字體：小 中 大 |
|
|
|
| 2024/01/28 09:33:06瀏覽198｜回應0｜推薦4 | |
| Excerpt：《美育書簡：席勒論美與人性》 一本難以摘要的書簡，不確定自己讀懂多少，但至少就先完成其中一個章節的分享吧。 另期待自己有機會能再細讀馮至與范大燦合譯的《席勒經典美學文論》（注釋本）。 https://www.books.com.tw/products/0010795468 美育書簡（德文全譯本）：席勒論美與人性 Über die ästhetische Erziehung des Menschen : in einer Reihe von Briefen 作者：弗里德里希．席勒 原文作者：Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller 譯者：謝宛真 出版社：商周出版 出版日期：2018/08/18 內容簡介 《美育書簡》是西方歷史上第一本以審美教育（美育）為標題，並系統性介紹美育概念的專書，因而成為美育學者的重要思想依據。 《美育書簡》是席勒於一七九三年任耶拿大學歷史教授時，寫了一系列的信給丹麥親王克利斯坦（Friedrich Christian of Schleswig-Holstein-Augustenburg，即霍斯坦－奧古斯騰堡公爵），討論有關美學教育的問題，書簡流傳於哥本哈根宮廷之中。一七九四年這些審美教育書信的原稿因火災被焚，幸好有一些傳鈔本存留。席勒基於這些書信的重要性，重新改寫並發表在《時序女神》雜誌（Horen，席勒在一七九五～九七年間主編的藝文雜誌）上。後來又將這發表過的二十七封信編輯成為《美育書簡》。 全書重點在於建構席勒個人對於美學及審美教育（即美育）的理論。他認為美學不僅研究美的本質及藝術創造的結構，也不只分析人之美感的發生來源，更是一門能夠真正開啟人之本性的科學。對席勒來說，美是最理想人格性的表徵；真正的美，有助於提升和完善人性。 【Excerpt】 〈第十五封信〉 完美的人性：美 我沿著一條不怎麼令人振奮的小徑，不斷地引您邁向一個越來越接近的目標。請容許我再帶領您往前幾步，那麼我們將會發現一個更加自由的視野，一個令人雀躍的前景將會讓這一路上的努力都值得。 I am nearing the goal to which I am leading you on a path that offers little by way of cheer. If you would be so good as to follow me a few steps further, a wider perspective will open up, and a pleasing prospect that will perhaps make all your effort worthwhile. 用一個普通的概念來說明，感性衝動的對象就是最廣義的生命（Leben），這個概念指的是一切物質存在和一切直接呈現給感官裡的當下。以一個普通的概念來說明，形式衝動的對象就是形象（Gestalt）——無論是引申之意或原本的意義；這個概念包含一切事物的形式特性和一切事物對思維力的各種關係。以一個普通的圖式（Schema）來表現，遊戲衝動的對象就是活生生的形象（lebende Gestalt）；這個概念用來標誌一切現象的審美特性，一言以蔽之，就是在最廣義上，提供人用來稱呼美的事物之名。 Expressed as a general concept, the object of the material impulse is called life, in its widest meaning: a concept signifying all material being, everything directly present to the senses. The object of the formal impulse, expressed again as a general concept, is called form, both in the figurative and the literal sense of the word: a concept that includes all the formal properties of things, and all of their relations to the powers of thought. The object of the playful impulse, presented in general outline, can consequently be called living form: a concept serving to characterize all aesthetic properties of phenomena, what is in a word most generally called beauty. 按照以上的說明——如果這算是一種說明的話，那麼美既不會擴張到整個有生命之物（das Lebendige）的世界裡，也不會僅只局限於這個領域。一塊大理石，即使沒有生命且永遠都是沒有生命的，也可以藉由建築和雕刻而變成活生生的形象；一個人，即使是活著且有形象，也不表示因此就是活生生的形象。要有活生生的形象，他的形象就得是生命，他的生命就得是形象。在我們僅僅只思考他的形象時，他的形象就沒有生命，僅只是抽象的事物；在我們僅只感覺他的生命時，他的生命就沒有形象，僅只是純粹的感覺。只有，他的形式在我們的感覺中活著，他的生命在我們的知性中形式化，他才是一個活生生的形象且不管在哪裡，只要我們判斷他是美的，就必定是如此。 In this explanation, if such it is, beauty is neither extended to the entire domain of the living, nor restricted only to this domain. A block of marble, although it remains lifeless, can all the same assume living form in the hands of an architect or sculptor; while a man, although he lives and has form, is far from being living form by virtue of this. For that, his form has to be life, and his life form. So long as we merely think of his form it is lifeless, a mere abstraction; so long as we merely feel his life, it lacks form, is a mere impression. Only by his form living in our senses, and his life forming itself in our intellect, is he a living form, and that will always be the case whenever we judge him to be beautiful. 雖然我們能夠明白那在生命與形象的統一中所產生的美的組合成分，卻仍然無法完全描述美的來源；若要描述美的來源，就必須要求對這種統一本身的理解，而這種統——正如介於有限與無限之間的相互作用一樣——是我們無法加以探究的。理性根據先驗原則提出這樣的要求：在形式衝動和質料衝動（Stofftrieb）間有一種集合體，那就是遊戲衝動；因為只有實在和形式的統一、偶然性與必然性的統一、受動與自由的統一，才會使人性的概念完整實現。理性必定會提出上述要求，因為它就是理性一一理性的本質會極力要求完滿性（Vollendung）和排除一切限制，但不管是何種衝動的排他性活動都無法使人類本性完滿實現，都會在人類本性中設下限制。只要理性提出斷言：「人性應當存在」，那麼理性同樣也會樹立「美應當存在」的法則。經驗可以回答我們：這是不是美？而且只要經驗教導我們，我們也會知道是否有人性存在？但是，美如何可以是美？人性如何可能？卻是理性或經驗都無法教導我們的。 The fact that we know how to name the parts that, in their union, create beauty, in no respect explains its genesis; for this would require that this union itself was understood, and this remains unknowable to us, as with all reciprocity between the finite and the infinite. Reason makes the following demand on transcendental grounds: let there be community between formal impulse and material impulse – in other words, a playful impulse, because only the unity of reality and form, contingency with necessity, passivity with freedom completes the concept of mankind. It has to make this demand because it is reason – because by its nature it insists upon perfection and the removal of all barriers, and all exclusive activity of one or the other impulse leaves human nature imperfect, and creates a limit within it. Accordingly, as soon as reason has pronounced: let mankind exist, by so doing it has created the law: let beauty exist. Experience can tell us whether a beauty is such, and we will know it as soon as it has taught us whether a mankind exists. But how a beauty can exist, and how a mankind is possible, this neither reason nor experience can teach us. 我們知道，人不只是純粹的物質，也不只是純粹的精神。因而美作為人性的成就（Konsummation），不會如那些過於死板又仰賴經驗的敏銳觀察家所宣稱的（雖然時代的品味也很樂於將美拉低到純粹生活的程度），是絕對純粹的生活；美也不會是純粹的形象，如過於脫離經驗的思辨哲人所判斷的那樣、如進行哲學思索但對美的解釋又過度依賴藝術需求 的藝術家所判斷的那般。美是兩種衝動的共同對象，也就是遊戲衝動的對象。語言的用法完全證明了「遊戲」這個名稱是恰當的，因為「遊戲」這個字通常用來表示一切在主觀和客觀上都非偶然的事物，既非在外在也不在內在進行強制的事物。在美的直觀中，心靈（Gemüt）正位於法則和需求之間的恰當位置上，也因為它處於法則和需求之間，所以正好避開了無論是從法則或是從需求而來的強制。感性衝動和形式衝動都認為自己的要求是嚴肅的，因為在認識事物時，感性衝動與事物的現實性有關，形式衝動則與事物的必然性有關；在行動時，感性衝動以維持生命為目標，形式衝動則以維護尊嚴為目標，因而兩者都是以真理和完善為目標。但只要尊嚴插手干預，那麼生命就會變成可有可無；只要牽涉到愛好，義務也不再受強制；同理，只要形式的真實性（即必然性的法則）與事物的現實性（即質料的真實性）相契合，心靈就會更自在、更平靜地接受事物的實在；只要直接的直觀伴隨著抽象，那麼心靈就不會因為抽象而緊張。換言之，一旦心靈與觀念結合，一切現實事物就都失去了其嚴肅，因為它變得微小了；心靈和感覺相遇時，必然的事物就會放棄其嚴肅，因為它變得輕鬆了。 We know that man is neither exclusively matter, nor exclusively mind. Hence beauty, as the consummation of his humanity, cannot be exclusively an object of the material impulse, be mere life, as has been claimed by quick-witted observers who adhered too closely to the testimony of experience, and to which the taste of the times would gladly reduce it; nor can it be exclusively an object of the formal impulse, mere form, as maintained by speculative philosophers too far removed from experience, and by philosophizing artists whose explanation of beauty was too heavily dependent upon the needs of art; it is the common object of both impulses: of the playful impulse. The term finds complete justification in linguistic usage, which tends to use the word ‘play’ for everything that is neither subjectively nor objectively contingent, and yet imposes no constraint, either inwardly or outwardly. Since the soul, when contemplating the beautiful, finds itself in a happy medium between law and need, it is freed of the constraint of the one as well as the other since it is divided between the two. The material impulse, like the formal impulse, is entirely serious in its demands, since the first relates, in knowledge, to reality, and the second to the necessity of things; because, in acting, the first is directed to the maintenance of life, and the second to the preservation of dignity, both therefore being directed to truth and perfection. But life becomes more indifferent, the more that dignity takes part, and duty is no longer an obligation once it is subject to inclination; in like manner the soul accepts the reality of things, material truth, with greater freedom and serenity as soon as it meets formal truth, the law of necessity, and no longer feels itself constrained by abstraction as soon as direct intuition can accompany it. In a word: by coming into association with ideas everything actual loses its earnestness, for it becomes petty; and insofar as it encounters sensation the necessary loses its earnestness, because it becomes easy. 但也許您早已想嘗試反駁我，倘若人們只是把美當成遊戲、且把它與那些經常被視為遊戲的輕浮對象並列，豈不是把美給貶低了嗎？美應該被視為文化的工具，現在被囿於遊戲之中，豈不是與美的理性概念和尊嚴相互矛盾嗎？遊戲即使排除一切趣味仍然可以存在，但現在把遊戲囿於美之中，豈不是與其經驗概念相互矛盾？ You have probably long wanted to object that by making beauty the mere object of play I have degraded it, equating it with frivolous things that have always been such objects. Does it not contradict the concept of reason and the dignity of beauty, which is after all considered to be an instrument of culture, to reduce it to mere play, and does it not contradict our experience of play, which can exist independently of any taste, that it be limited just to beauty? 在我們知道了在人的一切狀態中，正是遊戲、而且只有遊戲可以使人完整、使人能發揮其雙重天性「之後，究竟什麼又該是所謂純粹的遊戲呢？您依據您的想像稱之為限制者，在我依據證據加以證明的想法 中，則稱它為擴展（Erweiterung）。所以我寧可反過來說：對於舒適、完善、圓滿，人們都只能嚴肅以待；但對於美，人則是與它遊戲。在這裡提到的遊戲，當然不是那個在現實生活中進行、只是以非常物質化的對象（sehr materielle Gegenstände）為目標的遊戲；但在現實生活中，要找尋在這裡所談及的遊戲也是徒勞的。真正存在的美是與真實存在的遊戲衝動等值的；但由於理性樹立了美的理想，也等於提出了一種遊戲衝動的理想，而這才是人在他所有遊戲中首要該追求的。 But then what is mere play, once we know that under all conditions of man it is exactly play, and only play, that makes him complete, and begins to develop his dual nature? What you, following your own ideas of the matter, call limitation, I, according to my own ideas and which I have justified through proof, call extension. I would instead maintain the opposite: man is only in earnest when it comes to the pleasant, the good, the perfect; but when it comes to beauty he plays. Of course, we do not here have in mind games that take place in real life, and which are usually directed only towards very material objects; but we should also seek vainly in real life for the kind of beauty we are discussing here. Actually existing beauty is what the actually existing playful impulse deserves; but the ideal of beauty that reason sets up also relinquishes an ideal of the playful impulse which man should have clearly in mind in all his playing. 若是在滿足遊戲衝動的道路上去尋找人類的美的觀念，那絕對不會有錯。那也是為何我們是往希臘而非羅馬去探訪維納斯、朱諾（Juno）和阿波羅（Apoll）的理想形象，因為當希臘人在奧林匹亞競技場上，透過不流血的競賽，較力、敏捷與靈巧而感到愉悅時，羅馬人則是以享受角鬥士或他的利比亞敵手死亡前的掙扎而滿足。因而理性說：美應該不只是生活，不只是形象，而是活生生的形象，亦即美之所以是美，便是因為它在人之上加諸絕對形式和絕對實在的雙重原則。因而理性也如此斷言：人和美之間只應該是遊戲，而且人應該只與美遊戲。 Depending on whether the playful impulse is closer to the material impulse or the formal, beauty will also be closer to mere life or to mere form; and one will never err in seeking a man’s ideal of beauty thus, in the way in which he satisfies his impulse to play. If the Greek people diverted themselves during their Olympian games with bloodless competitions of strength, speed and agility, and the more noble rivalries of talent, and if the Roman people relished the death throes of a beaten gladiator or of his Libyan opponent, it becomes clear to us why we have to seek the ideal forms of a Venus, a Juno, an Apollo not in Rome, but in Greece. But now reason tells us: the beautiful should not be mere life and not mere form, but instead living form, that is beauty; for of course it dictates to man the dual law of absolute formality and of absolute reality. And so reason also says: the playful impulse should be neither mere material impulse, nor mere formal impulse, but both at the same time – which is the playful impulse. In other words: man should only play with beauty, and he should play only with beauty. 簡言之，人只有在他做為完整的人的意義之下才遊戲，且他在遊戲之時才是完整的人。乍看之下，這也許有些似是而非，但當我們把這原則應用在義務和命運這種嚴肅的事情時，其中是頗具深意的；我可以對您承諾，這原則將會承擔著審美藝術和艱難的生活藝術之大廈。其實這個原則也只有在科學中才不被指望：長久以來，它已存在於藝術中、以及最高貴的藝術大師——希臘人的情感中，並且起了作用；只是希臘人把原本應該在世界上執行的事情，移師到奧林匹亞競技場上。在同一個原則的真理引導下，希臘人不僅讓嚴肅與勞動在終有一死的人類臉頰留下皺紋，也讓空洞臉龐上露出的光彩在天堂的群神額頭上消失；讓永遠的知足者擺脫了任何目的、任何義務、任何憂慮的枷鎖；讓閒散和淡泊成為令人羡慕的神域之命運：這裡只是以人性的方式去稱呼那最為自由和最為崇高的存在。不論是自然法則的物質壓迫，或是道德法則的精神壓迫，都在希臘人對必然性的最高概念之中消失，這個概念包含兩個世界，而希臘人正是從這兩種必然性的統一中獲得真正的自由。在這種充滿活力的精神下，希臘人從他們理想的容貌中同時抹去偏好與意志的痕跡，或者更確切地說，是讓這兩者都無法辨識，因為他們知道如何串連兩者的最內在。如同朱諾雕像莊嚴的神情所展示的，既非優雅、也非尊嚴，它所展現的不是其一，而是同時展現兩者。女神要求我們崇拜時，如同神般的女性則激起我們的愛；但當我們陶醉於天堂的迷人時，天堂的自足精神又嚇得我們退避三舍。這完整的形象就靜止和棲息在其自身中，是一種完全自成一體的創造，彷彿在空間的彼岸般；沒有退讓、沒有對抗：因為在此沒有與各種力量抗衡之力，沒有縫隙讓時間性（Zeitlichkeit）趁虛而入。我們一方面無法抗拒女神魅力的感動和吸引，另一方面神的尊嚴又使我們保持距離，於是我們就同時處於最平靜和最激動的狀態，並產生了一種不可思議的感受。對於這種感受，理性沒有概念可以掌握，語言也無法命名。 And so at long last, to state it clearly and completely: man plays only when he is a man in the full sense of the word, and he is only a complete man when he plays. This statement, which might now perhaps seem paradoxical, gains significance and depth when we come to relate it to the dual earnestness of duty and fate; I promise you that it will support the entire edifice of aesthetic art and of the difficult art of living. But this statement is only unexpected in the sciences; it has long been accepted in the arts, and in the feelings of the Greeks, the most refined masters of all art; except that they consigned to Olympus what should have happened on earth. Guided by its truth, they banished from the brow of the blessed gods all the gravity and labour that furrow the cheeks of mortals, together with the frivolous pleasures that smooth empty faces, freed those who were eternally content from the fetters of any purpose, any obligation, any cares, making idleness and indifference the envied lot of the gods: simply a more humane name for the freest, most sublime being. Both the material constraint of the laws of nature and the spiritual constraint of moral laws were resolved into the higher concept of necessity including both worlds, and it was from the unity of both these necessities that true liberty first arose. Inspired by this spirit, the Greeks eliminated from their ideal countenance all trace of both inclination and volition; or rather, they rendered both unrecognizable, since they knew how to connect them in the most intimate bond. It is neither grace, nor is it dignity, that speaks to us in the wonderful face of a Juno Ludovisi; it is neither the one nor the other, because it is at once both. This goddess, by demanding our veneration, kindles our love for the god-like woman; but while we abandon ourselves to her heavenly blessedness, so we recoil from her heavenly self-sufficiency. The entire form reposes within itself, an entirely complete and self contained creation, as if she were beyond space, unyielding, unresisting; there is no force here that fights other powers, no weak spot where temporality might break in. Irresistibly drawn in by the first, while kept at a distance by the second, we find ourselves at once in a state of complete rest and complete movement, and that wonderful arousal develops for which intellect has no concept, and language no name. (Translated by KEITH TRIBE) |
|
| ( 知識學習｜隨堂筆記 ) |
