哈维·曼斯菲尔德论马基雅维利、施特劳斯主义与自由民主的特质

嗨，各位听众朋友们。

Hey, listeners.

我是达拉斯，《与泰勒对谈》的制作人之一。

This is Dallas, one of the producers of Conversations with Tyler.

4月14日，欢迎来纽约市的92街Y，和泰勒一起参加《与泰勒对谈》的现场录制，本期嘉宾是克雷格列表（Craigslist）及克雷格·纽马克慈善基金会的创始人克雷格·纽马克。

On April 14, join Tyler at the 92nd Street Y in New York City for a live taping of Conversations with Tyler featuring Craig Newmark, the founder of Craigslist and Craig Newmark philanthropies.

泰勒和克雷格会探讨信任、网络安全，以及数字时代韧性公民机构的构建基石，我相信还会聊到很多其他有意思的话题。

Tyler and Craig will discuss trust, cybersecurity, and the building blocks of resilient civic institutions in the digital age, along with plenty more, I'm sure.

票卖得很快，一定要在售罄前抢到你的票。

Tickets are selling quickly, so be sure to grab yours before they're gone.

你可以在节目笔记的顶部找到购票链接。

You can find the link to buy tickets at the top of the show notes.

希望能在那里见到你。

Hope to see you there.

《与泰勒对话》由乔治梅森大学莫卡图斯中心出品，致力于搭建学术思想与现实问题之间的沟通桥梁。

Conversations with Tyler is produced by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, bridging the gap between academic ideas and real world problems.

请访问mercatus.org了解更多信息。

Learn more at mercatus.org.

如需获取每一期访谈的完整文字稿（内含实用链接拓展内容），请访问conversationswithtyler.com。

For a full transcript of every conversation, enhanced with helpful links, visit conversationswithtyler.com.

大家好，欢迎回到《与泰勒对话》节目。

Hello everyone, and welcome back to Conversations with Tyler.

今天我要对话的是杰出的哈维·曼斯菲尔德，哈维最新出版了一本很棒的书，名叫《理性控制的兴衰》。

Today I'm speaking with the great Harvey Mansfield, and Harvey has a new and excellent book out called The Rise and Fall of Rational Control.

哈维，欢迎你。

Harvey, welcome.

谢谢你邀请我来。

Thank you for having me.

很高兴能来到这里。

Pleasure to be here.

既然马基雅弗利完全不了解现代科学及其成果，那他的政治思想里会缺少哪些内容呢？

Now given that Machiavelli had no real sense of modern science and its fruits, what ends up being missing from his political thought?

嗯，他确实对现代科学一无所知。

Well, he didn't have no idea of modern science.

事实上我甚至认为，他提出的‘实效真理’概念正是现代科学的开端。

In fact, I would say that his notion of effectual truth is the beginning of modern science.

他提出，所谓官方真理都源自某个真相，或是会产生实际影响的存在。

The official truth, he says, is what comes out of the truth or what is the effect.

就好比你对某个人说‘我爱你’，这句话的实效真理其实是‘我想从你这里索取些什么’。

If you say to somebody, I love you, the effectual truth of that is, I want something from you.

所以实效真理就是最终的实际结果，它未必总是符合发言者原本的意图。

So the effectual truth is the upshot, sometimes not necessarily the intent of the statement.

因此你必须从事物的起因推导出其结果来进行判断。

So you must judge then from cause to effect.

其实“实效的”这个词是个全新的说法，是马基雅维利创造出来的。

The word effectual was brand new, actually invented by Machiavelli.

它源自拉丁语的“focare”，这个词和事实相关。

It comes from the Latin focare, which has to do with fact.

如今我们一直都在使用‘事实’这个词，好像这个概念从始至终就存在一样。

Today, we use the word fact all the time as if it were something that always existed.

但其实是马基雅维利和后来的一些思想家提出了‘事实’这个概念。

But it was Machiavelli and some later thinkers who developed that notion of fact.

也就是说，一件事的事实是它本身的客观状态，不附带任何主观愿望或意图。

So the fact of a thing is what it is without any wish or intent attached to it.

这样一来，你就可以从原因推导到结果了。

So that means you can go from cause to effect.

而我认为，这就是现代科学背后的核心理念。

And that, I think, is the fundamental notion behind modern science.

现代科学不像柏拉图和亚里士多德的学说那样，建立在主观愿景或者空谈之上。

Modern science isn't based on wish or speech, as with Plato and Aristotle.

它以事实为基础。

It's based on fact.

伽利略当年不会到处去问别人，地球到底动不动。

Galileo didn't go around asking people, does the earth move or not?

他去探寻事实，他表示这不是公众舆论或是哲学家的观点能决定的，而是要回归实效真理。

He looked for the fact, said it was not a matter of public opinion or philosopher's opinion, but for the effectual truth.

但说到技术的话，马基雅弗利其实是了解火药的。

But say when it comes to technology, Machiavelli understood gunpowder.

可如果说我们的生活能安稳到这种地步——还有核武器、现代高效避孕手段、现代媒介的出现，难道所有这些发展不都意味着现代性事实上已经是无法逆转的了吗？

But the idea that our lives could be so safe, nuclear weapons, modern effective birth control, modern media, don't all those things mean that modernity is in fact quite irreversible?

倒不是那些事物，而是你最先提到的火药，才是关键。

Not so much those things, but the first thing you mentioned, gunpowder.

火药对国家的国防而言意义重大。

Gunpowder means the defense of the state.

这正是其中最核心的关联所在。

That's especially what's involved.

而且技术发展似乎会一直持续下去，根本无法真正叫停或逆转，因为每个国家都需要时刻提防其他国家，保卫自身安全。

And it seems that technology must continue, can't really be stopped or reversed, because one country always needs to protect itself against another country.

所以在我看来，恰恰是这种国防需求在不断推动技术发展。

So it's that need for national defense that I think especially drives technology.

至于其他新发展是否会出现倒还好，这并不是必然的。

Whether or not other new developments come is good, but it's not necessary.

这些都不是我们必须拥有的事物。

It's not something that you must have.

但一旦有国家率先拥有了火药，其他国家就不得不也拥有它。

But once somebody has gunpowder, then others must have it.

当然，这个逻辑也适用于所有现代军事技术。

And that applies, of course, to all the modern military technology.

施特劳斯是否认为现代性是可以逆转的？

Did Strauss think modernity was reversible?

是的。

Yes.

我刚才说的那番话，我记得是出自施特劳斯的观点。

What I just said, I think, came from Strauss.

现代性根本不存在逆转的可能性。

There wasn't any possibility of reversing it.

或许有可能去完善它，让它变得比原本可能的样子更好。

There might be a possibility of improving it, of making it better than it might be otherwise.

他认为，相较于现代人，古人在“人应当如何生活”这一重大问题上能给出更深刻的见解。

He thought that the ancients had more to say on the big question of how should I live than the moderns did.

如果你从柏拉图和亚里士多德的理论切入研究，就能更透彻地理解这些问题。

You could understand things better if you begin with an approach from Plato and Aristotle.

他就是这么认为的。

That's what he thought.

所以没错，现代性无法逆转，但它是可以被改善的。

So yes, it's not reversible, but it's improvable.

那如果我把施特劳斯解读为一个实际上的现代主义者，只不过他想通过德性伦理来小幅改进当下的世界，这个理解是不是错了？

So is it a mistake for me to read Strauss as actually a modernist, but who wants to marginally improve the current world with virtue ethics?

那带来的不会是小幅的改进。

It wouldn't be a marginal improvement.

他并非从现代世界出发，而是从古代世界出发——正是古代世界催生了马基雅维利领导的那场变革，也就是现代世界对古代世界的反叛。

He doesn't begin from the modern world, but he begins from the ancient world, which produced the revolution led by Machiavelli, the modern world against the ancient.

我认为你不应该简单地把这当作一种，哪怕初看时也不该把它当作一种处理现代世界的思路。

I I don't think you should look at it simply as an approach to or even at first glance as an approach to the to the modern world.

马基雅维利和他的间接统治理念，会不会让人们过度沉迷于阴谋论？这正是我们如今似乎能看到的现象，尤其是在政治右翼群体中。

Machiavelli and his notion of indirect rule, does that lead people to excess attachment to conspiracy theories, which is something we seem to see today, especially on the political right?

是的，确实会。

Yes, it does.

没错。

That's right.

我认为马基雅维利关于阴谋的理念确实产生了那样的影响。

I think Machiavelli's notion of conspiracy does indeed have that effect.

他试图引导你用阴谋的视角去理解政治。

He makes he wants you to think of politics in terms of conspiracy.

政治的本质并非它展露在外的模样，相反，一切的走向始终由幕后操持。

Politics isn't what it looks to be, but it's always what's going on behind the scenes.

幕后的暗流才是更关键的部分。

What is behind the scenes is more important.

你可以说，这就是所谓的实效真理。

That is the effectual truth, you could say.

至于那些原则、空谈、辩护说辞还有合理化的解释，根本不值得关注。

Whereas the principles, the talk, the justification, the rationalization, that's not worth paying attention to.

就算要当真，我也得对它持保留态度。

Or if it is, I have to take it with a grains of salt.

对，这套思维就是阴谋论式的。

Yes, it's conspiratorial.

在马基雅维利的两部伟大著作《君主论》和《论李维》中，篇幅最长的章节就是论述阴谋的那一章。

The longest chapter in Machiavelli's two great works, The Prince and the Discourses on Livy, is the chapter on conspiracy.

在他之前的思想家也探讨过阴谋相关的话题，主要围绕暴君是否该被诛杀、公民采取这种行动是否正义展开。

Conspiracy had been considered by previous thinkers as to whether tyrants should be killed or not, whether that's a just thing for a citizen to undertake.

但从来没有人真正解释过实施阴谋的具体方法，也没有留下过相关的记述。

But it had never been actually explained in how to do it or account given.

而马基雅维利就做了这件事，尤其是在《论李维》第三卷第六章这一整部作品中篇幅最长的章节里，他详细阐述了相关内容。

But that's what Machiavelli does, especially in the long chapter, which is book three chapter six in the Discourses on Livy, the by far the longest chapter.

而且他会详细告诉你策划、实施以及善后的全流程要怎么做。

And he tells you how to do it before and during and after.

所以阴谋活动分为三个阶段，每个阶段都有需要留意的事项。

So there's three stages of a conspiracy and the things to watch out for.

那如果我们观察自20世纪初以来的美国，马基雅维利的结论是对还是错？

Oh, if we look at America since, say, the beginning of the twentieth century, is Machiavelli right or wrong?

美国的政治本质上是一种阴谋式的政治吗？

Is it a conspiratorial politics?

我不认为他的观点是正确的。

I don't think he's right.

那他哪里出错了？

So what did he get wrong?

他错在误解了我们的坦诚与开放，那些我们参与的重大战争并非由我们主动发动的。

What did he got wrong was our frankness, our openness, behavior, the great wars we fought were not undertaken by us.

这些战争都不是我们蓄意挑起的。

They were not intended.

这些都是防御性的战争。

They were wars of defense.

他提到了20世纪的美国——美国差不多拯救了世界，就算不说拯救了全世界，至少也从三次大规模入侵中拯救了欧洲，乃至全世界。

He talked about the twentieth century when America sort of saved the world, or if not Europe, at least, saved the world from three great invasions.

那是一项了不起的成就，而这并不是我们刻意谋划或是通过阴谋算计得来的。

That was a considerable accomplishment which wasn't intended or conspired for by us.

但就算是冷战结束后，距离现在也过去很多年了。

But say even after the Cold War ends, there's plenty of years since then.

你会用阴谋论的视角来看待当下的政治吗？

Do you think of current politics in terms of conspiracies?

当下的政治？

Current politics?

是的。

Yes.

因为这种情况始终都有可能存在。

Because it's always possible.

政府确实始终有必要保有保密的空间。

It is always necessary for government to be secret.

我之前在研究行政权力时做过的一些工作，其核心论点就包含这一点。

Some of the work I did on executive power had that for a thesis.

任何人发言都永远不可能毫无保留。

You can't ever speak without holding back something.

所以从这个层面上来说，马基雅维利是对的。

So, to this extent, Machiavelli is right.

如果你曾经掌管过某个人或某件事，你就会明白你没法把自己知道的所有事都讲出来。

If you've ever been in charge of someone or something, you know that you can't say everything that you know.

哪怕只是个临时照看孩子的保姆，都没法把所有事都跟孩子说清楚。

So even a babysitter can't say everything to the baby.

你说的话必须得是对方能理解的，还不能引来痛苦或麻烦。

You have to say something which is understandable and won't cause grief or trouble.

所以所有的政治活动都需要这种说话留有余地的做法。

So all politics has that kind of need for equivocation.

除此之外，无论你要开展什么事，都得先做好规划。

And in addition, anything that you're doing, you need to plan first.

可如果你把所有计划都公之于众，那么任何你要对其采取行动的对象，哪怕对方是友人或是友善的势力，都会做出反应，甚至可能打乱你的计划。

But if you make all your plans open and public, whoever it is that you're acting on, even if it's a friend or a friendly power, will react and perhaps foil what you plan to do.

所以执行任务需要保密，而保密就包括了暗中谋划。

So execution requires secrecy, and secrecy includes conspiracy.

到头来，真相总会水落石出的。

In the end, you could say the truth comes out.

计划执行完毕后，人们才会看清整个过程中一直在推进的是什么事。

After the plan has been executed, then people see what was underway the whole time.

到那个时候，你必须证明自己的所作所为是符合自身原则的。

And at that time, you've got to show that what you did was according to your principles.

马基雅维利会说，人们会被权力，或者说权力的展示所震撼，尤其是那种轰动性的用权行动，就像我们刚看到的委内瑞拉抓捕马杜罗的事件那样。

Now, Machiavelli would say people can be impressed by power or by the fact of a display of power, especially a sensational use of it, as we just had with the capture of Maduro in Venezuela.

这件事抛开原则不谈也确实震撼了众人，人们会开始觉得，既然这件事进展得如此顺利，那它肯定是正确的。

That impresses people regardless of principle, and they begin to think that because it succeeded so well, it must have been right.

你甚至可能会说，也许这就是上帝的旨意，是上帝为它正名。

You could even say maybe God intended it and justifies it.

所以我现在回到你之前提出的关于马基雅维利的问题的另一面，也就是或许阴谋一直存在，而且永远都有其正当性。

So in this way, I'm coming back to the other side of for the question you raised on Machiavelli, that maybe conspiracy is always there and always justifiable.

但我的美式思维、美国的原则，还有我的自由主义理念，都无法认同这种说法。

But my Americanism or my American principles, my liberal principles rebel against that.

我确实认为，大家有目共睹，美国在整个二十世纪以许多极具影响力的方式做过不少好事。

And I do think that America can be seen to have done good things in a very major way throughout the twentieth century.

我们是不是正在进入一个政治暗杀的新时代？

Are we entering a new age of political assassination?

如果真是这样，我们能从早期的政治理论家那里得到哪些见解？

And if so, what insights can we get from earlier political theorists?

政治暗杀。

Political assassination.

我明白你的意思了。

I see what you mean.

以色列，尤其是针对圣战分子。

Israel, especially against the jihadists.

还有针对特朗普的企图。

Also attempts against Trump.

查理·柯克被杀了。

Charlie Kirk is killed.

没错。

The That's right.

一名医疗保健公司首席执行官被杀。

Healthcare CEO was killed.

对吧？

Right?

在美国这里就有许多案例。

A lot of cases right here in America.

你说得对。

You're right.

嗯，至少就马基雅维利相关的内容而言，政治理论的影响凸显了出来。

Well, political theory, at least as regards Machiavelli, comes to the fore.

关于我之前聊到的马基雅维利的相关内容，我已经没什么要补充的了。

I don't see anything more to add to what I said on Machiavelli.

如果说这种事形成了一种趋势，人们纷纷效仿，那我觉得这绝不是因为大家读了政治理论后受其启发才这么做的。

If there's a trend to it, people copy it, I don't think inspired by reading political theory.

你大概率也知道，彼得·蒂尔非常推崇和敬重勒内·吉拉尔以及他提出的摹仿欲望理论。

Peter Thiel, as you probably know, has great admiration and respect for Rene Girard and the idea of mimetic desire.

你对吉拉尔有什么看法？

What is your view on Girard?

我对吉拉尔没什么看法。

I don't have a view on Girard.

不好意思。

I'm sorry.

我没读过他的著作。

Haven't read him.

但这个概念是内生性的，对吧？

But that's endogenous, right?

这么说你觉得这个话题没什么意思。

You don't find it that interesting then.

内生性。

Endogenous.

这个理论里确实提到了和暴力相关的内容，但我没深入研究过，确实不了解。

There's something to do with violence in there, but I haven't no.

我读过不少书，也有很多本应读过的书我都没读过。

I've read plenty of things and not read plenty of things that I ought to have done as well.

所以在这点上我没法为自己辩解。

So I can't defend myself on that.

莎士比亚的作品里，哪部分内容带给了你关于领导力和政治的最深刻见解？

What in Shakespeare gives you the most insight into leadership and politics?

你可以想想《麦克白》里麦克白的野心本身、它的特质，还有和平主义者或是得胜的掌权者们对这份野心的态度。

You could think of Macbeth's nature of ambition and the character of it and the way in which it is treated by pacifists or by victorious master men.

《麦克白》里的核心矛盾，是前基督教的复仇观和基督教所倡导的上帝的和平观之间的对立。

The question in Macbeth is debate between the pre Christian view of revenge and the Christian view of God's peace.

还有野心的力量、女性的角色，比如麦克白夫人不断怂恿她那原本没那么急切的丈夫夺权。

The power of ambition, the role of women, Lady Macbeth urging on her less eager husband.

这一点提醒了我们一个尤其被政治学忽视的问题：人类野心的重要性与力量。

This is a reminder of something that our political science especially overlooks, the importance and the power human ambition.

我们国家的立国之本其实就蕴含着一种野心，这种野心在权力分立的制度中也有所体现。

Our country is really based on a kind of ambition that's reflected in the separation of powers.

我不是有意东拉西扯来回跳转话题，但我认为读莎士比亚的作品，尤其是《麦克白》，确实能让人了解一些美国政治的门道。

I don't mean to be wandering back and forth, but I think you could learn something about American politics by reading Shakespeare and especially Macbeth.

不过莎士比亚的作品里能学到的教训可多不胜数。

But there's any number of lessons to be learned from Shakespeare.

我只是先举出这个刚想到的例子而已。

I just pick out this one that comes to mind.

如果拿特朗普总统来举例的话，你觉得他在莎士比亚的人物坐标系里该如何定位？

If you think of President Trump, where to you does he fit on the Shakespearean map?

悲剧色彩、喜剧色彩、野心，还是全都沾边？

Tragic, comic, ambition, all of the above?

他符合莎士比亚笔下人物身上那种粗鄙庸俗的特质。

He fits in the vulgarian quality of Shakespeare's characters.

我在一定程度上写过相关的内容。

I've written on that to some extent.

特朗普总统算不上一位绅士。

President Trump is not a gentleman.

他行事完全被一系列矛盾混乱的冲动驱动。

He works at a level of discordant impulse.

而且他总想着说一些能震惊众人的话，而非试图说服他人。

And he's always looking to say something that will strike people rather than persuade them.

这让我联想到民主的粗鄙性。

That led me to think of the vulgarity of democracy.

特朗普总统从某种意义上来说比我们所有人都更具“民主特质”，因为他能够理解那些思想和行事都不够老练的群体，还能给他们留下深刻印象。

President Trump is in his way more democratic than the rest of us because he's able to understand and to impress people who are not refined in their thinking and in their ways.

他不是个讲求礼数的人。

He's not a man of courtesy.

比方说，莎士比亚笔下福斯塔夫身边的一些粗鄙角色，就可以被理解成莎士比亚想要呈现给我们的粗俗化的民主派人士。

Some of the vulgar people in Shakespeare around Falstaff, for example, could be understood as vulgarian democrats that Shakespeare wants to present to us.

你读过“青铜时代变态者”（Bronze Age Pervert）的作品吗？他的本名是科斯蒂内·阿拉马里奥（Costine Alamario）。

Have you read Bronze Age Pervert, also known as Costine Alamario?

我读过他的博士论文，这篇论文应该就是他那本书的创作基础。

I've read his dissertation, which I guess is the basis of his book.

他是保加利亚人吗？

Is he a Bulgarian?

我是说，如果他的网名是‘青铜时代的退化者’，那我是不是该把他当成又一个保加利亚人？

I mean, if his name is Bronze Age Pervert, should I think of him as another Bulgarian?

他是有意去探寻那些粗俗、未开化的事物，或者说，处在文明边缘的事物。

He's a deliberate seeker of what is vulgar and what is uncivilized or, say, on the edge of civilization.

他想要阐明政治和文明开创过程中那些难以启齿的必要条件，所以他没有从石器时代甚至铁器时代说起，而是一路回溯到青铜时代——那时候人类刚刚站在文明起源的边缘。

He wants to make a point of the dirty necessities of politics and of founding so that he doesn't start with the Stone Age or even the Iron Age, but all the way to the Bronze Age, but still just as people are on the edge of beginning civilization.

或许就是在那里，关于对暴力的需求这一最伟大的真理或是最深刻的洞见才最为清晰。

And that might be where the greatest truth or the greatest insight into the need for violence is most obvious.

所以我读过他的学位论文。

So I read his dissertation.

那篇论文是在耶鲁大学完成的。

Was done at Yale.

从那以后我和他就没太多来往了，但我们分开的时候关系还不错。

I've had not much contact with him since, but we left on good terms.

他似乎是目前知名度最高的青年施特劳斯派学者。

It seems he's by far the best known young Straussian.

我们是不是该把他的所作所为当作施特劳斯主义未来发展方向的范本？

Should we take what he's doing as a model for what Straussianism is evolving into?

不，不该这么想。

No, you shouldn't.

千万别这么做。

Please don't.

那什么才称得上是范本呢？

What is the model then?

甚至把他称作施特劳斯派学者都不太准确

Even to call him a Straussian is not correct.

我是这么认为的

I don't think.

他从施特劳斯的理论里截取了部分内容，尤其是还借鉴了尼采的观点

He picked things out of Strauss, especially from Nietzsche.

他把这些观点提交给了我。

He presented them to me.

他不是那种会耐心、恭敬地倾听的学生。

He was not the kind of student who was a patient, respectful listener.

他有自己的想法，但这个人很有意思，也很聪明。

He had his own ideas, but he was interesting and he's smart.

那施特劳斯主义如今正在朝什么方向发展呢？

So what is Straussianism evolving into?

那施特劳斯本人已经离世了。

So Strauss himself is gone.

他的学生们现在大多年事已高，或是已经去世了，比如塞思·贝尔纳迪蒂。

His students are now typically older or they've passed away, like Seth Bernardetti.

那这个思潮的未来会是什么样的？

What's the future for the movement?

在我看来，它的未来虽然不能说万无一失，但发展前景还不错。

I think the future is, not assured, pretty good.

我思考的基础，是那些经典巨著。

The basis for my thinking, that is the great books.

在我看来，施特劳斯之所以强调经典巨著，是因为这些著作正是他教学体系的核心。

I think Strauss emphasizes the great books is that that's sort of the center of his teaching.

而且这些经典的水准远超其他作品，从某种意义上来说，它们自身就保障了能流传后世。

And those books are so superior that they, in a way, guarantee their own future.

不然你看，距离柏拉图《理想国》问世已经过去两千五百年了，我们现在不还是在读它吗？

Is it that we still read Plato's Republic, say, two thousand five hundred years ago?

所以我认为这些经典著作会一直留存下去。

So I think the books will always be there.

那施特劳斯思想的根基也就会一直存在。

And therefore the basis for Strauss will always be there.

而且既然施特劳斯已经向世人揭示了这些著作里可供发掘的内涵，我认为这种研究会一直延续下去。

And since Strauss has shown what can be seen in those books, think that will continue.

确实，近些年来，顶尖大学里的施特劳斯学派教授们要么离世，要么退休，之后也没有新人填补他们的空缺。

It's true that in recent years, Straussian professors at the most prestigious universities have died, retired, and not been replaced.

我认为这从根本上来说无关紧要，因为人们总能发掘到这些经典的价值。

I don't think that matters fundamentally because people can always find it.

如果我刚认识某个人，向他介绍施特劳斯的这些理念，总会有人被这些想法吸引。

If I just meet someone and introduce this idea, some of his ideas, they're always attractive.

但不可否认的是，施特劳斯本身在很多方面都很难讨得学者和民主派人士的欢心——我指的是如今我们所有的民主公民。

But it's true that there are many ways in which Strauss is not attractive to scholars and democrats, by which I mean all of us democratic citizens these days.

那现如今，学习施特劳斯学派的文本解读方法，最好的途径是什么呢？

But these days, what's the best way to learn Straussian methods of reading a text?

你和AI坐下来一起读吗？

You sit down with the AI?

我还没试过。

I haven't tried that.

所以我没有

So I'm not

它效果还不错。

It works pretty well.

真的吗？

That would Does it?

AI不会用其他词替代原文，它会试图解释原文。

AI wouldn't substitute the words for the original that would try to explain it.

它没有施特劳斯或你这么好。

It's not as good as Strauss or you.

是的。

Yeah.

但它已经比市面上大多数同类产品要好了。

But it's better than most of what's out there.

行吧。

Alright.

可这还不够好啊。

That's not good enough, though.

你想啊，那我们目前手头能用的最好的是什么呢？

Want you want But what's the best we've got?

对。

Yeah.

你肯定想要最好的效果。

You want the best.

你肯定想要最好的效果。

You want the best.

而最好的效果就藏在原文里。

And the best is in the original text.

我觉得你不该为了理解原文就随便找东西替代它。

I don't think you wanna substitute for that original text trying to understand it.

所以你得格外留意每一句话被说出的方式、以及它被提及的场合，对所有这些细节都要留心。

So you need to pay careful attention to to everything that is said in the way that it's said and in the place that it's said.

施特劳斯有一个他称之为‘语像必然性’的概念。

Strauss had this concept of what he called logographic necessity.

‘语像’的意思是，伟大著作的作者写下的每一处内容、每一句话，都有其必须存在于此的理由。

Logographic meaning where a thing was, what a thing was said by a great books author had to be there.

这绝非偶然。

It isn't an accident.

一本伟大的作品里，从来没有什么意外的安排。

There are no accidents in a great book.

一切都本该如此。

Everything is as it should be.

所以要读懂它，你可不能去找那些二流的解读——这类解读要么没有把握核心，要么直接背离了原文。

So to understand it, you don't wanna go to some second rate explanation doesn't take account or that departs from the text.

但很多人读完柏拉图的《理想国》之后，都会觉得这本书不过是在为极权主义唱赞歌。

But many people pick up Plato's Republic, and they come away thinking it's a mere homage to totalitarianism.

这些人里也不全是蠢人。

Not all of these people are stupid.

卡尔·波普尔就不蠢，但我觉得他把这本书彻底读错了。

Karl Popper was not stupid, but I think he read the book completely wrongly.

那现如今，人要怎么才能避免犯这种错误呢？

How is it one learns how not to do that today?

你没法跟着施特劳斯学习了。

You can't study with Strauss.

你也不在哈佛任教了。

You're not teaching at Harvard anymore.

那该怎么办呢？

What does one do?

去找施特劳斯学派的人啊。

Look for a Straussian.

去读施特劳斯的著作，尤其是《自然权利与历史》。

Look at Strauss' books, especially Natural Right and History.

这本书是最适合入门的起步读物。

That's the most easy one to begin with.

另外还有《迫害与写作艺术》，这本书里他阐释了隐微写作的理念。

But also Persecution and the Art of Writing, which is his explanation of esoteric writing.

去读一读在你之前的学者们都做过哪些相关研究。

Read what others have tried to do before you.

找一个能提供帮助的人。

Look for somebody, somebody to help.

我会收到不少邮件，人们写信来询问他们见闻的事，以及他们想要践行的方向。

I get a number of emails when people write to ask about things they have seen and ways they would like to go.

你要如何

How would you

点明施特劳斯拥有、而蒯因和罗尔斯——这两位同样才华横溢的学者——所不具备的特质呢？

put your finger on what Strauss had and say Quine and Rawls, both brilliant people, but Quine and Rawls did not have?

这种差异是什么？

What is that difference?

关于奎因，奎因曾著名地表示：科学哲学就是全部哲学。

Regard to Quine, Quine famously said philosophy of science is philosophy enough.

施特劳斯肯定会反对这一点，并试图把尼采介绍给奎因教授，就像我年轻时曾经尝试过的那样。

Strauss would certainly oppose that and try to introduce Nietzsche to professor Quine as I once attempted to do when I was younger.

那后来怎么样？

How did that go?

是的。

Yeah.

我参加过一次聚会，有人提到了尼采之类的话题。

I was at a meeting of people and somebody asked about Nietzsche and so on.

于是我讲了一段时间，他坐在那里听着，面带微笑，却从未发表评论。

So I discourse for a while and he sat there listening with a smile and never commented.

实际上，我们在政治上关系不错，因为我们都有保守的政治观点，并且都是埃利奥特学院高级公共休息室的成员。

I was actually pretty good friends with him on a political basis because we both had conservative political opinions and we belonged to the senior common room at Elliot House.

所以我当时挺经常和他一起吃午饭的。

So I would fairly frequently have lunch with him.

后来有一回，我邀请了剧作家汤姆·斯托帕德来哈佛做一场讲座。

And then on a later occasion, once invited Tom Stoppard, the playwright, to come give a talk at Harvard.

讲座结束后我们办了一场晚宴，我也邀请了奎因，他出席了，因为斯托帕德的一部剧里曾提到过奎因。

And afterwards, we had a dinner to which I invited Quine and he came because Quine had figured in one of Stoppard's plays.

关于奎因的事就是这样了。

So that's Quine.

而罗尔斯所代表的自由主义，其实是有些走样变质了的。

Now Rawls is kind of slightly decayed liberalism.

所以我认为施特劳斯肯定会想把约翰·洛克介绍给罗尔斯，给罗尔斯展示洛克当初的理论构建比他的要更完善。

So I think Strauss would have liked to introduce John Locke to Rawls and show him how Locke set up things better than he had.

比起罗尔斯提出的原初状态，洛克提出的自然状态才是对自由主义基本原则更出色的阐释。

Locke's state of nature was a better picture of the fundamental principle of liberalism than Rawls' original position.

当然，罗尔斯和洛克的立场相近程度，远比奎因和尼采的相近程度要高得多。

Rawls is much closer to Locke, of course, than Quine to Nietzsche.

但在罗尔斯那里，并没有同样意义上的正当占有。

But there's no just appropriation in Rawls in the same sense.

对吧？

Right?

那不是正当占有。

That's no just appropriation.

罗尔斯并不理解或欣赏劳动价值论。

The labor theory of value is not understood or appreciated by Rawls.

美好的生活是一种必须通过努力获得的生活。

The good life is a life which must be earned.

我认为，这是自由主义的一项基本原则，而今天这一原则更多是由保守派而非自由派所倡导，值得我们铭记。

I think that's a fundamental principle liberalism, which today is set forth more by conservatives than by liberals that needs to be remembered.

从施特劳斯主义的视角来看，优秀分析哲学家的技能扮演着什么角色？

From a Straussian perspective, where's the role for the skills of a good analytic philosopher?

这如何融入施特劳斯主义？

How does that fit into Straussianism?

我一直都没能完全理解这一点。

I've never quite understood that.

至少从社会学层面来看，这两种研究路径似乎是完全割裂的。

They seem to be very separate approaches, at least sociologically.

分析哲学家会去寻找各类论证，并将它们单独抽离出来研究。

Analytic philosophers look for arguments and isolate them.

而施特劳斯同样会研究论证，但他会把这些论证放到对话语境中——或是某一场对话，又或是某种隐含的对话语境里去分析。

Strauss looks for arguments and puts them in the context of a dialogue or the dialogue or the implicit dialogue.

他不会像分析哲学家那样，去逐一梳理一个词的第一、第二、第三、第四层含义，而是会追问：为什么这个论证要在这篇文本里、面向这群听众展开？

So instead of counting up one, two, three, four meanings of a word as analytic philosophers do, he says, why is this argument appropriate for this audience and in this text?

还有，为什么它要被放在这个位置，而不是更早或更晚的地方？

And why is it put where it was and not earlier or later?

施特劳斯把每一个论证都当作戏剧里的桥段来解读，而这出戏剧有自己的情节、背景和具体语境。

Strauss treats an argument as if it were in a play, a play which has a plot and a background and a context.

但分析哲学却试图把柏拉图著作里的某个论证从它原本的语境中抽离出来，单独评判我们如今会如何看待它、又能提出哪些反对论点，完全不追求探寻哪个才是真正的真理。

Whereas analytic philosophy tries to withdraw the argument from where it was in Plato to see what would we think of it today and what arguments can be said against it without really wanting to choose which is the truth.

分析哲学方法和施特劳斯学派的方法，它们是互补还是互斥的？

Are they complements or substitutes, the analytic approach and the Straussian approach?

我明白了。

I see.

我不认为它们是互补的。

I wouldn't say complements.

并不是。

No.

在我看来，施特劳斯的研究方法是去考察一个论证所处的语境，而非将其抽离出原有语境。

Strauss' approach, I think, is look at the context of an argument rather than to take it out of its context.

将一个论证抽离出它的语境，就等于剥夺了它所承载的叙事内涵。

To take it out of its context means to deprive it of the story that it represents.

分析哲学则会把论证从它们的语境中剥离出来，再把这些论证逐一排布整理。

Analytic philosophy takes arguments out of their context and arranges them in an array.

之后分析哲学会尝试对这些脱离了原本语境、被抽象化的论证进行比较。

It then tries to compare those sort of abstracted arguments.

施特劳斯并不试图抽象化，而是关注语境。

Strauss doesn't try to abstract, but he looks to the context.

而语境总是充满疑虑的。

And the context is always something doubtful.

因此，每一个柏拉图对话都留下了一些未言明的内容。

So every platonic dialogue leaves something out.

例如，《理想国》并没有告诉你人们真正热爱什么，而是讲述人们如何为事物辩护。

The Republic, for example, doesn't tell you about what people love instead of how people defend things.

既然如此，这类对话中的每一个论点都是有意设计的劣质论点。

Since that's the case, every argument in such a dialogue is intentionally a bad argument.

它是为特定的人而设，针对他而展开的。

It's meant for a particular person, and it's set to him.

因此，分析哲学家不理解，在柏拉图对话中，论点可以故意显得低劣；他们轻易地、过于轻易地驳斥了那些本应从柏拉图对话中抽离出来、由你自己去理解的论点。

So the analytic philosopher doesn't understand that arguments, especially in a platonic dialogue, can deliberately be inferior, easily or too easily refutes the argument which you are supposed to take out of a platonic dialogue and understand for yourself.

苏格拉底总是以居高临下的态度与人交谈。

Socrates always speaks down to people.

他比和他对话的人更有水平。

He is better than his interlocutors.

所以作为观察者或读者，你需要做的是接住这些讲给理解能力有限的人的论述，把它提升到苏格拉底本人会认可的论证层次。

So what you as an observer or reader are supposed to do is to take the argument that's going down, that's intended for somebody who doesn't understand very well, and raise it to the level of the argument that Socrates would want to accept.

既然所有伟大的作品都具备这种“降维表达”的特质，那它们就都存在向读者放低姿态、以不够完备但仍有吸引力的方式呈现真理的特点。

So to the extent that all great books have the character of downward shift, all great books have the character of speaking down to someone and presenting truth inferior but still attractive way.

读者必须认清这种表达上的调整，再把内容提升到作者本身所处的认知层次去理解。

The reader has to take that shifter in view and raise it to the level that the author had.

所以作者所秉持的，以及我现在所描述的，就是反讽的手法。

So the author is and what I'm describing is irony.

分析哲学与施特劳斯之间的核心区别，就在于分析哲学缺乏这种反讽的意识。

What distinguishes analytic philosophy from Strauss is the lack of irony in analytic philosophy.

哲学必须始终顾及非哲学群体或是初入哲学领域的学习者，不能直截了当地把你自认为正确的内容生硬地全盘托出。

Philosophy must always take account of nonphilosophy or budding philosophers not simply speak straight out and give a flat statement of what you think is true.

再回到罗尔斯的话题上：罗尔斯将自己的哲学体系建立在他所称的公共理性之上，这意味着他本人信服的理性，和他向公众输出的理性是完全一致的。

To go back to Rawls, Rawls based his philosophy on what he called public reason, which meant that the reason that convinces Rawls is no different from the reason that he gives out to the public.

而施特劳斯所使用的理性绝不会以这种方式成为公共的或普世的，因为他的理性必须考虑到受众的特质——受众的思辨能力通常远不及作者本人。

Whereas, Strauss' reason is never public or universal in this way, because it has to take account of the character of the audience, which is usually less reasonable than the author.

那如果我们聊一聊唯物主义研究方法，施特劳斯学派会对此提出怎样的看法？这类方法试图把伟大的著作置于某种语境中展开研究，但这里所说的相关语境既不是指同一部著作的其他内容，也不是指将这部著作和其他伟大著作做对比，而是指著作所处时代的历史背景。

Now what would a Straussian view be of, say, materialist approaches, which seek to put the great books in context, but the relevant context is not the rest of the book, or comparing it to other great books, but the relevant context is the history of its time?

那这种研究方法是对施特劳斯学派研究方法的补充，还是说它又是另一种替代性的研究路径？

Is that a complement to Straussian methods or again another substitute?

时代背景确实非常重要，但这类背景必须从作者本人的叙述中挖掘，而不能来自历史学家回溯性的视角，也就是那种用今人的标准解读过去的时代错置视角。

The context of the time is very important, but it must be got from the author himself and not from an historian's backward view, an anachronistic view from today.

举个例子，马基雅维利眼中的处境就是他所亲历的那个时代背景。

So, for example, Machiavelli, his context is what he saw as his context.

而且他会亲口向你讲明那是什么样的处境。

And he tells you what that is.

他指出欧洲或是意大利的困境可以用“野心勃勃的怠惰”来概括——那是一种无所事事的空闲状态，让你彻底找不到该做的事。

He tells you that the troubles of Europe or Italy can be put in the phrase ambitious idleness, that is a leisure that is unoccupied, leaves you nothing to do.

这就是他对自己生逢其间、又始终持反对立场的基督教世界的描摹。

So, that's his picture of the Christian world that he lived under and which he opposed.

有些学者因为马基雅维利有过表述流露出对基督教的友好态度，就称他是某种意义上的基督徒，这恰恰忽略了马基雅维利本人对自身所处时代背景提出的这个核心判断。

To say he was some kind of Christian, as some scholars do, because he makes statements that indicate a friendly view toward it, to overlook this view that Machiavelli himself offers of his context.

但核心的一点是：首先要先梳理出作者本人对其所处背景的看法。

But the main point is get the author's view of his context first.

之后如果这个看法存在局限性，或是需要结合我们今天的认知重新阐释，那再去做这件事就好。

And then if that's limited or needs to be restated in terms of what we know today, Go ahead.

如果我们把马基雅维利的理论拆解成一系列可以通过经验验证的命题，你觉得其中有多少比例是站得住脚的？

If we turned Machiavelli into a series of empirically testable propositions, what percentage of them do you think would be true?

这只是很小一部分的描绘，因为他进行了夸张处理。

A small percentage because he exaggerates.

他确实进行了夸张。

He exaggerates.

与此同时，你也可以说他是提出经验性主张的开创者，这和我之前提到的“实效真理”的内核是相通的。

At the same time, you could say he's the author of making empirical propositions, something of what I said earlier, the effectual truth.

他会尝试去预判未来可能发生的事。

He tries to predict what can happen.

他在构想一条通往更高度自由与更良善德行的道路，也就是我们如今所说的现代性。

He has in view a path toward greater liberty and greater virtue that we now call modernity.

我认为，将知识等同于预测的理念，真正是从他这里开端的。

Knowledge as prediction really begins, I would say, with him.

因此我们所说的实证——即基于事实的认知——其实是一种全新的认知事物的方式，通过这种方式我们能够保护自己，还能预测未来可能会发生在我们身上的事。

So that what we call empirical, which is understanding based on fact, is really a new way of knowing things in such a way that we can protect ourselves and predict what may happen or occur to us.

对马基雅维利而言，宗教最重要的意义在于它作为一种天命或预测的形式，因为大多数人想要了解的远不是要通晓上帝本身，而是想知道自己未来会遭遇什么。

For Machiavelli, religion is most important as a form of providence or prediction because most people don't want to know so much know God as they want to know what's going to happen to them.

所以人们总想知道上帝会为我们带来什么，或是马基雅维利提出的取代了上帝意志的命运会为我们带来什么。

So they want to know what God is going to bring to us or what Machiavelli says he substitutes us, what fortune is going to bring to us.

你也可以像他在《君主论》里那样，把命运神化，称它为“命运女神”。

And you can deify fortune, if you like, call it lady fortune, as he does in The Prince.

命运推动事件发生，降低了偶然出现糟糕结果的可能性。

That fortune is making something happen, reducing the possibilities of chance, a bad outcome.

而这一切都建立在我们如今所说的实证或事实描述的基础上。

So that depends on what we would call an empirical or a factual account.

所以如果你能理解人们的实际行为和他们嘴上说的、心里期许的有何不同，你就能削弱命运或偶然性的影响，把你所期许的事物变成现实，和命运的安排抗衡。

So if you understand how people act in a way different from what they say or what they wish, then you can reduce the effect or the power of fortune or chance and make as a fact what you hope for in defiance of fortune.

因此，要缩小命运或偶然性能左右的范围，就要依靠我们所说的实证分析。

So reducing the realm of fortune or of chance comes about through what we might call empirical analysis.

我想表达的是，夸张的表述非但不是实证分析的阻碍，反而是它的必要前提。

I'm trying to say that exaggeration is the requirement of empirical analysis, not the enemy of it.

如今还有伟大的著作诞生吗？

Are there still great books being written today?

如果要谈伟大著作的经典书单，我觉得要说到20世纪的海德格尔。

On the level of canon of great books, I guess I would say in the twentieth century, Heidegger.

而我会把施特劳斯和海德格尔放在一起提，虽然我知道这个说法是有争议的。

And I would add Strauss to Heidegger, though I know that that's a controversial statement.

为什么相关的思想供给就断档了呢？

Why has the supply dried up?

毕竟海德格尔和施特劳斯都是很早之前的学者了，对吧？

Because Heidegger and Strauss, that's a while ago, right?