second epilogue-第8章
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！
of France； for liberty； and for equality。 People ceased to kill one
another； and this event was accompanied by its justification in the
necessity for a centralization of power； resistance to Europe； and
so on。 Men went from the west to the east killing their fellow men；
and the event was accompanied by phrases about the glory of France；
the baseness of England； and so on。 History shows us that these
justifications of the events have no common sense and are all
contradictory； as in the case of killing a man as the result of
recognizing his rights； and the killing of millions in Russia for
the humiliation of England。 But these justifications have a very
necessary significance in their own day。
These justifications release those who produce the events from moral
responsibility。 These temporary aims are like the broom fixed in front
of a locomotive to clear the snow from the rails in front： they
clear men's moral responsibilities from their path。
Without such justification there would be no reply to the simplest
question that presents itself when examining each historical event。
How is it that millions of men commit collective crimes… make war；
commit murder； and so on？
With the present complex forms of political and social life in
Europe can any event that is not prescribed； decreed； or ordered by
monarchs； ministers； parliaments； or newspapers be imagined？ Is
there any collective action which cannot find its justification in
political unity； in patriotism； in the balance of power； or in
civilization？ So that every event that occurs inevitably coincides
with some expressed wish and； receiving a justification； presents
itself as the result of the will of one man or of several men。
In whatever direction a ship moves； the flow of the waves it cuts
will always be noticeable ahead of it。 To those on board the ship
the movement of those waves will be the only perceptible motion。
Only by watching closely moment by moment the movement of that
flow and comparing it with the movement of the ship do we convince
ourselves that every bit of it is occasioned by the forward movement
of the ship； and that we were led into error by the fact that we
ourselves were imperceptibly moving。
We see the same if we watch moment by moment the movement of
historical characters （that is； re…establish the inevitable
condition of all that occurs… the continuity of movement in time）
and do not lose sight of the essential connection of historical
persons with the masses。
When the ship moves in one direction there is one and the same
wave ahead of it； when it turns frequently the wave ahead of it also
turns frequently。 But wherever it may turn there always will be the
wave anticipating its movement。
Whatever happens it always appears that just that event was foreseen
and decreed。 Wherever the ship may go； the rush of water which neither
directs nor increases its movement foams ahead of it； and at a
distance seems to us not merely to move of itself but to govern the
ship's movement also。
Examining only those expressions of the will of historical persons
which； as commands； were related to events； historians have assumed
that the events depended on those commands。 But examining the events
themselves and the connection in which the historical persons stood to
the people； we have found that they and their orders were dependent on
events。 The incontestable proof of this deduction is that； however
many commands were issued； the event does not take place unless
there are other causes for it； but as soon as an event occurs… be it
what it may… then out of all the continually expressed wishes of
different people some will always be found which by their meaning
and their time of utterance are related as commands to the events。
Arriving at this conclusion we can reply directly and positively
to these two essential questions of history：
（1） What is power？
（2） What force produces the movement of the nations？
（1） Power is the relation of a given person to other individuals； in
which the more this person expresses opinions； predictions； and
justifications of the collective action that is performed； the less is
his participation in that action。
（2） The movement of nations is caused not by power； nor by
intellectual activity； nor even by a combination of the two as
historians have supposed； but by the activity of all the people who
participate in the events； and who always combine in such a way that
those taking the largest direct share in the event take on
themselves the least responsibility and vice versa。
Morally the wielder of power appears to cause the event；
physically it is those who submit to the power。 But as the moral
activity is inconceivable without the physical； the cause of the event
is neither in the one nor in the other but in the union of the two。
Or in other words； the conception of a cause is inapplicable to
the phenomena we are examining。
In the last analysis we reach the circle of infinity… that final
limit to which in every domain of thought man's reason arrives if it
is not playing with the subject。 Electricity produces heat； heat
produces electricity。 Atoms attract each other and atoms repel one
another。
Speaking of the interaction of heat and electricity and of atoms； we
cannot say why this occurs； and we say that it is so because it is
inconceivable otherwise； because it must be so and that it is a law。
The same applies to historical events。 Why war and revolution occur we
do not know。 We only know that to produce the one or the other action；
people combine in a certain formation in which they all take part； and
we say that this is so because it is unthinkable otherwise； or in
other words that it is a law。
EP2｜CH8
CHAPTER VIII
If history dealt only with external phenomena； the establishment
of this simple and obvious law would suffice and we should have
finished our argument。 But the law of history relates to man。 A
particle of matter cannot tell us that it does not feel the law of
attraction or repulsion and that that law is untrue； but man； who is
the subject of history； says plainly： I am free and am therefore not
subject to the law。
The presence of the problem of man's free will； though
unexpressed； is felt at every step of history。
All seriously thinking historians have involuntarily encountered
this question。 All the contradictions and obscurities of history and
the false path historical science has followed are due solely to the
lack of a solution of that question。
If the will of every man were free； that is； if each man could act
as he pleased； all history would be a series of disconnected
incidents。
If in a thousand years even one man in a million could act freely；
that is； as he chose； it is evident that one single free act of that
man's in violation of the laws governing human action would destroy
the possibility of the existence of any laws for the whole of
humanity。
If there be a single law governing the actions of men； free will
cannot exist； for then man's will is subject to that law。
In this contradiction lies the problem of free will； which from most
ancient times has occupied the best human minds and from most
ancient times has been presented in its whole tremendous significance。
The problem is that regarding man as a subject of observation from
whatever point of view… theological； historical； ethical； or
philosophic… we find a general law of necessity to which he （like
all that exists） is subject。 But regarding him from within ourselves
as what we are conscious of； we feel ourselves to be free。
This consciousness is a source of self…cognition quite apart from
and independent of reason。 Through his reason man observes himself；
but only through consciousness does he know himself。
Apart from consciousness of self no observation or application of
reason is conceivable。
To understand； observe； and draw conclusions； man must first of
all be conscious of himself as living。 A man is only conscious of
himself as a living being
