 de Caelo ,討論不那麼引人注目,而且不那麼試驗性,並且有堅定的學直接解決,在他的大部分作品中,他都是處於它們中間或它們之間。一方面,很明顯,他的倖存作品並不關心提出一個完善的思想體系:在這個意義上,語料庫肯定不是系統的。另一方面,有一些理由可以歸咎於亞里士多德的信念,即原則上他可以解決他正在努力解決的問題,他晦澀絆的問題可以被照亮,他所知道的知識也是如此,每個人自然地伸出雙手最終可以被抓住且組織起來,並作為一個整體考慮,在 posse 裡有系統,但在 esse 則沒有,一個虛擬但不是實際的體系。

What would the system look look like? Aristotle did not believed in a single unified science: the totality of knowledge — of genuinely scientific knowledge — divides into independent disciplines or sciences. Some of these sciences are theoretical, others practical, others productive— according to whether their goal is the discovery of truths, the performance of actions, or the making of objects. Among the productive sciences are poetics and rhetoric. The practical sciences include ethics and politics (we study ethics, Aristotle avers, not in order to know what sort of men are good but in order to become good men ourselves). The theoretical sciences subdivide into the theological, the mathematical, and the natural. The mathematical sciences are what they seem to be: Aristotle had a keen interest in them, but did not profess and expertise. The natural sciences include physics and chemistry and meteorology and biology and zoology and botany — subjects to which Aristotle devoted a major part of his time and of his writings. And finally there is ‘theology’, or the science of changeless items, which Aristotle claims as superior to all other studies and to which the essays in his Metaphysics are given.

這個系統看起來會是甚麼樣子?亞里士多德並不相信單一統一的科學:知識的全部,真正的科學知識,分割為獨立的學科或科學。這些科學中的一些是理論的,另一些是實踐的,其他的是生性的,它們的目標是根據著真理的發現、行為的表現,以及物體的製作。生科學中有詩學和修辭學,實踐科學包括道德和政治(我們研究道德,亞里士多德,不是為了知道甚麼樣的人是好的,而是為了自己成為好人)。理論科學細分為神學、數學和自然科學。數學科學就像它們的樣子:亞里士多德對它們有濃厚的興趣,但稱自己不是專家和沒有專業知識。自然科學包括物理、化學、氣象學、生物學、動物學和植物學,這是亞里士多德在他的主要時間和著作中投入的主題。最後還有「神學」,或者不變物的科學,亞里士多德聲稱這些學科優於所有其他研究,而且他的 Metaphysics 中的散文也是如此。

Aristotle does not elaborate these ideas at any length; and there are some obscurities in them. He is far more concerned to insist that the sciences are not unified: there is no single set of trughts from which they all derive, no single set of concepts which gives structure to them all, no single method which they all must follow, no single standard of scientific rigour which they all must meet. In all this Aristotle was self-consciously pluralistic — and self-consciously anti-Platonic. Nonetheless, the sciences, or at any rate the theoretical sciences, do have something in common.

亞里士多德沒有詳細闡述這些觀點,它們有些晦澀難懂,他更關心的與堅持科學是不統一的:它們沒有一套完整的結構,沒有一套概念可以給所有人提供結構,沒有一種方法可以讓它們都遵循,它們都必須滿足的科學嚴謹標準。在所有這一切中,亞里士多德都是自覺地多元化,並且自覺地反柏拉圖式,儘管如此,科學或者任何程度的理論科學都有一些共同之處。

Aristotle, like Plato, was impressed by the progress made in the most successful of Greek sciences, geometry, and in particular he was impressed by the way in which geometry could be presented as unified area of knowledge. And he required, in effect, that the features to which geometry owed its unity should be transferred, so far as possible, to the other theoretical sciences. In short, knowledge is to be systematized in the form of axiomatized deductive sciences. The constituent truths of each science divide into two classes: the first truths of principles, and the derived truths or theorems. The principles of a science — the axioms of geometry, for example — do not need proof: they are primary and self-explanatory.The theorems are proved from the principles: the proofs, which must take the form of valid deductive arguments or syllogism, or syllogisms, explain the theorems and ground our knowledge of them on our knowledge of the principles. A science has a finite and a unitary set of principles, and it constitutes a closed body of explained or self-explanatory truths.

像柏拉圖一樣,亞里士多德對最成功的希臘科學,以及幾何學所取得的進步印象深刻,特別是他對幾何學作為統一的知識領域呈現的方式印象深刻。事實上,他要求幾何所有的特徵應該盡可能地轉移到其他理論科學中。簡單來,知識是以公理化的演繹科學的形式系統化,每種科學組成的真理分為兩類:第一真理的原理,以及衍生的真理或定理。科學的原理,例如幾何學的公理 ,不需要證明:它們是主要的和不證自明的。這些定理是從原理證明的:證明必須採用有效的演繹論證或三段論的形式,或者三段論解釋定理,並根據我們對原理的了解來理解它們。科學具有有限的和單一的原則,它構成了解釋或不證自明的真理封閉體系。

Aristotle’s own scientific works do not themselves present things in this rigorous way: they contain few formal deductions; they rarely identify first principle; they do not possess the orderliness and unity which a finished science would possess. Aristotle’s Parts of Animal, say,is not a strongly systematic work. Nonetheless, Aristotle had systematic thoughts about the science to which PA contributes. And here and there in PA the system peeps through. So, more generally, with Aristotle’s philosophy. Our corpus is not a strongly systematic body of work. Nonetheless, Aristotle had systematic thoughts about the nature of the enterprise to which he was contributing. And here and there in his works the system peeps though.

亞里士多德自己的科學著作本身並不是以這種嚴謹的方式呈現出來的:它們幾乎沒有正式的推論,它們很少識別到第一原則,它們沒有完成科學所具有的有序性和統一性,例如亞里士多德的 Parts of Animal 並不是一項強而有力的系統性著作。儘管如此,亞里士多德對 PA 所貢獻的科學有系統性的思考,在 PA 的各處都隱藏著系統性,因此一般而言,對於亞里士多德的哲學,我們的語料庫不是一個強有力的系統工作。儘管如此,亞里士多德對他所貢獻的企業的性質有系統的思考,然而在他的作品中,隱藏著某種系統性。