顯示包含「科學」標籤的文章。顯示所有文章
顯示包含「科學」標籤的文章。顯示所有文章

2019年7月22日星期一

[摘要]韋伯等著《科學作為天職:韋伯與我們時代的命運》李猛編,李康譯,頁3-46


  • 教師在課堂上的語言,是為沉思的思想鬆整土壤的犂頭,不是刺向敵人的刀劍。...譬如,要對「民主」進行討論,那就該考察它的各種形式,分析它們的運作方式,確定這種或那種形式對生活狀況產生的具體後果,然後將這些形式與其他非民主形式的政治秩序進行對比,努力做到,在這樣的情況下,讓聽眾本人找到一個立足點,能夠根據他們自己的終極理想,選取立場。--韋伯《科學作為天職》,李猛編,李康譯,頁30。

  • 教師的任務是用自己的知識和科學經驗使學生獲益,而不是把自己個人的政治見解強加給學生。(同上,頁31)

  • [對只在意實踐立場之人]一個稱職的教師,首要的任務就是教導自己的學生們承認讓人不舒服的事實,我指的是與本人黨派政見不合的事實。(同上,頁32)

  • 不同的秩序與價值都有自己的神,這些就是諸神之爭最基本的情形。(同上,頁34)

  • 根據每個人的終極立場,一個人的魔鬼,就是另一個人的上帝,而每個人必須自己做出決斷:對你自己而言,何者是上帝,何者是魔鬼?在所有的生活秩序當中,都貫穿著這一抉擇。(同上,頁35)

  • [今日人類面臨諸神之爭的處境](宗教不再一神支配,而是多神相爭)這種宗教的狀況已經成了「日常」。許多古老的神又從墳墓裡爬了出來,不過,由於他們已經被除魔,所以化身為非人格性的力量。他們企圖奪取支配我們生活的權力,並且重新開始了彼此之間的永恒鬥爭。這就是我們生活中的「日常」。對於現代人困難的是,對於年青一代格外困難的是,怎樣挺身面對這樣的「日常」。所有對「體驗」的追求,都是出於軟弱。這種軟弱就是不能嚴肅地直面我們時代的命運。(同上,頁35-36)

  • 形象地說,你敬奉了這個神,如果決定要堅持自己的態度,就得冒犯其他的神。(39)

  • 如果我們對我們的事業理解正確的話(我在這裡必須預先假定這一點),我們就能夠迫使個人對自己所作所為的終極意義做出交代,或至少幫他做到這一點。這在我看來可並非小事,哪怕只是為了純粹的個人生活,也絕不能等閑視之。說到這裡,我又禁不住想說,一位成功地做到這一點的教師,是在為「道德」力量服務,擔負了創造清明與責任感的義務。(40)

  • 只有當缺乏勇氣說清楚自己的終極立場,反而卻借軟弱無力的相對化來搪塞,這就是回避履行理智誠實這一樸實的義務:而為無條件的宗教獻身而做出理智的犧牲,從倫理的角度上說,與此完全不同。在我看來,這種「理智的犧牲」也比課堂先知要高尚得多。因為那些先知們並不清楚,在教室裡面,唯一有效的品德就是樸實的理智誠實。(45)

  • 我們應該汲取教訓:單憑渴望與等待,將一無所獲,應該做些別的。投入我們的工作,無論作為一個人,還是一項天職,達到「日常的要求」。這其實樸實、簡單,只要每個人都找到主掌自己生命之線的神靈,聽從它。(46)


    在讀完了尼采的一些著作後,再回來閱讀韋伯的這篇「科學作為天職」,可以看出韋伯很強烈地反先知立場,同時也強調擇吾所愛,愛吾所選的「熱愛命運」的說明。







2014年9月4日星期四

[只能暫時擱置的筆記] 讀Elias的Involvement and Detachment



EliasInvolvement and Detachment之筆記

該書收錄於The Collected Works of Norbert Elias第八集,由Stephen Quilley編輯,是2007年由University College Bublin Press的英文全集。Involvement and Detachment1987年,以德文本Engagement und Distanzierung書名面世。

Stephen Quilley2006年寫的Note on the Text (xl-xvi)
人類知識的發展問題,除了involvement and detachment一書外,可參看:An Essay on time( volume 9), the symbol theory (volume 13), essay on the sociology of knowledge and the sciences (vol. 14).

        用文明化進程,來理解科學的發展:Elias views the development of science through the lens of his theory of civilizing processes. “The idea of an increasing social constraint toward emotional constraint, in the course of the long-term development of human society, is central to his discussion of the development of the sciences.” (xiii)

        Eliasinvolvment and detachment的寫作,以英文寫成,但受到德語的影響,難以解釋,而他本人也不太願意花功夫在細節的編輯工作,總是迫不及待地進行下一步的書寫。(he was always eager to be writing the next piece of work, and was reluctant to spend time on the increasingly difficult tasks of collating amendments and detailed editing)(xiv)

        Elias在重新校訂著作時,授意Michael Schröter將系統的概念,改成figurationIntergrationsgefüge. (First, in the original version of ‘Problems of involvement and detachment’ published in the British Journal of Sociology in 1956, Elias Frequently used the word ‘system’, then prevalent in sociological usage at a time when the discipline was dominated by ‘structural-functional’ systems theory. Many of the arguments that Elias advances, however, are at odds with how many sociologists used the concept, and in the 1960s he sought to purge his writing of any taint of ‘social systems theory’. That is why, after a bried flirtation with ‘configuration’, he came to make extensive use of the word ‘figuration’. So, when Michael Schröter translated the 1956 essay into German, Elias authorized him to avoid the word System,. In its place, he used both Figuration and Integrationsgefüge (which means something like ‘framework of intergration’). In view of the difficulties of rendering such nuances back into English, it was decided to retain ‘system’ wherever Elias used the word in the 1956 paper. Readers should, however, bear in mind his strong reservations about the term. (xv)


EliasInvolvement and Detachment之導言
第一部份
  • 第一節
P3.人類如何擺脫動物所面臨的危險呢?
P4.科學與災難(社會災難如戰爭),學者仍難處理。
  • 第二節
P5.必須從動態角度思考戰爭的危險。(the explanation of the danger of war cannot be found in the form of a stationary cause. It lies in an ongoing, self-perpetuating social process without absolute beginning, though – like cholera –possibly with an end. (§2)
  • 第三節
P6.鐵匠不是中世紀戰爭的起因,同理,科學家與工程師也不是近代戰爭的禍首。(§2)在孩童的教育過程中,他們讀到國家發展中的殺戮,而國家以此形塑孩童們對國家的認同,而殺戮與戰爭,深根於群體的個別成員,成為自我認同的社會習氣。(§3)[回想起小時候讀過的歷史,不外是各種殺戮、爭奪,如何能期待避免未來的戰爭呢?覺得Elias講的有道理。]
P6-7批評合宜戰爭(a just war)的概念,指出以暴制暴,形成了永無寧日的長程戰爭,總是一批壓迫者,取代舊的壓迫者,而戰爭,從國際間,轉向國內的壓制[war police應該視為一體的]。這一段講的很好,我全摘了:「In our age, moreover, the concept ot a just war, a kind of moral rehabilitation of the use of violence as a means of settling interstate conflicts, has been extended to the settling of conflicts within states. Partly thanks to the work of Marx and his followers, revolution has become a praise word.(P6) The reciprocal violence of groups of people in the course of a revolutionary process or any other kind of long-drawn-out civil war is as great a human disaster as a war between states. That revolutionary processes often start from a condition of one-sided violent oppression has often been mentioned. It is less often mentioned that they also quite frequently end with one-sided violent oppression. [這就是好友Boa提到的,許諾解放的戰爭,總是帶來新的奴役] If one ceases to consider revolutions in an historical manner –that is, as short-term events – and if instead one sees such violent explosions as phases of a long-term process, it becomes clearer that they too form part of a cycle and often a spiraling cycle of violence, which may go on smouldering for a long time after the overt revolutionary violence has died down.(p7. §1)

待續