[西]Fernando Savater: “An Invitation to Ethics,” translated by Yushi Yang, Peking University Press2008, 9月,20 yuan——★
As for the earlier An Invitation to Philosophy (see https://yilinhut.net/2007/11/01/1070.html), I had a very high opinion of it; the author’s better-known An Invitation to Ethics was also long anticipated. It finally went on sale a few days ago, and after buying it I finished it in a little over an hour. It is indeed quite good, and worth recommending.
Printed at the top of the cover of this book is the sentence: “The only purpose of ethics is to strive to improve oneself, rather than to drone on condemning others.” Even if I had not read An Invitation to Philosophy, I would know from this one sentence alone that this book is not bad. This sentence is far too important. So many vulgar or specialized works that drone on about ethics in the marketplace intentionally or unintentionally leave the meaning of ethics itself to one side, or else treat ethics as a tool for passing judgment on others or issuing verdicts, rather than as the rational demand one makes of oneself. I already mentioned this in my graduation thesis on Kant’s ethics, so I won’t say more here.
The subtitle is “Being a Good Person,” which is a bit odd, as if it were an unnecessary flourish. I don’t know who exactly added it.
The blurb printed on the back cover reads: “A father’s long monologue to his 15-year-old son, offering advice on how to live a good life—seemingly a commonplace, yet with a different depth of meaning, and capable from time to time of moving the heart. This is a book that can continue to work on a child’s growth, a book that can be read together with children, discussed together with them, and shared together; a book that all children, parents, students, and teachers should read. First published in 1991, it has now been translated into nearly 30 languages and distributed in more than 30 countries; in Spain alone it has been reprinted more than 60 times. This book was once ranked together with Heidegger’s Being and Time, Russell’s A History of Western Philosophy, and other books as one of the ‘20 most influential philosophical works of the 20th century.’” I really don’t know who made that ranking… In any case, calling this book one of the “20 most influential philosophical works of the 20th century” is, however you look at it, far too exaggerated. A Spanish-language work written at the very end of the 20th century, even if its depth can truly stand shoulder to shoulder with Being and Time, could never have “influence” comparable to those works written in the first half of the 20th century and already circulating and being studied for decades.
Still, if you asked me to name “the 20 most interesting works on my bookshelf,” it would certainly rank near the top!
What is distinctive about this book lies first of all in its style. If An Invitation to Philosophy has a “light touch” (to use Zhao Dunhua’s phrase), then this book can almost be said to be oily and slick—just look at the table of contents. “Chapter 1, The Origins of Ethics; Chapter 2, Commands, Habits, and Caprice…” That still looks fairly serious, but then below: “Chapter 5, Wake Up, Baby!; Chapter 6, Little Peppe the Cricket Appears”—what on earth is this supposed to be! Still, beneath this “old rogue” exterior, the author is after all writing the whole book in the tone of a father talking with a fifteen-year-old child, and amid the humor there also flashes a certain paternal severity.
In the main text there are almost no references to the classics; only after each chapter there is a page called “Read a Little More,” which quotes several related passages from philosophers. After that come rather a lot of notes, most of them term explanations, which seem somewhat superfluous.
As a Spanish philosopher, one can clearly discern the influence of Continental philosophy represented by “existentialism”; a similar style of thinking is also one I rather appreciate.
The overly accessible style causes many claims that are in fact quite sharp and distinctive to appear as bland commonplaces and not draw attention, and at times it can also make some arguments with a deep philosophical background seem full of loopholes. In short, this book cannot, like Being and Time and other classics, give one the shattering sensation of storm waves pounding the shore; instead it feels too gentle, or to put it another way, not exciting enough. But I think for middle school students, or for beginners who shrink back from difficult “brick-like” tomes, a book like this is probably more suitable. If I had a 15-year-old child, I think I would also list this book among the first recommendations—if by then I had not already written one myself. After all, the author’s way of thinking still differs from mine in many respects; may I be able to write better myself~
The translation is very good, at least insofar as it preserves enough fluency and wit.
Let me still extract a few passages at random:
“Advice—Unrelated to Teaching” (no page number)
This book is not an ethics manual written for middle school students, nor does it have the slightest intention of setting forth the important historical shifts in moral theory by eminent authors and officials. I do not want to instill anything into my reader-friends. …… Nor is this a handbook for diagnosing moral problems, …… Reflecting on morality does not belong exclusively to those studying philosophy; rather, it is a basic idea of any form of higher education. …… It is precisely such a little book. Highly personal, subjective, like a dialogue between a father and his son, but for that very reason it is even more universal, and may be regarded as a conversation between all fathers and sons that is as intimate and as ordinary as can be. The gestation and writing of this book both took into account minors as its readers. Perhaps teachers will feel that this book is of little use, but in the course of writing it I have always adhered to one purpose: to encourage and cultivate “free thinkers” rather than produce “good thinkers,” and certainly not “bad thinkers.”
////—In other words, this book is not about specific “ethical problems,” but only about the question of “ethics” itself. What is ethics, and why do we need ethics? “Ethics” is the theme of this book. The conclusion is already implied here—“to encourage and cultivate free thinkers,” which means the same thing as “to lead readers in carrying out ethical reflection.”
Preface, page 13 (the pagination here is a bit messy; in fact, this is the first paragraph of the preface)
Amador, I often have many things I want to say to you, but I have always held myself back again and again, telling myself to stay calm, because as your father I have already brought you a lot of trouble, not to mention that I often fan the flames by relying on my identity as a philosopher (I guess sometimes you must complain in your heart: how did I end up with a philosopher for a father!)……
Preface, page 14
……So I can only write down the things I often think of, but do not know how—or do not dare—to tell you. If a son, brimming with joy, rushes toward the television to enjoy his “free time,” then a father who wants to create philosophical trouble for him at such a moment ought to see a long face (you must be grumbling: what kind of father won’t even let a person watch TV in peace!). But a book is different: not only can you read it whenever you want, you also need not show any sign of respect when you pick it up or put it down. You can yawn while flipping through it page by page, you can be radiant with joy, you can be in agony, and you can also be expressionless…… In a word, you are free to be anything. Since what I want to tell you is, precisely, for the most part related to freedom, reading is more suitable than preaching. Still, you ought at least to give me a little face, by bringing out a bit of attention (half of what you give to learning a new computer game would be enough) and some patience, especially when reading the first few chapters. I understand that these things are a bit difficult for you, but I do not want to spare you the process of thinking things through step by step, and I also do not want to treat you as a little fool—I have always believed: if you treat the other person as a fool, then even if he was not one to begin with, he will soon become one, though I don’t know whether you agree.
////—This passage truly resonates with me, even though I am still very far from the role of a father.
Preface, page 15
All right, everything I tell you in the pages that follow will be nothing more than repeated reiterations of this sentence: have confidence. Of course, not in me, and not in any stranger either, however wise he may truly be; not in the mayor, the priest, or the police, and not in God or the devil; not in machines, and not in flags—believe that there is a kind of wisdom that can enable you to live better than you do now, believe that there is a kind of instinct that can win for you the happy companionship of love.
////—I am a little puzzled by this passage. But in broad outline, it should still be saying that one should believe in one’s own possibilities, reason, and feelings, I think.
Page 8
In real life, many forces limit our freedom: earthquakes, illness, tyrants, and so on, without end. But our freedom also forms a force—our force (////—the emphasis is in the original, as below). Yet in conversation one can discover that most people are more conscious of limitation than of freedom itself. They often say: “Freedom? What freedom are you talking about? Television is trying all day long to control our minds, rulers carry out deception and manipulation, terrorists keep issuing threats, drugs entice people into becoming their captives, and I can’t even afford to buy a motorcycle I want—where is there any freedom!” If you pay a little attention, you will notice that people who speak this way seem to be complaining, but in fact they are merely content to know that they are not free; what they have in mind is: “Ah, we have lightened the load a little—since we are not free, then when these things happen it is not our own fault.” But I am certain that no one—not a single person—will truly believe he is not free, will truly believe that he moves mechanically like a clock or passively like a termite, without resistance. A person may feel that in a certain situation it is difficult to choose freely to do something (for example, rushing into a fire to save a child, or standing toe-to-toe with a tyrant), but rather than putting it that way, it would be better to say that they are free to admit that they can freely choose those easy things, only they stubbornly mutter in their bellies: “If you insist on putting it that way…”
////—Do not use the limitations of history as an excuse to evade freedom. So-called freedom is not about having no limits; it is about taking responsibility for oneself, including, of course, taking up all one’s own limitations and determinations.
Page 8
If someone insists on denying that human beings are free, I suggest you test him with a method once used by a Roman philosopher. A long time ago, a Roman philosopher debated with one of her friends. The latter claimed that human beings are not free and can only do what they must do, so the philosopher picked up a cane. And with all her might, she beat the other person. “Stop it, enough already, don’t hit me anymore!” her friend shouted at her. But she did not stop her hand; instead she continued to ask: “Didn’t you say that I am not free and that what I do cannot be avoided? Then don’t waste your breath telling me to stop—I am automatic.” Only when that friend admitted that he could freely choose to stop being beaten did she finally put down the stick. It’s a good example, but don’t use it unless absolutely necessary, and make sure your friend does not know martial arts……
////—I have mentioned a similar “method” for dealing with “anti-rational” people (for example, in articles such as “How to ‘Persuade’ an Extreme Irrationalist?” and so on). In fact, reason and freedom depend on each other; in a certain sense, one could say they are the same thing. These two problems are identical.
Page 17
Whenever we consider what we are going to do in important and difficult moments, we encounter the dilemma of this captain hypothesized by Aristotle. Of course, things are not always this bad—after all, we do not always run into such gales; or if I am always annoying you with examples like hurricanes, you can fully rebel like that student pilot—
(Flying instructor) “You are in an airplane, the warning system indicates a storm is approaching, and the engine has failed. What should you do?”
(Student pilot) “I’ll keep going with the other engine.”
“Good,” says the teacher, “but then another storm occurs, and this engine also fails. What now?”
“I’ll use another engine.”
“That one gets ruined by the storm too. What then?”
“I’ll use yet another one.”
“Let’s see,” the teacher says angrily, “can you tell me where you got so many engines?”
The student replies calmly: “From the place where you produced so many storms.”
So, let us set aside all these messy storms for now and just talk about what to do when the weather is good.
////—These examples are all rather funny, which also makes their significance seem less serious. In fact, such cases are probably not merely a casual quip to liven up the atmosphere, but involve more serious philosophical considerations. All kinds of “dilemmas” are central to many discussions of ethics, yet here the author seems to brush them aside with a smile (though he will return to the issue later), and even says he will “just talk about what to do when the weather is good.” This may be a teasing rebellion against the whole modern way of discussing normative ethics. Normative ethics tries to establish certain “objective” standards of judgment, but for the author, ethics is entirely a demand on “me,” something arising from my own concerns. If we are not always facing extreme dilemmas, then the urgency of such choices is naturally not pressing; so why not leave the question of what we would do if such misfortune should occur to judgment at the time? Deciding in advance on a ready-made answer may even obscure the third possibility that reality might present at that time. In short, it is better to devote more attention to thinking about questions that are more immediate to me.
Page 31
All of this is related to the question of “freedom,” which, as I think I mentioned earlier, is precisely the main field studied by “ethics.” Freedom means being able to say “yes” or “no,” to do or not do something, regardless of what the boss or anyone else says; this suits me, I want it; that does not suit me, so I won’t do it. Freedom is making decisions, but don’t forget that you must also be fully aware of your decisions. As you understand it, freedom is the opposite of “letting things slide,” so in order not to let things slide, you have no other way except to think carefully—at least twice—about what you are about to do. Yes, twice, even if it gives you a headache…… The first time, think about the motive for “why I am going to do this,” the kind we just discussed: because I received an order, because it is a habit, or because I feel like it. But when you think a second time, the matter changes: I have received an order, but why should I obey that order? Because I fear punishment? Because I want a reward? Then isn’t that slavery to the person issuing the order? If I comply because the one giving orders knows more, then if I strive to know just as much, wouldn’t that be more conducive to my own making decisions? What if the instruction itself is not appropriate? …… The same issue arises with “habit.” If I do not think a second time about what I am doing, perhaps I will be content with the explanation “because that’s the habit.” But why on earth should I do what habit tells me to do?……
////—The author equates “motive” with “reason,” whereas my usage is different. But in broad outline I agree with the account of the mode of ethics—“ethics” is the activity of “confirmation” and “reflection” upon the “reasons” for the “choices” made by “me.”
Page 33
Although I use “morality” and “ethics” in the same way, from a professional standpoint (please forgive me for once again taking out my scholar’s diction and teacher’s tone), their meanings are not the same. “Morality” is the totality of behaviors and rules that you, I, and the people around us usually think valid and accept. “Ethics” is the reflection on “why” we think they are valid, and the comparison of the different “morality” held by different people. But in any case, from here on I will continue to use them (together with “the art of living”) without distinguishing among them; please forgive me academically.
////—I also distinguish between morality and ethics in certain contexts, though in a very different way from the author. What the author calls “morality,” I would prefer to call “ethics” (more strictly speaking, only my own rules can be called ethics, while the rules recognized by those around me can be called “moral custom” or “rites and conventions”); and what the author calls “ethics,” I am willing to call “ethics study.” As for the word “morality,” it has another use: in a manner somewhat like virtue ethics (and of course I have my own grounds and considerations), I interpret “morality” as “excellence.”
Page 34
So do you know why it is so difficult to judge whether a person is good or bad? The reason is simple: because we do not know what human beings are for. A football player is there to help his team defend and to send the ball into the opponent’s goal; a motorcycle is there to transport people or goods quickly, safely, and securely from one place to another. We know what counts as a highly skilled expert, or what counts as a tool functioning properly, because we clearly know what its proper function should be and have the expectations we should have of it. But if we speak of human beings in general terms, things become complicated……
////—It is precisely for this reason that discussions of ethics often inevitably lead to the question of “what is the purpose of ‘human beings’?” or “what is a human being?” The author’s answer also follows Kant: only human beings themselves are, without condition, the end of human beings themselves. Human beings are free beings, and to make some other being the highest end is to negate one’s own reason and thereby cancel ethics itself. The purpose of ethics lies in itself; the only absolute imperative is “to legislate for oneself.” The author later mentions the “sole precept” of ethics as “act according to your will” (page 35), which is in keeping with Kant’s line of thought.
Page 35
……If I now tell you that on the door of ethics being knocked upon there is likewise written this one and only sentence, “Act as you wish,” what would you make of it? Perhaps you ought to be angry: what on earth, are we to call such a conclusion moral? If everyone in the world were to do only what they wanted to do, this world would surely fall to pieces! After all the time and energy we have spent, is this all we get? Hold on—don’t get so worked up yet, give me one more chance—do me the favor of looking at the next chapter.
////——Heh. I feel the author’s later chapters still lack persuasive force, but don’t be in such a hurry; why not go back and take another look at Kant’s ethics? Perhaps some existentialist writings would do too? Or else, just wait and see my ethics~
Page 42
Why do I put “Act as you wish” here, as the basic principle of the ethics we are about to discuss? Very simple (though in a little while it will probably become less simple): we must exclude all commands, habits, rewards, punishments—in a word, all external factors that try to direct you—so that you start from yourself, from the inner judgment of your will. Don’t ask others how your life should be lived—you should ask yourself. If you want to know where your freedom can be better exercised, then do not attach yourself to others from the very beginning and thereby lose yourself. No matter how kind, how wise, how respected those people may be; rather, one should think about the value of freedom according to the principle of freedom.
Page 43
So my “do what you wish” is merely a way of reminding you that you must seriously consider the question of your freedom: that no one can exempt you from the creative responsibility of choosing your own path freely. Don’t keep talking at length about whether all this detouring around “freedom” is worth it, because whether you like it or not, you are free; whether you like it or not, you have to like it. Even if you say you don’t want to know anything so troublesome, that you’d like to be spared and left in peace, you are still attached to something: not wanting to know anything, only wanting to be left alone, even at the cost of becoming a little—or very—conformist. That’s the matter of love, my child, just as the song says! But let us not confuse this “do what you wish” with the “capriciousness” mentioned earlier; doing “what you wish” is one thing, while doing “the first thing that pops into your head” is a completely different matter.
////——The premise of “doing what one wishes” is to confirm what is meant by “what one wishes to do” and what kind of behavior can count as having “done” it; moreover, this “you,” “I,” or “oneself” is always a keyword. The true self must be a temporal existence, and also a whole; that is to say, the “I” facing choice at this moment must be continuous with the “past me,” and also continuous with the “future me.”
Page 45
……In short, if you had to summarize all this, and sincerely express your whole and profound thought in words, you would surely say: “You see, Dad, what I want is to give myself a good life.” Excellent! Give the young gentleman a prize! That is exactly what I want to suggest to you: when I say “do what you wish,” what I am really trying to inspire in you is the courage to give yourself a good life, regardless of whether others are full of sorrow or blessed with enjoyment. I’m sorry: ethics is an intelligent activity that seeks how to live better. If it is worth being interested in, worth pursuing, it is because only those who are so afraid of death that they think everything is indifferent would live for red bean soup, would live in any random manner.
////——Here I cannot agree with the author’s formulation (the resonance in the second half of the book is clearly much less frequent (though still abundant)). But if I slightly alter the wording, I might express agreement: in Kantian language, ethics is the question of “how to become worthy of happiness.” In my own formulation, the key is not to have the courage to give oneself a good life, but to “have the courage to bear a good life.” A “good life” does not need to be sought outside oneself; any life can be lived as a “good life.” But the courage to take a good life upon oneself is by no means something everyone has. Many people would rather plunge themselves into suffering and tragedy, as if only by enduring hardship and sacrificing the self can one appear noble; others immerse themselves in enjoyment, but not by rational choice, only by letting things drift and submitting to the rule of desire. Neither self-torment nor indulgence—both commonly called “self-abandonment”—but being able to enjoy life freely: that is the meaning of ethics.
Page 67 ……The conclusion is: beware! The fool may break into a fit at any moment; once a mistake is made, it cannot be undone!
////——Heh, look at this translation. I suspect it was done by someone born in the 1980s (a graduate student in the Spanish department at Peking University); I really want to know what the original says.
Page 74
If you still want to know the essence of “responsibility,” it lies not merely in taking responsibility for causing trouble without shifting it onto others or the environment. A truly responsible person clearly knows the pure and lofty character of his freedom; it is both genuine and kingly in its inviolability, enabling one to make decisions without being controlled by the orders of anyone above. “Responsibility” means knowing this: every action of mine is constituting, defining, and creating an “I.” By choosing again and again what I wish to do, I gradually transform into form (becoming “I”). The decisions I make, before leaving their mark on the world around me, first leave their mark on me. ……If I do well, then “doing wrong” will become more and more difficult (unfortunately, the reverse is also true); so the ideal state is to gradually cultivate the habit of living well. When the hero of a Western film has the chance to shoot a villain in the back but says, “I can’t do that,” we all understand the real meaning hidden behind those words. Shooting, in and of itself, is not at all difficult; but he does not have the habit of shooting people in the back, and that is the benefit of history! He wants to remain faithful to the kind of person he chose to become, faithful to the kind of person he freely formed many years ago.
////——This line of thought about “creating an I” is obviously existentialist, and one I admire and have also expressed in various ways; but this passage is one of the most brilliant formulations I have ever seen.
Page 86
At this point the villain takes a breath and begins to tremble a little; he throws out a little slogan: “If I don’t use others, others will come and use me!” This is a matter of slave-mouse and free-lion. The first difference: the mouse asks, what will happen to me? The lion asks, what can I do? The second difference: the mouse forces everyone else to love it, so that it can love itself, whereas the lion loves itself, so it has the capacity to love others. The third difference: the mouse is always ready to do things opposed to others, in order to resist what others might do against it, while the lion thinks that what is beneficial to others will likewise be beneficial to itself. Whether to be a mouse or to be a lion—that is the question. For the lion, the choice is utterly without suspense—as our poet Machado says: “as clear as night” —when I want to hurt others, the first person to be hurt is surely myself. What I possess, and what is most precious, is “less use.”
////——Here the author seems to write a bit chaotically; it’s hard to make head or tail of it. But roughly, is this corresponding to Nietzsche’s distinction between slave morality and master morality?
Page 86
What does it mean, exactly, to treat people as people? The answer is: strive to stand in the other person’s position. To mature as a person into one’s own kind means, first of all, understanding his possibilities from within, and means standing at a certain moment in his perspective to see the world in which we are placed.
////——How do we recognize “altruism” on the basis of an ethics that is entirely concerned with “me”? The author gives a line of thought in this chapter, but I feel it is still somewhat unsatisfactory.
Pages 98~99
When people talk about “morality” (especially “immorality”), there is an eighty percent chance—I am sure of it, and I suspect I am still being too conservative—that the target of the sermon is “sex.” Some people even think that the primary question of ethics is to judge what people do with their genitals. Nothing could be more confused than this nonsense, and I think that, no matter how little attention you have paid so far to what I have been telling you, by now you will no longer be half-hearted. In fact, when it comes to sex, there is nothing more immoral than eating or walking, for instance; of course, one can also act immorally with them (such as using sex to hurt people), just as one might steal a neighbor’s hamburger or use a walk to stage a terrorist attack; and I also admit that, because sexual relations can establish extremely strong bonds and complex emotions among people, one must pay special attention to the norms that one’s fellows believe should be observed in such matters. But I want to tell you very firmly, too: if something can make two people very happy without harming the water, there is nothing wrong with the thing itself; the one who is truly wrong is the person who thinks that enjoyment is sinful. We do not merely “have” a body, as people often say (almost always with a resentful expression); we “are” our body, and if satisfaction and comfort are missing from it, then there can be no “good life” at all. Those who are ashamed that their bodies have the capacity for pleasure are, like someone ashamed of having memorized the multiplication table, truly ridiculous and stupid.
Pages 99~100
What hides behind the stubborn prejudice that “sex is immoral” is precisely one of humanity’s oldest social fears: fear of pleasure. And because sexual pleasure is the most intense and vivid of all experiences, it is surrounded by such strong jealousy and caution. Why is pleasure so frightening? I guess because we like it too much. For centuries, every society has always tried to avoid its members becoming so fond of keeping their bodies in a state of continual excitement that they forget work, the precautions needed for the future, or the defense of the collective. In truth, a person can never feel as much identification with life and delight as in this enjoyment; but if one becomes immersed in it and forgets everything else, one likewise cannot survive for long. Human existence, in every age, is a dangerous game, …… nothing is bad simply because it attracts you into doing it.
////——I am also willing to vindicate “pleasure.” If pleasure is bad, then I cannot make sense of how ethics can even talk about good and bad. Altruism would also become absurd: if suffering is what is good, does altruism mean we should bring even more suffering to others? But the author’s argument here does not satisfy me particularly; I would praise pleasure using my own line of thought.
Page 110
On the questions about to come on stage, the first principle is to remember this: do not trust those who, convinced they bear a sacred duty, hurl lightning at others, whether their targets are politicians, women, Jews, doctors, or humanity as a species. Ethics, as we have said before but may as well repeat, is not a slingshot or a stockpile of ammunition aimed en masse at those we can’t stand, nor can it be applied indiscriminately to everyone, as though we had arranged donuts in a row and treated them all in the same way. The sole purpose of ethics is to strive to improve oneself, not to harangue others endlessly; and the only thing ethics is certain of is that each person—you, I, everyone—is handmade, one by one, with loving differences.……
Page 122
So, you absolutely need not take this book too seriously. First of all, in my view, “seriousness” is not, as some fools think, a sign of wisdom; true intelligence lies in knowing how to laugh,
Page 126
Farewell
Goodbye, reader friend; try not to let your life be filled with hatred and fear.
////——I always want to say this sentence,
September 21, 2008
Latest comments
· Fei Niao
2008-10-06 14:41:11 Anonymous 218.247.254.2
Hello, Xiao Gu. I am the editor of The Invitation to Ethics. I saw your book review online and recommended it to Modern Education News; they want to do a promotional feature on this book. However, to quote your review, they need to first ask for your consent, and they need you to provide your ID card so that, if it is finally used and published, they can pay you the fee for the review. If convenient, please leave a contact method; as an encouragement, we will also give you several books published on our side.
· Gu Chi
2008-10-06 18:04:42
My review was not written for publication, so the format is rather casual. If even this can be published, that would be great~
I’d be very happy to. You may quote it freely and modify it as appropriate. I don’t need the fee, but books would be wonderful 🙂
My contact information is as follows:
Real name: Hu Yilin, pen name: Gu Chi; currently studying in the Department of Philosophy at Peking University; Email: HYL510＠gmail.com; mailing address: Room 802, Building B, Zhichun Tower, No. 118 Zhichun Road, Haidian District, 100086. It seems inconvenient to make my ID card number and phone number public online; could you email me first?
· Gu Chi
2008-10-06 18:11:02
But which passages in this piece can actually be excerpted? Most of it is improvised commentary in the form of inserted notes anyway… I’d actually be willing to write a separate recommendation-style review for this book, though of course that would take time.
· Gu Chi
2008-10-27 22:27:53
A few more quotations to add:
(Before the table of contents, first page) “Listen, child.” The devil said, putting his hand on my head. — [American] Edgar Allan Poe, “Silence”
(Before the preface, Advice — unrelated to teaching)
This book is not a manual of ethics written for middle school students; it has nothing to do with famous writers, nor does it intend to display the important currents in the history of moral theory. I do not wish to indoctrinate my reader friends with anything. Nor is this a book of definitive remedies for problems; it cannot answer one by one the various doubts we all encounter in daily life and in reading and observation, such as whether contraception should be used, whether abortion should be allowed, or whether conscription should be implemented. Ethics can provoke thought, but its function is not to settle disputes.
Page 61
But perhaps what is truly difficult is not falling into a rule, or violating an existing order (which is actually also a kind of falling in, just in another direction), but how to strive to understand—understand why some actions can be done and others cannot, understand where life comes from, understand what can make it “good” for us human beings. No one can be free in your place.
Page 123
Now the remaining question is: how to live better? In all the preceding chapters I have deliberately not answered it directly, in order to help you understand it more deeply. The answer must be sought by yourself.
Page 124~125 (ending) Life is not like medicine, for which contraindications and dosages can be prescribed in detail. The life we are given has no prescription, no dosage, and ethics cannot completely make up for this deficiency, because it is nothing more than a record of the various efforts people throughout history have made to mediate it. ……So I gave up teaching you by means of a concrete guide to solving problems, arguing about whether abortion should be allowed, whether contraception should be allowed, whether conscription should be allowed, whether this or that should be allowed; I even lacked the courage to evaluate the “bad” phenomena of this world in a tone of regret or anger (things many people who call themselves “moralists” habitually do!): consumerism, ah! lack of solidarity, um! money fever! oh! violence, woo! moral crisis, ah! um! oh! woo! For these or those things, I have my own opinions. But I am not “ethics” itself, only your father; what ethics can convey to you through me is only this: seek for yourself, think, be free and unburdened, and bear responsibility for everything. I have done my best to show you how to walk, but neither I nor anyone else has the right to carry you on our shoulders as you move forward. So now, do you still need me to give you one last piece of advice? If you have to choose, remember: always choose the road that will allow you more possibilities afterward, not the one that leads you into a dead end; choose the paths open to you: other people, new experiences, all kinds of pleasures, while avoiding those options that may close you off and bury you. Beyond that, good luck to you! And remember the cry I called out to you in that dream that disturbed you: have faith!
· ala
2009-01-13 09:13:46 Anonymous 61.48.44.159
I quoted part of the original text and your comments—at first I was only trying to look up the original text, but halfway through I found the comments just as interesting as the original, so I simply reposted both. Thank you 🙂
· Gu Chi
2009-01-13 11:19:09
Thank you……thank you……thank you……
It seems this is the first time someone has reposted and then left a note to say so……I’m touched~~~~~~~~~~~~
· NKM
2009-01-13 14:26:18 Anonymous 124.205.76.191
Senior brother, you’re going to publish a book review, wow~~~
· Gu Chi
2009-01-13 14:40:32
wow, what? Writing a book review isn’t that big a deal anyway… I already posted one earlier: http://epr.ycool.com/post.3034274.html
· NKM
2009-01-14 15:49:53 Anonymous 124.205.76.191
Oh, up to now in my life I’ve only ever had an essay published in a magazine when I was in elementary school. Looking forward to you publishing a book.
· unic
2009-11-22 01:39:56 Anonymous 61.178.103.141
Page 86
What does it mean to treat others as human beings? The answer is: to strive to put oneself in another’s place. For an adult, another person being one’s own kind first of all means understanding his possibilities from within, and means, at a certain moment, looking at the world we inhabit from his perspective.
////——How does one, starting from an ethics that considers only what is “for me,” come to acknowledge “altruism”? The author gives a line of thought in this chapter, but I feel it still seems somewhat unsatisfactory.】】Agreed. I’m just reading to this point these past few days.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply