orthodoxy-第25部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！





is　no　inequality　in　nature。　　Inequality；　as　much　as　equality；



implies　a　standard　of　value。　　To　read　aristocracy　into　the　anarchy



of　animals　is　just　as　sentimental　as　to　read　democracy　into　it。　



Both　aristocracy　and　democracy　are　human　ideals：　　the　one　saying



that　all　men　are　valuable；　the　other　that　some　men　are　more　valuable。　



But　nature　does　not　say　that　cats　are　more　valuable　than　mice；



nature　makes　no　remark　on　the　subject。　　She　does　not　even　say



that　the　cat　is　enviable　or　the　mouse　pitiable。　　We　think　the　cat



superior　because　we　have　（or　most　of　us　have）　a　particular　philosophy



to　the　effect　that　life　is　better　than　death。　　But　if　the　mouse



were　a　German　pessimist　mouse；　he　might　not　think　that　the　cat



had　beaten　him　at　all。　　He　might　think　he　had　beaten　the　cat　by



getting　to　the　grave　first。　　Or　he　might　feel　that　he　had　actually



inflicted　frightful　punishment　on　the　cat　by　keeping　him　alive。　



Just　as　a　microbe　might　feel　proud　of　spreading　a　pestilence；



so　the　pessimistic　mouse　might　exult　to　think　that　he　was　renewing



in　the　cat　the　torture　of　conscious　existence。　　It　all　depends



on　the　philosophy　of　the　mouse。　　You　cannot　even　say　that　there



is　victory　or　superiority　in　nature　unless　you　have　some　doctrine



about　what　things　are　superior。　　You　cannot　even　say　that　the　cat



scores　unless　there　is　a　system　of　scoring。　　You　cannot　even　say



that　the　cat　gets　the　best　of　it　unless　there　is　some　best　to



be　got。







　　　　　We　cannot；　then；　get　the　ideal　itself　from　nature；



and　as　we　follow　here　the　first　and　natural　speculation；　we　will



leave　out　（for　the　present）　the　idea　of　getting　it　from　God。　



We　must　have　our　own　vision。　　But　the　attempts　of　most　moderns



to　express　it　are　highly　vague。







　　　　　Some　fall　back　simply　on　the　clock：　　they　talk　as　if　mere



passage　through　time　brought　some　superiority；　so　that　even　a　man



of　the　first　mental　calibre　carelessly　uses　the　phrase　that　human



morality　is　never　up　to　date。　　How　can　anything　be　up　to　date？



a　date　has　no　character。　　How　can　one　say　that　Christmas



celebrations　are　not　suitable　to　the　twenty…fifth　of　a　month？　



What　the　writer　meant；　of　course；　was　that　the　majority　is　behind



his　favourite　minorityor　in　front　of　it。　　Other　vague　modern



people　take　refuge　in　material　metaphors；　in　fact；　this　is　the　chief



mark　of　vague　modern　people。　　Not　daring　to　define　their　doctrine



of　what　is　good；　they　use　physical　figures　of　speech　without　stint



or　shame；　and；　what　is　worst　of　all；　seem　to　think　these　cheap



analogies　are　exquisitely　spiritual　and　superior　to　the　old　morality。　



Thus　they　think　it　intellectual　to　talk　about　things　being　〃high。〃　



It　is　at　least　the　reverse　of　intellectual；　it　is　a　mere　phrase



from　a　steeple　or　a　weathercock。　　〃Tommy　was　a　good　boy〃　is　a　pure



philosophical　statement；　worthy　of　Plato　or　Aquinas。　　〃Tommy　lived



the　higher　life〃　is　a　gross　metaphor　from　a　ten…foot　rule。







　　　　　This；　incidentally；　is　almost　the　whole　weakness　of　Nietzsche；



whom　some　are　representing　as　a　bold　and　strong　thinker。　



No　one　will　deny　that　he　was　a　poetical　and　suggestive　thinker；



but　he　was　quite　the　reverse　of　strong。　　He　was　not　at　all　bold。　



He　never　put　his　own　meaning　before　himself　in　bald　abstract　words：　



as　did　Aristotle　and　Calvin；　and　even　Karl　Marx；　the　hard；



fearless　men　of　thought。　　Nietzsche　always　escaped　a　question



by　a　physical　metaphor；　like　a　cheery　minor　poet。　　He　said；



〃beyond　good　and　evil；〃　because　he　had　not　the　courage　to　say；



〃more　good　than　good　and　evil；〃　or；　〃more　evil　than　good　and　evil。〃　



Had　he　faced　his　thought　without　metaphors；　he　would　have　seen　that　it



was　nonsense。　　So；　when　he　describes　his　hero；　he　does　not　dare　to　say；



〃the　purer　man；〃　or　〃the　happier　man；〃　or　〃the　sadder　man；〃　for　all



these　are　ideas；　and　ideas　are　alarming。　　He　says　〃the　upper　man；〃



or　〃over　man；〃　a　physical　metaphor　from　acrobats　or　alpine　climbers。　



Nietzsche　is　truly　a　very　timid　thinker。　　He　does　not　really　know



in　the　least　what　sort　of　man　he　wants　evolution　to　produce。　



And　if　he　does　not　know；　certainly　the　ordinary　evolutionists；



who　talk　about　things　being　〃higher；〃　do　not　know　either。







　　　　　Then　again；　some　people　fall　back　on　sheer　submission



and　sitting　still。　　Nature　is　going　to　do　something　some　day；



nobody　knows　what；　and　nobody　knows　when。　　We　have　no　reason　for　acting；



and　no　reason　for　not　acting。　　If　anything　happens　it　is　right：　



if　anything　is　prevented　it　was　wrong。　　Again；　some　people　try



to　anticipate　nature　by　doing　something；　by　doing　anything。　



Because　we　may　possibly　grow　wings　they　cut　off　their　legs。　



Yet　nature　may　be　trying　to　make　them　centipedes　for　all　they　know。







　　　　　Lastly；　there　is　a　fourth　class　of　people　who　take　whatever



it　is　that　they　happen　to　want；　and　say　that　that　is　the　ultimate



aim　of　evolution。　　And　these　are　the　only　sensible　people。　



This　is　the　only　really　healthy　way　with　the　word　evolution；



to　work　for　what　you　want；　and　to　call　THAT　evolution。　　The　only



intelligible　sense　that　progress　or　advance　can　have　among　men；



is　that　we　have　a　definite　vision；　and　that　we　wish　to　make



the　whole　world　like　that　vision。　　If　you　like　to　put　it　so；



the　essence　of　the　doctrine　is　that　what　we　have　around　us　is　the



mere　method　and　preparation　for　something　that　we　have　to　create。　



This　is　not　a　world；　but　rather　the　material　for　a　world。　



God　has　given　us　not　so　much　the　colours　of　a　picture　as　the　colours



of　a　palette。　　But　he　has　also　given　us　a　subject；　a　model；



a　fixed　vision。　　We　must　be　clear　about　what　we　want　to　paint。　



This　adds　a　further　principle　to　our　previous　list　of　principles。　



We　have　said　we　must　be　fond　of　this　world；　even　in　order　to　change　it。　



We　now　add　that　we　must　be　fond　of　another　world　（real　or　imaginary）



in　order　to　have　something　to　change　it　to。







　　　　　We　need　not　debate　about　the　mere　words　evolution　or　progress：　



personally　I　prefer　to　call　it　reform。　　For　reform　implies　form。　



It　implies　that　we　are　trying　to　shape　the　world　in　a　particular　image；



to　make　it　something　that　we　see　already　in　our　minds。　　Evolution　is



a　metaphor　from　mere　automatic　unrolling。　　Progress　is　a　metaphor　from



merely　walking　along　a　roadvery　likely　the　wrong　road。　　But　reform



is　a　metaphor　for　reasonable　and　determined　men：　　it　means　that　we



see　a　certain　thing　out　of　shape　and　we　mean　to　put　it　into　shape。　



And　we　know　what　shape。







　　　　　Now　here　comes　in　the　whole　collapse　and　huge　blunder　of　our　age。　



We　have　mixed　up　two　different　things；　two　opposite　things。　



Progress　should　mean　that　we　are　always　changing　the　world　to　suit



the　vision。　　Progress　does　mean　（just　now）　that　we　are　always　changing



the　vision。　　It　should　mean　that　we　are　slow　but　sure　in　bringing



justice　and　mercy　among　men：　　it　does　mean　that　we　are　very　swift



in　doubting　the　desirability　of　justice　and　mercy：　　a　wild　page



from　any　Prussian　sophist　makes　men　doubt　it。　　Progress　should　mean



that　we　are　always　walking　towards　the　New　Jerusalem。　　It　does　mean



that　the　New　Jerusalem　is　always　walking　away　from　us。　　We　are　not



altering　the　real　to　suit　the　ideal。　　We　are　altering　the　ideal：　



it　is　easier。







　　　　　Silly　examples　are　always　simpler；　let　us　suppose　a　man　wanted



a　particular　kind　of　world；　say；　a　blue　world。　　He　would　have　no



cause　to　complain　of　the　slightness　or　swiftness　of　his　task；



he　might　toil　for　a　long　time　at　the　transformation；　he　could



work　away　（in　every　sense）　until　all　was　blue。　　He　could　have



heroic　adventures；　the　putting　of　the　last　touches　to　a　blue　tiger。　



He　could　have　fairy　dreams；　the　dawn　of　a　blue　moon。　　But　if　he



worked　hard；　that　high…minded　reformer　would　certainly　（from　his　own



point　of　view）　leave　the　world　better　and　bluer　than　he　found　it。　



If　he　altered　a　blade　of　grass　to　his　favourite　colour　every　day；



he　would　get　on　slowly。　　But　if　he　altered　his　favourite　colour



every　day；　he　would　not　get　on　at　all。　　If；　after　reading　a



fresh　philosopher；　he　started　to　paint　everything　red　or　yellow；



his　work　would　be　thrown　away：　　there　would　be　nothing　to　show　except



a　few　blue　tigers　walking　about；　specimens　of　his　early　bad　manner。　



This　is　exactly　the　position　of　the　average　modern　thinker。　



It　will　be　said　that　this　is　avowedly　a　preposterous　example。　



But　it　is　literally　the　fact　of　recent　history。　　The　great　and　grave



changes　in　our　political　civilization　all　belonged　to　the　early



nineteenth　century；　not　to　the　later。　　They　belonged　to　the　black



and　white　epoch　when　men　believed　fixedly　in　Toryism；　in　Protestantism；



in　Calvinism；　in　Reform；　and　not　unfrequently　in　Revolution。　



And　whatever　each　man　believed　in　he　hammered　at　steadily；



without　scepticism：　　and　there　was　a　time　when　the　Established



Church　might　have　fallen；　and　the　House　of　Lords　nearly　fell。　



It　was　because　Radicals　were　wise　enough　to　be　constant　and　consistent；



it　was　because　Radicals　were　wise　enough　to　be　Conservative。　



But　in　the　existing　atmosphere　there　is　not　enough　time　and　tradition



in　Radicalism　to　pull　anything　down。　　There　is　a　great　deal　of　truth



in　Lord　Hugh　Cecil's　suggestion　（made　in　a　fine　speech）　that　the　era



of　change　is　over；　and　that　ours　is　an　era　of　conservation　and　repose。　



But　probably　it　would　pain　Lord　Hugh　Cecil　if　he　realized　（what



is　certainly　the　case）　that　ours　is　only　an　age　of　conservation