Harvey Mansfield on Machiavelli, Straussianism, and the Character of Liberal Democracy (Ep. 272)
Hello, everyone, and welcome back to Conversations with Tyler.
大家好，欢迎回到《与泰勒对话》。
Today, I’m speaking with the great Harvey Mansfield, and Harvey has a new and excellent book out called The Rise and Fall of Rational Control.
今天，我正在与伟大的哈维·曼斯菲尔德交谈，哈维出版了一本出色的新书，名为《理性控制的兴衰》。
Harvey, welcome.
哈维，欢迎。
Thank you for having me.
谢谢你有我。
Pleasure to be here.
很高兴来到这里。
Now, given that Machiavelli had no real sense of modern science and its fruits, what ends up being missing from his political thought?
现在，鉴于马基雅维利对现代科学及其成果没有真正的认识，他的政治思想最终缺失了什么？
Well, he didn’t have no idea of modern science.
好吧，他对现代科学并不是一无所知。
In fact, I would say that his notion of effectual truth is the beginning of modern science.
事实上，我想说他的有效真理概念是现代科学的开端。
The effectual truth, he says, is what comes out of the truth, or what is the effect if you say to somebody, “I love you.” The effectual truth of that is I want something from you.
他说，有效的真理是从真理中得出的结果，或者说，如果你对某人说“我爱你”，会产生什么效果。事实上，我想从你这里得到一些东西。
The effectual truth is the upshot, sometimes not necessarily the intent of the statement.
有效的事实是结果，有时不一定是陈述的意图。
You must judge then from cause to effect.
你必须根据因果关系来判断。
The word effectual was brand new, actually invented by Machiavelli.
“有效”这个词是全新的，实际上是马基雅维利发明的。
It comes from the Latin facere, which has to do with fact.
它来自拉丁语facere，与事实有关。
Today, we use the word fact all the time, as if it were something that always existed.
今天，我们一直使用“事实”这个词，就好像它是一直存在的东西一样。
It was Machiavelli and some later thinkers who developed that notion of fact.
马基雅维利和后来的一些思想家发展了事实这一概念。
The fact of a thing is what it is without any wish or intent attached to it.
事物的事实就是它的本来面目，不附带任何愿望或意图。
That means you can go from cause to effect.
这意味着你可以从因到果。
That, I think, is the fundamental notion behind modern science.
我认为，这就是现代科学背后的基本概念。
Modern science isn’t based on wish or speech as with Plato and Aristotle.
现代科学并不像柏拉图和亚里士多德那样基于愿望或言论。
It’s based on fact.
这是基于事实的。
Galileo didn’t go around asking people, “Does the earth move or not?” He looked for the fact.
伽利略并没有四处询问人们“地球到底动还是不动？”他寻找事实。
It was not a matter of public opinion or philosopher’s opinion, but for the effectual truth.
这不是公众舆论或哲学家观点的问题，而是为了有效的真理。
Say, when it comes to technology, Machiavelli understood gunpowder, but the idea that our lives could be so safe—nuclear weapons, modern effective birth control, modern media—don’t all those things mean that modernity is, in fact, quite irreversible?
比如说，谈到技术，马基雅维利了解火药，但我们的生活可以如此安全——核武器、现代有效的节育措施、现代媒体——这一切难道不意味着现代性事实上是相当不可逆转的吗？
Not so much those things, but the first thing you mentioned, gunpowder, gunpowder means the defense of the state.
与其说是那些东西，不如说你提到的第一件事，火药，火药意味着保卫国家。
That’s especially what’s involved, and it seems that technology must continue.
这尤其涉及到这一点，而且技术似乎必须继续下去。
It can’t really be stopped or reversed because one country always needs to protect itself against another country.
它无法真正被阻止或逆转，因为一个国家总是需要保护自己免受另一个国家的侵害。
It’s that need for national defense that I think especially drives technology.
我认为国防的需求尤其推动了技术的发展。
Whether or not other new developments come is good, but it’s not necessary.
无论是否有其他新的进展，这都是好事，但没有必要。
It’s not something that you must have.
这不是你必须拥有的东西。
Once somebody has gunpowder, then others must have it.
一旦有人拥有火药，其他人也必须拥有。
That applies, of course, to all the modern military technology.
当然，这适用于所有现代军事技术。
Did Strauss think modernity was reversible?
施特劳斯认为现代性是可逆的吗？
Yes, what I just said, I think, came from Strauss.
是的，我认为我刚才所说的话来自施特劳斯。
Yes.
是的。
There wasn’t any possibility of reversing it.
没有任何逆转的可能。
There might be a possibility of improving it, of making it better than it might be otherwise.
或许有可能改进它，让它变得比其他情况更好。
He thought that the ancients had more to say on the big question of “how should I live?” than the moderns did.
他认为古人对于“我该如何生活”这个大问题有更多的说法。比现代人做的还要多。
You can understand things better if you begin with an approach from Plato and Aristotle.
如果您从柏拉图和亚里士多德的方法开始，您可以更好地理解事物。
That’s what he thought.
他就是这么想的。
Yes, it’s not reversible, but it’s improvable.
是的，它是不可逆的，但它是可以改进的。
Is it a mistake for me to read Strauss as actually a modernist, but who wants to marginally improve the current world with virtue ethics?
我认为施特劳斯实际上是一个现代主义者，但谁想用美德伦理稍微改善当前的世界，这是错误的吗？
It wouldn’t be a marginal improvement.
这不会是一个边际改进。
He doesn’t begin from the modern world, but he begins from the ancient world, which produced the revolution led by Machiavelli; the modern world against the ancient.
他不是从现代世界开始，而是从产生了马基雅维利领导的革命的古代世界开始；现代世界对抗古代世界。
I don’t think you should look at it simply as an approach to, or even a first glance at, the modern world.
我认为你不应该仅仅将其视为现代世界的一种方法，甚至是对现代世界的第一印象。
On conspiracy theories
关于阴谋论
Machiavelli and his notion of indirect rule, does that lead people to excess attachment to conspiracy theories, which is something we seem to see today, especially on the political right?
马基雅维利和他的间接统治概念，是否会导致人们过度依赖阴谋论，这正是我们今天所看到的，尤其是在政治右翼方面？
Yes, it does.
是的，确实如此。
That’s right.
这是正确的。
I think Machiavelli’s notion of conspiracy does indeed have that effect.
我认为马基雅维利的阴谋论确实具有这种效果。
He wants you to think of politics in terms of conspiracy.
他希望你从阴谋的角度来思考政治。
Politics isn’t what it looks to be, but it’s always what’s going on behind the scenes.
政治并不像表面上的那样，但它总是在幕后发生的。
What is behind the scenes is more important.
幕后的事情更重要。
That is the effectual truth, you could say.
你可以说，这就是有效的真理。
Whereas the principles, the talk, the justification, the rationalization, that’s not worth paying attention to, or if it is, you have to take it with a grain of salt.
而原则、言论、理由、合理化则不值得关注，或者即使值得关注，你也必须持保留态度。
Yes, it’s conspiratorial.
是的，这是阴谋。
The longest chapter in Machiavelli’s two great works, The Prince and The Discourses on Livy, is the chapter on conspiracy.
马基雅维利的两部伟大著作《君主论》和《李维论》中最长的一章就是关于阴谋的章节。
The conspiracy had been considered by previous thinkers as to whether tyrants should be killed or not, whether that’s a just thing for a citizen to undertake.
这个阴谋曾被之前的思想家考虑过，是否应该杀死暴君，这是否是公民应该做的正义之事。
It had never been actually explained and how to do it, or an account given.
从来没有真正解释过它以及如何做到这一点，也没有给出任何说明。
That’s what Machiavelli does, especially in the long chapter, which is book 3, chapter 6, in The Discourses on Livy, by far the longest chapter.
这就是马基雅维利所做的，尤其是在《李维话语》中的长章中，即第三卷第六章，这是迄今为止最长的一章。
He tells you how to do it before, during, and after.
他告诉你在之前、期间和之后如何做。
There’s three stages of a conspiracy and the things to watch out for.
阴谋分为三个阶段以及需要注意的事项。
If we look at America since, say, the beginning of the 20th century, is Machiavelli right or wrong?
如果我们自20世纪初以来审视美国，马基雅维利是对还是错？
Is it a conspiratorial politics?
这是阴谋政治吗？
I don’t think he’s right.
我不认为他是对的。
What did he get wrong?
他做错了什么？
What he got wrong was our frankness, our openness, our behavior.
他错的是我们的坦率、我们的开放、我们的行为。
The great wars we fought were not undertaken by us.
我们所进行的伟大战争不是由我们发起的。
They were not intended.
他们不是故意的。
They were wars of defense.
它们是防御战争。
He talked about the 20th century when America saved the world, or if not Europe, at least America saved the world from three great invasions.
他谈到了20世纪，美国拯救了世界，或者如果不是欧洲，至少美国拯救了世界免遭三次伟大的入侵。
That was a considerable accomplishment, which wasn’t intended or conspired for by us.
这是一项相当大的成就，这不是我们有意或密谋的。
Say, even after the Cold War ends, there’s plenty of years since then.
比如说，即使在冷战结束之后，距离那以后还有很多年。
Do you think of current politics in terms of conspiracies?
您认为当前的政治是阴谋论吗？
Yes, because it’s always possible.
是的，因为它总是可能的。
It is always necessary for government to be secret.
政府始终需要保密。
Some of the work I did on executive power, I had that for a thesis, that you can’t ever speak without holding back something.
我在行政权力方面所做的一些工作，我的论文就是这样的，你永远不能在不保留某些东西的情况下说话。
To this extent, Machiavelli is right.
从这一点来说，马基雅维利是对的。
If you’ve ever been in charge of someone or something, you know that you can’t say everything that you know.
如果你曾经负责过某人或某事，你就会知道你不能说出你所知道的一切。
Even a babysitter can’t say everything to the baby.
即使是保姆也不能把所有的事情都告诉宝宝。
You have to say something which is understandable, or won’t cause grief or trouble.
你必须说一些可以理解的话，或者不会引起悲伤或麻烦。
All politics has that kind of need for equivocation.
所有政治都需要模棱两可。
In addition, anything that you’re doing, you need to plan first.
此外，无论你做什么，你都需要先计划。
If you make all your plans open and public, then I think whoever it is that you’re acting on, even if it’s a friend or a friendly power, will react and perhaps foil what you plan to do.
如果你将所有计划公开，那么我认为无论你对谁采取行动，即使是朋友或友好势力，都会做出反应，也许会挫败你的计划。
Execution requires secrecy, and secrecy includes conspiracy.
执行需要保密，而保密包括阴谋。
In the end, you could say the truth comes out.
最后，可以说真相大白了。
After the plan has been executed, then people see what was underway the whole time.
计划执行后，人们就会看到整个过程中发生的事情。
At that time, you’ve got to show that what you did was according to your principles.
到时候你就得证明你做的事情是按照你的原则去做的。
Now, Machiavelli would say people can be impressed by power or by the fact of a display of power, especially a sensational use of it, as we just had with the capture of Maduro in Venezuela.
现在，马基雅维利会说，人们会对权力或权力展示的事实印象深刻，尤其是对权力的耸人听闻的使用，就像我们刚刚在委内瑞拉抓获马杜罗那样。
That impresses people regardless of principle, and they begin to think that because it succeeded so well, it must have been right.
无论原则如何，这都会给人们留下深刻的印象，他们开始认为，因为它如此成功，所以它一定是正确的。
You could even say maybe God intended it and justifies it.
你甚至可以说也许是上帝有意为之并证明了它的合理性。
In this way, I’m coming back to the other side for the question you raised on Machiavelli, that maybe conspiracy is always there and always justifiable.
这样，我又回到了另一边，回答你对马基雅维利提出的问题，也许阴谋总是存在的，而且总是有道理的。
My Americanism or my American principles, my liberal principles, rebel against that.
我的美国主义或我的美国原则、我的自由主义原则反对这一点。
I do think that America can be seen to have done good things in a very major way throughout the 20th century.
我确实认为美国在整个 20 世纪做了很多好事。
Are we entering a new age of political assassination?
我们是否正在进入政治暗杀的新时代？
If so, what insights can we get from earlier political theorists?
如果是这样，我们可以从早期的政治理论家那里得到什么见解？
Political assassination, I see what you mean.
政治暗杀，我明白你的意思。
Israel, especially against the Jihadists.
以色列，特别是针对圣战分子。
Also attempts against Trump.
还试图反对特朗普。
Charlie Kirk is killed.
查理柯克被杀。
The healthcare CEO was killed.
医疗保健首席执行官被杀。
A lot of cases right here in America.
美国就有很多这样的案例。
You’re right.
你说得对。
Political theory, at least, as regards Machiavelli, comes to the fore.
至少就马基雅维利而言，政治理论脱颖而出。
I don’t see anything more to add to what I said on Machiavelli.
我对马基雅维利的言论没有更多的补充。
If there’s a trend to it, people copy it.
如果有趋势，人们就会效仿。
I don’t think it’s very much inspired by reading political theory.
我认为阅读政治理论并没有多大启发。
Peter Thiel, as you probably know, has great admiration and respect for René Girard and the idea of mimetic desire.
您可能知道，彼得·泰尔 (Peter Thiel) 对雷内·吉拉德 (René Girard) 和模仿欲望的想法怀有极大的钦佩和尊重。
What is your view on Girard?
您对吉拉德有何看法？
I don’t have a view on Girard.
我对吉拉德没有看法。
I’m sorry.
对不起。
Haven’t read him.
没读过他的作品。
That’s endogenous, right?
这是内生的，对吧？
You don’t find it that interesting then?
那你觉得没那么有趣吗？
Endogenous.
内生的。
Yes, there’s something to do with violence in there, but I haven’t—no, I’ve read plenty of things and not read plenty of things that I ought to have done as well.
是的，里面有一些与暴力有关的东西，但我没有——不，我读了很多东西，但没有读到很多我应该读的东西。
I can’t defend myself on that.
我无法就此为自己辩护。
On the vulgarity of democracy
论民主的庸俗
What in Shakespeare gives you the most insight into leadership and politics?
莎士比亚的哪些作品让您对领导力和政治有最深刻的洞察？
You could think of Macbeth, the nature of ambition and the character of it, and the way in which it is treated by pacifists or by victorious mastermen.
你可以想想麦克白，野心的本质和它的特征，以及和平主义者或胜利者对待它的方式。
The question of Macbeth is a debate between the pre-Christian view of revenge and the Christian view of God’s peace.
麦克白的问题是前基督教的复仇观与基督教的上帝平安观之间的争论。
The power of ambition and the role of women, Lady Macbeth, urging on her less eager husband, this is a reminder of something that our political science especially overlooks, the importance and the power of human ambition.
野心的力量和女性的角色，麦克白夫人，向她不那么热心的丈夫敦促，这提醒我们我们的政治学特别忽视了人类野心的重要性和力量。
Our country is really based on a kind of ambition that’s reflected in the separation of powers.
我们的国家确实建立在一种体现在权力分立上的野心之上。
I don’t mean to be wandering back and forth, but I think you could learn something about American politics by reading Shakespeare and especially Macbeth.
我并不是要来回徘徊，但我认为你可以通过阅读莎士比亚，尤其是麦克白来了解一些美国政治。
There’s any number of lessons to be learned from Shakespeare.
从莎士比亚身上可以学到很多教训。
I just pick out this one that comes to mind.
我只是挑出我想到的这个。
If you think of President Trump, where to you does he fit on the Shakespearean map?
如果你想到特朗普总统，你认为他在莎士比亚地图上属于什么位置？
Tragic, comic, ambition, all of the above?
悲剧、喜剧、野心，还是以上所有？
He fits in the vulgarian quality of Shakespeare’s characters.
他符合莎士比亚笔下人物的庸俗品质。
I’ve written on that to some extent.
我在某种程度上已经写过这一点。
President Trump is not a gentleman.
特朗普总统不是一位绅士。
He works at a level of discordant impulse, and he’s always looking to say something that will strike people rather than persuade them.
他的工作处于一种不和谐的冲动状态，他总是想说一些能打动人们的话，而不是说服他们。
That led me to think of the vulgarity of democracy.
这让我想到了民主的粗俗。
President Trump is, in his way, more democratic than the rest of us, because he’s able to understand and to impress people who are not refined in their thinking and in their ways.
特朗普总统以他的方式比我们其他人更民主，因为他能够理解那些思想和方式不够精致的人，并给他们留下深刻的印象。
He’s not a man of courtesy.
他不是一个有礼貌的人。
Some of the vulgar people in Shakespeare—Falstaff, for example—could be understood as vulgarian Democrats that Shakespeare wants to present to us.
莎士比亚笔下的一些庸俗人物——例如福斯塔夫——可以被理解为莎士比亚想要向我们呈现的庸俗民主党人。
Have you read Bronze Age Pervert, also known as Costin Alamariu?
您读过《青铜时代变态者》（也称为 Costin Alamariu）吗？
I’ve read his dissertation, which I guess is the basis of his book.
我读过他的论文，我想这是他的书的基础。
Is he a vulgarian?
他是庸人吗？
If his name is Bronze Age Pervert, should I think of him as another vulgarian?
如果他的名字叫青铜时代变态，我是否应该把他视为另一个庸俗之人？
He’s a deliberate seeker of what is vulgar and what is uncivilized, or on the edge of civilization.
他是一个刻意寻找粗俗、不文明或文明边缘事物的人。
He wants to make a point of the dirty necessities of politics and of founding so that he doesn’t start with the Stone Age or even the Iron Age, but all the way to the Bronze Age, but still just as people are on the edge of beginning civilization.
他想强调政治和建国的肮脏必要性，这样他就不会从石器时代甚至铁器时代开始，而是一直到青铜时代，但仍然就像人们处于文明初期的边缘一样。
That might be where the greatest truth or the greatest insight into the need for violence is most obvious.
这可能是最明显的真相或对暴力必要性的最深刻洞察。
I read his dissertation.
我读了他的论文。
It was done at Yale.
这是在耶鲁大学完成的。
I’ve had not much contact with him since, but we left on good terms.
从那以后我和他没有太多联系，但我们关系很好。
On the future of Straussianism
论施特劳斯主义的未来
It seems he’s by far the best-known young Straussian.
看来他是迄今为止最著名的年轻施特劳斯主义者。
Should we take what he’s doing as a model for what Straussianism is evolving into?
我们是否应该把他的做法作为施特劳斯主义演变的典范？
No, you shouldn’t.
不，你不应该。
Please don’t.
请不要。
What is the model then?
那什么是模型呢？
Even to call him a Straussian is not correct, I don’t think.
我认为，甚至称他为施特劳斯主义者也是不正确的。
He picked things out of Strauss, especially from Nietzsche.
他从施特劳斯，尤其是尼采那里汲取东西。
He presented them to me.
他把它们介绍给我。
He was not the kind of student who was a patient and respectful listener.
他不是那种耐心、恭敬地倾听的学生。
He had his own ideas, but he was interesting, and he’s smart.
他有自己的想法，但他很有趣，而且很聪明。
What is Straussianism evolving into?
施特劳斯主义演变成什么？
Strauss himself is gone.
施特劳斯本人已经不在了。
His students are now typically older, or they’ve passed away, like Seth Benardete.
他的学生现在通常年纪较大，或者已经去世，就像塞斯·贝纳德特 (Seth Benardete) 一样。
What’s the future for the movement?
该运动的未来是什么？
I think the future is, if not assured, pretty good.
我认为，即使不确定，未来也相当美好。
The basis for my thinking that is the great books.
我的想法的基础是伟大的书籍。
I think Strauss emphasizes the great books is that that’s the center of his teaching, and those books are so superior that they, in a way, guarantee their own future.
我认为施特劳斯强调伟大的书籍是他教学的中心，而这些书籍是如此卓越，以至于它们在某种程度上保证了自己的未来。
Why is it that we still read Plato’s Republic, say, 2,500 years later?
为什么 2500 年后我们仍然阅读柏拉图的《理想国》？
I think the books will always be there, and therefore, the basis for Strauss will always be there.
我认为书籍将永远存在，因此施特劳斯的基础也将永远存在。
Since Strauss has shown what can be seen in those books, I think that will continue.
由于施特劳斯已经展示了在这些书中可以看到的内容，我认为这种情况将会继续下去。
It’s true that, in recent years, Straussian professors at the most prestigious universities have died or retired and not been replaced, but I don’t think that matters fundamentally, because people can always find it.
确实，近年来，最负盛名的大学里的施特劳斯派教授已经去世或退休，没有被取代，但我认为这根本不重要，因为人们总能找到它。
If I just meet someone and introduce some of his ideas, I find they’re always attractive.
如果我只是遇见某人并介绍他的一些想法，我会发现他们总是很有吸引力。
But it’s true that there are many ways in which Strauss is not attractive to scholars and democrats, by which I mean all of us democratic citizens these days.
但确实，施特劳斯在很多方面对学者和民主人士（我指的是我们现在所有的民主公民）没有吸引力。
These days, what’s the best way to learn Straussian methods of reading a text?
如今，学习施特劳斯文本阅读方法的最佳方法是什么？
You sit down with the AI?
你和人工智能坐下来吗？
I haven’t tried that.
我没试过。
It works pretty well.
它运作得很好。
Really?
真的吗？
Does it?
是吗？
AI wouldn’t substitute the words for the original that would try to explain it.
人工智能不会用这些词来代替试图解释它的原始词。
It’s not as good as Strauss or you, but it’s better than most of what’s out there.
它不如施特劳斯或你那么好，但它比大多数东西都好。
All right.
好的。
That’s not good enough, though.
但这还不够好。
What’s the best we’ve got?
我们拥有的最好的是什么？
You want the best, and the best is in the original text.
你想要最好的，而最好的就在原文中。
I don’t think you want to substitute for that original text trying to understand it.
我不认为你想取代原始文本来试图理解它。
You need to pay careful attention to everything that is said in the way that it’s said and in the place that it’s said.
你需要仔细注意所说的一切、所说的方式和所说的地点。
Strauss had this concept of what he called logographic necessity.
施特劳斯提出了他所谓的逻辑必然性的概念。
Logographic, meaning where a thing was or what a thing was said by a great books author had to be there.
语标，意味着某个事物在哪里或者某位伟大的书籍作者所说的内容必须在那里。
It isn’t an accident.
这并非偶然。
There are no accidents in a great book.
一本好书里没有偶然。
Everything is as it should be.
一切都是它应该的样子。
To understand it, you don’t want to go to some second-rate explanation that doesn’t take account, or rather departs from, the text.
为了理解它，你不想去寻找一些不考虑文本或背离文本的二流解释。
Many people pick up Plato’s Republic, and they come away thinking it’s a mere homage to totalitarianism.
许多人读完柏拉图的《理想国》后，认为这只是对极权主义的致敬。
Not all of these people are stupid.
这些人并不都是愚蠢的。
Karl Popper was not stupid, but I think he read the book completely wrongly.
卡尔·波普尔并不傻，但我认为他完全错误地读了这本书。
How is it one learns how not to do that today?
今天人们是如何学会不这样做的呢？
You can’t study with Strauss.
你不能跟施特劳斯学习。
You’re not teaching at Harvard anymore.
你不再在哈佛教书了。
What does one do?
一个人做什么？
Look for a Straussian or look at Strauss’s books, especially Natural Right and History.
寻找施特劳斯主义者或看看施特劳斯的书，尤其是《自然权利》和《历史》。
That’s the one to begin with.
这是一开始的。
Also, Persecution and the Art of Writing, which is his explanation of esoteric writing.
还有《迫害与写作的艺术》，这是他对深奥写作的解释。
Read what others have tried to do before you.
阅读其他人在您之前尝试过的做法。
As I began with, look for somebody to help.
正如我开始时所说，寻找有人提供帮助。
I get a number of emails when people write to ask about things they have seen and ways they would like to go.
当人们写信询问他们所看到的事物以及他们想去的方式时，我收到了很多电子邮件。
How would you put your finger on what Strauss had and say Quine and Rawls, both brilliant people, but Quine and Rawls did not have?
你怎么会说施特劳斯拥有什么，并说蒯因和罗尔斯都是才华横溢的人，但蒯因和罗尔斯却没有呢？
What is that difference?
那有什么区别呢？
Regarding Quine, Quine famously said philosophy of science is philosophy enough.
关于蒯因，蒯因有句名言：科学哲学就足够是哲学了。
Strauss would certainly oppose that and try to introduce Nietzsche to Professor Quine, as I once attempted to do when I was younger.
施特劳斯肯定会反对，并试图将尼采介绍给奎因教授，就像我年轻时曾经尝试过的那样。
How did that go?
进展如何？
I was at a meeting of people, and somebody asked about Nietzsche.
我在参加一个人的聚会，有人问起尼采。
I discoursed for a while.
我议论了一会。
He sat there listening with a smile and never commented.
他坐在那儿微笑着听着，没有发表任何评论。
I was actually pretty good friends with him on a political basis because we both had conservative political opinions.
事实上，我和他在政治上是很好的朋友，因为我们都有保守的政治观点。
We belonged to the senior common room at Elliott House, so I would fairly frequently have lunch with him.
我们住在埃利奥特之家的高级公共休息室，所以我经常和他一起吃午饭。
Then, on a later occasion, I once invited Tom Stoppard, the playwright, to come give a talk at Harvard.
后来，有一次，我邀请剧作家汤姆·斯托帕德来哈佛演讲。
Afterwards, we had a dinner to which I invited Quine.
之后，我们共进晚餐，我邀请了奎因。
He came because Quine had figured in one of Stoppard’s plays.
他来是因为奎因出现在斯托帕德的一部戏剧中。
That’s Quine.
那是奎因。
Now, Rawls is slightly decayed liberalism.
现在，罗尔斯是稍微腐朽的自由主义。
I think Strauss would have liked to introduce John Locke to Rawls and show him how Locke set up things better than he had, that Locke’s state of nature was a better picture of the fundamental principle of liberalism than Rawls’s original position.
我认为施特劳斯会愿意向罗尔斯介绍约翰·洛克，并向他展示洛克如何比他更好地安排事情，洛克的自然状态比罗尔斯的原始立场更好地描绘了自由主义的基本原则。
Rawls is much closer to Locke, of course, than Quine to Nietzsche.
当然，罗尔斯与洛克的关系比奎因与尼采的关系要近得多。
There’s no just appropriation in Rawls in the same sense, right?
罗尔斯那里不存在同样意义上的“正义挪用”，对吧？
No just appropriation.
不只是拨款。
The labor theory of value is not understood or appreciated by Rawls.
罗尔斯不理解或不欣赏劳动价值论。
The good life is a life which must be earned.
美好的生活是必须努力争取的生活。
I think that’s a fundamental principle of liberalism, which today is set forth more by conservatives than by liberals, that needs to be remembered.
我认为这是自由主义的一项基本原则，今天更多的是由保守派而不是自由派提出的，需要记住。
From a Straussian perspective, where’s the role for the skills of a good analytic philosopher?
从施特劳斯的角度来看，优秀的分析哲学家的技能的作用在哪里？
How does that fit into Straussianism?
这如何融入施特劳斯主义？
I’ve never quite understood that.
我一直不太明白这一点。
They seem to be very separate approaches, at least sociologically.
至少在社会学上，它们似乎是非常不同的方法。
Analytic philosophers look for arguments and isolate them.
分析哲学家寻找论证并孤立它们。
Strauss looks for arguments and puts them in the context of a dialogue or the implicit dialogue.
施特劳斯寻找论证并将其置于对话或隐含对话的背景中。
Instead of counting up one, two, three, four meanings of a word, as analytic philosophers do, he says, why is this argument appropriate for this audience and in this text?
他说，他没有像分析哲学家那样计算一个词的一、二、三、四种含义，而是说，为什么这个论点适合听众和本文？
Why is it put where it was and not earlier or later?
为什么它放在原来的地方而不是更早或更晚？
Strauss treats an argument as if it were in a play, which has a plot and a background and a context, whereas analytic philosophy tries to withdraw the argument from where it was in Plato to see what would we think of it today and what other arguments can be said against it without really wanting to choose which is the truth.
施特劳斯将论证视为戏剧，有情节、背景和语境，而分析哲学试图将论证从柏拉图的原处撤回，看看我们今天会如何看待它，以及还有什么其他论证可以反对它，而不是真正想要选择哪个是真理。
Are they complements or substitutes, the analytic approach and the Straussian approach?
分析方法和施特劳斯方法是补充还是替代？
I wouldn’t say complements, no. Strauss’s approach is to look at the context of an argument rather than to take it out of its context.
我不会说补充，不。施特劳斯的方法是着眼于论证的背景，而不是脱离其背景。
To take it out of its context means to deprive it of the story that it represents.
将其脱离上下文意味着剥夺它所代表的故事。
Analytic philosophy takes arguments out of their context and arranges them in an array.
分析哲学将论证脱离其背景，并将它们排列成一个数组。
It then tries to compare those abstracted arguments.
然后它尝试比较这些抽象的参数。
Strauss doesn’t try to abstract, but he looks to the context.
施特劳斯并不试图抽象，而是着眼于背景。
The context is always something doubtful.
上下文总是令人怀疑的。
Every Platonic dialogue leaves something out.
每一段柏拉图式的对话都会遗漏一些东西。
The Republic, for example, doesn’t tell you about what people love instead of how people defend things.
例如，《共和国》不会告诉你人们喜爱什么，而是告诉你人们如何捍卫事物。
Since that’s the case, every argument in such a dialogue is intentionally a bad argument.
既然如此，这样的对话中的每一个论点都是故意的糟糕的论点。
It’s meant for a particular person, and it’s set to him.
它是针对某个特定的人的，并且是为他设置的。
The analytic philosopher doesn’t understand that arguments, especially in a Platonic dialogue, can deliberately be inferior.
分析哲学家不明白论证，尤其是柏拉图式对话中的论证，可以故意变得低劣。
It easily or too easily refutes the argument which you are supposed to take out of a Platonic dialogue and understand for yourself.
它很容易或太容易反驳你应该从柏拉图对话中取出并自己理解的论点。
Socrates always speaks down to people.
苏格拉底总是居高临下地对人说话。
He is better than his interlocutors.
他比他的对话者更好。
What you, as an observer or reader, are supposed to do is to take the argument that’s going down, that’s intended for somebody who doesn’t understand very well, and raise it to the level of the argument that Socrates would want to accept.
作为观察者或读者，你应该做的就是将正在下降的论证（这是为不太理解的人准备的）提升到苏格拉底想要接受的论证水平。
So to the extent that all great books have the character of this downward shift, all great books have the character of speaking down to someone and presenting truth in an inferior but still attractive way.
因此，就所有伟大的书籍都具有这种向下转变的特征而言，所有伟大的书籍都具有居高临下地对某人说话并以低劣但仍然有吸引力的方式呈现真理的特征。
The reader has to take that shift in view and raise it to the level that the author had.
读者必须接受这种观点的转变，并将其提升到作者的水平。
What I’m describing is irony.
我所描述的是讽刺。
What distinguishes analytic philosophy from Strauss is the lack of irony in analytic philosophy.
分析哲学与施特劳斯的区别在于分析哲学缺乏反讽。
Philosophy must always take account of nonphilosophy or budding philosophers and not simply speak straight out and give a flat statement of what you think is true.
哲学必须始终考虑非哲学或崭露头角的哲学家，而不是简单地直言不讳并简单地陈述你认为正确的内容。
To go back to Rawls, Rawls based his philosophy on what he called public reason, which meant that the reason that convinces Rawls is no different from the reason that he gives out to the public.
回到罗尔斯，罗尔斯的哲学基于他所谓的公共理性，这意味着说服罗尔斯的理由与他向公众给出的理由没有什么不同。
Whereas Strauss said reason is never public or universal in this way because it has to take account of the character of the audience, which is usually less reasonable than the author.
而施特劳斯说，理性从来都不是公开的或普遍的，因为它必须考虑观众的性格，而观众的性格通常不如作者合理。
Now, what would a Straussian view be of, say, materialist approaches, which seek to put the great books in context, but the relevant context is not the rest of the book or comparing it to other great books, but the relevant context is the history of its time?
现在，施特劳斯主义对于唯物主义方法的看法是什么呢？唯物主义方法试图将伟大的书籍置于背景中，但相关的背景不是本书的其余部分或将其与其他伟大的书籍进行比较，而是相关的背景是当时的历史？
Is that a complement to Straussian methods or, again, another substitute?
这是施特劳斯方法的补充还是另一种替代品？
The context of the time is very important, but it must be got from the author himself and not from an historian’s backward view, anachronistic view from today.
时代背景非常重要，但它必须来自作者本人，而不是来自历史学家的落后观点、与今天不合时宜的观点。
For example, Machiavelli, his context is what he saw as his context, and he tells you what that is.
例如，马基雅维利，他的背景就是他所看到的背景，他告诉你那是什么。
He tells you that the troubles of Europe or Italy can be put in the phrase ambitious idleness, ozio ambizioso, that is, a leisure that is unoccupied, leaves you nothing to do.
他告诉你，欧洲或意大利的麻烦可以用“雄心勃勃的闲散”一词来形容，ozio ambizioso，即一种无所事事的闲暇，让你无事可做。
That’s his picture of the Christian world that he lived under and which he opposed.
这就是他对自己生活的基督教世界的描绘，也是他所反对的。
To say that he was some kind of Christian, as some scholars do, because he makes statements that indicate a friendly view toward it, is to overlook this view that Machiavelli himself offers of his context.
正如一些学者所做的那样，因为他发表的言论表明了对基督教的友好看法，就说他是某种基督徒，这就忽视了马基雅维利本人就其背景提出的这一观点。
The main point is, get the author’s view of his context first.
要点是，首先了解作者对其背景的看法。
Then, if that’s limited or needs to be restated in terms of what we know today, go ahead.
然后，如果这是有限的或需要根据我们今天所知道的进行重申，那就继续吧。
If we turned Machiavelli into a series of empirically testable propositions, what percentage of them do you think would be true?
如果我们把马基雅维利变成一系列可通过经验检验的命题，你认为其中有多少比例是正确的？
A small percentage, because he exaggerates.
比例很小，因为他夸大了。
He exaggerates.
他夸大了。
At the same time, you could say he’s the author of making empirical propositions.
同时，你也可以说他是提出经验命题的作者。
This is something of what I said earlier, the effectual truth.
这就是我之前所说的，有效的真理。
He tries to predict what can happen.
他试图预测会发生什么。
He has in view a path toward greater liberty and greater virtue that we now call modernity.
他设想了一条通向更大自由和更大美德的道路，我们现在称之为现代性。
The understanding of knowledge as prediction really begins, I would say, with him.
我想说，对知识作为预测的理解真正始于他。
That what we call empirical, which is understanding based on fact, is really a new way of knowing things in such a way that we can protect ourselves and predict what may happen or occur to us.
我们所说的经验主义，即基于事实的理解，实际上是一种了解事物的新方式，使我们能够保护自己并预测可能发生或发生在我们身上的事情。
For Machiavelli, religion is most important as a form of providence or prediction.
对于马基雅维利来说，宗教最重要的是作为一种天意或预测的形式。
Most people don’t want to so much know God as they want to know what’s going to happen to them.
大多数人不想太多地了解上帝，而是想知道会发生在他们身上的事情。
They want to know what God is going to bring to us or what Machiavelli says—he substitutes this—what fortune is going to bring to us.
他们想知道上帝将给我们带来什么，或者马基雅维利所说的话——他用这个来代替——命运将给我们带来什么。
You can deify fortune if you like, call it Lady Fortune, as he does in The Prince.
如果你愿意的话，你可以将财富神化，称其为“财富女士”，就像他在《王子》中所做的那样。
Fortune is making something happen by reducing the possibilities of chance or of a bad outcome.
财富是通过减少机会或不良结果的可能性来使某事发生。
That depends on what we would call an empirical or a factual account.
这取决于我们所说的经验解释或事实解释。
If you understand how people act in a way different from what they say or what they wish, then you can reduce the effect or the power of fortune or chance, and make, as a fact, what you hope for in defiance of fortune.
如果你了解人们的行为方式与他们所说或所希望的不同，那么你就可以减少命运或机会的影响或力量，并事实上实现你所希望的、不顾命运的东西。
Reducing the realm of fortune or of chance comes about through what we might call empirical analysis.
减少财富或机会的范围是通过我们所谓的实证分析来实现的。
I’m trying to say that exaggeration is the requirement of empirical analysis, not the enemy of it.
我想说的是，夸张是实证分析的要求，而不是实证分析的敌人。
On why the supply of great books has dried up
为什么好书的供应已经枯竭
Are there still great books being written today?
今天还有好书在写吗？
On the level of the canon of great books, I guess I would say in the 20th century, Heidegger.
在伟大著作的经典层面上，我想我会说20世纪的海德格尔。
I would add Strauss to Heidegger, though I know that that’s a controversial statement.
我会把施特劳斯和海德格尔相加，尽管我知道这是一个有争议的说法。
Why has the supply dried up?
为何供应枯竭？
Because Heidegger and Strauss, that’s a while ago, right?
因为海德格尔和施特劳斯，那是很久以前的事了，对吧？
That’s right, they are, but it doesn’t happen that often that a really great book is written.
没错，确实如此，但写出一本真正伟大的书的情况并不常见。
If you look at the 18th and 19th centuries, you could name easily a dozen great books from each century.
如果你回顾一下 18 世纪和 19 世纪，你可以轻松说出每个世纪的十几本伟大书籍。
Here we have the whole 20th century.
这里有整个20世纪。
You named two authors.
您指定了两位作者。
I’m not sure how many books you’re going to have that cover, but it seems to be less.
我不确定你会有多少本书有这个封面，但似乎更少。
Even though population is larger, literacy is up, right?
尽管人口多了，识字率却提高了，对吗？
What changed?
发生了什么变化？
I’m not sure that there has been a change.
我不确定是否发生了变化。
I’m not sure that that is a useful speculation.
我不确定这是一个有用的猜测。
It’s better to not expect a great book.
最好不要期待一本好书。
I’ll say this.
我就这么说吧。
Philosophy has declined since the beginning of the 19th century.
自19世纪初以来，哲学逐渐衰落。
It’s been historicized such that people doubt that a great book is possible because it’s not easy or possible for a thinker to think outside his time.
它已经被历史化，以至于人们怀疑是否有可能写出一本伟大的书，因为对于一个思想家来说，跳出他的时代进行思考并不容易或不可能。
A great book is always one that is written in a time, but for the sake of the future, and the possibilities of what will happen, and for other times.
一本伟大的书总是在某个时代写成的，但却是为了未来，以及将要发生的事情的可能性，以及为其他时代而写的。
I think maybe that ambition to write for other times—or Thucydides said, to write a book which is a possession for all times—has left us, and that the authors are not trying as they might have done to write that kind of book.
我想也许为其他时代写作的雄心——或者修昔底德所说的，写一本为所有时代所拥有的书——已经离开了我们，而作者们并没有像他们可能所做的那样尝试写那种书。
In your own thought, how much have you learned from travel abroad, travel in this country, or does that not matter much?
在你自己看来，你从出国旅行、在这个国家旅行中学到了多少东西，或者这并不重要？
It’s a help.
这是一个帮助。
It doesn’t matter much.
没关系。
I took my family twice to Italy when I was working on Machiavelli.
当我在研究马基雅维利时，我曾两次带家人去意大利。
Spent a year in Florence and a year in Rome and read pretty much and wrote pretty much as I would have done back in Cambridge.
在佛罗伦萨呆了一年，在罗马呆了一年，读了很多书，写了很多书，就像我在剑桥时一样。
The flavor of Italy comes out in Machiavelli, and that was a joy and a pleasure to become acquainted with.
意大利的风味在马基雅维利身上显现出来，结识意大利是一种快乐和快乐。
It’s a value of being a professor that you get time off for such excursions, and also that you see a lot of different people come through the university so that you do your traveling by staying at home and seeing them and their differences.
作为一名教授的价值在于，你有时间进行此类旅行，而且你会看到很多不同的人在大学里学习，所以你可以呆在家里，看看他们和他们的差异，从而进行旅行。
They carry their country and their context along with them.
他们带着自己的国家和背景。
You’re mostly seeing cognitive elites if you’re at Harvard?
如果你在哈佛，你看到的大多是认知精英？
You’re not really seeing what, say, India is like, though plenty of Indians come to Harvard.
尽管有很多印度人来到哈佛，但你并没有真正看到印度是什么样子。
I’m not seeing what India is like, that’s true, yes.
我没有看到印度是什么样子，这是真的，是的。
I have to take the Indian’s word for it.
我必须相信印度人的话。
On rational control vs. spontaneous order
论理性控制与自发秩序
Now, it’s a recurring theme in your book, this idea of rational control.
现在，这是你书中反复出现的主题，即理性控制的想法。
What do you think of the Hayekian tradition that suggests that it is impossible, the complex systems traditions that see things as a spontaneous order, matters are the result of human action but not of human design, and that rational control is a kind of illusion?
您如何看待哈耶克传统，认为这是不可能的，复杂系统传统将事物视为自发秩序，事物是人类行为的结果而不是人类设计的结果，理性控制是一种幻觉？
What’s your view of those thinkers?
您对这些思想家有何看法？
Negative.
消极的。
I think that their idea of spontaneous order is an idea which is intended to be a kind of form of rational control, and which can be seen in the original author of the rational control, namely Machiavelli.
我认为他们的自发秩序观念是一种旨在成为一种理性控制形式的观念，这可以从理性控制的原作者马基雅维利身上看到。
Machiavelli wanted to let things ride, to take the leash off humanity, especially the Christian leash, and let the nobles and plebs fight it out, as happened in Rome.
马基雅维利想要顺其自然，摆脱人类的束缚，特别是基督教的束缚，让贵族和平民决一死战，就像罗马发生的那样。
That’s how he begins his discourses.
这就是他开始演讲的方式。
The kind of spontaneous order that arises from liberated human beings with all their powers and energies and attempts is the way in which modern order originally began.
解放后的人类凭借其所有的力量、精力和尝试而产生的自发秩序，就是现代秩序最初开始的方式。
That order comes out of liberation and not out of imposition.
这种秩序来自于解放，而不是强加于人。
I think Hayek is just an advanced version of what was originally intended.
我认为哈耶克只是最初意图的高级版本。
What was originally intended also included the imposition that is required to liberate spontaneous order.
最初的意图还包括解放自发秩序所需的强加。
Spontaneous order always presents itself as not spontaneous, as covered over in sludge, and spoiled, prevented, inhibited.
自发秩序总是表现为非自发的，被污泥所覆盖，被破坏、被阻止、被抑制。
It’s something that needs to come to pass, but also, if that’s to be the case, needs to be liberated.
这是需要实现的事情，但如果是这样的话，也需要被解放。
I would say that the Hayekian view overlooks the necessity of liberating spontaneity.
我想说，哈耶克的观点忽视了解放自发性的必要性。
That doesn’t happen spontaneously.
这不是自发发生的。
On Winston Churchill
关于温斯顿·丘吉尔
I recall having read that in the early 1950s, you saw in person a speech by Winston Churchill.
我记得在 20 世纪 50 年代初读过，你亲眼看到了温斯顿·丘吉尔的演讲。
Is that true?
这是真的吗？
If so, what were your impressions?
如果是这样，您的印象是什么？
That was one of the thrills of my life.
这是我一生中最激动人心的事情之一。
I knew it then.
我当时就知道了。
That was in England in 1953.
那是1953年的英国。
I went to the Conservative Party conference that was held in Margate, a seaside resort.
我参加了在海滨度假胜地马盖特举行的保守党会议。
I was able to get into hear Churchill, thanks to my professor, Sam Beer, who was a great student of British politics and whom I was accompanying in England as a student that year.
我能够听到丘吉尔的讲话，多亏了我的教授萨姆·比尔，他是一位英国政治学的优秀学生，那年我作为学生陪同在英国。
Churchill was back in power, towards the end of his term and his faculties.
丘吉尔在任期和职务即将结束时重新掌权。
He began with a greeting to his friend, Anthony Eden, who was the foreign minister who had been in the hospital and had just gotten out.
他首先向他的朋友安东尼·艾登打招呼，安东尼·艾登是外交部长，当时一直在医院，刚刚出院。
The question of the day was whether Churchill would call an election before his time ran out or not.
当天的问题是丘吉尔是否会在任期结束前举行选举。
Churchill said that it’s very good to be in the hospital when you’re sick, but when you’re well, it’s not necessary to take your temperature so often.
丘吉尔说，生病时住院很好，但身体健康时，没必要那么频繁地测量体温。
He was likening an election to taking the temperature of a patient’s body and saying it wasn’t needed.
他将选举比作测量病人的体温，并表示没有必要。
That stuck in my mind.
这件事深深地印在了我的脑海里。
It was a nice analogy, and one that gives room for thought.
这是一个很好的比喻，也给人思考的空间。
As a world historical figure, what was it that Churchill understood?
作为一个世界历史人物，丘吉尔理解的是什么？
Churchill understood the character of liberal democracy, that it had a certain character, and that it needed to be guided.
丘吉尔了解自由民主的特征，它有一定的特征，并且需要指导。
He was not from an aristocratic family, but he was from a very high lane of people.
他并非出身于贵族家庭，但却出身于非常上流的人家。
He was from high society.
他来自上流社会。
He saw that the radical forces of socialism were on the march, but that the aristocracy couldn’t sustain a battle against them or a comfortable reception of them.
他看到社会主义的激进力量正在前进，但贵族无法与他们进行斗争，也无法轻松地接待他们。
He took the country out of aristocracy into democracy in a way that preserved its dignity and gave himself great deserved fame.
他以一种保留了尊严的方式将国家从贵族制带入了民主制，并为自己赢得了当之无愧的巨大声誉。
That’s what I would say he understood and accomplished.
我想说的是他理解并完成了这一点。
On how students at Harvard have changed
哈佛学生的变化
Now, at Harvard, you’ve been well known that every year, every semester, you would take out your highest-performing undergraduate student and have lunch or dinner with them.
现在，在哈佛，众所周知，每年、每个学期，你都会带出表现最好的本科生，与他们共进午餐或晚餐。
Over time, how have those conversations changed?
随着时间的推移，这些对话发生了怎样的变化？
I’m not sure that that’s the correct statement; that legend is correct.
我不确定这个说法是否正确；这个传说是正确的。
In general, your conversations with your students, and you have many of them, right?
一般来说，你和学生的对话有很多，对吧？
Yes, I have.
是的，我有。
They’re not all that different.
它们并没有那么不同。
I don’t think that the students in my classes have been that different through the 61 years I taught—in character, and in interest, and in ambition.
我不认为在我任教的 61 年里，我班上的学生在性格、兴趣和抱负上并没有什么不同。
Women came along, black students came along, Asian students came along.
女性来了，黑人学生来了，亚洲学生也来了。
Those were all differences of ethnicity.
这些都是种族差异。
In character, I find them remarkable and easily attracted, in a way.
在性格上，我发现他们在某种程度上很出色并且很容易被吸引。
They see the books that I assign and answer to my remarks and try to put their own lives in some kind of relationship to those great books.
他们看到我分配的书籍并回答我的评论，并尝试将自己的生活与这些伟大的书籍建立某种联系。
They don’t all become professors; most of them lawyers and businessmen, but they’ve found something that is valuable and will serve them the rest of their life, give them something to do in their spare time and give them a kind of guide for what they’re working at.
他们并不都成为教授；他们并不是都成为教授。他们大多数是律师和商人，但他们找到了一些有价值的东西，将为他们的余生服务，让他们在业余时间有事可做，并为他们的工作提供一种指导。
I always say to them, do something that you can be proud of.
我总是对他们说，做一些让你感到自豪的事情。
That’s pretty general advice.
这是非常一般的建议。
I think it enables a young man or woman to do his or her own thinking and yet come out with something that is solid and objective and praiseworthy.
我认为它使一个年轻的男人或女人能够进行自己的思考，同时得出一些可靠、客观和值得赞扬的东西。
You’ve argued in writing that manliness has declined.
您在书面中指出，男子气概已经下降。
You don’t see that in your students over time, or you do?
随着时间的推移，你在你的学生身上看不到这一点，或者你确实看到了？
Less courage, or how is that evolving?
勇气减少，或者这是如何演变的？
No, I don’t think manliness is in decline.
不，我不认为男子气概正在衰退。
It’s in eclipse.
它处于日食状态。
Yes, you don’t see it as much as you did, except in bad versions such as the Bronze Age Pervert.
是的，你不会像以前那样经常看到它，除了在青铜时代变态等糟糕的版本中。
At the end of my book on manliness, I had a chapter called “Unemployed Manliness.” I think that is the danger now, that this part of human nature that men are different from women and want to be and need to express that is something that we need to hold onto.
在我关于男子气概的书的最后，有一章叫做“失业的男子气概”。我认为这就是现在的危险，男人与女人不同，想要成为并且需要表达的这部分人性是我们需要坚持的。
That can’t be repressed without trouble arising.
如果压制这种情况，就会引发麻烦。
The decline in manliness is also a rise in bad manliness.
男子气概的下降同时也是不良男子气概的增加。
The assassinations, for example, that you mentioned before, can be accounted for by the bad education that we get and, to some extent, the influence of points of view that deny manliness, particularly feminism.
例如，你之前提到的暗杀事件，可以归因于我们所接受的不良教育，以及在某种程度上否认男子气概的观点，特别是女权主义的影响。
On death and politics
论死亡与政治
Very last question.
最后一个问题。
As we all get older and each day face increasing risks of death, does that influence how we think about politics, and should it influence how we think about politics?
随着我们都变老，每天都面临着越来越大的死亡风险，这是否会影响我们对政治的看法？它是否应该影响我们对政治的看法？
It does.
确实如此。
Aristotle makes a remark about the old age and the young, that old age has a long past and a short future and the young are the reverse, a short past and a long future.
亚里士多德对老年和青年有一句话，老年有漫长的过去和短暂的未来，而青年则相反，有短暂的过去和漫长的未来。
Getting old makes you reminisce, I find, perhaps to an exaggerated extent, and at the same time, it sharpens your concern for the present.
我发现，变老会让你怀旧，也许在某种程度上夸张，同时，它也会加剧你对当下的关注。
I wouldn’t worry about it.
我不会担心这个。
Is the old age perspective the more correct one?
老年观点是更正确的观点吗？
The old age perspective is probably not more correct.
老年的观点可能并不更正确。
It’s probably too short-term.
可能是太短期了。
It also can induce you to try to prescribe too much for your successors, your family, and so on, and impose yourself on them in an unwelcome way.
它还可能诱使你试图为你的继任者、你的家人等规定太多的规定，并以一种不受欢迎的方式将自己强加给他们。
Harvey Mansfield, thank you very much.
哈维·曼斯菲尔德，非常感谢你。
Thank you for having me.
谢谢你有我。
Image Credit: Erin Clark via Getty Images
图片来源：艾琳·克拉克（Erin Clark）来自盖蒂图片社
This episode was made possible through the support of the John Templeton Foundation.
这一集是在约翰·邓普顿基金会的支持下得以实现的。