战争与和平(下)-第22部分

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！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


　to　understand　life；　but　could　not　live　for　a　single　instant。
He　could　not　live　because　all　men’s　instincts；　all　their　impulses　in　life；　are　only　efforts　to　increase　their　freedom。　Wealth　and　poverty；　health　and　disease；　culture　and　ignorance；　labour　and　leisure；　repletion　and　hunger；　virtue　and　vice；　are　all　only　terms　for　greater　or　less　degrees　of　freedom。
To　conceive　a　man　having　no　freedom　is　impossible　except　as　a　man　deprived　of　life。
If　the　idea　of　freedom　appears　to　the　reason　a　meaningless　contradiction；　like　the　possibility　of　doing　two　actions　at　a　single　moment　of　time；　or　the　possibility　of　an　effect　without　a　cause；　that　only　proves　that　consciousness　is　not　subject　to　reason。
That　unwavering；　irrefutable　consciousness　of　freedom；　not　influenced　by　experience　and　argument；　recognised　by　all　thinkers；　and　felt　by　all　men　without　exception；　that　consciousness　without　which　no　conception　of　man　is　reliable；　constitutes　the　other　side　of　the　question。
Man　is　the　creation　of　an　Almighty；　All…good；　and　All…wise　God。　What　is　sin；　the　conception　of　which　follows　from　man’s　consciousness　of　freedom？　That　is　the　question　of　theology。
Men’s　actions　are　subject　to　general　and　invariable　laws；　expressed　in　statistics。　What　is　man’s　responsibility　to　society；　the　conception　of　which　follows　from　his　consciousness　of　freedom？　That　is　the　question　of　jurisprudence。
A　man’s　actions　follow　from　his　innate　character　and　the　motives　acting　on　him。　What　is　conscience　and　the　sense　of　right　and　wrong　in　action　that　follows　from　the　consciousness　of　freedom？　That　is　the　question　of　ethics。
Man　in　connection　with　the　general　life　of　humanity　is　conceived　as　governed　by　the　laws　that　determine　that　life。　But　the　same　man；　apart　from　that　connection；　is　conceived　of　as　free。　How　is　the　past　life　of　nations　and　of　humanity　to　be　regarded—as　the　product　of　the　free　or　not　free　action　of　men？　That　is　the　question　of　history。
Only　in　our　conceited　age　of　the　popularisation　of　knowledge；　thanks　to　the　most　powerful　weapon　of　ignorance—the　diffusion　of　printed　matter—the　question　of　the　freedom　of　the　will　has　been　put　on　a　level；　on　which　it　can　no　longer　be　the　same　question。　In　our　day　the　majority　of　so…called　advanced　people—that　is；　a　mob　of　ignoramuses—have　accepted　the　result　of　the　researches　of　natural　science；　which　is　occupied　with　one　side　only　of　the　question；　for　the　solution　of　the　whole　question。
There　is　no　soul　and　no　free　will；　because　the　life　of　man　is　expressed　in　muscular　movements；　and　muscular　movements　are　conditioned　by　nervous　activity。　There　is　no　soul　and　no　free　will；　because　at　some　unknown　period　of　time　we　came　from　apes；　they　say；　and　write；　and　print。　Not　at　all　suspecting　that　thousands　of　years　ago　all　religions　and　all　thinkers　have　admitted—have　never；　in　fact；　denied—that　same　law　of　necessity；　which　they　are　now　so　strenuously　trying　to　prove　by　physiology　and　comparative　zoology。　They　do　not　see　that　natural　science　can　do　no　more　in　this　question　than　serve　to　illumine　one　side　of　it。　The　fact　that；　from　the　point　of　view　of　observation；　the　reason　and　the　will　are　but　secretions　of　the　brain；　and　that　man；　following　the　general　law　of　development；　may　have　developed　from　lower　animals　at　some　unknown　period　of　time；　only　illustrates　in　a　new　aspect　the　truth；　recognised　thousands　of　years　ago　by　all　religious　and　philosophic　theories；　that　man　is　subject　to　the　laws　of　necessity。　It　does　not　advance　one　hair’s…breadth　the　solution　of　the　question；　which　has　another　opposite　side；　founded　on　the　consciousness　of　freedom。
If　men　have　descended　from　apes　at　an　unknown　period　of　time；　that　is　as　comprehensible　as　that　they　were　fabricated　out　of　a　clod　of　earth　at　a　known　period　of　time　（in　the　one　case　the　date　is　the　unknown　quantity；　in　the　other　the　method　of　fabrication）；　and　the　question　how　to　reconcile　man’s　consciousness　of　free　will　with　the　law　of　necessity　to　which　he　is　subject　cannot　be　solved　by　physiology　and　zoology；　seeing　that　in　the　frog；　the　rabbit；　and　the　monkey　we　can　observe　only　muscular　and　nervous　activity；　while　in　man　we　find　muscular　and　nervous　activity　plus　consciousness。
The　scientific　men　and　their　disciples　who　suppose　they　are　solving　this　question　are　like　plasterers　set　to　plaster　one　side　of　a　church　wall；　who；　in　the　absence　of　the　chief　superintendent　of　their　work；　should　in　the　excess　of　their　zeal　plaster　over　the　windows；　and　the　holy　images；　and　the　woodwork；　and　the　scaffolding；　and　rejoice　that　from　the　plasterers’　point　of　view　everything　was　now　so　smooth　and　even。


Chapter　9
THE　QUESTION　of　free　will　and　necessity　holds　a　position　in　history　different　from　its　place　in　other　branches　of　knowledge；　because　in　history；　the　question　relates；　not　to　the　essential　nature　of　the　will　of　man；　but　to　the　representation　of　the　manifestations　of　that　will　in　the　past　and　under　certain　conditions。
History；　in　regard　to　the　solution　of　this　question；　stands　to　the　other　sciences　in　the　position　of　an　experimental　science　to　speculative　sciences。
The　subject　of　history　is　not　the　will　of　man；　but　our　representation　of　its　action。
And　so　the　insoluble　mystery　of　the　union　of　the　two　antinomies　of　freedom　and　necessity　does　not　exist　for　history　as　it　does　for　theology；　ethics；　and　philosophy。　History　deals　with　the　representation　of　the　life　of　man；　in　which　the　union　of　those　two　antinomies　is　accomplished。
In　actual　life　every　historical　event；　every　human　action；　is　quite　clearly　and　definitely　understood；　without　a　sense　of　the　slightest　contradiction　in　it；　although　every　event　is　conceived　of　partly　as　free；　and　partly　as　necessary。
To　solve　the　problem　of　combining　freedom　and　necessity　and　the　question　what　constitutes　the　essence　of　those　two　conceptions；　the　philosophy　of　history　can　and　ought　to　go　to　work　in　a　direction　opposite　to　that　taken　by　the　other　sciences。　Instead　of　first　defining　the　ideas　of　freedom　and　necessity　in　themselves；　and　then　ranging　the　phenomena　of　life　under　those　definitions；　history　must　form　the　definition　of　the　ideas　of　free　will　and　necessity　from　the　immense　multitude　of　phenomena　in　her　domain　that　are　always　dependent　on　those　two　elements。
Whatever　presentation　of　the　activity　of　one　man　or　of　several　persons　we　examine；　we　always　regard　it　as　the　product　partly　of　that　man　or　men’s　free　will；　partly　of　the　laws　of　necessity。
Whether　we　are　discussing　the　migrations　of　peoples　and　the　inroads　of　barbarians；　or　the　government　of　Napoleon　III。；　or　the　action　of　some　man　an　hour　ago　in　selecting　one　direction　for　his　walk　out　of　several；　we　see　nothing　contradictory　in　it。　The　proportion　of　freedom　and　necessity　guiding　the　actions　of　those　men　is　clearly　defined　for　us。
Very　often　our　conception　of　a　greater　or　less　degree　of　freedom　differs　according　to　the　different　points　of　view　from　which　we　regard　the　phenomenon。
But　every　human　action　is　always　alike　conceived　by　us　as　a　certain　combination　of　free　will　and　necessity。
In　every　action　we　investigate；　we　see　a　certain　proportion　of　freedom　and　a　certain　proportion　of　necessity。　And　whatever　action　we　investigate；　the　more　necessity　we　see；　the　less　freedom；　and　the　more　freedom；　the　less　necessity。
The　proportion　of　freedom　to　necessity　is　decreased　or　increased；　according　to　the　point　of　view　from　which　the　act　is　regarded；　but　there　always　remains　an　inverse　ratio　between　them。
A　drowning　man　clutching　at　another　and　drowning　him；　or　a　hungry　mother　starved　by　suckling　her　baby　and　stealing　food；　or　a　man　trained　to　discipline　who　at　the　word　of　command　kills　a　defenceless　man；　all　seem　less　guilty—that　is；　less　free　and　more　subject　to　the　law　of　necessity　to　one　who　knows　the　circumstances　in　which　they　are　placed；　and　more　free　to　one　who　did　not　know　that　the　man　was　himself　drowning；　that　the　mother　was　starving；　that　the　soldier　was　on　duty；　and　so　on。　In　the　same　way　a　man　who　has　twenty　years　ago　committed　a　murder　and　afterwards　has　gone　on　living　calmly　and　innocently　in　society　seems　less　guilty；　and　his　acts　seem　more　subject　to　the　law　of　necessity；　to　one　who　looks　at　his　act　after　the　lapse　of　twenty　years　than　to　one　looking　at　the　same　act　the　day　after　it　was　perpetrated。　And　just　in　the　same　way　the　act　of　a　madman；　a　drunkard；　or　a　man　labouring　under　violent　excitement　seems　less　free　and　more　inevitable　to　one　who　knows　the　mental　condition　of　the　man　who　performed　the　action；　and　more　free　and　less　inevitable　to　one　who　does　not　know　it。　In　all　such　cases　the　conception　of　freedom　is　increased　or　diminished；　and　that　of　necessity　correspondingly　diminished　or　increased；　according　to　the　point　of　view　from　which　the　action　is　regarded。　So　that　the　more　necessity　is　seen　in　it　the　less　freedom。　And　vice　versa。
Religion；　the　common…sense　of　humanity；　the　science　of　law；　and　history　itself　understand　this　relation　between　necessity　and　free　will。
All　cases；　without　exception；　in　which　our　conception　of　free　will　and　necessity　varies　depend　on　three　considerations：
1。　The　relation　of　the　man　committing　the　act　to　the　external　world。
2。　His　relation　to　time。
3。　His　relation　to　the　causes　leading　to　the　act。
In　the　first　case　the　variation　depends　on　the　degree　to　which　we　see　the　man’s　relation　to　the　external　world；　on　the　more　or　less　clear　idea　we　form　of　the　definite　position　occupied　by　the　man　in　relation　to　everything　co…existing　with　him。　It　is　this　class　of　considerations　that　makes　it　obvious　to　us　that　the　drowning　man　is　less　free　and　more　subject　to　necessity　than　a　man　standing　on　dry　ground；　and　that　makes　the　actions　of　a　man　living　in　close　connection　with　other　people　in　a　thickly　populated　district；　bound　by　ties　of　family；　official　duties；　or　business　undertaking；　seem　undoubtedly　less　free　than　those　of　a　man　living　in　solitude　and　seclusion。
If　we　examine　a　man　alone；　apart　from　his　relations　to　everything　around　him；　every　action　of　his　seems　free　to　us。　But　if　we　see　any　relation　of　his　to　anything　surrounding；　if　we　perceive　any　connection　between　him　and　anything　else；　a　man　speaking　to　him；　a　book　read　by　him；　the　work　he　is　employed　in；　even　the　air　he　breathes；　or　the　light　that　f