MIT OpenCourseWare

» 進階搜尋






Below are some notes, questions, cases and commentaries meant to guide the student’s reading and to inform class-room discussion. You may also download the paper assignments for the course. See the readings section for downloadable files of the texts assigned for many of the class sessions.

課程單元 作業

Excerpt from Genesis.

  1. 何為創造的次序?此次序的觀念讓你聯想到何種價值觀?
    What is the order of creation? What values does the order suggest to you?

  2. God在創世後所給予的祝福和洪水以後所給予的祝福有何不同?其中區別的意義?
    How does the blessing pronounced by God at the conclusion of creation differ from the blessing pronounced after the flood? What are the implications of the difference?

  3. 為什麼上帝隱瞞人類「善與惡的知識」?上帝在男人與女人身上所施予的詛咒本意為何?
    Why does God withhold "knowledge of good and evil" from humanity? What is the nature of the curse pronounced by God upon man and woman?

  4. 遭遇不同的對待後,亞伯和該隱犧牲的絃外之音?什麼是「該隱的封印」?
    What implications do you see in the different treatment accorded the sacrifices of Abel and Cain? What is the significance of "the brand of Cain" ?

  5. 為什麼上帝要求以薩犧牲由亞伯拉罕?亞伯拉罕真心服從上帝嗎?
    Why does God demand the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham? Was Abraham right in obeying God?

Sophocles. Antigone.

Martin Luther King, Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

I. 索佛克里斯《安提岡尼》
I. Sophocles, Antigone

  1. 克里昂在本劇最初的定位?回答時,請思考(a)企圖攻城未果的第二天(b)嘗試領導內部分歧,並在開戰期間設法組隊鞏固自己的勢力(如同現代的「第五縱隊」或是「間諜」),所以克里昂對窩裡反的恐懼不太合理;(c)打破禁葬令者是他的姪女,又與家族反目,這樣的人最後也有可能殺了他。
    What is Creon's position at the outset of the play? In answering, bear in mind (a) that it is the very next day after an unsuccessful attempt to conquer his city; (b) the usual attempts at conquests always tried to enlist the aid of any group within the city who were disaffected or at odds with the leadership and normally secured this aid before any campaign was launched (modern equivalents are called "fifth columnists" and "traitors within"), so that Creon's fears about traitors within are not entirely unreasonable; (c) the person whose burial he forbids (Polynices) is his own nephew, who has turned against his family, and the duty to bury such a person would normally fall upon him.

  2. 安提岡尼在本劇最初的定位?假定依禮埋葬親屬是神聖的儀式,為何單單的儀式(僅只有象徵性的酹酒,那是安提岡尼所能提供的)卻對安提岡尼非常重要?伊斯美妮(兩難的伊斯美妮)是個缺乏倫理觀,是中立,還是他清楚自己的定位在哪裡的人?這個問題好比,此人是部份的解答或是另一部分的問題?
    What is Antigone's position at the outset of the play? Granted that the ritual burial of kin is a sacred obligation, but only a ritual (it need only be a token sprinkling, which is all that Antigone can supply), why is it so important to her? Is Ismene (caught-in-the-middle Ismene) an ethical weakling, a mere fence-sitter, or does she represent a reasonable position? Is it ever a good idea to say about someone that they are either a part of the solution or a part of the problem?

  3. 安提岡尼代表的「家族價值」,也更深層(如果不算更高)的接觸到宗教面,一種非成文的、不知何時頒布的法律。為何非成文?為何無日期?比起其他一般價值,請思考家族價值與「無上」之間的關聯性。舉一現今辯論的例子,職業責任與宗教規定: 醫生致力於減少病人的痛苦,但基督徒教父母允許醫生讓病人做骨髓移植;在他們的觀念裡,信念至上,甚至超越兒女的生命苦痛。(三年前正有此例,孩子死了,法院判決父母親過失殺人)是醫生太過冥頑,或顯出軟弱,或是他盡到醫生的責任了?其他人的立場呢?一方想藉由施予「達成」戒律,但對妥協的另一方將什麼也不是。
    Antigone represents "family values" but at the same time something "deeper" (if not higher), connected with religion, the unwritten dateless laws. Why unwritten? Why dateless? Explore the connection between family values and "greater", other-than-general values. Take a modern case of the quarrel between the duties of office and the imperatives of religion: a doctor is devoted to reducing pain and preserving life but Christian Science parents refuse permission to let the doctor give a necessary bone-marrow transplant; in their view, faith alone does the healing and what is more, permitting the treatment would endanger the child's life because it would issue from lack of faith. (A case of this sort was in the papers about a three years ago. In this case, the child died and the parents were tried by the law for criminal neglect.) Is the doctor being stubborn, or betraying weakness, or is he just being a doctor? How about the other side? One wants to follow the precepts of "getting to yes" by giving each side their due, but to compromise here by giving half a transplant would defeat both sides and accomplish nothing.

  4. 考慮三種忠誠:(1)絕對的或是先驗存在的義務。 神指示亞伯拉罕必須犧牲兒子以撒來測試信念,而亞伯拉罕完成了。他做對了嗎?比較安提岡尼的回答(2)為一團體或價值觀而活。您會為美國死嗎? 民主?故鄉?你的家人?(3)最後:對於人的生命歷程而言。保衛民族主義的價值觀很重要嗎?
    Consider three kinds of loyalty: (1) To an absolute or transcendent obligation. Abraham was instructed by God to sacrifice Isaac, his son, as a test of faith, and Abraham proceeded to do it. Did he do well? Compare his response to Antigone's (2) To a group and (perhaps) to the values that it stands for. Would you die for America? Democracy? Your home town? Your dorm-group? (3) And finally: To one's history. How important is it to defend the values of our ethnic origins?
  5. 此劇結束似乎是為了確認安提岡尼。它是否可能忽略記敘文中的賞善罰惡,並且只在結論採取反對立場的建議,這種作法代表詩意正義嗎?
    The play ends by seeming to validate Antigone. Is it possible to ignore the way in which any work of narrative distributes rewards and punishments at its conclusion and take a stand against the suggestion that this distribution represents poetic justice?

II. 馬丁路德金《伯明翰監獄來鴻》
II. Martin Luther King, Letter from a Birmingham Jail

  1. 專家評論國王和安提岡尼的行動比較。他們的觀點哪裡不同?哪裡相同?
    Compare the authorities appealed to by King and by Antigone in justification of their actions. How do they differ? What points have they in common?

  2. 國王對安提岡尼的行動。他做的正確嗎?在你看來誰是主角?國王或是安提岡尼?
    King likens himself to Antigone at one point. Is he right to do so? Which in your view is the stronger character, King or Antigone?
3 柏拉圖《理想國》卷一、卷二(頁 61-128) [327a-376c]**。
Plato. The Republic. Parts I and II (pp. 61-128) [327a-376c]**.

(a) 327a-376c:

  1. 塞伐洛斯是怎樣的人?好人,還是一位智者?他對受難的看法?
    What sort of a man is Cephalus? A good man, perhaps, but is he wise? What is his view of the passions?

  2. 借用詩人的說法,正義的定義,可以詩作為理解的來源麼?我們該如何定義一件事的對錯?
    A definition of what is right, borrowed from a poet. Are poets good sources for knowledge? When trying to discover what is the right thing to do, do we crave a definition?

  3. 正義似乎是一種在不同情況下應如何實行的實踐知識[希臘字是techne],因地制宜。「一件事符合正義有何性質」?到「正義實踐知識有何性質」?此問題可以等量齊觀嗎?認知正義與行動正義如何區別?
    Justice seems to come from a kind of practical knowledge [the Greek word is techne], how to act in this or that circumstance. The question has shifted from "what sort of a thing is justice" to "what sort of knowledge produces justice". Are the questions more or less equivalent? Does knowing what justice is carry with it the knowledge of how to act justly?

  4. 符合正義也有可能危害到其他人嗎?蘇格拉底認為,若是行為危害某人或某事,則須以「格準」衡量才行動,換句話說,無法規範。(傷害一隻馬也只是一隻馬的損失。)對馬的知識進步無法使馬更壞,如何反駁此論述?;而風氣,正義也無法對人起作用。如何反對此論述?為什麼蘇格拉底認為他的論據自然地隨後而來?
    Can it be just to harm one's enemies? Harming someone or something, says Socrates, means making it to conform less to its "standard of excellence", making it, in other words, less exemplary of what it is. (Harming a horse makes it less of a horse.) What objections can be made to this turn in the argument? The knowledge that goes into caring for horses cannot have as its function making horses worse; in like fashion, the exercise of justice cannot ever function to make human beings worse. What objections can be made to this point. Why does Socrates think it follows naturally from his argument?

  5. 特拉西馬古斯否決。蘇格拉底認定正義是因「人類卓越」[「卓越」和"「優越」兩字在希臘語中是相同的] 。特拉西馬古斯質疑這個假定。他的論據是?蘇格拉底如何反擊?結論(正義非人類卓越或優越)仍令人感興趣?
    Thrasymachus interposes. Socrates takes it for granted that justice is "human excellence" [the word for "exeellence" and "virtue" are the same in ancient Greek]. Thrasymachus challenges this assumption. How good are is arguments? How does Socrates defeat them? Is the conclusion (justice is not a form of human excellence, not a virtue) attractive nonetheless?

  6. 格勞孔的挑戰:正義的本質和起源?您會想擁有魔戒嗎?為什麼?挑戰蘇格拉底本質的格勞孔以何種姿態出現?
    The challenge of Glaucon: what is his account of the nature and origin of justice? Would you wish to possess the ring of Gyges? Why? What is the nature of the challenge that he poses to Socrates?

  7. 阿得曼圖認為,格勞孔關鍵上的漏洞是指什麼?
    Adeimantus says that Glaucon has left out the most important point. What is it?

  8. 在蘇格拉底的談話中,可看出什麼是社會特徵的本質?其述及如何觀察不論正義與否,在不同社會特徵中的個體?
    What are the essential points in Socrates's account of the character of a community? How will talking about the character of a viable community aid in discovering whether justice is an excellence or not in individuals?

  9. 格勞孔認為社會必定貧富不均。他們以什麼比喻社會(如同蘇格拉底概述他的本質)與社會的成員?
    Glaucon insists that a community cannot confine itself only to necessities; it must have some luxuries as well. What does their admission do to the analogy between the community (as Socrates is outlining its nature) and the individual member of the community?

(b) 403d-445d:

  1. 蘇格拉底用古典道德指出社會的定位:智慧、勇氣、節制(自我控制或自我訓練;希臘字sophrosyne)與正義。 如同蘇格拉底所言,前兩者有些相似。它們有何不同?
    How well does Socrates locate in the commuity the four "classical" virtues: Wisdom, Courage, Temperance (or self-control or self-discipline; the Greek word is sophrosyne), and Justice. As Socrates describes them, the last two sounds somewhat alike. How do they differ?

  2. 蘇格拉底以哪三種元素或是範疇劃分任一社會裡的人類心靈?以我們的語言代替希臘文字,可有哪些同意字?
    How well does he align the three elements or classes of people to be found in any community with the alleged three parts of the human psyche? The Greek word has got into our language; what other word(s) might be synonymous with it?

  3. 蘇格拉底認為其中兩種元素必定包含第三種元素-慾念。為何勇敢的責任也包含慾念?慾念如同蘇格拉底所言是「人類偉大的動力來源與貪得無饜的天性」?例如口渴,它也使人貪得無饜?
    Socrates says that two of the elements must be in charge of the third, which is appetite. Why should the element responsible for "courage" be in charge of appetite? How can reason control appetite? Is appetite, as Socrates says, "the greater part of everyone's make-up and naturally insatiable?" Is, for example, thirst an appetite; and is it always insatiable?

(c) 471c-521b, 576c-592a:

  1. 柏拉圖論述的理想國模式可能存在麼?理想國(模式,希臘字是「paradeigma」)的有效防禦可以延伸到其他事物嗎?
    How good is Plato's argument that it does not invalidate an ideal pattern of a state to show that it cannot possibly exist? Does the defense of the validity of an ideal pattern (a "paradigm"; Greek=paradeigma) extend to other things?

  2. 若慾望無窮(蘇格拉底認為),則果即是因,愛智也應是貪得無饜。什麼是哲學家熱衷,且無任何範例判斷其優劣,因其即為典範的例子?即使時間地點不變,但多數人依舊無法掌握這些標準怎麼樣拿捏絕對知識與直觀之間的比重,是「思想」還是「信仰」。如何驗證沒有絕對的知識只有相對的信仰?
    If appetites are insatiable, so (says Socrates) is reason, insatiable for knowledge of all sorts. What the philosopher craves is not instances or examples but the paradigm itself, the standard of excellence by which something is judged to be good or bad of its kind. Most people are incapable of grasping these standards, which do not change with time or circumstance. How is the distinction between the few and the many here correlated with a distinction between universal knowledge and random, changeful "opinion" or "belief". How valid do you think the assertion that there is no universal knowledge, only relative belief?

  3. 洞這則寓言在知識和信仰之間該如何歸類?有絕對的分隔麼?為何在寓言中那些從未看過陽光之人否決了那位重新爬回洞穴的人?
    How does the parable of the Cave fall in with the distinction between knowledge and belief? with the exposition of the divided line? Why, in the parable, do those who have never seen the source of all light turn on the one who has and kill him?

  4. 富有、勇敢和明智彼此制衡是最佳的生活方式,但明智是對的而另外兩者卻是不可靠的。我們如何知曉?
    The rich, the brave and the wise each maintain that their way of life is best, but the wise are right and the other two wrong. How do we know this?
4 柏拉圖《理想國》卷三,第二節(頁 166-176) [403d-412a];卷四、卷五(頁177- 24) [412a-445d]。
Plato. The Republic. Part III, section 2 (pp. 166-176) [403d-412a]; Parts IV and V (pp. 177- 24) [412a-445d].
5 柏拉圖《理想國》卷七 (頁260-325) [471c-521b];卷九,第十節(頁398-420) [576c-592a]。
Plato. The Republic. Part VII (pp. 260-325) [471c-521b], Part IX, section 10 (pp. 398-420) [576c-592a].
6 亞里斯多德。節錄自《尼可馬古倫理學》
Aristotle. Excerpt from Nichomachean Ethics.
  1. 格勞孔(《理想國》)認為正義即為其意義,正義必須是純粹的,正義之實行須以其自身為目的,即要為正義而正義。請舉例說明,你認為較接近柏拉圖的價值觀,還是亞里斯多德?
    Glaucon (in the Republic) said that there were three kinds of good thingsBthings good as means, things good in themselves, and things good both as means and as good in themselves. Give some examples of these three kinds. Which of the three do you think Plato values most? Which does Aristotle value most?

  2. 亞里斯多德認為所有事情的結果必須是對其他事物都有益,才能算是對的事。他的論據為何?他並且指出如果以慾望作為唯一手段,我們將得不到任何東西。他是正確的嗎?
    Aristotle says in effect that all things add up, that there must be some overall good that is the end of every other good. What is his argument? He also says that if we desire only means, we do not desire anything. Is he correct?

  3. 道德這項主題應如何詮釋(對於年輕人或是那些無法自制者而言)才能符合亞里斯多德的道德概念?他正確嗎?若是,如何「傳道教化」?
    How does the view that ethics is a subject that can be taught only to those who are already ethical (not, therefore, to young or to the incontinent, those who cannot control themselves) fit in with Aristotle's general viewpoint? Is he right? If so, what is the use of "preaching to the converted"?

  4. 如亞里斯多德所質疑,木匠或是鞣皮工的功用(希臘字=ergon),而個人,僅考慮作為人,有其適當的作用麼?這是顯著的問題嗎?亞里斯多德認為它是一個好問題而且他知道答案。您同意嗎?
    Is it possible, asks Aristotle, that a carpenter or tanner has a function (Greek=ergon) but a human being, considered just as a human being, has no appropriate function? Is this a sensible question? Aristotle thinks that it a good question and that he knows the answer. Do you agree?

  5. 亞里斯多德認為(I,8) 事必有因且為求善。柏拉圖認為呢?他在此舉例,在比賽中,不擇手段求取勝利者。這是個好例子麼?為什麼舉這例子?
    Aristotle says (I, 8) that one who does not enjoy acting well cannot be good. What would Plato say? He employs an example here, in competitions, it is not those most qualified to win who win. Is this a good example to make the point? Why does he use it?

  6. 亞里斯多德如何瞭解eudaimonia─幸福或福利?亞里斯多德藉由獨立發表的作家所謂「純粹的幸福」,是為了指陳?為什麼亞里斯多德排斥歡娛和尊敬(其他人的評價) 作為生命的完結?
    How does Aristotle understand eudaimonia--happiness or well-being? Does he mean by it what the writers of the Declaration of Independence meant when they spoke of "the pursuit of happiness"? Why does Aristotle reject pleasure and honor (the esteem of others) as the end of life?

  7. 優越(或優秀;;如柏拉圖所言,此字雙關) 在字符定義上並非自然產生(ethCs)。 即使它並非原始定義又如何?亞里斯多德的觀點中,優越如何養成?
    Virtue (or excellence; as with Plato, the word arete means both) is a state of being or an aspect of character (ethÇs) and does not come by nature. Is it unnatural, then? How are the virtues acquired, in Aristotle's view?

  8. 為什麼亞里斯多德認為優越,在字義方面,傾向行為? 解釋優越是極端之間的手段的概念。你可以舉例說明自己的觀察與看法麼?
    Why does Aristotle think that virtues, as aspects of character, are dispositions to act? Explain the notion that virtues are means between extremes. Can you give examples from your own observations that would support this view?

  9. 柏拉圖認為我們決定一件事為對的時候,即是我們希望他是對的或者我們認為它會是對的。你認為亞里斯多的會怎麼說?亞里斯多德如何處理「在無人期望它是壞事的同時,它演變成壞事的概念」?在此,他的觀點與柏拉圖有何不同之處?
    Plato was much concerned with deciding whether we think that something is good because we wish for it or we wish for it because we think it is good. What do you think Aristotle would say? How does Aristotle (III, 4) deal with the notion that no one can really wish for what is bad, but one deceives onself about what one wants when one craves bad things? How does his view here differ from Plato's?

  10. 亞里斯多德一再認為,我們無須關注一件事的結果,但須關注使用的手段。在研究中此項概念極不尋常,該如何選擇使用的手段?或他是正確的嗎?此觀點如何適合貫通他的觀點?
    Aristotle says repeatedly that we do not deliberate about ends but only about the means to ends. Is this a peculiar use of the notion of deliberating, making a self-determined choice? Or is he right about this? How does the opinion fit into his general viewpoint?

  11. 亞里斯多德認為(VI, 13) 有自然優越和優越的工具性(phronesis) 。這項觀點和它的第一本書是否牴觸?他並且認為沒有人可以擁有所有的優越。此觀點如何衍伸出來?此觀點站的住腳嗎?
    Aristotle says (VI, 13) that there are natural virtues and the virtues appropriate to "practical reason" (phronesis). Does this contradict what he said at the outset of Book I? He also seems to say that you cannot have one virtue without having them all. How does this follow from his general view? Does it seem a valid opinion?

  12. 在亞里斯多德的觀念中,對生活的靜觀或是實際行動何者較好?柏拉圖的觀點?亞里斯多德對大家提出的忠告或選擇為何?
    Which is better, in Aristotle's view, a life of contemplation or of action? What was Plato's view on this point? What advice does Aristotle offer us in choosing one or the other?
7 亞里斯多德。節錄自《尼可馬古倫理學》
Aristotle, excerpt from Nichomachean Ethics.

Excerpt from The Gospel According to St Matthew.

Dante. Inferno.

  1. 您認為什麼是耶穌在沙漠中接受三種誘惑的考驗代表為何?你從中讀出什麼涵義?
    What do you think the three temptations in the desert represent? What implications do you draw from the replies?

  2. 在文中「誘惑」也有「試探」的含意。因此在主禱文中「不叫我們遇見誘惑」意即「不要試探我們」。為何不想接受試探?
    The word translated as "temptation" also means "test". Hence in the Lord's prayer, "Lead us not into temptation" means "Do not test us." Why is being tested a bad idea?

  3. 什麼是「不要告訴左手右手做了什麼事」?為什麼我們應該接受?
    What is the meaning of the phrase, "Do not let the left hand know what the right hand is doing"? Why should we follow this injunction?

  4. 為什麼「精神上的貧寒」是祝福?為什麼我們不應抵抗罪惡?
    Why is it a blessing to be "poor in spirit"? Why should we not resist evil?

  5. 為什麼變成富有是不好的?為什麼門徒將教條錯誤解讀?耶穌回答他們「報酬的聖喻」意義為何?
    Why is it bad to be rich? Why are the disciples confused by this doctrine? What is the meaning of the "parable of payment" which Jesus offers in answer to their confusion?
9 但丁《神曲煉獄篇》
Dante. Inferno.

Dante, The Inferno

  1. 地域的體系從亞里斯多德的《尼可馬古倫理學》第一章,第七節裡脫胎而成,那裡無所謂道德,被歸類成縱欲、墮落、野蠻。亞里斯多德有談論什麼關於此形式?但丁依照亞里斯多德的體系增加地獄的界,何故?
    The general scheme of the Inferno derives from Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, k VII, chapter 1, where the ethical states to be avoided are divided into incontinence, viciousness, and mad brutishness. Do the types here represent what Aristotle was talking about? What has Dante added by way of circles in Hell to Aristotle's scheme and why has he added it?

  2. 但丁把異教徒地獄的想像稱作Malebolge,那裡充滿惡魔與乾草叉。Malebolge的處罰如何不同於其他層?
    The place most like the conventional image of Hell as Dante inherited it was Malebolge, which comes complete with devils and pitchforks. How are the punishments endured by the damned in areas above and below Malebolge different from the punishments endured within it?

  3. 在您的想像裡,什麼是黑暗森林?但丁 設法攀登的山是什麼?為什麼在詩中,但丁必需通過地獄才能到天堂?
    What, in your view, is the dark wood? What is the mountain that Dante is trying to climb? Why, in the poem, is Dante required to pass through Hell to get to Paradise?

  4. 地獄門上的題字是「因愛而生」。 地獄怎麼藉由神聖的愛表示?
    "Love made me," says the inscription on the gates of Hell. How is Hell an expression of divine Love?

  5. 地獄處罰的都是罪孽嗎?罪孽決定該通往的地獄的種類,其中也有「救贖」的意涵,若發現與事實不符合的呢?請舉三個實例定義他們應該滯留的位置。
    Does the punishment in Hell always suit the sin? Are the characters in Hell fully defined by the sin that has determined their position in Hell or do they exhibit traits that might be termed "redeeming", were it not for the fact that they did not effect the redemption of the person who bore them? Find three cases in which the latter is true and try to account for the portraits of the sinner in each.

  6. 旅途不斷的曲折旋繞,但主要的轉折是每圈之間。 這些的當中是黃泉城市的城垛和防禦。地獄成了城市?但丁在艾琳絲與複利斯在那裡接受保護。維吉爾在入口處被拒且看起來憤怒為難。您怎麼解釋這裡的象徵主義?
    There are transitions in the journey from circle to circle, but major transitions from group to group. One of these is the battlements and defenses of the city of Dis. Hell is a city, then? The Erynes or Furies are there, and Dante is protected from looking at them. Virgil is denied entrance and appears to be angered and perplexed. How would you interpret the symbolism here?

  7. 在地獄可知道未來和過去但不含現在。這是什麼意思?
    Those in Hell know the future and the past but not the present. What does this mean?

  8. 二維罪惡歸類於亞里斯多德式的範疇,他的意義為何?詮釋分三個派別,關於佔領地獄的外面和地獄內。它是明顯的麼?但丁被移往無節制的圈子裡,他憤怒的點出此界裡的殘暴,並且在不忠的界內極度殘忍。你怎麼解釋這行為?
    There is a two-fold division within Aristotle's category of the vicious, what does it signify? Comment on the three-fold division of the violent, who occupy the outer and higher half of the realm of the vicious. Does it seem sensible? Dante is moved to scorn in the innermost circle of the incontinent; he displays anger at numerous points in the circle of the vicious; and he is downright cruel in the circle of the treacherous. How would one justify this behavior?

  9. 但丁置身的地獄明顯地容納罪孽,不論多少罪惡。 但是他的安排有時令現代的我們困惑。例如,他安置揮霍者比敗家子高級,謀殺者比尤里西斯高級,並且作贗品者在最底部。 您如何解釋?並且評斷我們也許並非共同的罪孽。 您怎麼解釋對高利貸Bthe 的罪孽譴責?您如何解釋對知識暴力的尤里西斯譴責?
    Dante's geography of Hell obviously admits of a hierarchy of sins, from least to most sinful. However, his arrangement is sometimes puzzling to our modern eyes. For example, he places the prodigal higher than the spendthrift, murderers higher than the noble Ulysses, and counterfeiters right next to the bottom, wherein are placed the worst of the lot. Can you explain this? There are also judgments upon sins that we might not share. How would you explain the condemnation of usuryBthe sin of making money by the use of money? How would you explain the condemnation of Ulysses, who urged his men never to stop searching for knowledge?

  10. 除非存在的消逝是處罰的一部分,但丁在他的筆下的形象少有具體化。這樣被認為是寓言式陳述某事。他在陳述什麼,亦所謂?您贊成嗎?當然,我們熟悉的常是歷史上挺身而出之人,例如朗伯夫或海爾。 這些名士承載的評斷有某種共通的特性麼?
    Unless loss of personality is part of the punishment, Dante's figures are deeply personified in very few strokes of his pen. Yet they are also meant to be allegorical, to stand for something. What does it mean to say that one "stands for something", has become an emblem, so to speak? Do you stand for something in this sense? Certainly, we are familiar with figures who stood for something in history, Lindburgh, for instance, or Nathan Hale. Does this "standing for" carry a judgment on features of one's character?
10 但丁《神曲煉獄篇》
Dante. Inferno.

Machiavelli. Excerpt from The Prince.

Shakespeare. Julius Caesar.

12 莎士比亞《凱薩大帝》
Shakespeare. Julius Caesar.
13 莎士比亞《凱薩大帝》
Shakespeare. Julius Caesar.
14 霍布斯。節錄自《利維坦》
Thomas Hobbes. Excerpt from Leviathan.
  1. 霍布斯在探討道德哲學方面之前投入了某些想法。他並非第一個考慮到這些看法之人,但他是第一個集大成者。因此,即使一些當代和後繼者認為他的觀點不登大雅,但卻愈來愈顯重要。其基本思想是採取人類本性唯物論的觀點。但又引申由文本要求讀者思考人的生活形式無法完全照印成機器?機械的概念導因為何?生為人的的意涵為何?
    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. In this connection, he begins his text by asking the reader to consider whether machines cannot be considered an artificial form of life? What would be involved in thinking of machinery in this way? What implications would it have for the consideration of human beings?

  2. 霍布斯的觀念中,個人由慾望與和厭惡連續刺激存入知覺,並且不斷地改變本質,因此沒有人生目標的人終其一生,無法達到「止於至善」的境界。任何東西的價值是由吾人想要片刻擁有或更長時間來決定,並且永恆的滿足只是虛妄的幻覺。將這個看法與亞里斯多德比較。 您認為什麼較接近真相?
    In Hobbes's view, each human being can be regarded as 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 by what we just happen to want at one moment or another, and the idea of a permanent goal or an enduring satisfaction is just an illusion. Compare this view with Aristotle's. Which do you think is closer to the truth?

  3. 慾望與嫌惡不能以單一角度衡量。在任何時刻,他們是無數不同的反應整體刺激我們的想法,各個反應轉換導致整體結果,就是一種衝動的行動。霍布斯稱為考慮程序,並且決定性的想法稱為意願。再將這個看法與亞里斯多德比較。您認為什麼較接近真相?
    Appetites and aversions, moreover, are not simple qualities but composites. At any given moment, they are the overall resolution of innumerable differing responses both to stimuli and to our thoughts about 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. Hobbes calls this process deliberation, and its resolution into an impulse he calls the will. Again, compare this view with Aristotle's view of deliberation. Which do you think is closer to the truth?

  4. 霍布斯認為所有真相的推論形同演算。作為推理生物,我們如同電腦。他得出的一個結論是,實際誤差即為我們誤述實際情形,但對於真相的誤判,我們無法演算, 並且結果非常荒唐,看起來像在溝通但實際上僅僅是無意義的言談。您同意費力辯論關於現實的本質是僅毫無意義的言談,這樣「不符合演算」?
    All reasoning about general truths Hobbes says is akin to calculation; as creatures capable of reasoning, we are akin to calculating machines. One conclusion he draws is that when we make an error of fact, we simply misstate what is the case, but when we make an error about general truths, we fail in calculation, and the result is an absurdity, something that looks like speech but is actually senseless, mere gabble. Would you agree that much strenuous argument about the nature of reality is mere gabble, in this sense: "it does not compute"?

  5. 在霍布斯的觀點中最差勁的妄言是妄言關於好壞之別、 神聖與惡毒,因時因地的不同而無法正確的判別,除非是字義本身極為絕對。您可以舉任何例子印證此化為真嗎?再者,如何比較霍布斯與亞里斯多德對慾望的觀點 (III , 4) 孰優?
    The worst gabble in Hobbes's view is gabble about what is good and evil, virtuous and vicious, for we all mean different things by these words and arguments will not be settled until we purify speech of the differences in the ways that we conceive such things. Can you think of any examples where this dictum would be true? Again, how does Hobbes's view compare with Aristotle's view (III, 4) about the relation between desire and what is good?

  6. 霍布斯思考的特點是關心人類慾望與嫌惡作為改變的傳播媒介,臨時妥協在在力量上的最初的反應的區別和方向之間對刺激的。因為價值是人類慾望與嫌惡力量決定的,並且可以綜合傳播影響,伴隨而來的是一種可測量的數量之間交易的結果。任何收效的價值中,在任何時刻必會有人滿意也會有人無法接受,以等值衡量價值依然是衡量事物的原則。慾望與嫌惡即是普及人類的貨幣。雖然霍布斯生長於完全市場經濟出現之前,但他在這裡已捉住它的概念,即,任一事物的價值決定於其他事物的價值這種供需原理。有些東西也許是非常昂貴和其他東西也許非常便宜,但所有的價格皆彼此相關。這很好推論,例如蘋果根據桔子訂定價值,或物品根據服務訂定價值,甚至一顆被移植的腎臟(與人生)。但怎麼樣我們如何衡量人的根本義務?我們對父母的義務,例如:他們想要更多您的關心;您比他們給的關心想要的更多。但根據霍布斯的觀點,所有這些「想要」是他們衝動之下自己衡量的結果,不獨立於一般價值的衡量,如此運作的結果,在自由市場情況下,是適當的手段。 父母和孩子在彼此之間保持平衡各項「義務購買」,哪些可能以講價確定,和以離婚解決。當然,霍布斯不認為在他含蓄的論據中能讓所有人收買他全部的概念。 我們也許在這裡可以考慮克里昂與安提岡尼之間的事例,或許的確是,宗教對抗性的爭辯使得任何排序必須往後移。是故當我們處理不妥協的他人時,我們應草草應付或是往壞處想?
    The feature of Hobbes's thinking that most concerns us here is that appetite and aversion must be understood as changing vectors, temporary compromises between differences in the strength and direction of initial responses to stimuli. Since value in human life is determined by the relative strength of appetites and aversion, and these are the composite vectors of multiple forces, it follows that every value is the result of a trade-off between measurable quantities. The value of any resulting composite, however desirable at any given moment to some human beings and undesirable to others, is nonetheless representable in principle as equivalent in value to some quantity of any other. Appetite and aversion are, so to speak, the universal currency of mankind.

    Although Hobbes lived before the advent of a fully-fledged market economy, he captured here the notion that underlies it, namely, that the value of any one thing can measured in terms of the value of any other, provided they are either things to be acquired or avoided. Some things may be very dear and others cheap, but all have a price, a value in terms of each other.

    It is all very well to put a value upon apples in terms of oranges, or of goods in terms of services, or even of a surgically-transplanted kidney (and therefore of a human life) in terms of so many television sets, but what about our more fundamental human obligations? Our obligation to our parents, for instance: they want more than you care to give, you want more than they care to give. But according to Hobbes, all these "wants" are themselves the result of trade-offs among impulses, not independent sources of value, and so the working result, in free market conditions, is due measure. Parents and children can settle up between themselves, each "buying out" the obligation to the other, which can be determined by bargaining, as in a divorce settlement. Hobbes, of course, doesn't go this far, but the notion of buy-out is implicit in his argument. We might here consider as a case of uncompromising antagonism the quarrel between Creon and Antigone, or indeed, of quarrels with a religious antagonism behind them of any sort. Is it the case that when we deal with uncompromising people, we are dealing with ignorance or bad thinking?

  7. 霍布斯認為我們有義務保護我們的生活。在霍布斯的觀點裡什麼是其它義務的來源?您認為他是對的麼?
    We have, Hobbes says, an obligation to preserve our lives. What is the source of all other obligations, in Hobbes's view? Do you think that he is right in this?

  8. 如同霍布斯對自然狀態的描述。他認為它是先驗存在?若是,他仍認為它存在?
    Describe the state of nature as Hobbes understands it. Does he think that it actually existed? If so, does he think that it still exists?

  9. 霍布斯認為所有的義務行動是出自於自身的私利,甚至是慈善和自我犧牲的行動。你認為這些看法的涵義?
    Hobbes says more than once that the object of all voluntary acts is some good to oneself, even acts of charity and apparent self-sacrifice. What are some of the implications of such a view?

  10. 霍布斯對於「傻瓜」的反應是不必要的口是心非與不必要的不公義行為?
    How good is the response that Hobbes makes to the "fool" who has said in his heart that justice is contrary to reason and that it is reasonable to be unjust whenever you can get away with it?
15 赫曼.梅爾維爾《比利.巴德》
Herman Melville. Billy Budd.
  1. 故事描述故意設置在尚未有蒸氣的時代,或是更遙遠的世界。那時候,在戰爭中是英國與其它歐洲國家組成同盟反對拿破崙掌權的法國,拿破崙認為美國代表共和政府的力量,如果不是民主,政治早已由特權皇族和貴族把持。的確,故事告訴我們(第8章),美國革命的退伍軍人希望,拿破崙可以橫跨大西洋佔領。因此故事的事件發生在反對民主為目的的戰爭期間的法國。這樣的情況下作者如何在故事整體上著墨?
    The story deliberately sets itself as describing events taking place before steam had replaced sail, another, distant-seeming world. At the time, England and other European states were leagued in war against France, represented by Napoleon Bonaparte, who was thought by many in the United States to represent the force of republicanism, if not democracy, and the end of the political authority and privilege royalty and nobility. Indeed, the story tells us at one point (chapter 8), that veterans of the American revolution hoped that he might carry his conquests across the Atlantic. The events of the story, therefore, take place during a war against France whose purpose was to make the world safe from democracy, not for democracy. How does this circumstance color the story as a whole?

  2. 比利是一位新兵,因乘軍艦組損失海員而被徵召入伍(法律許可)。 為什麼比利提議對船告別致敬,人權?他的告別如何被描寫?
    Billy is an ordinary seaman, impressed into service (as the law allowed) by a man-of-war to make up the loss of a seaman upon it. Why does Billy offer a farewell salute to his ship, The Rights of Man? How should his cry of farewell be taken?

  3. 解說員以一般水手惡習對比那些惡習是「可敬的」 。對比什麼?
    The narrator contrasts the vices of ordinary sailors with the vices of those who claim "respectability". What is the point of the contrast?

  4. 第四章節提及在特拉法加死了的納爾遜的帳單。另外在這之中,隱隱對比維爾上尉。您怎麼看此對比?
    Chapter four offers an account of Nelson, who died at Trafalgar. There is, throughout, an implied contrast with Captain Vere. How would you develop the contrast?

  5. 三個主要人物:比利、維爾、科拉格爾特,在故事開始之時就有相當的描述。 您怎麼總結比利這個人?為什麼他被稱為「調解人」?加入了維爾的船之前他怎麼在我們知道的單一事件帶來和平?他的口吃有何意涵?
    The three main characters, Billy, Vere, and Claggart are described at some length before the story gets under way. How would you sum up Billy's character? Why was he called "the peacemaker"? How did he bring about peace on the only occasion that we know about before he joined Vere's ship? What is the significance of his stammer?

  6. 您怎麼描述維爾?他的信仰起因於對「改革者」和政治革命家不信任;他懷疑貴族特權會毀壞,描述他是「公正」的。文中敬佩這樣的人嗎?總體上採取他的立場?
    How would you describe Vere? His belief in the justice of the English cause is tied to a mistrust of "innovators" and political revolutionaries; his suspicion of those who would destroy aristocratic privilege is, the narrative says, "disinterested". Does the narrative admire him? Does it, on the whole, take his side?

  7. 描述科拉格爾特和他在船上的角色。他的下屬對他的作用是什麼?為什麼祝願文記敘能採取聖經的方式描述他?誰採取聖經的記述描述事件?記敘文嘗試使用聖經的語言表達願望如何解釋?為什麼科拉格爾特恨比利? 記敘文怎麼解釋仇恨?解釋的好麼?
    Describe Claggart and his role upon the ship. What is his effect upon his subordinates? Why does the narrative wish that it could resort to Biblical usage to describe him? Who in the narrative does resort to Biblical references to describe events? The wish to use Biblical language is expressed during the narrative's attempt to explain why Claggart hates Billy. How does the narrative explain the hatred? Is the explanation a good one?

  8. 老丹什克認為科拉格爾特總是給比利好話,因為科拉格爾特恨比利。他意味什麼?
    The old Dansker says that Claggart always has a good word for Billy because Claggart hates Billy. What does he mean by this?

  9. 科拉格爾特相信比利和他是不同水平的身價?您怎麼支持您的答案?
    Does Claggart believe the charges that he levels against Billy? How would you support your answer?

  10. 為什麼比利攻擊科拉格爾特?他謀殺科拉格爾特嗎?維爾認為他有謀殺?為什麼為耳在船上召開一個軍事法庭?為什麼醫生認為維爾已經瘋狂了?
    Why does Billy strike Claggart? Did he commit murder? Does Vere think that he committed murder? Why does Vere convene a court-martial aboard ship? Why does the doctor think that Vere has gone mad?

  11. 如果您是在軍事法庭上並且維爾沒有發言,在定案前, 您會怎麼投票?維爾的發言會對您的表決產生變化嗎?
    If you were on the court-martial and Vere did not speak before a verdict was to be rendered, how would you vote? Would Vere's speech make a difference to your vote?

  12. 文中告訴我們當他被召至維爾的客艙時,比利有何想法?為什麼文中拒絕告訴我們在軍事法庭以後維爾和比利之間究竟怎麼了?
    The narrative can tell us what passed through Billy's mind when he is summoned to Vere's cabin? Why does the narrative pointedly refuse to tell us what passed between Vere and Billy after the court-martial?

  13. 拿亞伯拉罕和比利比較維爾與以薩。 證明比喻正當性。
    The narrative compares Vere to Abraham and Billy to Isaac. Is the comparison justified?

  14. 文中為故事提供三個結尾:第28、29 和30章,每章皆能單獨結束故事。它的修辭技巧是什麼?
    The narrative offers three consecutive endings to the story, chapters 28, 29 and 30, any one of which could have concluded the story by itself. What is the point of this device?

  15. 在第21章的結尾,文中在那些緊急狀態期間的權威觀點和由權威保護之間的觀點做何分別。這分別代表的道德涵義?那些權威的判斷是合法的考量嗎?
    At the end of chapter 21, the narrative draws a distinction between the viewpoint of those in authority during emergencies and those under authority or protected by it. What are the ethical implications of this distinction? Are they legitimate considerations in judging those in authority?
16 赫曼.梅爾維爾《比利.巴德》
Herman Melville. Billy Budd.
17 康德。節錄自《道德形上學》
Kant: Excerpts from Metaphysics of Morals.
  1. 康德所指的格準是什麼意思?定言律令和假言律令之間的區別?
    What does Kant mean by a maxim? What is the difference between a categorical and a hypothetical imperative?

  2. 康德定義定言律令的三種命題形式。 您怎麼區別第一、第二?為什麼康德相信它們在同一件事情上有所分別?
    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. 比較康德與霍布斯對自由的看法。二位哲學家高舉道德手段的牌子要求的理性有其相似之處(回顧霍布斯對於不公義的看法矛盾近乎荒謬)。例如,沒有演算的可能性。與合理的品行看法不同。 您怎麼描述這些區別?康德對「追求幸福的概念」有苛刻的評論。霍布斯與他一致嗎?
    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 means 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. 什麼是康德所指的「自律」?人是自律的嗎?
    What does Kant mean by "autonomy". Are human beings autonomous?

  5. 康德舉四個例子作為定言律令概念的應用。怎麼證明他的論據?貼近康德的概念嗎?
    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. 康德區分對自己和對其他人的責任。此分別對康德的觀點如何重要?您會對你自己負責任,或使用複雜的詞句自言自語說話嗎?是否可想像成欠自己一些錢或用某種方式對待自己?
    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. 康德不相信「同儕典範」的權威。 他說,實際上,您無法「仿效基督」直到您認為他的完美和您已經了解何謂止於至善。耶穌,看來(雖然康德這麼不認為)不能教我們任何事,我們無法知道。你認為呢?
    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?
18 彌兒。節錄自《功利主義》
J. S. Mill. Excerpts from Utilitarianism.
  1. 彌兒認為幸福是愉悅和缺乏痛苦。 假設亞里斯多德能要求邊沁說明白,他會同意這項觀點嗎?
    Happiness, says Mill, is pleasure and the absence of pain. Suppose that Aristotle could be made aware of the context in which Mill makes this claim. Would he agree with it?

  2. 對霍布斯而言,愉悅是愉悅;沒有討論愉悅種類區別的重要性。但是邊沁,在種類上的卻有區別。此論據的重要性?柏拉圖也在《理想國》中有類似的區別。柏拉圖的分別相似嗎?彌兒如何同時考慮到愉悅種類的固有分別和它們的強度與長度?他怎麼比較短暫高度愉悅經驗與長期痛苦經驗的價值?此高低的區別適用於痛苦與愉悅嗎?
    For Hobbes, pleasure is pleasure; there is no talk about the importance of differences in kinds of pleasure. But for Mill, the differences in kinds matters. How important is it to the argument? Plato made a similar distinction in The Republic. Is Plato=s distinction important in the same way? How does Mill take into account simultaneously the inherent distinction between kinds of pleasures and such things as their intensity and duration? How would he compare in value a brief experience of higher pleasure with a lengthy experience of pain? Does the distinction between higher and lower apply to pains as well as pleasures?

  3. 彌兒認為在生活中所謂的罪惡大多是,即當他們結束愚蠢或壞品行,可以「自由意志不斷的改善是,最後降至最低」。您同意這種見解嗎?它符合彌兒道德本質的整體論述嗎?
    Mill says that most of the so-called evils in life, even when they are due immediately to chance or foolish thinking or bad conduct, are "in themselves removable, and will, if human affairs continue to improve, be in the end reduced within narrow limits." Do you share this view? How does it fit in with the overall position that Mill is taking with regard to the nature of ethics?

  4. 彌兒認為,道德的目的在於手段決定的限制。亞里斯多德會認同這樣的看法麼?康德呢?
    Mill says that it is business of ethics to offer a decision-procedure with regard to action. What would Aristotle think of this view? What would Kant think of it?

  5. 彌兒區別義務行動和義務的禁絕。解釋其區別。對他的論據有何重要性?
    Mill distinguishes between acting from a sense of duty and abstaining from a sense of duty. Explain the distinction. How important is it to his argument?

  6. 彌兒如何證明公共事業的原則?他認為如果人們希望行動符合道德,則應該花費時間計算他們行動的實際成效?這樣計算何時會碰到?
    How good is Mill's proof of the principle of utility? Does he think that people should be spending time calculating the net effects of their actions if they wish to act morally? When should such calculations take place?

  7. 彌兒訴諸多數人民認為他們要與他們真正需要是不同的概念(例如我們閱讀的第三章最後一節)。如何建立區別?柏拉圖同意這樣的想法嗎?亞里斯多德呢?您認為分別是恰當的嗎?
    Mill resorts at times to the notion that what most people think they want and what they really want are different things (e.g., the last paragraph of chapter three in our readings). How can this distinction be established? Did Plato rely on such an idea? Did Aristotle? Do you think that the distinction is valid?

  8. 彌兒反對康德的何種評論?康德如何回應?
    What are the criticisms that Mill levels against Kant? How would Kant reply to them?

  9. 彌兒認為,公共原則是妄言,僅是一種詞「形式用語」, 除非一人的幸福不與別人衡量。 您可以想到反駁這個看法的事例嗎?彌兒會怎麼處理?看法會不會正好掉進彌兒早年所言:寧做蘇格拉底而不滿足,勝於愚者而滿足?
    Mill says that the utility principle is just gabble, a "mere form of words", unless one person's happiness should count for no more than another's. Can you think of instances which might contradict this view? How would Mill deal with them? How does the view square with Mill's earlier assertion that it is better to be Socrates unsatisfied than a pig satisfied?
19 杜思托也夫斯基《罪與罰》卷一。
Dostoyevsky. Crime and Punishment. Part I.
  1. 彌兒的「功利主義」是最重要的環節在他所稱作「道德協會 」(意指支持道德想法和社會品行的機關),他們完全人為和推動文明前進「銷解分崩離析的力量」(第三章,《功利主義》) 。「銷解分崩離析的力量」的說法有何重要性?以道德觀點或社會對銷解分崩離析的力量有何其特性?
    One of the most important moments in Mill's exposition of utilitarianism occurs when he writes of most "moral associations"(meaning by the phrase both vested ideas about morality and social conduct and the institutions that such ideas support), that they are wholly artificial and yield with the advance of civilization to "he dissolving force of analysis" (Chapter three, Utilitarianism).How important is "he dissolving force of analysis"to the story? Which characters in particular exhibit the dissolving force of analysis in their expression of ethical or social views?

  2. 拉斯可尼可夫有一次偷聽到關於上帝的言談並且承認他的意圖行動。 交談內容為何?同學們能討論出一個合理的觀點嗎?一個人不相信上帝也有可能合乎道德嗎?
    Raskolnikov overhears a conversation about God and it confirms his intention to act. What is the substance of the conversation? Does the student in the conversation express a reasonable opinion? Can one be moral if one does not believe in God?

  3. 拉斯可尼可夫不是無神論者,在卜菲力的第一次面談時就已表明。 怎麼可能「信神」仍會犯下謀殺案?
    Raskolnikov is not an atheist, or so he seems to say during his first interview with Porfiry. How is it possible to "elieve in God and the New Jerusalem"and still commit murder?

  4. 概述盧金在新主義、概念、宗教的觀點。羅季昂立刻指責他支持謀殺,而盧金強烈否認。他們歧見本質為何?
    Outline Luzhin's views on new ideas, ethics, religion. Razumihin immediately accuses him of licensing murder, and Luzhin stoutly denies this. What is the nature of their disagreement?

  5. 盧金似乎認為,妻子應該視丈夫為恩人,而拉斯可尼可夫給盧金一個糊塗帳。信仰對盧金而言象徵何種意涵?故事提及早一個結婚的例子是為了保護馬梅拉朵夫。婚姻的原因以何為本質?
    Luzhin seems to believe that a wife should look upon a husband as a benefactor, and Raskolnikov takes a dim view of Luzhin on this account. What is wrong with the belief? What does it imply about Luzhin's character? The story earlier offers an example of a man marrying a woman in order to save her, Marmeladov. Does the reason for the marriage have anything to do with the nature of it?

  6. 拉斯可尼可夫介入一個被強暴的女孩與幫助她的警察之間,但又突然告訴警察管好自己的事。拉斯可尼可夫立場丕變,什麼事刺激他突然的轉變?在遇到妓女杜什迪亞以後,他認為:「人性本惡」。並且「認為他是罪惡的人才是罪惡」。這是什麼意思?在小說中,拉斯可尼可夫與杜什迪亞在庭園廣場初遇時就有這種想法。它提到什麼?在什麼情境中,拉斯可尼可夫藉由杜什迪亞反射出這樣的思維?
    Raskolnikov intervenes in behalf of a young girl who has evidently been raped, engages a policeman to help her, then suddenly tells the policeman to mind his own business. What motivates his sudden change in character? But Raskolnikov can turn upon himself in the course of two sentences. "Man is a scoundrel," he muses, after encountering the prostitute Duclida.. "And he is a scoundrel who calls him a scoundrel." What is the meaning of this remark? The encounter with Duclida first prompted a meditation about "a square yard of space", a thought that recurs in the novel. What does it refer to? What is there about the episode with Duclida that prompts such reflections?

  7. 聽到拉斯可尼可夫關於強人意志的理論時,羅森米罕認為,這是一個屠殺的藉口並且認為,它比屠殺的正式藉口更壞。什麼是正式藉口?為什麼羅森米罕認為拉斯可尼可夫的更壞?羅森米罕說:「以良心為名屠殺來作為義務;您的想法很新奇」。真的是新奇嗎?什麼情況可能有灑熱血的義務?
    Hearing Raskolnikov's theory about superior sorts of persons, Razumihin says that it is an excuse for bloodshed and adds that it is worse than the official excuse for bloodshed. What is the official excuse? Why does Razumihin think Raskolnikov's is worse? "The only novelty in your ideas," says Razumihin, "is that you sanction bloodshed in the name of conscience, as a duty." Does that sound like a novelty still? What situations can give rise to a duty to shed blood?

  8. 描述史維卓蓋洛夫的意義。他的背景?他看見鬼魂。 他對他們的反應?為什麼他對拉斯可尼可夫如此感興趣? 為什麼他對桑娜如此感興趣?在本書結尾附近,,他描述他誘惑婦女的技巧。您會怎麼描述?
    Describe the character of Svigdrigailov. What is his history? He sees ghosts. Who are they and what is his response to them? Why is he so interested in Raskolnikov? Why is he so interested in Sonya? Near the end of the book, he describes his technique for seducing women. How would you describe the technique?

  9. 小說提及五個夢。拉斯可尼可夫夢見母馬這第一個夢是什麼意思?在此時旁邊關一個被遺棄的孩子與夢想家史維卓蓋洛夫。這個夢是什麼意思?夢想是現實嗎?夢想反射現實或批評它?
    There are five dreams in the novel. What does the first dreamBRaskolnikov's dream about the mare--mean? The next to last concerns an abandoned child and the dreamer is Svigdrigailov. What is the meaning of this dream? Are the dreams realistic? Do dreams in life reflect reality or comment upon it?

  10. 拉斯可尼可夫找到桑娜並告訴她什麼?他說我們兩人都越界了。為什麼他認為兩人越界相似?他對嗎?
    Raskolnikov identifies with Sonya and tells her why? Both of us, he says, have transgressed. Why does he think that the transgressions are similar? Is he right?

  11. 拉斯可尼可夫對桑娜供出自己為什麼他殺害了老婦的所有理由。理由是什麼?他全都說了?如果不是,哪個才是最接近真相?
    Raskolnikov offers himself and Sonya various explanations of why he killed the pawnbroker. What are they? Do they all add up? If not, which one is closest to the truth?
20 杜思托也夫斯基《罪與罰》卷二、卷三,一至三章。
Dostoyevsky. Crime and Punishment. Part II, Part III, Chap. 1-3.
21 杜思托也夫斯基《罪與罰》卷三完、卷四、卷五。
Dostoyevsky. Crime and Punishment. Part III, 4-end, Part IV, Part V.
22 杜思托也夫斯基《罪與罰》卷六、終章。
Dostoyevsky. Crime and Punishment. Part VI, Epilogue.
23 康拉德〈黑暗之心〉。
Conrad. "The Secret Sharer."
  1. 您怎麼描述無名的旁白訴說他的船上命令用法?它被認為是權威的典型嗎?在故事的最初旁白提及的「單獨」是什麼?是好是壞,還是冷漠?
    How would you describe the way in which the nameless narrator was promoted to command of his ship? Is it meant to be typical of appointment to authority? What is the significance of the "alone-ness" of the narrator at the outset of the story? Is the condition good, bad, indifferent?

  2. 旁白提及組員確定「所有人任務難易度相同」,並維持「理想的個性與私下的自我」。可以區分所謂何者麼? 您如何知道分際與它的意義?
    The narrator distinguishes himself from his crew in that they "had simply to be equal to their tasks", whereas he had to measure up to "that ideal conception of one's own personality that every man sets up for himself secretly." Can this view of the distinction between the one in authority and those under authority be justified? Where would you draw this line and what is the meaning of it?

  3. 為什麼二副扣住了瑟芙拉的消息直到用餐結束?
    Why did the second mate withhold the knowledge of the Sephora until the end of the meal?

  4. 您怎麼評估旁白最初的焦點是上尉?
    How would you evaluate the narrator's initial moves as captain?

  5. 利格特這名字有發出音,利格特(和迪利格特)意思是賄賂。名字用在這裡適當嗎?
    The name "Leggatt" is pronounced, legate (as in delegate) and means someone sent on commision from higher authority. Is the name appropriate here?

  6. 為什麼利格特做得太過分?他究竟是謀殺罪還是過失殺人罪?他做出游泳直到下沉和自殺的區分,這是狡辯嗎?他在這之間不斷打轉(又一次的,直到他下沉)。此區別為什麼重要?
    Why did Leggatt go overboard? Is he guilty of murder or even manslaughter? He makes a distinction between swimming till he sinks and committing suicide; is this distinction justified? He also distinguishes between swimming 'round and 'round and swimming straight forward (again, until he sinks). Why is this difference important?

  7. 阿奇博德(如果那是他的名字)與利格特都發布保全船的命令。誰才是說真相?他們當中有人說謊嗎?
    Both Archbold (if that is his name) and Leggatt claim to have given the order that saved the ship. Who is telling the truth? Is one of them lying?

  8. 利格特殺一人以保全船組人員。旁白認為這是花極大風險保全一人。這是作者的疏漏嗎?旁白說這是「良心事件」。 他意味什麼?可能有人認為旁白創造了一次船上危機。曾有因為創造危機而引發好事嗎?
    Leggatt kills one man while saving ship and crew. The narrator risks ship and crew to save one man. Is this recklessness? The narrator says that this was "a matter of conscience". What does he mean by this? One might say that the narrator has created a crisis on the ship. Is it ever a good thing for someone in authority to create a crisis?

  9. 旁白「非常多次成功的引用書中章節」來解釋慣用語。您是認為適用其他多數的職業嗎?
    The narrator speaks of "the chapter of accidents which counts for so much in the book of success." Explain the phrase. Do you think it is applicable to most careers?

  10. 在故事的結尾,漂浮的帽子代表?
    What is the point of the floating hat at the end of the story?
24 蕭伯納《芭芭拉少校》
Shaw. Major Barbara.

25 蕭伯納《芭芭拉少校》
Shaw. Major Barbara.
26 奧康納〈難民〉。
Flannery O. Connor. "The Displaced Person."
  1. 經濟情況對故事而言很重要。 試將農場描述成一家小公司。有助於解釋三種階層之間的關係嗎?葛薩克先生代表怯懦嗎?什麼威脅由他造成對麥克恩第夫人(高級主管),對索特利(雇員的妻子夫人,對婚姻手段高明), 雅斯特和索克(不熟練的工人)?葛薩克先生對這三種人有相同的反應嗎?彼此之間如何權衡?
    The economics of the situation is important to the story. Try to describe the farm as a small company. Does this help to explain the relationships between the three-tier hierarchy? Does Mr Guizac represent something to be feared? What threat is posed by him to Mrs McIntyre (senior management), to Mrs Shortley (the employee's wife, but clearly the dominant figure in the marriage and therefore something like a line manager), Astor and Sulk (the unskilled laborers)? Does Mr Guizac pose the same threat to each of these three? How clearly is it grasped by each of them?

  2. 在故事中,我們幾乎一切都通過索特利夫人或麥克恩第夫人的眼睛。(只有一個例外,發生在故事之初,在索特利夫人建議交換雅斯特和索克之後,,麥克恩第夫人就釋放他們,兩位夫人都不知被偷聽。)該如何描述二名婦女之間的關係?為什麼索特利夫人高興與麥克恩第夫人談及「垃圾」(冗員的位置,現由索特利擔任)的家庭並且是黑人後,她認為麥克恩第夫人充滿蔑視?
    In the story, we see almost everything through the eyes of either Mrs Shortley or Mrs McIntyre. (There is only one exception to this rule, and this occurs early in the story, a brief exchange between Astor and Sulk, just after Mrs Shortley has been suggesting that Mrs McIntyre might discharge them, which neither Mrs Shortley nor Mrs McIntyre are in a position to overhear.) How would you describe the relationship between the two women? Why is Mrs Shortley pleased to discuss "trash" (the families who previously occupied the position now held by the Shortleys) and "niggers" with Mrs McIntyre, yet thinks of Mrs McIntyre with contempt?

  3. 暗示後的談話中,雅斯特告訴索克:「別介意,你的地位低下在任何人眼中都是不對的。」言談是針對麥克恩第夫人與索特利夫人嗎?黑人是指膚色黑的人種嗎?黑人的腳色長引用此書探討,這也是為何本書突然不列入大學教材裡的主因。這是不能觸及的領域嗎?
    In the conversation just alluded to, Astor tells Sulk: "Never mind, your place too low for anybody to dispute with you for it." Is this the way in which he speaks when talking to either Mrs McIntyre or Mrs Shortley? Is the portrait of the blacks superficial? Black people are often offended by the presentation of blacks in this story; this is one reason why it no longer figures prominently in university curricula. Are they right to be offended?

  4. 索特利夫人當她說「可憐的黑人朋友與貧窮的夥計」,並且她「打算為黑人挺身而出」時意指?故事暗示雅斯特發現葛薩克先生什麼事時都會告訴索特利夫人。 為什麼他們不會告訴麥克恩第夫人?為什麼麥克恩第夫人,儘管她重意索特利夫人,卻釋放索特利而不是亞斯特和索克?為什麼她告訴葛薩克先生,她的農場即便沒有他也能運作,但「沒有黑奴,我無法經營此處」?
    Does Mrs Shortley mean it when she says that she has "always been a friend to niggers and poor folks" and that she "aims to stand up for the niggers"? The story hints that Astor has discovered what Mr Guizac is up to and told Mrs Shortley. Why have neither of them told Mrs McIntyre? Why does Mrs McIntyre, despite her attachment to Mrs Shortley, discharge the Shortleys rather than Astor and Sulk? Why does she tell Mr Guizac that she can run her farm without him but "I cannot run this place without my niggers"?
  5. 索特利夫人有宗教觀,不齒所有的階級和種族自傲,認為葛薩克先生與惡魔有關。麥克恩第夫人則相反,認為與宗教不相干。所以她似乎把她的辦公室當成一間寺廟的保護。這裡有何象徵主義?此外,她把葛薩克先生視作妖怪,「整個面孔看來像是修補無數次。」她用非宗教的方式說服自己義務釋放葛薩克先生才是有罪。 為何用荒謬來強調故事重點?
    Mrs Shortley has a religious vision, in which uncleanliness of all sorts and abominations done to the human body are associated with Mr Guizac and "the stinking power of Satan". Mrs McIntyre, in contrast, regards religion as an irrelevance. Nonetheless, she seems to have turned the empty safe in her office into a kind of shrine. What is the meaning of this symbolism? Furthermore, she has a vision of Mr Guizac as a monster, whose "whole face looked as if it might have been patched together out of several others." In a non-religious way, she becomes convinced that she has a moral duty to discharge Mr Guizac and feels guilty for doing nothing about it. Is this emphasis upon the monstrous and the abominable appropriate to the story?

** 括號裡的數字是為所有翻譯和編輯而定的標準邊碼,此法根據1578 年由斯特方所編定的柏拉圖著作希臘文版本。

** Numbers in brackets are standard marginal notations for all translations and editions, based by convention on the edition of Plato's works edited by Stephanus and published in 1578.

Paper Assignments

There are three paper assignments, written in response to a set of suggested topics. A sample of the most recent are appended here:

  • 紙本作業 1 (PDF)
  • 紙本作業 2 (PDF)
  • 紙本作業 3 (PDF)

MIT Home
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Terms of Use Privacy