2010年10月24日 星期日

Week 4:Kant's "What Is Enlightenment" (excerpt)--overdue!

Revision--shortened version (so that we may complete this long overdue "week"...)

Another reference of the same text but with differing wordings--

http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/KantOnElightenment.htm

Let's do it! (after holidays I suppose...)

--

http://www.english.upenn.edu/~mgamer/Etexts/kant.html

(BUT this one is too long, not to mention its super famous author...so I would like to translate only part of it, as shown in the excerpt below.)

--

IMMANUEL KANT

An Answer to the Question:
What is Enlightenment? (1784)

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] "Have courage to use your own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment.

(deleted)

It is so easy to be immature. If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all. I need not think, if only I can pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me. The guardians who have so benevolently taken over the supervision of men have carefully seen to it that the far greatest part of them (including the entire fair sex) regard taking the step to maturity as very dangerous, not to mention difficult. Having first made their domestic livestock dumb, and having carefully made sure that these docile creatures will not take a single step without the go-cart to which they are harnessed, these guardians then show them the danger that threatens them, should they attempt to walk alone. Now this danger is not actually so great, for after falling a few times they would in the end certainly learn to walk; but an example of this kind makes men timid and usually frightens them out of all further attempts.

Thus, it is difficult for any individual man to work himself out of the immaturity that has all but become his nature. He has even become fond of this state and for the time being is actually incapable of using his own understanding, for no one has ever allowed him to attempt it. Rules and formulas, those mechanical aids to the rational use, or rather misuse, of his natural gifts, are the shackles of a permanent immaturity. Whoever threw them off would still make only an uncertain leap over the smallest ditch, since he is unaccustomed to this kind of free movement. Consequently, only a few have succeeded, by cultivating their own minds, in freeing themselves from immaturity and pursuing a secure course.

(deleted)

(...)

If it is now asked, "Do we presently live in an enlightened age?" the answer is, "No, but we do live in an age of enlightenment." As matters now stand, a great deal is still lacking in order for men as a whole to be, or even to put themselves into a position to be able without external guidance to apply understanding confidently to religious issues. But we do have clear indications that the way is now being opened for men to proceed freely in this direction and that the obstacles to general enlightenment--to their release from their self-imposed immaturity--are gradually diminishing. In this regard, this age is the age of enlightenment, the century of Frederick.

2010年10月20日 星期三

Week 3:節錄自〈伍迪艾倫談信仰、算命師及紐約〉一文

戴夫.伊茲考夫(Dave Itzkoff)


     「對我而言,」伍迪.艾倫說:「算命師、幸運餅乾以及任何有組織的宗教之間沒有實質上的差別。他們同樣的有用或無用。且一樣的有幫助。」
        伍迪.艾倫與戴夫.伊茲考夫談論他的新電影、電影的主題如何在他的人生中產生迴響以及這是否是他最後一部紐約拍攝的電影。以下內容都從那次談話摘錄。
問:   特異功能跟前世的概念,或說相信這些的人們,是你這部新片的核心。是什麼原因促使你以此做題材?
答:   擁有信仰這個命題令我很感興趣。當我這樣說的時候,乍聽之下很黯淡,但我們需要一些欺瞞驅使我們不斷前進。而且那些成功瞞騙自己的人似乎比那些不這麼做的人快樂許多。我也聽過一些信仰於宗教或者算命師的人。對我來說這是個適合電影的特質:一個事事不如意的女人,突然間,一個替她算命的女人幫助了她。麻煩是,最終,她因為粗淺的覺醒而加入了這一行。
 : 什麼對你而言比較合理:擁有前生或者上帝的存在?
答:   兩者對我而言都不合理。於此我的評估是嚴肅且科學的。我總覺得,你所看就是你所得。
問: 對於衰老的過程你有怎樣的感受?
答:   嗯,我反對。(笑)我覺得沒啥值得說的。隨著時光的流逝你卻沒有增長智慧。你變的四分五裂,僅此而已。人們試圖去美化衰老的過程,然後說,嗯,你變穩重了。你理解了人生和接受許多事物。但是你寧願用這一切來交換再過一次35歲的機會。我曾有這樣的感受:當你在夜半醒來,開始沉思並幻想自己的死亡宿命,那會令你不禁顫抖。在這部電影的開頭這就發生在安東尼.霍普金斯(Anthony Hopkins)身上。在這之後,他不希望聽到他那實際的妻子說,「喔,你不能再這樣做——你不再年輕了。」沒錯,她完全說對了,但沒人希望聽到這樣的話。
問:   衰老可曾改變你工作的任何一部分?你可曾覺得某些傷感出現在你近期的電影中?
答:   不,那些傷感毫無章法可言。我做事沒有節奏或緣由可言。只求在當下讓一切看似正確。在我的生涯裡,我不曾在我完成電影後再把它拿來看過。門都沒有。1968年之後,我從未看過「傻瓜入獄記」(Take the Money and Run)我未曾再看安妮.霍爾(Annie Hall)或者曼哈頓(Manhattan)甚至這之後任何一部我拍的電影。如果我在跑步機上並略覽電視頻道之時,不巧看到任何一部我過去的電影,我會迅速地跳過它們,因為它們只會讓我受到挫折。我只會覺得:「老天,這實在是糟透了,如果我能夠再拍一次就好了。」

2010年10月10日 星期日

Week 3:〈伍迪‧艾倫談信念、算命師與紐約〉一文摘錄

戴夫‧伊茲考夫 (DAVE ITZKOFF)

「對我來說,不管是算命師、幸運餅乾、還是任何一個有組織的宗教,它們都大同小異,都處於有根據或是沒根據的狀態,而且每個都一樣有用。」

艾倫和戴夫‧伊茲考夫聊到他最近的電影製作,還有該電影的主題是如何和他個人的生命經驗產生共鳴,以及他最後一部電影是否確實在紐約市完成。以下節錄兩人的對話:

問:在你最近一部電影,有一些關於超自然的精神力量和過往的生命的概念在裡頭,或者說,至少有相信這些概念的人在電影裡面。你為什麼會對這群人或這些概念產生興趣呢?

答:我有興趣的,是對某事物存有信念的這樣一個概念。我知道這聽起來無聊透頂,但我們都需要騙騙自己好過活。而那些成功地把自己騙得團團轉的人們,似乎比那些做不到的人更快樂。我認識一些有宗教信仰或相信算命師的人。所以我突然想到,這樣的角色是適合拿來拍電影的:一個諸事不順、處處碰壁的女人,突然之間,發現她諮詢的女算命師很有效地幫助她。但問題是,到了最後,她猛然發現這一切都是假的。

問:以下有兩個選項,你覺得哪一個比較有道理?一:人們存在於過往的生命;二:這世界有神。

答:兩個都不。我對這種事的檢視態度是嚴肅且科學的。我真的覺得,看到什麼便是什麼。

問:你對人變老的過程有何看法?

答:這個嗎,我反對它。()我認為這過程沒什麼好處。年紀越長你也不會更有智慧。你只會益發衰弱,就這樣。人們試著把這個過程說得很美好,說這叫,恩,成熟,而且你將對生命更加了解,願意接受更多事物。但是,假設能讓你時光倒流回到35歲,你一定願意用這一切來換取青春。我對下面要講的事是有經驗的:某天晚上你會在半夜醒來,然後開始猜測、想像你什麼時候會死,然後你不禁打了個寒顫。這也發生在安東尼‧霍普金斯(Anthony Hopkins)的身上,就在那部電影的開頭;接著,他再也不想聽他務實的妻子說:「咳,你不能一直這樣亂來,你可不再年輕了。」是的,他太太說得當然沒錯,但沒有人想要聽到這種東西。

問:年齡的增長有影響到你的作品嗎?你在你晚期的電影之中,看的到某種徒然神往的渴望嗎?

答:不,這麼說太碰運氣了。我做的事情缺乏理由、毫無規律可循。一切看當下的感受。我這一生中,只要是我已製作完成的電影播出後,就再也不看它了。我自從1968年就沒看過《傻瓜入獄計》;《安妮霍爾》、《曼哈頓》和其它之後拍的電影也一樣。要是我在跑步機上一邊跑一邊快速轉電視台的時候,看到我拍的任何一部電影,我會立刻跳掉,因為看了也只會讓我感到沮喪。我只會覺得:「天哪,這爛透了,真希望我能重拍。」