胡適留學日記卷八二四、與普耳君一段文字因緣

卷八二四、與普耳君一段文字因緣

　　（二月）

　　前記自紐約歸，車中讀一文論「不爭之道德」（本卷第一一則，五二七頁），歸後作長書投之作者普耳君（Frederick J. Pohl），表吾之同意。其人得之，甚感吾意，今日答一長書，遂訂交焉。

　　吾書之大旨如下（錄原書一節）：

　　What the world needs today, it seems to me, is a complete dethronement of the undue supremacy of the Self. The morality of our age is too much self-centered. The idea of self-preservation has scarcely ever been challenged, and consequently many expediencies have been done in the name of self-preservation, nay, many crimes have been committed in its name! To remedy this inveterate evil, we must extend our present conception ofmeumto its widest horizon possible, we must overthrow the superstition that self-preservation is the highest duty. We must take the attitude of non-resistance, not as the expedient attitude, but as therightattitude, not out of necessity, but at our own volition. The salvation of the world, I believe, must be sought in some such long forgotten truths as this…(Feb 2)

　　〔中譯〕

　　在我看來，當今世界迫切的需要就是徹底廢除過分的自我至上。當今的道德過於推崇自我中心。自我保存的思想很少遭到批評，自然許多出於私利的考慮都借著自我保存的名義得以進行，而且許多罪惡也以它的名義而發生！為了改正這個積習已久的錯誤，我們應盡力拓展現時這個自我觀念，推翻自我保存的迷信，不應以它為最高的本能，而應採取不爭主義的態度，不應抱謀私利的態度，而應採取正義的態度。這種不應是被迫的，而應是自覺自願的。我以為世界的拯救應從那些久已被人忘卻的真理中去尋找……

　　（二月二日）

　　普君答書曰：

　　Your letter of appreciation of my communication to theNew Republicgave me the greatest pleasure. More than that it gave me encouragement when I was sorely in need of it. The certainty that there was at least one reader with sufficient clarity of vision to see the truth made me believe that there were others also. I thank you most sincerely for writing what you did.

　　I found only two sympathizers before I sent the communication, and since it appeared, even members of my family have told me that they were sorry to have me put myself on record as believing such nonsense. I have an article of some length which I have been vainly trying to have published, and I had almost reached the conclusion that it was no longer worth while trying to place it when your letter came and gave me new enthusiasm.

　　The war fever sweeps men so easily! …There is need for men to carry on a fight not for pro-German or anti-German sympathy but for anti-war sentiment. Deeper than that, it is ant-use-of-physicaforce. that needs advocacy, or—what you pointed out as the heart of the whole matter—anti-self-preservation. The Belgian Poet Maeterlinck says that 'self-preservation is the profoundest of all our instincts'. Surely he thought very superficially. —Of course we may agree with him that self-preservation is the profoundest instinct, but many men have in all ages found many claims more insistent than that of self-preservation. Self-preservation is not the profoundest motive of human action. Men will die for duty, honor, love, etc, even for revenge. The individual must be willing to sacrifice life for duty and honor. Must not the state also? Do not claims of duty and honor and the ideal of the Brotherhood of States appeal to govemments as well as to individuals? They do, but their appeal has either not been recognized or the way to answer their appeal has not been lollowed. The idea of self-preservation must be challenged!

　　In your letter you say "We must take the attitude of non-resistance, not as the expedient attitude, but as the right attitude". I have carried out this thought in my article which I have called "Effective Resistance to War". I do not believe in "non-resistance". At 1east I don't like the term. It's flabby and weak. I like better the term "Effective Resistance". Resistance by means of physical force is the leasf effective means of resistance. Ordinarily the world thinks that a man who uses some form of force other than physical with which to resist, is merely a non-resister. Most of the world thinks only with material or physical conceptions. Spiritual resistance, the resistance of forgiving one's enemies, of "turning the other cheek", etc, is the most positive and effective kind of resistance. …

　　〔中譯〕

　　你的來信讚賞我在《新共和》上發表的文章，使我極為高興。在我需要支持之時，你給了我莫大的鼓勵。這說明至少還有一個讀者能以清晰的眼光看清這個道理，這使我相信還會有其他人也能接受。對於你信中所表示的誠意我極為感謝。

　　在我寄出這篇文章之前我僅找到了兩個同情者。文章發表之後，甚至連我的家人也對我說他們不敢苟同我所發表的謬論。我還有一篇更為詳細的文章，我一直試圖將其發表。正當我幾乎就要放棄這個努力，認為它沒有發表價值之時，我收到了你的信，它給了我新的熱情。

　　戰爭的狂熱消滅人類是何等的容易！……人類有必要進行一場戰爭，這場戰爭不是為了滿足親德或是反德的情緒，而是為了反戰的情緒。在更深刻的意義上，是反對使用有形的力量，只需要倡導，或者正如你所指出的，整個問題的關鍵在於反對自我保存。比利時詩人梅特林克說過：「自我保存乃人類最基本的本能。」他這種想法過於膚淺。當然我們可以同意他的說法。但是不少人在各個時代裡都發現還有許多權利比自我保存更起作用，自我保存不是人類最基本的衝動。人會為了責任、榮譽、愛情，甚至復仇等而犧牲自己的生命。個人可以為責任和榮譽心甘情願地去死，難道一個政府就做不到嗎？既然責任感、榮譽感以及國與國之間的兄弟情誼能感召個人，難道就不能感召政府嗎？他們確實發出了感召，只不過還沒有被對方所認識，或者還沒有反響罷了。自我保護主義必須受到挑戰！

　　你在信中說：「應採取不爭主義之態度，不應抱謀私利之態度，而應採取正義之態度。」我已在我的文章中表達了同樣的想法，我將其稱之為「對戰爭的有效抗爭」。我並不相信「不爭」，至少我不喜歡這個名詞，它是軟弱的。我更喜歡「有效的抗爭」這個詞。使用體力的抗爭是效果最差的抗爭方式。通常大家都認為一個人如若採取非體力的方式去抗爭，那麼這個人便是一個不爭主義者。絕大多數人僅僅只想到物質和體力的概念，而精神的抗爭，寬恕自己的敵人的抗爭，「遞上另一邊臉」去的抗爭，才是積極的最為有效的抗爭。……

學達書庫(xuoda.com)