MIT OpenCourseWare


» 進階搜尋
 課程首頁
 教學大綱
 教學時程
 相關閱讀資料
 作業
 下載課程

作業


本頁翻譯進度

燈號說明

審定:無
翻譯:賴先慧(簡介並寄信)
編輯:王晶(簡介並寄信)

本課程的學期成績端賴於三篇書面報告的品質,報告必須依次繳交(譯註:第一篇期限是第9堂課,第二篇期限是第16堂課),這三篇報告總共有20頁,前兩篇起碼各6頁,第三篇起碼8頁。每篇的內容都要和指定的閱讀資料及課堂上的討論有關。題目可以自訂,但是如果同學有需求,在每篇報告的繳交期限兩週前,我會公佈一張詳盡的參考題目供大家使用。第一篇報告交出,我批改後會發回給同學,請大家照上面的評語修改文章,把報告重新謄寫一遍,再繳交回來給我。至於第二篇報告要不要運用同樣的方式,則由我判斷決定。本課程也提供同學口語表達的機會,藉由討論的形式分組進行(全班同學自行登記,分2-3組),每組同學要準備兩段15分鐘有助於討論內容的介紹,至於要用怎樣的模式做介紹,學期一開始時我會告訴大家。每堂課最多18人,如果沒課或有寫作生出席,註冊人數可以提昇到25人。我們不舉行期末考試。以下是本課程的討論問題以及書面報告的題目清單:
Much of the grade will depend upon the quality of three written assignments required by the course, and spaced fairly evenly over the term: the papers will total twenty pages in entirety, two papers running to at least six pages each and a final paper running to at least eight pages. The papers will each deal with some aspect of the readings and discussion; topics may be invented by the students but an extensive list of suggested topics will be circulated two weeks in advance of each paper’s due date for those students who require it. The first of these papers will be rewritten upon its return and resubmitted in a form compliant with corrections made by the instruction on the pages of the first version. The second paper may be treated in the same way, depending upon the instructor’s judgment. The subject will also offer students opportunity for oral expression by reason of (a) its discussion format and (b) a division into groups of two or three students (depending upon enrollment), each of which will make two fifteen-minute presentations of materials conducive to the discussion of a given assignment, following the model of such presentations offered by the instructor at the outset of the term. The maximum number of students per section of this subject is 18, except in cases where there are no sections and where a writing fellow is attached to the subject, in which case the enrollment can rise to 25. There will be no final examination. Below are discussion questions for each of the class sessions and the paper assignments for the course.


第一堂課 – 馬基維利(1515年)《君王論》
Lecture #1 - THE PRINCE by Nicolo Machiavelli (1515)

討論題目:
Topics for Discussion:

1. 馬基維利的名言「只要目的正當,可以不擇手段」(The ends justify the means)會成名不是沒有道理的,然而,馬基維利並非說只要對結局有助益的方法都是正當的,相反的,他們通常是不正當的,因此聰明的執政者「必須學習不行善事」。這樣的想法前後一致嗎?假如某事因它所衍生出的利益而被評斷成正當的,為什麼又說它不好呢?
Machiavelli's adage, "The ends justify the means," is justly famous. Yet he does not say simply that the means that are instrumental to a good end are just--on the contrary, he says that they are often unjust, that a wise administrator "must learn how not to be good". Is this a coherent notion? If something is justified by the good that it produces, why not speak of it as good?

2. 在文藝復興時期,馬基維利的名字跟邪惡的建言者與實行家劃上等號,主要是因為《君王論》一書。「如同馬基維利」意味將邪惡的意圖隱藏在合理面具下的狡猾陰謀家。馬基維利值得這樣的聲譽嗎?「只要目的正當,可以不擇手段」,是否只是為「真正的目的和手段」找藉口?亦即耍弄權力?
Machiavelli's name became synonymous in the Renaissance with evil advice and practice, largely on the basis of this document. To be "Machiavellian" came to mean to be a sly schemer, one who hides his evil intentions behind the mask of executive necessity. Did he deserve this reputation? Is the maxim "the ends justify the means" only a cover for the notion that the real end and aim of the means is simply the means themselves--that is to say, the exercise of power.

3. 建議王子要「學習不行善事」是什麼意思?「學習」意味著什麼?馬基維利建議統治者要同時當獸類與人類,這是否像我們在辦公室跟家裡,分別扮演不同的角色?你能隨性地把獸性穿脫自如嗎?馬基維利很明確地指出,你絕對不能脫掉宗教的大衣,亦即宗教的必要性(編著:馬基維利身處在宗教氣息濃厚的弗羅倫斯),因此必須把君主的本色藏在宗教外衣之下。對我們來說,假如有折衷的可能,何者優先?何者次要?
What does it mean to advise the Prince that he must "learn how not to be good"? In what way is "learning" involved? Machiavelli advises the ruler to be both beast and human being. Is this like wearing two hats, one for the office and another for home? Can you put on and take off the hat of a beast at will? Machiavelli indicates pretty clearly that you must never seem to take off the religious hat--i.e. that the religious necessity is uncompromising and therefore you must always secretly wear your princely hat under the religious one. If there is some compromise possible, for us, which will be subordinate to which?

4. 馬基維利格外崇拜漢尼拔(Hannibal,第六頁)。「他的殘酷不人道及其他種種的德行,使得士兵對他又敬又懼」。無疑地,在漢尼拔和馬基維利的時代,在軍隊中,軍人必須接受主帥快速又嚴厲的懲罰。或許,像漢尼拔這樣的司令官,並不適合當國家領袖,但是馬基維利的建議不僅適用於戰時,也適用於承平時期。至於指揮的本質總和形象相關,而這個男性統治者(馬基維利從未想過女性的可能性)無論在國內或在國際上都必須有卓越的成效。你可以總結馬基維利的學說為:「別管現況,形象代表一切」。這是個錯誤的建議嗎?
Machiavelli reserves special praise for Hannibal (page 6), whose "inhuman cruelty, together with his infinite other virtues, made him always venerated and terrible in the sight of his soldiers." No doubt in Hannibal's day, and perhaps in Machiavelli's too, the nature of armies made fear of swift and terrible punishment an emotion that a commander-in-chief had to cultivate. It may seem that Hannibal, the army commander, is not a fit model for heads of state. But Machiavelli's advice was intended for rulers in times of peace as well as war and concerned the nature of command, which has always to deal with the image that the ruler must project if he (or she--but that possibility never occurred to Machiavelli) is to be effective both within the state and without. Indeed, you might sum up Machiavelli's teaching as follows: "Never mind reality, the image is everything". Is this wrongheaded advice?



第二堂課 – 摩爾(1516年)《烏托邦》
Lecture #2 - UTOPIA by Sir Thomas More (1516)

討論題目:
Topics for Discussion:

1. 摩爾的《烏托邦》已經被歸類為文學的一個類別(譯註:之後,凡是相類似的共和政體都被視為烏托邦)。根據摩爾的文本,你該如何形容烏托邦?馬基維利被視為書寫出全新的、有關政治威權的文章,主要著墨於「真實的世界」,而不是迷失在想像中的美夢。從這個觀點來說,你如何看待摩爾的《烏托邦》?
More's Utopia gave its name to a genre of literature. On the basis of More's text, how would you describe a utopia? Machiavelli claimed to be introducing a new kind of writing about political authority, one that would pay attention to the "real world" and not lose itself in dream about what might be. How would you regard More's Utopia from this standpoint?

2. 對你而言,摩爾的《烏托邦》的主要情節是什麼?你特別認同哪些部分?反對哪些部分?
What are the chief features of More's Utopia, as you see it? Of which do you particularly approve? Which do you find objectionable?

3. 上次總統大選期間,民主黨的副總統候選人說「不信上帝的人缺乏道德」,烏托邦的人民會怎樣看待這個觀念?烏托邦的人民又會如何看待宗教上的異議?摩爾當過英國的大臣(當時最顯貴的政府公職),並宣判讓異教徒受火刑,還施行自我鞭笞的刑罰制度(鞭打自己,因不夠聖潔的慾望而懲罰肉體)。你能為此慣例辯解嗎?摩爾書裡的烏托邦人民會認同他的做法嗎?
During the last Presidential campaign, the Democratic nominee for vice-president said that no one can be moral who does not believe in God? What would the Utopians say about this opinion? How do the Utopians regard religious dissent? More was Chancellor of England - the most important governmental officer of his day - and in that capacity he condemned heretics to be burned alive at the stake. He also practiced self-flagellation (whipping oneself to punish the flesh for its unholy desires). What can you say in defense of such practices? Would More's Utopians have approved of More's behavior?

4. 烏托邦人道德倫理的基礎,源自於凡事都以快樂為目標。以他們的觀點來說,追求幸福只不過是追求一個妄想。這是道德規範的良好基礎嗎?烏托邦人認為只有幸福最重要,要對這個議題達成共識容易嗎?對於有些人把自己的快樂建築在他人的痛苦之上,他們又要如何解釋呢?
The basis of the Utopian ethical philosophy lies in their praise of pleasure as the aim of all action - what we call the pursuit of happiness is not, in their view, the pursuit of an illusion. Is this a good basis for ethics? The Utopians all agree upon what counts as pleasure. How easy is it to reach agreement on this subject? How do they account for the fact that some people have pleasures which can be obtained only at the expense of others?

5. 烏托邦裡的生活千篇一律:想法、抱負、禮節及穿著都一樣。對於這樣的生活,你能提出什麼樣的辯解?能提出什麼樣的反對意見呢?對持反對意見的人,烏托邦人又會說些什麼?
There is a uniformity of life in Utopia - uniformity of thinking, of ambition, of manners, of dress. What can be said in defense of such a life? What can be argued against it? What would the Utopians say to those who offered arguments against it?

6. 在本書的結尾,小說裡的人物摩爾(More)辯道烏托邦的制度不適合於歐洲人,我們要如何看待這個想法?這是否是作者摩爾(More)自身的想法?
At the end of the text, the character (More) argues that Utopian institutions are unsuitable for Europeans? How should one view his opinion? Does he express the view of the author, More, who wrote the text?



第三堂課 – 《蒙田隨筆全集》〈論後悔〉、〈論轉移注意力〉、〈論慎重許願〉、〈論經驗〉
Lecture #3 - THE ESSAYS OF MONTAIGNE (Of Repentance, Of Diversion, Of Conserving the Will, Of Experience)

討論題目:
Topics for Discussion:

1. 在〈論後悔〉的開端,蒙田宣稱他是第一個直接與讀者交流的作家,而不是藉由某個特殊的角色。這是什麼意思?我們所擁有的個人想法,是否來自我們不同的社會身份?
At the outset of the essay on Repentance, Montaigne claims to be the first writer to communicate with readers in his own person and not in some particular role. What does he mean by this? How can the idea that we each have (our own person) as something distinct from our various social identities?

2. 蒙田說他是研究自身的專家。他如何支持這個論調?了解自己需要有專家的資格嗎?我們有資格去了解自己勝於了解別人嗎?蒙田會如何回答這些問題?
Montaigne says that he is an expert on himself. How does he back up this claim? Does knowing about yourself require expertise? Is one better qualified to know oneself than to know others? How would Montaigne answer these questions?

3. 我們知悉很多關於蒙田的習慣、癖好和偏見等的細節與特點。這只是表面的還是具有深度的細節?對於這樣的自我關注,辯解為何?為什麼蒙田覺得其他人不像他般,列出習慣、癖好、偏見的清單是不對的?
We learn a great deal about the details and features of Montaigne's habits, tendencies, and biases. Are these surface details or do they go deep? What excuses all this self-concern? Why does Montaigne think it wrong of others not to make inventories of their habits, tendencies, and biases in this way.

4. 我們對蒙田的自我和內在了解有多少?他寫了很多我們覺得和了解自我無關的細節:如睡覺的習慣、飲食、餐桌禮節、上廁所的頻率、獲得性愛高潮的方法等。這是自我了解的工具嗎?
How much do we really learn about Montaigne's self, his inner being? He writes a good deal about things that we might not consider important for self-understanding: his habits of sleeping, his diet, his manners at table, his frequency of urination and defecation, his approach to sexual pleasure. Is this the stuff of self-understanding?

5. 蒙田說他不甘願地獻身於公眾事務,而他的目標是儘可能不造成任何的改變,簡而言之,站在道德的立場上,他把上述兩個論點轉為適合於每個人的準則。你覺得若把它們當作道德上的指標如何?他也說只有活著才是終生職:我們的工作使我們能存活下去,而光是過好每天的生活即需無窮的勇氣和決心。他這麼說是什麼意思?
Montaigne says that he gave himself only reluctantly to public service and that his ambition in public service was to effect change as little as possible. He makes both these points into principles suitable for everyone - part of a moral stance, in short. What do you think of these as ethical ambitions? He also says that the only true career is to live: our occupation is our living and it takes endless courage and determination to get through everyday life. What does he mean by this?

6. 蒙田如何比較食人族和摩爾的烏托邦人(都來自於同一個世界)?
How does Montaigne's description of Cannibals compare with More's Utopians (who come from the same part of the world)?



第四堂課 – 莎士比亞《李爾王》
Lecture #4 - KING LEAR by Shakespeare

討論題目:
Topics For Discussion:

1. 描述本劇一開始的情節。李爾王分割國土的動機為何?這動機合理嗎?宮廷中的朝臣對此觀點如何?對於李爾王提出真情告白的要求,Cordelia如何回應?
Describe the situation at the outset of the play. What are Lear's motives in dividing the kingdom? Are they reasonable? What view is taken of his proposed action by those at court? Why does Cordelia respond as she does to Lear's request for a protestation of love?

2. 第二幕一開始,Edmund(Gloucester的私生子)的獨白為自己的行為做辯解。你會如何詮釋?這齣劇對於君與臣,父與子之間正確的關係,持怎樣的觀點?
Edmund, the bastard son of Gloucester, has an argument in favor of his conduct given in soliloquy at the outset of the second scene. How would you paraphrase it? What view do you think the play takes of the right relation between ruler and subject, and between parent and offspring?

3. 劇裡有哪些代表性人物的觀點,會使當時戲劇上演時的觀眾起共鳴?這齣劇蘊含任何道德寓意嗎?
Which of the characters speak for the play, conveying a view of things that would find an echo in the though of the play's original audience? Does the play have anything like a moral?

4. 莎士比亞的《李爾王》改編自早期的劇本,原始的結局是Cordelia從法蘭西回國、贏得最後戰役,並協助其父復辟。莎士比亞時代之後的劇迷似乎偏愛此版本,你如何為這兩個不同的版本辯護?
Shakespeare's version of the Lear-story was a re-working of an earlier play in which Cordelia comes back from France, wins the final battle, and restores her father to his throne. The next generation of theater-goers after Shakespeare's seems to have preferred this version. How would you defend one or the other version of the story?

5. 先審視李爾王所關心兩件事的差異:基本需求和滿足虛榮心。一開始,法蘭西王聲明Cordelia本身就是一份嫁妝,接著在暴風雨中,李爾王和裝瘋賣傻的Edgar的一番對話,然後在荒地裡李爾王發狂的一幕裡達到最高潮。當然,這涉及到李爾王所說把王位權力送人卻保留下「剩餘的部份」。那段最精采對話的起頭為「不是需不需要的問題」,此話說明是人性而非只有本性的需要。
Examine the concern in Lear with the distinction between getting down to essentials and concern with the trappings of life. This starts early, with France's declaration that Cordelia is herself a dowry, runs through Lear exchange with the disguised Edgar during the storm, and reaches a kind of climax with Lear's vision of anarchy in the "mad scene" on the heath. Of course, it is involved in Lear's remark about giving away the power of the king and yet keeping "the additions" and in the great speech beginning "O reason not the need", which talks about giving nature (that is, human nature) more than nature needs.

6. 通常,在詩體中有所謂的「關鍵字」,他們跟文章的中心思想有關(雖然並不直接)。在《李爾王》裡,其中的一個關鍵字是「天性」(nature),另外則是「自然的」( natural )和「非自然的」(unnatural)。「天性」(nature)在劇裡傳達出怎樣的想法?另一個字則是「耐心」(patience)。劇中角色在困境中耐心受到試鍊,在某些時刻,他們會把耐心這想法與命運的本質(即機會或運氣)相連。人類被綁縛在命運的轉輪上,垂直地翻轉著,我們才會說「種什麼因,得什麼果」。說明主角們對劇中發生事件的反應。
Often, certain words in poetic texts are "key words"-they relate particularly, although not always directly, to the central concerns of the text. In Lear, one of these words is "nature", taken together with its relatives, "natural" and "unnatural". What idea of "nature" lies behind the play? Another such word is "patience"-the characters are tested in patience at enduring distress, and there are several moments when they link the notion of patience to a certain view of the nature of fortune (i.e., chance or luck) and of fortune's wheel, which rotates vertically and on which human beings are strapped, so that, as we might say, "what goes around, comes around". Explain the linkage in the case of the major characters and their responses to the events of the play.

7. 假如命運掌管世界,正義何在?同樣的,劇裡的角色對這點的意見也不少,最有名就是李爾王在荒地上的那段瘋言瘋語。對於這個主題,其他各角色又有什麼樣的觀點?
If fortune rules the world, where is justice to be found? The characters have much to say about this as well, most famously in Lear's "mad" speech upon the heath. What view do the various characters take of this subject?



第七堂課 – 霍布斯(1651年)《利維坦》
Lecture #7 - LEVIATHAN by Thomas Hobbes (1651)

討論題目:
Topics for Discussion:


霍布斯對於倫理學上的某些觀點相當關切。他並不是第一個接受這些觀點的人,但卻是第一個將其視為觀念系統中的要素的人。即使當代與後代的某些人認為這些觀點聲名狼籍,但卻無法忽視它們的重要性。此想法的基本概念,就是以唯物主義的觀點看待人性。
Hobbes put certain ideas at the forefront of attention in ethical philosophy. He was not the first to entertain these ideas, but he was the first to express them as elements in a systematic view of the world. As a result, even though some of his contemporaries and successors thought them disreputable, nevertheless it became increasingly difficult to think of them as unworthy of important consideration. The basic idea was to take a materialistic view of human nature.

從這個觀點來看,人類是慾望和厭惡大拼盤,只憑藉感官上的持續刺激而存活,個性也不斷轉變,即在行為上一輩子都無貫徹到底的目標,也沒有所謂的「至善」,更沒所謂人類為迎合本性而試著去達到目標之說。事情的價值取決於我們湊巧想要什麼東西的那刻,而所謂永恆不變的目標或永遠的滿足等想法都只是幻覺。慾望和厭惡並非簡單的特質,而是種合成物。
In this view, each human being is an array of appetites and aversions, continuously stimulated into existence by sensory events, and continually changing in character, so that there is no overall aim for human action over the course of a lifetime - no such thing as a summum bonum or "highest good", no condition of being that mankind tries to achieve in order to suit its nature. The value of anything is determined just by what we happen to want at one moment or another, and the idea of a permanent goal or an enduring satisfaction is just an illusion. Appetites and aversions, moreover, are not simple qualities but composites.

在任何時刻,他們都是刺激下而產生的無數反應,而每個反應相互衝擊交換,最後產生共同的結果 – 行為的衝動。
At any given moment, they are the overall resolution of innumerable differing responses to stimuli, in which so much of each response is traded off against so much of every other to produce the collective result - an impulse to motion.

1. 霍布斯說我們所做的每件事,都是對我們自己有利的,即使看起來像是在犧牲自己的利益,例如做慈善事業。這和《烏托邦》裡的教條 -「我們所做的一切只為了樂趣」相比如何?
Hobbes says that everything we do is done for the sake of some good for ourselves - even when we appear to sacrifice our interest for another's, as in acts of charity. How does this compare with the Utopian doctrine that everything we do is for the sake of pleasure?

2. 霍布斯說我們所謂的「善」,取決於我們喜惡的強度,而且時時刻在改變。這個關於人類個性的觀點適不適切?在決定某個行為的方向時,這樣觀點會導致什麼後果?對於把「追求幸福」當成人生的目標,霍布斯持怎樣的看法?
What we call "good", says Hobbes, is always determined by the strength of our appetites and our aversions and these change remarkably from moment to moment, day to day. How adequate is this view of human character? What implications follow from it when it comes to deciding upon one course of conduct or another? What does Hobbes think about "the pursuit of happiness" as the goal of human life?

3. 霍布斯如何形容自然的狀態?他說他不相信它曾經「普遍地」存在過,但類似的東西現今存在於國與國間的關係。以歷史事實的角度而言,形容一個從來不曾存在的狀態,這樣的觀點有什麼用處?有沒有「類似這樣的東西」存在於現今的生活裡?還是從未出現、偶爾或常常出現?
How does Hobbes describe the state of nature? He says that he does not believe that it ever existed "generally", but something like it exists now in the relation between nations. What use is the concept, if it describes a state that never existed generally as a matter of historical fact? Does "something like it" arise in our lives today? Never? Sometimes? Often?

4. 霍布斯說所有的推論都是種深思熟慮,而適切的推論來自證實定義、妥善用字以記錄被承認的事實,並遵循「管理陳述內容關係間」的規則,來推論其他的事實。霍布斯覺得,認可這個原則會帶來什麼好處?
Hobbes says that all reasoning is calculation and that proper reasoning comes down to establishing definitions, using words properly to record established facts and deducing other facts by following the rules that govern the relation between statements. What benefit does he believe will follow from recognizing this principle?

5. 解釋為什麼所有的道德,不單只有政治而已,會被認為是種互惠的協議?
Explain how all morality, and not just politics, may be understood as an agreement for mutual advantage.

6. 霍布斯批評的「傻子」--認為沒有所謂的公義,而一個懂事理的人如果能避免時也不會行公義。這個論點如何?
How good is the argument that Hobbes levels against "the fool" who has said in his heart that there is no such thing as justice and that a reasonable person will not practice justice when it seems likely that he can get away with it?

7. 霍布斯對於自由的想法如何?他認為自由意志(free will)的存在嗎?
What is Hobbes's view of freedom? Does he believe in the existence of free will?

8. 霍布斯所謂一切義務(obligation)的根源為何?你能想出其他義務的根源嗎?(霍布斯所沒有認可的)
What is the source of all obligation in Hobbes? Can you think of any other sources of obligation, other than the one(s) that Hobbes recognizes?

9. 霍布斯認為政府扮演什麼樣的角色?假如霍布斯今天還活著,他會投票給民主黨還是投共和黨?
What is the role of government in Hobbes? If Hobbes were alive today, would he vote Democrat or vote Republican?


第八堂課 – 斯威夫特《格列佛遊記》
Lecture #8 - GULLIVER'S TRAVELS, IV by Jonathan Swift

討論題目:
Topics for Discussion:


1. 有些人認為,烏托邦是個人們能合理過日子的地方,而Houyhnhnms人似乎是某種理性的典範,他們對於每個族人的福祉也非常公平。斯威夫特如何成功地描繪這種道德完美的形象?你會想和這些人一起生活嗎?關於摩爾的烏托邦,他和你所認為其不適於居住這點,有何不同?
It is sometimes said that Utopias are places where human beings live reasonably. The Houyhnhnms appear to be exemplifications of some kind of rationality. They are perfectly impartial in their regard for the interests of any members of their kind. How successfully has Swift drawn the image of the perfectly ethical being? Would you wish to live among them? In what ways do the features of life that make this utopia seem inhospitable to you differ from the inhospitable features of More's Utopia.

2. 斯威夫為什麼特選擇馬匹作為公平理性的化身?格列佛是否成功地向馬匹解說人類的生活方式?你會如何對火星人解說我們的社會制度(即使他們對此一無所知)?在解釋和辯護一種行為模式、行動方向和生活的方式時,兩者間的界線在哪裡?你能成功地為你覺得不合理的生活方式辯解嗎?如果有人指控你的解釋是錯誤的,因你並不瞭解那種生活方式的行為特徵,你要如何反應?
Why do you think that Swift chose to make horses the embodiments of impartial reason? How successful is Gulliver in explaining to the horses the ways of human? How would you go about explaining our social institutions to anyone, from Mars, let us say, who did not understand them? What is the line between explaining and justifying a mode of behavior, a course of action, a way of life? Could you successfully explain a way of life that you found unjustifiable? How would you deal in such a case with the charge that your explanation cannot be right, that you must not have understood the point of the behavior characteristic of that way of life?

3. 理想國通常被認定不是個適合我們所知的人類居住的地方(最明顯的就是在《烏托邦》結尾時的摩爾(More)這個角色)。但在故事的結尾,格列佛變得「沉迷於」Houyhnhnms人的生活方式:他希望如Houyhnhnms人般生活。這是否使他在書中最後一章,關於他對人類的觀點無法成立?
It has been observed (most notably by the character "More" at the end of Utopia) that utopia is not a place for human beings as we know them. At the end of the tale, however, Gulliver becomes "infatuated" with the Houyhnhnms way of life; he wants to live as the Houyhnhnms do. Does this invalidate the view of human beings that he expresses in the last chapter of the book?

4. 李爾王渴求獨有、強烈的愛的表達,Cordelia的回應是:「我愛你是基於為人子女的義務,不多也不少。」Houyhnhnm人會如何看待這點?
How would a Houyhnhnm might view Cordelia's reply to Lear's desire for an expression of exclusive, all-consuming love: "I love you according to my bond, no more nor less"?

5. 「大自然的教導」(nature teaches)是我們讀過某些文本中的主題。格列佛在Houyhnhnm國度的主人告訴他:「他的族人對所有年輕Houyhnhnms人的愛無等差,而大自然教導他們去愛所有的族人」。這是種合乎道德的概念嗎?那所謂的「家庭價值」(family values)的意義呢?在Houyhnhnm語中,houyhnhnm一字意味著「自然的完美典型」。摩爾書裡的烏托邦人也聲稱要「自然地」生活著。「自然」(nature)這個字的應用以及其衍生出的例子合理嗎?
What "nature teaches" is an underlying subject of some of the texts that we have read. Gulliver's master in Houyhnhnm-land tells Gulliver that his kind have an equal affection for all young houyhnhnms and that Nature teaches them to love the whole of their species. Is this an ethical ideal? What about "family values"? The word "houyhnhnm" means "the perfection of nature" in Houyhnhnm-speak. The Utopians in More's book also lay claim to living "naturally". How valid is the application of the word "nature" and its derivatives in these cases?

6. Yahoos族可以適切地代表某些人類的特徵嗎?他們代表哪類的特徵?對於被看做是種人類這點,到底有多重要?Yahoos族擁有讓人可理解的「生活方式」嗎?你能解釋他們的行為舉止嗎?格列佛在試著對他的Houyhnhnm主人解釋律師的行徑成功嗎?
Are the Yahoos an adequate representation of certain features of mankind? What features do they represent and how central are they to a notion of what counts as a human being? Do the Yahoos have an intelligible "way of life"? Can you explain why they behave as they do? Does Gulliver do any better in trying to explain the conduct of lawyers to his Houyhnhnm master?

7. 格列佛這個角色足以代表斯威夫特嗎?在本書的結尾,格列佛對人類起加以唾棄,甚至對仁慈的Don Pedro都厭惡不以已。這是否傳遞出斯威夫特自身的感覺呢?
How close does Gulliver come to representing Swift? Do you think that Gulliver's rejection of humankind at the end of the book--his loathing of even so humane a person as Don Pedro--is taken to express Swift's own feelings?


第10堂課 – 盧梭(1712年-1778年)《論人類不平等的起源和基礎》
Lecture #10 - ON THE INEQUALITY AMONG MANKIND by Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)

討論題目:
Topics for Discussion:

1. 描述盧梭對自然狀態的觀點。他的看法和霍布斯有何不同?
Describe the state of nature as Rousseau conceives it. How does it differ from the state of nature in Hobbes.

2. 霍布斯說自然的狀態或許從未普遍地存在過。盧梭則形容其為人性的一般狀態,但它或許從未存在過。這點使兩人的觀點有差別嗎?這點為何和盧梭所形容「自然的狀態從來都不存在」無關?
Hobbes's says that the state of nature probably never existed "generally". Rousseau describes it as a general condition of humanity but also that it may never have existed. Does this make a difference between the two philosophers? Why does it not matter to Rousseau's argument (or so he seems to think) that the state of nature as he describes it never existed?

3. 完善化(perfectibility)對盧梭來說代表什麼意義?(他甚至為這個論點而發明了此字)描述人性中決定性的特色是否恰當?
What does "perfectibility" mean to Rousseau? (He actually invented the word for the sake of this argument.) Is it adequate to the task of indicating the decisive feature of humanity?

4. 盧梭指控霍布斯(以及所有在他之前的哲學家)將人性特點只歸因於文明的狀況,忽視人性在自然下的狀態。這樣的指控恰當嗎?這樣的批評對盧梭也適用嗎?
Rousseau accuses Hobbes (and all other philosophers before himself) of attributing to mankind in the state of nature only characteristics of mankind in a state of civilization. How adequate is the accusation? Can it be leveled at Rousseau as well?

5. 在文章的結尾,盧梭指出了和格列佛與馬對話的相同問題。他說想對加勒比海人(Caribbean)(在盧梭的年代,所認為活得合乎自然的典型) 解釋牧師或現代政府官員的生活是不可能的事,他們無法了解這些人為何要如此生活。此處盧梭想的是什麼?我們假設(在承認很困難後)牧師或官員的生活不合理嗎?
At the end of his text, Rousseau poses the same problem that confronted Gulliver in talking to his horses. He says that it would be impossible to explain the life of minister or a modern public official to a Caribbean (a typical image in Rousseau's day of someone who lives naturally), who would simply not understand how anyone could come to live in that way. What does Rousseau have in mind here? Does the difficultyBassuming that we admit it - invalidate the life of the minister or official?

6. 最後,盧梭說:「人們變成自己和大自然的暴君」。你能加以解釋嗎?人有可能欺壓自己嗎?人類有能力欺壓大自然嗎?
At length, says Rousseau, "man becomes a tyrant over himself and nature". Can you explain this phrase? Can one tryrannize over oneself? Can one tyrannize over nature?

7. 盧梭如何描述在歷史的演進下,人類也變得愈文明?它的主要階段有哪些?盧梭認為法律的發明,是有產人施加在無產人身上的詭計。這樣的描述可被理解嗎?
How does Rousseau describe the course of history, during which humanity became progressively more civilized? What are its main stages? Rousseau describes the invention of law as a trick played by those possessing much property upon those possessing none. Is this account intelligible?

8. 盧梭是進步概念的擁護者嗎?你相信進步代表文明制度的成長嗎?
Is Rousseau a partisan of the idea of progress? Do you believe in a course of progress marking the growth of civilized institutions?



第15堂課 – 康德(1785年)《道德底形上學之基礎》
Lecture #15 - FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE METAPHYSIC OF MORALS by Immanuel Kant (1785)

討論題目:
Topics for Discussion:

1. 康德所謂的「準則」是什麼意思?定言令(categorical imperative)和假言令(hypothetical imperative)有什麼不同?
What does Kant mean by a maxim? What is the difference between a categorical and a hypothetical imperative?

2. 康德寫了三篇定言令。你如何區別前兩篇?為什麼康德認為他們可歸結為同一件事?
Kant gives three versions of the categorical imperative. How would you distinguish the first two? Why does Kant believe that they come down to the same thing?

3. 比較康德和霍布斯對「自由」的觀點。兩人都說有道德多少和有理性相當(回顧霍布斯所說行事不公近似於矛盾,此言本身就有點荒謬)例如:這已排除估算的可能性,但有人又對合理行為的觀點卻不同。你該如何形容這些差異?康德對於「追求幸福」一說態度嚴峻。霍布斯會認同康德的想法嗎?
Compare the view of freedom expressed by Kant with the treatment of it by Hobbes. The two philosophers each make the claim that being ethical mean much the same as being rational (recall Hobbes saying that to behave unjustly was akin to a contradiction, in that it was absurd) i.e., without the possibility of calculation. And yet there views of reasonable conduct are different. How would you describe some of the differences? Kant has harsh words for the notion of the "pursuit of happiness". Would Hobbes have agreed with him?

4. 康德所謂的「自治」(autonomy)是什麼?人類是自治的個體嗎?
What does Kant mean by "autonomy". Are human beings autonomous?

5. 康德針對對定言令舉出四個應用的例子。這些例子如何說明他的論點?這些例子適當嗎?
Kant offers four examples of the application of his notion of the categorical imperative. How do they illustrate his argument? Are they well-chosen?

6. 康德區分出對自己和他人的責任。這樣的區分對康德的論點重要嗎?你對自己有責任嗎?或是這只是矯飾之詞?這就像欠自己錢或必須對自己做出某些事嗎?
Kant distinguishes between duties to oneself and duties to others. How important is this distinction to Kant's argument? Can you have duties to yourself, or is the phrase just a colorful manner of speaking? Isn't it rather like owing yourself some money to owe yourself to do something or to behave towards yourself in a certain way?

7. 康德不信任「模範人物」(role modle)的權威性。他說,除非你了解耶穌的完美,你才知道自己無法仿效祂,但這必須先視你對完美的定義。而耶穌似乎也無法教我們我們還不知道的事(雖然康德從未明言這點)。你覺得這個論點如何?摩爾筆下的烏托邦人會怎麼說?
Kant does not believe in the authority of "role-models". He says, in effect, that you cannot "imitate Christ" until you recognize his perfection and this recognition depends upon your already knowing what it means to be perfect. Jesus, it would appear (although Kant does not say this), cannot teach us anything that we do not already know. What do you think of this argument? What would More's Utopians say to it?



第16堂課 – 珍奧斯汀《傲慢與偏見》
Lecture #16 - PRIDE AND PREJUDICE by Jane Austen

討論題目:
Topics for Discussion:

1. 在這本書裡什麼是傲慢?有哪些角色是傲慢的?回想一下摩爾《烏托邦》的結尾時所描述傲慢的狀態。這和本書所描述的心理狀態一樣嗎?很明顯地,Darcy認為傲慢不是件壞事:本書認可他的觀點嗎?
What is pride in the book? Which characters have it? Recall the state of mind characterized as "Pride" at the end of More's Utopia. Is it the same state of mind as the pride active in this book. Darcy clearly takes pride to be no bad thing: does the book endorse his view on this point?

2. 偏見又是什麼?哪些角色存有偏見?Elizabeth對Darcy存有偏見,是因為他在Netherfield的社交舞會中過於驕傲,而Elizabeth和其家人在此擁有相當的社會地位。《傲慢與偏見》的書名正是其來有自,並且一語點明!Elizabeth偏見的本質為何?它能被合理化嗎?Darcy傲慢的本質為何(跟Elizabeth有關連的)? 能被合理化嗎?本書能不能用別種方法改寫?(譬如女主角傲慢,而男主角偏見)
Again, what is prejudice? Which characters have it? Elizabeth is prejudiced against Darcy because he is apparently disdainful at the ball of Netherfield society where Elizabeth and her family have a measure of social importance. Here is Pride and Prejudice--the title justified--at one blow! What exactly is the nature of Elizabeth's prejudice and can it be justified? What is the nature of Darcy's pride (in relation to Elizabeth) and can it be justified? Could the story have been written the other way about, with the woman proud and the man prejudiced?

3. 小說裡有些「關鍵字」,其中一個是「社會」(society)。在書中的上下文裡,這個字代表什麼意思?《傲慢與偏見》通常被稱作為「社會小說」(social novel)也被稱為「禮節的小說」(a novel of manners) 。在本書裡有「愉悅的禮節」(happy manners)非常重要,如Bingham和惡棍 Wickham。在本書裡「愉悅的禮節」代表什麼?「愉悅的禮節」的道德價值又是什麼?
Certain words might be called "key-words" in this novel. One of them is "society": what does this word mean within the context of the novel? Pride and Prejudice is often called a "social novel"; it is also called "a novel of manners", and the phrase "happy manners" is very important in the book. Bingham has happy manners; but so does the scoundrel Wickham. What does the phrase signify in the context of the book? What is the ethical value of happy manners?

4. 另一個重要的字眼是「明理的」(sensible)。Bennet先生說他希望Collins先生不會是個明理的人,這是什麼意思?本書的角色在通曉事理方面可列成一個排行榜,Collins先生位居榜尾,Elizabeth則名列榜首,Darcy、Bennet先生、Wickham和Jane則介於中間。他們明理程度可在哪些例子中看出?
Another important word is "sensible." Mr. Bennet says that he hopes Mr. Collins will not be a sensible man. What does he mean by this? The characters in the book can be arranged in a spectrum of sensibleness, with Mr. Collins at one end and Elizabeth at the other. Somewhere in between are Darcy, Mr. Bennet, Wickham, Jane. What is the measure of their good sense in each case?

5. 有人說《傲慢與偏見》書中真正的英雌是說故事的人,那個敘述故事卻又不屬於書裡角色的人。你會如何描繪這個說書人?回想書中的第一句話:在書中眾多的角色中,哪個人最可能了解這句話?
It is sometimes said that the real heroine of Pride and Prejudice is the narrative voice, which tells the story and belongs to no one in the novel. How would you characterize that voice. Consider the first sentence of the book: who among the characters in the book would be most apt to understand it?

6. 說書人取笑Bennet 太太,說她最重要的任務就是嫁女兒,但本書的主旨就是讓Elizabeth找到婆家。在書裡,婚姻為何是個大獎賞?該如何恰當地描述這個故事?為什麼它這麼重要?書裡的角色全都認同它的重要性嗎?還是各人的看法不同?
The narrative voice mocks Mrs. Bennet, when it says that her chief business was getting her daughters married. And yet getting Elizabeth married is the chief business of the book. In what way is marriage the great prize in the book, an apt narrative fulfillment to the story? Why is it so important? Do the characters all agree on its importance or is it valued differently among them?

7. 我們或許說Elizabth是書裡最有見解的角色。她經常意識到別人的荒誕不經甚至能夠調侃她自己。本書之所以吸引人,主要在於其謔而不虐的能力,而這跟其洞察力有關。你接受這種看法嗎?
Elizabeth, we might say, is the most perceptive character in the book; she is regularly aware of the absurdity of other people and can even make fun of herself. The book depends for much of its charm on the notion that the ability to laugh at others without mocking them to their faces is connected with perceptiveness. Do you accept this notion?

8. 但是在書的中間,Elizabeth宣稱「直到這刻,我還是不了解自己啊!」嘲笑那些對自己一無所知的人。那這句話在此是什麼意思?蒙田又會怎麼說呢?
But midway through the book, Elizabeth is led to exclaim: "Until this moment I never knew myself!" Laughing at oneself does not give access to self-knowledge, then. What does the phrase mean here? What would Montaigne say of it?



第19堂課 – 巴爾札克《高老頭》
Lecture #19 - PÈRE GORIOT by Balzac

討論題目:
Topics for Discussion:

1. 巴爾札克在小說的開端, 指稱讀者「對人類的苦難感覺遲鈍」,並強調他的書並非小說,而是事實的記載。這樣的導言在修辭學上起什麼作用?
Balzac begins his novel by calling the reader insensitive to human misery and insisting that his book is not a novel but a record of the truth. How does this introduction function rhetorically?

2. 《高老頭》書中的主角是Eugène de Rastignac。本書為何要以別人的名字來命名? Eugene這個角色是否擁有憐憫之心?我們一開始就知道,他的野心是「不計任何代價地成功」。此書中的「成功」代表什麼意義?
The central character in Père Goriot is Eugène de Rastignac. Why is the book named after someone else? How sympathetic a character is Eugène? His ambition, we are told near the outset, is to succeed - "success, success at any cost." What is the meaning of success in this novel?

3. 盧梭在《論人類不平等的起源和基礎》中,主要譴責「社會身份」(social identity) —從我們的出身、祖先、社會地位、禮節、肢體語言、特定社會階層的說話習性,來思考我們是誰和該做什麼。《高老頭》書裡的人物如何看待社會身份的重要性?和《傲慢與偏見》裡的人物相比,兩者差異為何?
Most of what Rousseau condemns in his Discourse on Inequality can be summed up by the phrase "social identity" - our way of thinking about who we are and what we ought to do in terms of our birth, our ancestry, our social position, and the kinds of manners, body-language, and habits of speech that goes with membership in a particular class of society. How do the characters in Père Goriot think about the importance of social identity? How do their ways differ from the ways of the characters in Pride and Prejudice?

4. 你會如何形容高老頭的社會身份?為什麼在他女兒的家裡不准提到他的名字?
How would you describe the social identity of Père Goriot? Why is his name unmentionable in his daughter's household?

5. Eugène從表姊Mme de Beauséant和神祕的Vautrin的身上得到該如何成功的建議。兩者的建議相同嗎?Vautrin自認是盧梭教條的追隨者。盧梭在此代表什麼?
Eugène gets advice on how to succeed from two people, his cousin, Mme de Beauséant and the mysterious Vautrin. Is the advice the same? Vautrin identifies himself as a follower of the doctrines of Rousseau. What does Rousseau stand for here?

6. 在《傲慢與偏見》《高老頭》兩書裡,財富對書中角色都極為重要,但珍.奧斯汀在書裡提到確切的數額。《高老頭》裡的某個人物說:「把錢跟愛混淆,真是糟糕!」這真很糟糕嗎?為什麼各角色都需要鉅額的金錢?珍.奧斯汀筆下的人物,告訴我們要有多少的收入才足以維持體面的社會地位,為什麼在《高老頭》裡的數目卻含混不清?
Money is very important to the characters in both Pride and Prejudice and Père Goriot, but Jane Austen is more precise in her text about the specific sums involved. "Mixing money with love," says one of the characters in Père Goriot; "It's awful!" Is it awful? Why do the various characters need so much money? And why are the sums involved left so unspecific, when Jane Austen's characters tell us just how much income will do very nicely to sustain a decent position in society.

7. Vautrin對Eugène提出一個計劃,內容為何?為什麼Eugène遲疑著不去斥責它呢?
Vautrin proposes a scheme to Eugène. What is it and why does Eugène hesitate to denounce it?

8. 本書認為Eugène面臨的三個選擇:家庭、社會和反叛。這三個選擇各自代表什麼?為什麼Eugène無法做出選擇?
The book identifies at one point three alternative that confront Eugène: The Family, Society, and Revolt. What are these three alternatives and why does Eugène find it impossible to choose among them?

9. Eugène對他的朋友Bianchon解釋,他為了盧梭所謂的「官僚的問題」而掙扎。官僚的問題是什麼?是否如Bianchon 所說的:「在每個人在職業剛起步時,都會面相同的問題」?「你已經殺死幾個官僚了」,此話有任何意義嗎?
Eugène explains to his friend Bianchon that he has been struggling with Rousseau's "problem of the mandarin". What is the problem of the mandarin? Is it representative, as Bianchon says, of the problem confronting everyone at the outset of one's career? Is there any sense in which one might say of you that you have killed one or two mandarins already?

10. 在本書的結尾, Eugène面臨幾個選擇。他選了哪個?什麼原因促使他最後做出的選擇?
At the very end of the book, Eugène chooses among the alternatives confronting him. What choice does he make? And what enables him at last to make it?



第22堂課 – 尼采(1844年-1900年)《道德系譜學》(1887年)
Lecture #22 - ON THE GENEALOGY OF MORALS (1887) by Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)

討論題目:
Topics for Discussion:

1. 尼采一開始就論及「罪惡的問題」, 這意味著什麼?尼采的解答代表什麼意義?
Nietzsche begins by referring to "the problem of evil". What does this phrase signify? What is the meaning of Nietzsche's solution?

2. 家族的族譜是一個人列祖的總表,簡言之,就是家譜。為什麼尼采稱呼這為「系譜學」?我們已讀過有關出身和血統的類似研究(盧梭的不平等的起源)。這兩個主題處理方式有何類似與差異處?
A genealogy is a table showing the lines of one's ancestry; a family tree, in short. Why does Nietzsche call this work a genealogy? We have met with a similar study of origin and descent - Rousseau's account of the origin of inequality. What similarities and differences do you see in the treatment of the two topics?

3. 第一篇論文是有關”good”(善),此字字義模稜兩可。尼采在處理時,宣稱它在相對於”evil”(邪惡)和”bad”(壞)兩字時,意思不同。解釋其中的不同點。尼采同意將”evil”一字與其他字相關使用嗎?
The first essay is concerned with an ambiguity in the word "Good", which, Nietzsche claims means something different when opposed to "Evil" from what it means when opposed to "Bad". Explain the difference. Does Nietzsche approve of the use of the term "evil" in any connection?

4. 尼采試著檢驗價值觀的價值(the value of values),這有道理嗎? 這是否像是在質問一些已被接受的價值觀是否真有價值?還是尼采試著檢驗「價值」(value)一字的意義?這有可能嗎?(在倫理學中,這就像是在問「為什麼我們該做我們該做的事」)。換言之,這就像懷疑論者的問題:「當好人有什麼好處?」直接暗示做壞事會有不少好處, 而除非可能被同伴發現,沒理由不如此做。 (霍布斯正是如此討論這問題的)尼采常被指控容許這類的想法。這樣的指控成立嗎?
Does Nietzsche's project of examining the value of values make sense? Is it like asking why some accepted value or other is really valuable? Or is Nietzsche trying to examine the value of the idea of "value" itself? In that case, how is this possible? (In the realm of morality, it may be like asking why we ought to do what we ought to do.) In other hands, the skeptical version of the question "What's the good of being good?" implied straightaway that there was much to be gained from being bad and no reason not to be bad except the risk of being found out by one's fellows. (Hobbes puts the matter in this way.) Nietzsche has often been accused of licensing this kind of thinking. Does the accusation stick?

5. 尼采試著用別的方式來形容他的研究。如試著解釋「地球上某個動物靈魂的存在是要反對自身,選邊以反對自己」。這是什麼意思?
Nietzsche describes his project in other ways - among them, as attempt to explain "the existence on earth of an animal soul turned against itself, taking sides against itself." What does he mean by this phrase?

6. 尼采的第一篇論文一開始時,即對以強調利他主義(altruism)的效用的「英國的心理學家」提出抨擊。他的論點是什麼?
Nietzsche begins the first essay with an attack upon "English psychologists", who attempt to explain altruism by appealing to its utility. What is his argument?

7. 尼采常論及「憤懣」(resentment),但卻使用法文 ‘ressentiment’,並試著把它轉變為藝術的術語,也就是行話。他說的 ‘ressentiment’是什麼意思?在倫理學史上,它扮演什麼角色?
Nietzsche speaks often of resentment but uses the French for ressentiment, in an effort to turn it into a term of art - that is, a technical term, a piece of jargon. What does he mean by ressentiment and what role does it play in the history of morality?

8. 在文章裡,尼采似乎對猶太人說重話,事實上卻是輕蔑反猶太主義論。這是自相矛盾的嗎?尼采認為猶太人對倫理學的貢獻是什麼?他對接下來的基督教教義的看法如何?
Nietzsche seems to have harsh words for the Jews in this text but he was in fact scornful of anti-Semitism. Is there a contradiction here? What does Nietzsche see as the contribution of the Jews to morality? What does he think of the Christianity which followed it?

9. 尼采常被譴責為危險的思想家,提倡威權和殘酷的錯誤示範。在這樣的關聯下,我們該對他在第二篇論文的第11章謹慎地檢視。他在此處的立場為何?尼采在接下來的幾章中論及「天真」(innocence)以及「反殘酷」(Acruelty),這又傳達了什麼訊息?
Nietzsche has frequently been condemned as a dangerous thinker, a wrong-headed advocate of power and cruelty. In this connection, one should take careful note of his pronouncements in chapter eleven of the second essay. What is his position here? How does it find expression in the succeeding chapters when Nietzsche talks about innocence and about Acruelty?

10. 在第二篇論文的第12章中,他提到要想從當今人類制度中可探查出它的歷史起源是錯誤的。你能夠解讀他的論點嗎?這跟他對於在實用性中尋求其道德起源的評論相關嗎?假如當今的功用無法提供人類制度的起源,什麼能提供解答呢?
In chapter twelve of the second essay, Nietzsche argues that it is a mistake to suppose that the present function of any human institution yields clues to its origin in history. Can you paraphrase his argument here? How does it tie in with his criticism of those who locate the origin of morality in its utility? If present functions do not offer clues about the origin of human institutions, what does?



第24,25堂課 – 蕭伯納《芭芭拉少校》
Lecture #24, 25 - MAJOR BARBARA by George Bernard Shaw

討論題目:
Topics for Discussion:

蕭伯納對於〈登山訓眾〉(譯註:《新約聖經》,馬太福音第五章)裡「金錢和宗教是競爭敵手」的概念提出異議,特別是「你不能同時信仰上帝和瑪門」(瑪門(Mammon)就是財富之神,這句話常被直譯為「你不能同時信仰上帝和金錢」)。但讓人驚訝的是,在蕭伯納的戲劇裡卻傾向於金錢方面。該如何為這個堅定的立場辯護?錢財可算是一種宗教儀式嗎?當有人問到Undershaft的宗教是什麼時,他答道:「我是個百萬富翁,那就是我的宗教。」金錢和宗教有什麼共同點?Barbara賣力地從窮人間募款,以便替救世軍籌錢,但卻拒絕Bill Walker的大鈔和釀酒商人Bodger的鉅額捐款。
The idea of opposing Money and Religion as rival allegiances is taken by Shaw from the Sermon on the Mount, particularly from the notion that "You cannot serve both God and Mammon [the god of wealth: the phrase is often translated. "You cannot serve both God and Money".] But Shaw's play, surprisingly, opts for Money. What justifies this hard-and-fast opposition? Is money a form of service? Undershaft, when asked about his religion, answers, "I am a millionaire. That is my religion." What have money and religion in common? Barbara labors ceaselessly to extract donations from the poor, in order to fund the work of the Salvation Army, but she rejects Bill Walker's pound note and the huge benefaction of Bodger, the whiskey-distiller.

她想從Bill身上得到什麼?為什麼要拒絕Bodger的捐獻?金錢就一定是骯髒的嗎?替軍火商、釀酒商、毒販和牙膏製造商工作有什麼不對?販售的商品內容真有那麼重要嗎?假如不是那麼重要,為何不接受呢?假如很重要,差異在哪?蕭伯納讓「錢的福音書」的代表為軍火商,這點有意義嗎?假如有意義,重點是什麼?這齣戲也能讓Undershaft成為釀酒商人、牙線製造商和香煙製造商嗎?在這種情況下,你會如何替自己經營這樣的事業辯解?還是你會和這樣的工作劃清界線?
What does she want from Bill? Why reject Bodger's benefaction? Is money ever dirty money? What (exactly) is wrong with working for an arms manufacturer? A distiller? A narcotics dealer? A manufacturer of toothpaste? Does the product really matter? If not, why not? If so, why does it make a difference? Is there a point in Shaw's making his representative of the Gospel of Money a munitions-manufacturer? If so, what is it? Could the play have equally well made Undershaft a distiller, a manufacturer or dental floss, of tobacco products? How would you justify (or excuse) your managerial role in such case, or would you draw the line at some of these employments?

Lady Britomart建議Stephen接受他的繼承權,然後僱個經理來管理事業。這是個愚蠢的主意嗎?你會如何聘僱這樣的經理人?劇裡「繼承」的重點為何?為什麼要選一個棄兒(也就是私生子)當總裁?你會如何來聘請一個總裁?
Lady Britomart advises Stephen to accept his inheritance and then hire a manager to run it. Is this foolish advice? How would you go about hiring such a manager? What is the issue about succession in the play? Why is it necessary to choose a foundling - i.e., a bastard - to be CEO. How do you hire a CEO?

Lady Britomart認為製造和販賣軍火沒什麼大不了,因為你把軍火賣給「合適的對象」。現今,我們也有同樣的觀感,我們的政府堅持只有某些國家才有權擁有核武。相對的,Undershaft會賣武器給任何想買的人,也會替負擔不起的人安排寬裕的貸款。他這種行動背後的想法為何?或許我們該把Undershaft的軍火想像成力量的象徵(做好事和壞事的力量、侵略和防禦的力量)。在這樣的觀點下,我們可思索麻省理工學院的教授所扮演的角色:他們販賣經營知識,並替負擔不起學費的人安排貸款。Lady Britomart會怎麼看待這樣的行為?史隆管理學院所販賣的知識是某種形式的力量嗎?它該僅提供給適合的對象嗎?
Consider Lady Britomart's view that it is all right to manufacture and market munitions, provided that you sell them only to "the right sort of people". We have something of the same opinion today, in the insistence of our government that only certain sorts of nations have a right to nuclear weapons. In contrast, Undershaft will sell armaments to anyone who wishes to buy and will arrange for generous loans for those who cannot afford it. What view of the world underlies his practice? Perhaps we should think of Undershaft's munitions as the symbolic equivalent of power - power to do good or harm, power of aggression and of defense. In this light, we might consider the role of MIT professors, who sell managerial knowledge and arrange loans for those who cannot afford to buy. What would Lady Britomart think of this practice? Is the knowledge that Sloan sells a form of power? Should it be available only to the right sort of people?

在福音書裡的〈登山訓眾〉裡,聖馬太說:「引導我們不受誘惑…。」這句話也可譯為「不要試探我們…。」(常被如此翻譯)。祈禱不要被測試是對的嗎?這段話取自眾所周知的〈主訓人的禱告〉(譯註:《新約聖經》馬太福音第六章),主要是教導我們要祈求寬恕,如此我們才會被恕罪。寬恕的力量是什麼?寬恕還有其他的動機嗎?多一點寬恕,對這個世界有好處嗎?在這齣戲裡,Cusins拒絕寬恕,他說:「寬恕是乞丐的避難所,自己欠債自己還」。此處該注意的字眼是「負責任」(accountability)。當Bill Walker說:「一人做事一人擔」時,似乎是認同Cusins的想法。注意此處的關連,Barbara對Bill Walker不諒解,拒絕他用摑掌來為他冒犯Jenny Hill的事贖罪。她究竟要他怎麼做?加以解釋。有力量去寬恕、遺忘和重新來過,真是「乞丐的避難所」嗎?
From the Sermon on the Mount, in The Gospel according to St. Matthew: "Lead us not into temptation . . .", which may also be translated as "Please do not test us . . . " and is frequently so translated. Is it a good thing to pray not to be tested? The passage comes from what has come to be known as "The Lord's Prayer", which also instructs us to pray for forgiveness, so that we may be forgiven in turn. What is the power of forgiveness? Is there any other motive for doing it? Can the world use more forgiveness? Cusins, in the play, rejects forgiveness. "Forgiveness is the beggar's refuge. We must pay our debts." Our watchword for this term is "accountability"; Bill Walker seems to agree with Cusins, when he says, "What I done, I'll pay for". Note in this connection that Barbara gives Bill Walker a hard time, refusing to let him pay off his offense against Jenny Hill by getting his own face bashed in. What does she want of him? Explain. Is the power to forgive, forget, and start anew always "a beggar's refuge"?



書面報告
Paper Assignments




 
MIT Home
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Terms of Use Privacy