[English] Maugham: The Moon and Sixpence

[English] Maugham: *The Moon and Sixpence*, translated by Fu Weici, Shanghai Translation Publishing House, August 2006, 12 yuan

As for works of literature, I have never dared to pass judgment too readily. To put it simply, this book depicts an artist who exists in my ideal world—and for that reason his life did not surprise me very much. Of course, I completely identify with and admire Charles Strickland’s “conduct”; although my own life could in no way be similar to his, perhaps, as Captain Brono said (p. 247), I too am pursuing the same thing.

What Strickland’s attitude toward love and marriage tells us is precisely what I have always insisted on emphasizing: marriage does not contain any sort of responsibility for a person, and love ought not to be constrained by society’s opinions or by conventional morality. Although, unlike Strickland, I place love extremely high, precisely because love is above all else, it should in no way be subject to any worldly restraints—not only male-female love, but also love in general, and the passion for an ideal or a conviction; none of these need be bound by any “responsibility” or “duty.” Although in reality it is unlikely to happen—if I were ever forced to break up someone else’s marriage or give up my own, then like Strickland, I would not feel morally guilty about it.

However, even while refusing outside constraints, I still must obey my own beliefs and standards. My almost sole principle could be said to be “single-hearted devotion,” but that does not mean that, like Strickland, once I have cast all my love upon painting I must reject the pursuit of male-female love or any other kind of love. Quite the contrary: “single-hearted devotion” makes it possible to pursue different kinds of love at the same time—because every kind of love is utterly unique, every one of my loves is single-minded; this means that, for example, my love for my lover will not interfere with my love for philosophy, and vice versa, although in a deeper sense they are unified.

July 17, 2007

Latest comments
  
UNIC

2007-07-17 22:02:41 Anonymous 124.117.17.225 [Reply]

Hehe, pretty quick, eh? You’ve read so many books. 
I also don’t dare say too much about this book, because my thinking isn’t deep enough yet 
“if I were ever forced to break up someone else’s marriage or give up my own, then like Strickland, I would not feel morally guilty about it.” 
———-There are still many similar things that are not so simple. Not to mention love, just speaking of the relationship with one’s parents, I feel that in some cases you may have absolutely no sense of guilt in rational judgment, but at the level of feeling, there may still be a response. 
——————————– 
This is a good book, a good starting point for thought. I’ll have to read it a few more times later…. Of course, I need to think about it more.

  
Gu Bo

2007-07-17 22:12:39 http://epr.ycool.com/ [Reply]

So that’s why I said that I would have no sense of guilt in terms of morality, but emotionally of course that is another matter. I think I am far from being as “inhuman” as Strickland~

  
UNIC

2007-07-17 22:20:22 Anonymous 222.82.78.204 [Reply]

Oh…… If you were that “inhuman,” then I would say:
Congratulations, a philosophical maniac has been born
Either the world bursts forth in your XX, or it perishes in your XX……….

  
Gu Bo

2007-07-20 15:10:23 http://epr.ycool.com/ [Reply]

Shanghai Translation Publishing House has recently published a translated book, *Moral Luck*. It is said that one of the essays in it takes Gauguin as a special example to reveal the logical weakness of contemporary utilitarian ethical theory. But although I only recently bought this book, because of the renovation I have already packed the books into boxes……

Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.