《智慧与国学》——王小波

兔斯基

王小波 《智慧与国学》

Wisdom and the Traditional Chinese View ofKnowledge

我有一位朋友在内蒙插过队，他告诉我说，草原上绝不能有驴。假如有了的话，所有的马群都要“炸”掉。原因是这样的，那个内地的、长耳朵的善良动物来到草原上，看到了马群，以为见到了表亲，快乐地奔了过去；而草原上的吗没见过这种东西，以为来了魔鬼，被吓得一哄而散。于是一方急于认表亲，一方急于躲鬼，都要跑到累死了才算。

A friend of mine, who had been sent to InnerMongolia to live among the Herdsmen for a numberof years, told me that donkeys must never beallowed on the prairie, for if they were, all the herdsof horses would "explode". The reason he gave was as follows: if the long-eared innocentanimal from the interior came to the prairie and saw the horses, it would think it had met itscousins and would happily rush over. Whereas the horses on the prairie, who had never seensuch a creature, would think a monster had come into their midst and would be so scared thatthey would disperse with a whinny. With one party anxious to establish its kinship and theother party anxious to evade a monster, the two parties would just go on running until theydropped dead from exhaustion.

近代以来，确有一头长耳朵怪物，奔过了中国的原野，搅乱了这里的马群，它就是源于西方的智慧。

In recent times there is indeed a longeared monster that has galloped across China's opencountry and disturbed the herbs of horses here. It is none other than the wisdom whichoriginated in the West.

让我们来看看驴子的古怪之处。当年欧几里德讲奴隶给他一块钱，还讽刺他道：这位先生要从学问里找好处啊！又过了很多年，法拉第发现了电磁感应，演示给别人看，有位贵妇人：说这有什么用？法拉底反问道：刚生出来的小孩子有什么？按中国人的标准，这个学生和贵妇有理，学以致用嘛，没有用处的学问哪能叫做学问。

Let's firs have a look at the eccentric character of this "donkey". Many years ago when Euclidwas teaching geometry, a student asked him what profit this knowledge could bring him. Euclidtold his slave to give the student a coin and said sarcastically, "This gentleman wants to findprofit from knowledge!" Many years later Michael Faraday discovered electromagnetic induction.As he was carrying out a demonstration, a rich lady asked, "What's the use of this?" Faradayreplied with a question, "What is the use of a new-born baby?" By Chinese standards, Euclid'sstudent and the rich lady were right, while Euclid and Faraday were wrong-the acquisition ofknowledge is for the purpose of using it, isn't it? How can useless knowledge be calledknowledge?

有学者指出，中国传统的思维方式有重实用的倾向，他们认为，这一点并不坏。抱着这种态度，我们能欣赏一台电动机。这东西有“器物之用”，它对我们的生活有些贡献。我们还可以像个迂夫子那样细列出它有“抽水之用”、“通风之用”，等等。如何得到“之用”，还是个问题，于是我们就想到了发明电动机的那个人——他叫做西门子或者爱迪生。他的工作对我们可以使用电机有所贡献；换言之，他的工作对器物之用又有点用，可以叫做“器物之用之用”。像这样林林总总，可以揪出一大群：法拉底、麦克斯韦，等等，分别具有“之用之用之用”或更多的之用。像我这样的驴子之友看来，这样来想问题，岂止是有点笨，简直是脑子里有块榆木疙瘩。我认为在器物的背后是人的方法与技能，在方法与技能的背后是人对自然的了解，在人对自然了解的背后，是人类了解现在、过去与未来的万丈雄心。按老派人士的说法，它该叫做“之用之用之用之用”，是末节的末节。一个人假如这样看待人类最高尚的品行，何止是可耻，简直是可杀。

Some scholars have pointed out that the traditional Chinese way of thinking tends toemphasize the practical use of knowledge, and furthermore they think this is not a bad thing.If we hold this kind of attitude, we can quite appreciate an electric motor, for it is "useful as anappliance", contributing to the improvement of our daily life. Like a pedantic scholar, we canlist in detail its various uses, such as "useful for pumping water" and "useful for ventilating theair". As to how we acquired such a useful thing, that was still a question. So we think of theperson who invented the electric motor-Werner von Siemens or Thomas Edison, take your pick,whose work contributed to making it possible for us to use the electric motor. In other words,his work was of some use and, therefore, can be regarded as "useful for the use of anappliance". In a similar way, we can identify a large group of such people: Faraday, JamesMaxwell, etc., who has each done something which is "useful for something that is useful forsomething that is useful". For people like me who are friends of the donkey, this way of thinkingis not merely a little stupid, it is simply the mindset of a blockhead. I think that behind theinvention of an appliance are the methods and skills of man, behind which is man'sunderstanding of Nature, behind which is man's at ambition to understand the past, thepresent and the future. According to traditionalists, this ambition should be regarded as being"something useful for something which is useful for something which is useful for somethinguseful", for it is the least important of unimportant things. For a man to regard the most noblepursuit of human beings in this way is not only shameful, it should be a capital offence.