Introduction to Political Philosophy Lecture 6 | Introduction to Political Philosophy

Chapter 1.

第一章。

The Control of Passions [00:00:00] Professor Steven Smith : Today I have the impossible task of finishing the parts of the Republic that I have assigned for the class.

激情的控制 [00:00:00] 史蒂文·史密斯教授：今天我有一项不可能完成的任务，就是完成我布置给班级的《共和国》的部分内容。

And in the past sometimes, I've assigned a full two weeks to the Republic , which would be four lectures, but because I wanted to do some other things with the course as well, I had to cut the Republic by one lecture, and now I'm paying for that today.

过去有时，我会为《共和国》分配整整两周的时间，也就是四节课，但因为我还想在这门课程中做一些其他的事情，所以我不得不把《共和国》削减一节课，现在我今天就要为此付费。

So I'm going to try to rush through, unfortunately, a number of the major themes regarding the creation of the just city, the creation of Kallipolis and then try to end the class by talking about, as I like to do for every thinker, what does in this case, what does Plato, what are his views on modern America.

因此，不幸的是，我将尝试快速浏览一些关于公正城市的创建、卡利波利斯的创建的主要主题，然后尝试通过谈论（就像我喜欢为每个思想家做的那样）来结束课程，在这种情况下，柏拉图做了什么，他对现代美国的看法是什么。

What does Plato say to us today?

柏拉图今天对我们说了什么？

But I want to start with what is one of the grand themes of the Republic , it is indicated in Book II by Adeimantus' speech about self-control.

但我想从《共和国》的宏伟主题之一开始，这一点在第二卷中阿德曼图斯关于自我控制的演讲中有所体现。

It is introduced further by the claims of Socrates to control, to censor, to control the poetry and the arts of the city.

苏格拉底的主张进一步引入了控制、审查、控制城市的诗歌和艺术。

And this is the big theme of what one might call "the control of the passions." This is the theme of every great moralist from Spinoza to Kant to Freud.

这就是人们所说的“控制激情”的大主题。这是从斯宾诺莎到康德再到弗洛伊德的每一位伟大道德家的主题。

How do we control the passions?

我们如何控制情欲？

And it is certainly a large theme of Plato's theory of justice in the Republic .

这无疑是柏拉图《理想国》正义理论的一个重要主题。

Every great moral philosopher has a strategy for helping us submit our passions to some kind of control, to some kind of supervening moral power.

每一位伟大的道德哲学家都有一个策略来帮助我们将我们的激情置于某种控制之下，置于某种随之而来的道德力量之下。

And again, recall this is the theme raised at the beginning of Book II by Adeimantus, who puts forward an idea of self-control, or what he calls self-guardianship as his goal.

再次回忆一下，这是阿德曼图斯在第二卷开头提出的主题，他提出了自我控制的想法，或者他所说的自我监护作为他的目标。

How can we protect ourselves from the passion for injustice?

我们如何才能保护自己免受不公正的影响？

And one of the things Socrates emphasizes is that the most powerful of those passions, the most powerful passion is that Socratic passion that he calls thumos , or what our translator has as spiritedness, anger, maybe what biblical translators call heart, having a big heart, having thumos and all of that implies.

苏格拉底强调的一件事是，这些激情中最强大的激情，最强大的激情是苏格拉底式的激情，他称之为“thumos”，或者我们的翻译者所具有的精神、愤怒，也许圣经翻译者所说的“心”，拥有一颗宽广的心，拥有thumos以及所有这些暗示。

This is for Plato, the political passion par excellence.

这对于柏拉图来说是卓越的政治热情。

It is a kind of fiery love of fame, love of distinction that leads men and women of a certain type to pursue their ambitions in public life, in the public space.

这是一种对名誉、对荣誉的热爱，引导某种类型的男人和女人在公共生活、公共空间中追求自己的抱负。

It is clearly connected this notion of spiritedness or this thumotic quality to our capacities for heroism and for self-sacrifice.

显然，这种精神的概念或这种热情的品质与我们的英雄主义和自我牺牲的能力联系在一起。

But it is also connected to our desires for domination and the desire to exercise tyranny over others.

但这也与我们的统治欲望和对他人实行暴政的欲望有关。

Thumos has a kind of dual component to it.

图莫斯有一种双重成分。

It can lead us to a sense of kind of righteous indignation and anger at the sight of injustice, but it can also lead us in a rather contradictory way to desire to dominate and tyrannize over others.

它可以使我们对不公正现象产生一种义愤和愤怒，但它也可以使我们以一种相当矛盾的方式渴望主宰和暴虐他人。

This is the quality that Socrates regards as being possessed by every great political leader and statesman, but it is also clearly a quality possessed by every tyrant.

这是苏格拉底认为每一个伟大的政治领袖和政治家都具备的品质，但显然也是每一个暴君都具备的品质。

And the question posed by the Republic , in many ways, the question around which the book as a whole gravitates, is whether this thumotic quality can be controlled.

从很多方面来说，《理想国》提出的问题，也就是整本书所围绕的问题，就是这种混乱的质量是否可以控制。

Can it be re-directed, can it be re-channeled in the service of the public good?

它能否被重新引导、重新引导以服务于公共利益？

Socrates introduces the problem of thumos by a story, a particularly vivid story that I hope you all remember, where in Book IV he tells the story about Leontius at the walls.

苏格拉底通过一个故事介绍了thumos的问题，一个特别生动的故事，我希望大家都记住，在第四卷中他讲述了关于Leontius在墙上的故事。

"Leontius," he writes, "was proceeding from the Piraeus outside the north wall when he perceived corpses lying near the public executioner.

他写道：“莱昂修斯正从北墙外的比雷埃夫斯港出发，发现刽子手附近躺着尸体。

At the same time, he desired to see them.

同时，他也很想见见他们。

He wanted to see this grotesque sight, these dead bodies lying there.

他想看看这怪异的景象，这些尸体躺在那里。

And to the contrary, he felt disgust and turned himself away and for a while he battled with himself and hid his face.

相反，他感到厌恶，转过身去，一时与自己作斗争，遮住了脸。

But eventually overpowered by desire, he forced his eyes open and rushing towards the corpses said 'see you damn wretches, take your fill of this beautiful sight'" 439c.

但最终他被欲望压倒了，他强迫自己睁开眼睛，冲向尸体，说道：“看看你们这群该死的可怜虫，尽情享受这美丽的景象吧”439c。

That story that Socrates tells here is not one of reason controlling the passions, but rather one of intense internal conflict that Leontius felt.

苏格拉底在这里讲述的故事不是理性控制激情的故事，而是列昂提乌斯感受到的激烈的内心冲突的故事。

We see his conflicting emotions both to see and not to see, a sense that he wished to observe and yet he is at, in some ways, at war with himself, knowing to gawk, to stare at this sight.

我们看到他矛盾的情绪，既想看又不想看，一种他希望观察的感觉，但在某种程度上，他在与自己交战，知道要呆呆地看着这一景象。

There's something shameful about it and he felt shame.

这里面有一些羞耻的东西，他感到羞耻。

One example I particularly like of this was suggested last year, I think, by Justin Zaremby who said it's the emotion we all feel when we're driving down the highway, right, and we see a car crash or we go by a wreck and everybody slows down, right, they all want to see.

我想，我特别喜欢的一个例子是贾斯汀·扎伦比（Justin Zaremby）去年提出的，他说这是我们在高速公路上行驶时所感受到的情绪，对吧，我们看到一场车祸或经过残骸，每个人都放慢速度，对吧，他们都想看到。

What are they hoping to see?

他们希望看到什么？

Well, they want to see blood, they want to see if there's a body, they want to see how much damage has been caused.

好吧，他们想看看血，他们想看看是否有尸体，他们想看看造成了多少伤害。

And we've all been in this, where we know that it's shameful to look at this, just drive on, as Socrates would say "mind your own business," and yet at the same time we feel, even against our will, compelled to look and think about that.

我们都经历过这种情况，我们知道看到这一点是可耻的，就继续前进，就像苏格拉底会说的“管好你自己的事”，但与此同时，我们感到，即使违背我们的意愿，也不得不审视和思考这一点。

And think about that and this case of Leontius the next time you, for those of you who have driver's licenses, are next driving on the highway and see something like that.

对于那些拥有驾驶执照的人来说，下次当你在高速公路上开车并看到类似的事情时，请想想这个和莱昂提乌斯的例子。

It is the thumos that is the cause of--that should be the cause of your shame at slowing down to look.

正是这种情绪造成了——这应该是你因放慢速度而感到羞耻的原因。

Sometimes we can't help but slow down because everybody is slowed down in front of us, we have no choice.

有时我们情不自禁地放慢脚步，因为我们面前的所有人都放慢了脚步，我们别无选择。

But anyway, that incident, that story that Socrates relates is connected to the fact that Leontius is a certain kind of man.

但无论如何，苏格拉底讲述的那个事件、那个故事与莱昂提乌斯是某种人这一事实有关。

He regards himself as proud, independent, someone who wants to be in control of his emotions but isn't.

他认为自己是一个骄傲、独立的人，一个想要控制自己情绪但事实并非如此的人。

He is a soul at war with himself, and potentially therefore, at war with others.

他是一个与自己交战的灵魂，因此也可能与他人交战。

And what the Republic tries to do is to offer us strategies, maybe we might even call it a therapy, for dealing with thumos , for submitting it to the control of reason and helping us to achieve some level of balance, of self-control and moderation.

共和国试图做的是为我们提供策略，也许我们甚至可以将其称为一种疗法，用于处理情绪，将其置于理性的控制之下，并帮助我们实现某种程度的平衡、自我控制和节制。

And these are the qualities taken together that Socrates calls justice, that can only be achieved when reason is in control of the appetites and desires.

这些都是苏格拉底所说的正义的品质，只有当理性控制食欲和欲望时，正义才能实现。

Again, a question the book asks is whether that ideal of justice can be used as a model for politics.

本书再次提出的一个问题是，正义理想是否可以用作政治模型。

Can it serve as a model for justice in the city?

能否成为城市正义的典范？

This connection he has established between justice in the city and justice in the soul, what are the therapies or strategies for solving injustice in the soul or imbalance of some kind in the soul?

他在城市的正义和灵魂的正义之间建立了这种联系，解决灵魂的不公正或灵魂的某种不平衡的疗法或策略是什么？

Can those be transferred or translated in some way to public justice, to political justice, justice in the polis ?

这些可以以某种方式转移或转化为公共正义、政治正义、城邦正义吗？

Right?

正确的？

You with me on that so far?

到目前为止你和我同意吗？

So, on the basis of this, Socrates proposes how to proceed with the construction of Kallipolis, and he does so through what he calls three waves.

因此，在此基础上，苏格拉底提出了如何进行卡利波利斯的建设，他通过所谓的三波建设来进行。

There are three waves, three waves of reform, so to speak, that will contribute to the creation of the city.

可以说，有三波、三波改革，这将有助于城市的创建。

The first of these waves is, you remember, the restrictions on private property, even the abolition of private property.

你记得，第一波浪潮是对私有财产的限制，甚至是废除私有财产。

The second, the abolition of the family, and the third wave being the establishment of the philosopher kings.

第二波是废除家庭，第三波是哲学家王的建立。

Each of these waves is regarded as in some way necessary for the proper construction of a just city.

每一次浪潮都在某种程度上被认为是正确建设正义城市所必需的。

And I'm not going to speak about all of them, but I do want to speak a little bit about, because it has particular relevance for us, his proposals for the co-education of men and women that is a great part of his plan, especially related to the abolition of the family, that men and women be educated in the same way, right.

我不会谈论所有这些，但我确实想谈一点，因为这与我们特别相关，他关于男女同校的建议是他计划的重要组成部分，特别是与废除家庭有关，即男性和女性以同样的方式接受教育，对吧。

The core of Socrates's proposal for equal education is presented in a context that he knows to be or suggests will be laughable.

苏格拉底关于平等教育的建议的核心是在他知道或暗示将是可笑的背景下提出的。

It will certainly be seen that way, he suggests, by Glaucon and Adeimantus.

他认为，格劳孔和阿德曼图斯肯定会这样看待。

There is no job, he states, that cannot be performed equally well by both men and women.

他表示，没有什么工作是男性和女性不能同样出色地完成的。

Is Socrates a feminist?

苏格拉底是女权主义者吗？

Gender differences, he says, are no more relevant when it comes to positions of political rule than is the distinction between being bald and being hairy.

他说，就政治统治地位而言，性别差异并不比秃头和多毛之间的区别更重要。

Socrates is not saying that men and women are the same in every respect, he says, but equal with respect to competing for any job at all.

苏格拉底并不是说男人和女人在各个方面都是一样的，他说，而是说男人和女人在竞争任何工作方面都是平等的。

There will be no glass ceilings in Kallipolis.

卡利波利斯不会有玻璃天花板。

The first, in many ways, great defender, the first great champion of the emancipation of women from the household.

从很多方面来说，他都是第一个伟大的捍卫者，第一个将妇女从家庭中解放出来的伟大捍卫者。

But this proposal comes at certain costs, he tells us.

但他告诉我们，这个提议是有一定代价的。

The proposal for a level playing field demands, of course, equal education.

当然，公平竞争环境的提议要求平等教育。

And here he says that men and women, being submitted to the same regime, will mean, among other things, that they will compete with one another in co-educational gymnasia.

他在这里说，男性和女性接受同一政权意味着，除其他外，他们将在男女同校的体育运动中相互竞争。

They will compete with each other in the nude because that is the way Greeks exercised.

他们会裸体比赛，因为那是希腊人锻炼身体的方式。

They will compete naked in co-educational gymnasia, think of that.

想想看，他们将在男女同校的体操馆里裸体比赛。

Furthermore, their marriages and their procreations will be, he tells us, for the sake of the city.

此外，他告诉我们，他们的婚姻和生育将是为了这座城市。

There is nothing like romantic love among the members of the guardian class.

守护阶级成员之间没有什么比浪漫的爱情更好的了。

Sexual relations will be intended purely for the sake of reproduction and unwanted fetuses will be aborted.

性关系纯粹是为了繁殖，不想要的胎儿将被流产。

The only exception to this prohibition is for members of the guardian class who are beyond the age of reproduction, he tells us, and they, he says, can have sex if they're still able, with anyone they like.

他告诉我们，这项禁令的唯一例外是超过生育年龄的监护人阶层的成员，如果他们仍然有能力，他们可以与任何他们喜欢的人发生性行为。

A kind of version of recreational sex as a reward for a lifetime of self-control.

一种娱乐性行为，作为对一生自我控制的奖励。

Child-bearing may be inevitable for women but the rearing of the child will be the responsibility of the community or at least a class of guardians and common daycare centers.

生育对于女性来说可能是不可避免的，但抚养孩子将是社区或至少是一类监护人和公共日托中心的责任。

A sort of variation of Hillary Clinton's book that "it takes a village to raise a child," comes right out of Plato apparently.

希拉里·克林顿的书“需要一个村庄来养育一个孩子”的一种变体，显然出自柏拉图之口。

No child should know their biological parents and no parent should know their child.

任何孩子都不应该认识他们的亲生父母，任何父母都不应该认识他们的孩子。

The purpose of this scheme being to eliminate senses of mine and me, to promote a kind of common sense of esprit de corps among the members of the guardian class, "a community of pleasure and pain," Socrates calls it at 464a.

这个计划的目的是消除我和我的感觉，在监护人阶级的成员中促进一种集体精神的常识，苏格拉底在 464a 中称其为“快乐和痛苦的共同体”。

What we are creating is a community of pleasure and pain.

我们正在创建的是一个充满快乐和痛苦的社区。

I will feel your pains, and of course you will feel mine.

我会感受到你的痛苦，你当然也会感受到我的痛苦。

The objections to Socrates, are of course, you know, raised as early as by Aristotle himself, in the very next generation.

当然，你知道，亚里士多德本人在下一代就提出了对苏格拉底的反对意见。

How can we care for things, how can we truly care for things that are common?

我们怎样才能关心事物，怎样才能真正关心常见的事物？

We learn to care for things that are closest to us, that are in some way our own.

我们学会关心离我们最近的、在某种程度上属于我们自己的事物。

We can only show proper love and concern for things that are ours, not things that are common.

我们只能对自己的东西表现出适当的爱和关心，而不是对平常的东西表现出适当的爱和关心。

Common ownership, Aristotle argues, will mean a sort of common neglect.

亚里士多德认为，共同所有权意味着一种共同的忽视。

Children will not be raised better by putting them under the common care of guardians or in daycares but they will be equally neglected.

把孩子放在监护人的共同照顾下或托儿所不会让他们得到更好的抚养，但他们也会同样受到忽视。

But it is in this, and you can think about that, about whether that's true or not, but it is in the same context of his treatment of men and women that something else often goes unnoticed and that is Socrates's efforts to rewrite the laws of war, because of course the guardians are being trained and educated to be guards, to be warriors, to be members of a military class.

但正是在这一点上，你可以想一想，这是否属实，但正是在他对待男人和女人的同一背景下，还有一件事经常被忽视，那就是苏格拉底重写战争法的努力，因为当然，监护人正在接受训练和教育，成为守卫、战士、军事阶层的成员。

In the first place, he tells us, children must be taught the art of war.

首先，他告诉我们，必须向孩子们传授战争艺术。

This must be the beginning of their education, Socrates says, making the children spectators of war.

苏格拉底说，这必须是他们教育的开始，让孩子们成为战争的旁观者。

Children will be taken, he seems to suggest, to battles and to sites of where fighting is going on, to be spectators for them to become used to and habituated to seeing war and what everything that goes on.

他似乎暗示，孩子们将被带到战斗和战斗发生的地点，成为旁观者，让他们习惯并习惯观看战争和所发生的一切。

Not only is expulsion from the ranks of the guardians penalty for cowardice, but Socrates suggests there should be, listen to this, "erotic rewards for those who excel in bravery." Erotic rewards for excellence in bravery.

被逐出监护人行列不仅是对怯懦的惩罚，而且苏格拉底还建议，听着，“对那些勇敢的人应该给予色情奖励”。对勇敢的卓越表现的色情奖励。

Consider the following remarkable proposal at 468c, "and I add to the laws of war," Socrates writes, "that as long as they, the guardians, are on campaign, no one whom he wants to kiss should be permitted to refuse.

考虑一下 468c 中以下引人注目的提议，“我在战争法中添加了内容，”苏格拉底写道，“只要他们，守护者，在征战，任何他想亲吻的人都不应被允许拒绝。

So that if a man happens to love someone, either male of female, he would be more eager to win the rewards of valor." That is to say as a reward for bravery, exhibited bravery, the hero should be allowed to kiss anyone they like while they are on patrol, male or female.

因此，如果一个男人碰巧爱上一个人，无论是男性还是女性，他都会更渴望赢得勇气的奖励。”也就是说，作为对勇敢、表现出勇敢的奖励，英雄应该被允许在巡逻时亲吻任何他们喜欢的人，无论男性还是女性。

A particularly puritanical editor of Plato from the twentieth century writes in a footnote to that passage, "this is almost the only passage in Plato that one would wish to blot out," his sensibilities were offended by this notion.

一位二十世纪柏拉图著作的特别清教徒编辑在该段落的脚注中写道，“这几乎是柏拉图著作中唯一一个人们希望抹掉的段落”，他的情感被这种想法所冒犯。

But I wonder what kind of, if this might even make a powerful incentive for military recruitment today.

但我想知道这会是什么样的，如果这甚至可能成为当今征兵的强大动力。

What do you think?

你怎么认为？

Well, think about it.

好吧，想想看。

I don't know.

我不知道。

So, at long last, we move from the education of the guards to justice.

所以，我们终于从对警卫的教育转向正义。

What is justice, we've been questioning asking ourselves throughout this book in which Plato has been, Socrates has been teasing us with.

什么是正义，我们在这本书中一直在质疑自己，在这本书中，柏拉图、苏格拉底一直在戏弄我们。

At long last we come to this thing.

终于我们谈到了这件事。

The platonic idea of justice concerns harmony, he tells us, both harmony in the city and harmony in the soul.

他告诉我们，柏拉图式的正义观念涉及和谐，既涉及城市的和谐，也涉及灵魂的和谐。

We learn that the two are actually homologous in some way.

我们了解到两者在某种程度上实际上是同源的。

Justice is defined as what binds the city together and makes it one.

正义被定义为将城市联系在一起并使之合一的因素。

Or he puts it another way, consists of everyone and everything performing those functions for which they are best equipped.

或者他换句话说，由每个人、每件事物组成，执行他们最适合的功能。

Each of the other citizens, Socrates says, must be brought to that which naturally suits him, which naturally suits him, one man, one job, he says.

苏格拉底说，其他每一位公民都必须被带到自然适合他的地方，自然适合他的地方，一个人，一份工作，他说。

So that each man practicing his own which is one, will not become many but one.

这样，每个人实践他自己的“一”，就不会成为“多”，而是“一”。

Thus you see, he says, the whole city will naturally grow up together.

因此你看，他说，整个城市自然会一起成长。

Justice seems to mean adhering to the principal, justice in the city, adhering to the principal of division of labor.

正义似乎意味着坚持主体，城市的正义，坚持分工的原则。

One man, one job, everyone doing or performing the task that naturally fits or suits them.

一个人，一份工作，每个人都在做或执行自然适合他们的任务。

One can, of course, as you've already imagined, raise several objections to this view and again Aristotle seems to take the lead.

当然，正如你已经想象的那样，人们可以对这一观点提出多种反对意见，而亚里士多德似乎再次带头。

Plato's excessive emphasis on unity would seem to destroy the natural diversity of human beings that make up a city.

柏拉图过分强调统一似乎破坏了构成城市的人类的自然多样性。

Is there one and only one thing that each person does best?

每个人是否只有一件事最擅长？

And if so, who could decide this?

如果是这样，谁能决定呢？

Would such a plan of justice not be overly coercive in forcing people into predefined social roles?

这样的正义计划会不会过于强制地迫使人们承担预先确定的社会角色？

Shouldn't individuals be free to choose for themselves their own plans of life wherever it may take them?

个人难道不应该自由地选择自己的生活计划吗？

But however that may be, Plato believes he has found in the formula of one man, one job, a certain foundation for political justice.

但无论如何，柏拉图相信他已经在一个人、一份工作的公式中找到了政治正义的一定基础。

That is to say, the three parts of the cities, workers, auxiliaries, guardians, each of them all work together and each by minding their own business, that is doing their own job, out of this a certain kind of peace and harmony will prevail.

也就是说，城市的三部分，工人、辅助人员、守护者，他们每个人都在一起工作，各管各的事，也就是做好自己的工作，这样就会有某种和平与和谐。

And since the city, you remember, is simply the soul at large, the three classes of the city merely express the three parts of the soul.

你还记得，既然城市只是整个灵魂，那么城市的三个等级仅仅表达了灵魂的三个部分。

The soul is just, he tells us, when the appetites, spiritedness, and reason cooperate with reason, ruling, spirit and appetite, just as in the polis , the philosopher-king rules the warriors and the workers.

他告诉我们，当欲望、精神和理性与理性、统治、精神和欲望合作时，灵魂就是正义的，就像在城邦中，哲学家国王统治战士和工人一样。

The result, he tells us, is a kind of balance of the parts of the whole, right.

他告诉我们，结果是整体各部分之间的一种平衡，对吧。

Justice is a kind of harmony in which the three parts of the city and the three parts of the soul are direct expressions of one another.

正义是一种和谐，其中城市的三个部分和灵魂的三个部分是彼此的直接表达。

But that formula forces us to return to the original Socratic question about the harmony of the soul and the city.

但这个公式迫使我们回到最初的苏格拉底问题，即灵魂与城市的和谐。

Is the structure of a city identical to the structure of a soul?

城市的结构和灵魂的结构是一样的吗？

Are they really identical?

它们真的一模一样吗？

Well, maybe, maybe not.

嗯，也许，也许不是。

For example, every individual consists of three parts, of appetite, spirit, and reason.

例如，每个人都由三部分组成：欲望、精神和理性。

Yet each of us will be confined it seems to only one task in the social hierarchy.

然而，我们每个人似乎都将被限制在社会等级制度中的一项任务中。

I assume what Socrates means by that is though each individual will, each of us, embody all three features of soul, appetite, spirit, and reason, only one of these will be the dominate trait in each of us.

我认为苏格拉底的意思是，虽然每个人，我们每个人，都会体现灵魂、欲望、精神和理性的所有三个特征，但其中只有一个会成为我们每个人的主导特征。

Some of us will be dominantly appetitive personalities, others will be dominantly spirited and so on.

我们中的一些人会是食欲旺盛的人，另一些人则是精神旺盛的人，等等。

But even still when we think of it, if I am a member of the money making class, I am still more than simply a bundle of desires and appetites, just as a member of the warrior class would be clearly more than mere thumos or mere spiritedness.

但即便如此，当我们想到这一点时，如果我是赚钱阶层的一员，我仍然不仅仅是一堆欲望和胃口，就像武士阶层的一员显然不仅仅是单纯的热情或精神一样。

So, to confine the individual, it seems, to one and only one sphere of life would seem to do an injustice to the internal psychological complexity that makes each of us who we are.

因此，将个体限制在生活的一个且仅一个领域似乎对我们每个人的内在心理复杂性不公平。

Let's examine that problem from a slightly different point of view.

让我们从稍微不同的角度来审视这个问题。

Socrates tells us repeatedly that justice in the city consists of each member, each citizen fulfilling his task in the social division of labor, in the social hierarchy.

苏格拉底反复告诉我们，城市中的正义由每个成员组成，每个公民在社会分工和社会等级中履行自己的任务。

But this seems to be a very far cry, does it not, from the kind of justice he talks about in the soul that consists in what we might think of as sort of rational autonomy or self-control where reason controls the passions and the appetites.

但这似乎与他所说的灵魂中的正义相去甚远，不是吗？灵魂中的正义在于我们可能认为的理性自主或自我控制，即理性控制激情和欲望。

In fact, the vast majority of citizens in even the platonically just city will not necessarily have platonically just souls.

事实上，即使是柏拉图式正义的城市里的绝大多数公民也不一定拥有柏拉图式正义的灵魂。

The harmony and self-discipline of the city will not be due, it seems, to each and every member of the city but rather will rely on the guardian class, that special class of philosopher kings who will rule, let it be recalled, through selective lies, myths, and other various kinds of deception.

城市的和谐与自律似乎不会归功于城市的每一个成员，而是依赖于守护阶级，即哲学家国王的特殊阶级，他们将通过选择性的谎言、神话和其他各种欺骗来统治，让我们回忆起来。

So how can it be the case if at all, that you could have a just city, that is to say a city where everyone is performing their own task, they're following the division of labor, and yet very few of those members will have, so to speak, platonically just souls, that is to say, souls dominated by a kind of self-control or self-guardianship?

那么，如果你能拥有一个公正的城市，也就是说，每个人都在执行自己的任务，遵循劳动分工，但其中很少有人拥有可以说是柏拉图式公正的灵魂，也就是说，被某种自我控制或自我监护所支配的灵魂，那又怎么可能呢？

That would certainly not be true of the members of the artisan class or the military class for that reason.

因此，对于工匠阶层或军事阶层的成员来说，情况肯定不是这样。

So the question, that question is posed, that objection is posed by Adeimantus, you remember, at the beginning of Book IV.

所以这个问题，那个问题，这个反对意见是由阿德曼图斯提出的，你记得，在第四卷的开头。

"What would your apology be Socrates," Adeimantus says, "if it were objected that you're hardly making these men happy, these people just," he says at 419a.

阿德曼图斯在 419a 中说道：“苏格拉底，如果有人反对说你几乎没有让这些人幸福，这些人只是幸福，那么你会向苏格拉底道歉吗？”

Adeimantus is concerned that Socrates is being unfair to the auxiliaries and the guardians, giving them all the responsibilities but none of the rewards, none of the pleasures that would seem to be the reward of responsibility.

阿德曼图斯担心苏格拉底对辅助者和监护人不公平，给了他们所有的责任，却没有给予他们任何奖励，也没有给予他们看似责任奖励的快乐。

How can a citizen of Kallipolis live a just or happy life if he or she is deprived of most of the goods or pleasures that we seek?

如果卡利波利斯公民被剥夺了我们所寻求的大部分商品或快乐，他或她如何能过上公正或幸福的生活？

Socrates gives a rather lame response.

苏格拉底给出了相当蹩脚的回答。

In founding the city, he says, we are not looking to the exceptional happiness of any one individual or any group but rather to the city as a whole.

他说，在建立这座城市时，我们并不是为了任何个人或任何群体的特殊幸福，而是为了整个城市。

And Adeimantus appears to accept that response, oh yes, I forgot we are concerned with the happiness, the justice of the whole.

阿德曼图斯似乎接受了这种回应，哦，是的，我忘记了我们关心的是整体的幸福和正义。

But his question is still one that lingers and one that Plato includes for a purpose.

但他的问题仍然是一个挥之不去的问题，柏拉图提出这个问题是有目的的。

What about, how can you have a platonically just city if most people in it, certainly most people of the auxiliary class are deprived of the pleasures and the goods that we desire?

如果大多数人，当然是大多数辅助阶级的人都被剥夺了我们想要的快乐和商品，那么你怎么能拥有一个柏拉图式正义的城市呢？

It's a question that lingers and one might wonder whether Socrates ever successfully answers that question.

这是一个挥之不去的问题，人们可能想知道苏格拉底是否成功地回答了这个问题。

He silences Adeimantus in some way as he silences Thrasymachus earlier; that is not always to say that their objections have been answered.

他以某种方式让阿德曼图斯沉默，就像之前他让色拉叙马科斯沉默一样。这并不总是意味着他们的反对意见已得到答复。

And that leads, as it were, to the third and final wave of paradox of the Kallipolis which is the famous proposal for the philosopher-king.

这可以说导致了卡利波利斯悖论的第三波也是最后一波，这是哲学家国王的著名提议。

What is Plato without the philosopher-king?

没有哲学家王，柏拉图会是什么样子？

What is the Republic without the philosopher-king?

没有哲学家国王的共和国是什么？

Unless the philosophers rule as kings or those now called kings, genuinely philosophize, there will be no rest from the ills for the cities, he says, right?

他说，除非哲学家像国王一样统治，或者那些现在被称为国王的人真正进行哲学思考，否则城市的弊病就不会停止，对吗？

Socrates presents this proposal, again, as outlandish.

苏格拉底再次提出这个建议，认为它很古怪。

He says he expects to be drowned in laughter.

他说他希望自己会被笑声淹没。

And this has led some readers to suggest that the proposal for philosophers' kings is ironical.

这导致一些读者认为哲学家国王的提议具有讽刺意味。

That it is intended as a kind of joke to, in many ways, discredit the idea of the just city or at least to indicate its extreme implausibility.

它的目的是作为一种笑话，在很多方面质疑正义城市的想法，或者至少表明它的极端难以置信。

The question is why does Socrates regard philosophic kingship as required for Kallipolis, for the just city?

问题是，为什么苏格拉底认为哲学王权是卡利波利斯、正义之城所必需的？

Let me say, I am by no means convinced that the idea for the philosopher-king is an impossibility or is intended as a kind of absurdity.

让我说，我绝不相信哲学家王的想法是不可能的，或者是一种荒谬。

Plato himself, remember, made a number of trips to Sicily to serve as the advisor to a king there, Dionysius, and all of these missions failed and left him deeply dispirited.

请记住，柏拉图本人曾多次前往西西里岛，担任当地国王狄奥尼修斯的顾问，但所有这些任务都失败了，让他深感沮丧。

The ambition in some ways to unite philosophy and politics has been a recurring dream of political philosophy ever since Plato.

自柏拉图以来，以某种方式统一哲学和政治的雄心一直是政治哲学的一个反复出现的梦想。

Socrates says he will be drowned in laughter but many other people have taken this dream or this aspiration very seriously.

苏格拉底说他会被笑声淹没，但许多其他人都非常认真地对待这个梦想或这个愿望。

Consider one thinker, and I will, I'm going to read you a short passage and I'm going to come back to this again later in the semester, from Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan , chapter 31 of Leviathan , where Hobbes gives us a very personal statement about his intention in writing this book.

考虑一个思想家，我会读一段短文，本学期晚些时候我会再回到这个话题，摘自托马斯·霍布斯的《利维坦》，《利维坦》第 31 章，霍布斯在其中对我们写这本书的意图做了非常个人化的陈述。

Hobbes wrote, "I am at the point of believing that my labors will be as useless as the commonwealth of Plato." He seems to be rather despairing about whether this book is actually going to have any affect.

霍布斯写道：“我相信我的劳动将像柏拉图的国家一样毫无用处。”他似乎对这本书是否真的会产生任何影响感到相当绝望。

"I'm in the point of believing it will be as useless as the commonwealth of Plato," for he also is of the opinion that it is impossible for the disorders of state and change of government by civil war ever to be taken away until sovereigns be philosophers.

“我相信它将像柏拉图的共和国一样毫无用处”，因为他还认为，除非主权者成为哲学家，否则不可能消除内战造成的国家混乱和政府更迭。

But after admitting his despair about the possibility of realizing his ideas and practice, Hobbes continues as follows, "I recover some hope," he says, "that one time or other, this writing of mine may still fall into the hands of a sovereign who will consider himself without the help of any interested or envious interpreter.

但在承认他对实现自己的想法和实践的可能性感到绝望之后，霍布斯继续说道，“我恢复了一些希望，”他说，“总有一天，我的这篇文章可能仍然落入一位主权者的手中，他会认为自己不需要任何感兴趣或嫉妒的解释者的帮助。

And by the exercise of entire sovereignty in protecting the public teaching of it, convert this truth of speculation into the utility of practice." So there you have Hobbes talking about his own book, expecting or at least hoping it will fall into the hands of a sovereign who one day, again, without envious or self-interested interpreters may, may one day become a practical source of guidance for statecraft.

并通过行使全部主权来保护其公共教学，将这一推测的真理转化为实践的效用。”因此，霍布斯正在谈论他自己的书，期待或至少希望它会落入一位主权者的手中，有一天，没有嫉妒或自私的解释者可能会再次成为统治者的实用指导来源。

Here it is Hobbes taking Plato's suggestion very seriously, and we see this again very much in the history of political philosophy in thinkers like Rousseau, or Marx, or Nietzsche, or Machiavelli all of whom sought to gain the ear of political leaders and convert their ideas into some kind of practice.

在这里，霍布斯非常认真地对待柏拉图的建议，我们在卢梭、马克思、尼采或马基雅维利等思想家的政治哲学史上再次看到了这一点，他们都试图赢得政治领袖的注意，并将他们的思想转化为某种实践。

But most of the objections to Plato's particular form of the philosophic kingship really are centered on the practicality of his idea.

但对柏拉图特殊形式的哲学王权的大多数反对实际上都集中在他的想法的实用性上。

And beyond this, there is the problem with the very cogency of the idea itself.

除此之外，这个想法本身的说服力也存在问题。

Consider the following, can philosophy and politics actually be united?

考虑一下，哲学和政治真的可以统一吗？

It would seem that the needs of philosophy are quite different from the demands or requirements of political rule.

哲学的需要似乎与政治统治的需要或要求有很大不同。

Can you imagine Socrates willingly giving up one of his conversations for the tedious business of legislation and public administration?

你能想象苏格拉底愿意为了繁琐的立法和公共行政事务而放弃他的一次谈话吗？

Can one imagine that?

有人能想象吗？

The philosopher is described by Plato as someone with knowledge of the eternal forms, lying behind or beyond the many particulars.

柏拉图将哲学家描述为具有永恒形式知识的人，其背后或超越了许多细节。

But just how does that kind of knowledge help us deal with the constant ebb and flow of political life?

但这种知识究竟如何帮助我们应对政治生活的不断潮起潮落呢？

It seems not enough that the philosopher have knowledge of the forms but this knowledge has to be supplemented by experience, by judgment and by a kind of practical rationality.

哲学家仅仅拥有形式知识似乎还不够，但这种知识必须由经验、判断和某种实践理性来补充。

Was Plato simply unaware of this, I can't believe that.

我简直不敢相信柏拉图根本就没有意识到这一点。

I don't believe that.

我不相信。

So the question is, what kind of unity was he expecting of philosophy and politics?

那么问题是，他期望哲学和政治达到什么样的统一？

Anyway, philosophers are not purely thinking machines but they are also human beings composed of reason, spiritedness, and appetite.

无论如何，哲学家不是纯粹的思维机器，他们也是由理性、精神和欲望组成的人。

Will not even philosophers, one might ask, given the possibility of absolute power be tempted to abuse their positions?

有人可能会问，鉴于绝对权力的可能性，连哲学家也不会被诱惑滥用自己的立场吗？

Maybe, maybe not, who knows.

也许，也许不是，谁知道呢。

So these are the questions, these are at least among the questions that Socrates or Plato, the author of the book, deliberately poses for us to consider.

所以这些就是问题，这些至少是本书的作者苏格拉底或柏拉图故意提出来供我们考虑的问题之一。

So what is the doctrine of the philosopher-king intended to prove?

那么哲人王的学说想要证明什么呢？

Must the massive effort to construct the city in speech in order to understand justice in the soul?

必须付出巨大的努力在言语中建造城市才能理解灵魂中的正义吗？

Is it a philosophical possibility?

这是一种哲学可能性吗？

Does he hold it out as a real possibility or must it be considered a failure in some way or that if the dialogue does end in failure what can we learn from that?

他是否认为这是一种真正的可能性，或者是否必须将其视为某种方式的失败，或者如果对话确实以失败告终，我们可以从中学到什么？

Those are questions I want you to consider.

这些是我希望你考虑的问题。

But for now, what I want to do is talk about Plato's democracy and ours.

但现在，我想做的是谈谈柏拉图的民主和我们的民主。

What does Plato teach us about our own regime?

关于我们自己的政权，柏拉图教导了我们什么？

Could Plato have imagined such a regime?

柏拉图能想象出这样的政权吗？

I think in many ways he can and he did.

我认为在很多方面他都可以而且他也做到了。

In one sense, the Republic , and I've given some indications of this today, seems to be the most anti-democratic book ever written.

从某种意义上说，《理想国》——我今天已经给出了一些迹象——似乎是有史以来最反民主的书。

Its defense of philosophic kingship is itself a direct repudiation of Athenian democracy.

它对哲学王权的捍卫本身就是对雅典民主的直接否定。

Its conception of justice, minding one's own business, is a rejection of the democratic belief that citizens have sufficient knowledge to participate in the offices of government.

它的正义观、管好自己的事，是对公民拥有足够知识参与政府公职的民主信念的拒绝。

To be sure, Athenian democracy is not American democracy.

可以肯定的是，雅典民主不是美国民主。

Plato thought of democracy as a kind of rule by the many that he associated with the unrestricted freedom to do everything that one likes.

柏拉图认为民主是一种多数人的统治，他将民主与不受限制地做任何事的自由联系在一起。

This seems in many ways to be quite far from the American democracy based on constitutional government, systems of checks and balances, protection of individual rights, and so on.

这在很多方面似乎与以宪政、制衡制度、个人权利保护等为基础的美国民主相去甚远。

The differences between Athens and Washington seem to be very far.

雅典和华盛顿之间的差异似乎非常遥远。

And yet, in many ways, Socrates diagnoses very powerfully an important condition of modern democratic life with which we are all familiar.

然而，在很多方面，苏格拉底非常有力地诊断了我们都熟悉的现代民主生活的一个重要条件。

Consider this passage in Book VIII of the Republic that I encourage you to read but is not on your assigned list.

考虑一下《共和国》第八卷中的这段话，我鼓励你阅读它，但它不在你指定的清单上。

Socrates writes in Book VIII, 561c, "speaking of the democratic soul, the democratic man, he also lives along day by day gratifying the desire that occurs to him, at one time, drinking and listening to the flute." Today we have different kinds of music to substitute for the flute but you get the point.

苏格拉底在第八卷 561c 中写道，“说到民主的灵魂，民主的人，他也日复一日地生活着，满足着他的愿望，有时一边喝酒，一边听笛子。”今天我们有不同类型的音乐来代替长笛，但你明白了。

Drinking and listening to the flute, at another time downing water and dieting, now practicing gymnastics and again idling and neglecting everything, and sometimes spending his time as though he were occupied with philosophizing.

时而喝酒听笛，时而喝水节食，时而练体操，时而无所事事，时而无所事事，时而沉思哲学。

Often, he engages in politics and jumping up, says and does whatever chances to come to his mind.

他常常参与政治并跳出来，想到什么就说什么，做什么。

And if he ever admires any soldiers, he turns in that direction.

如果他钦佩任何士兵，他就会转向那个方向。

And if money-makers in that one and there is neither order nor necessity in this life but calling this life sweet, free, and blessed, he follows it throughout.

如果那个人是赚钱者，而今生既没有秩序也没有必要，而是称此生为甜蜜、自由和幸福，他就会始终遵循这一生活。

Is that image of life at all familiar to us?

这种生活景象我们熟悉吗？

Doing anything you like, it seems to be the opposite of the platonic understanding of justice as each one doing a special function or fulfilling or doing a special craft.

做任何你喜欢的事情，这似乎与柏拉图式的正义理解相反，因为每个人都在履行一项特殊职能或履行或从事一项特殊工艺。

Just doing whatever you like and calling that sweet, free, and blessed throughout.

做任何你喜欢做的事，自始至终都称其为甜蜜、自由和幸福。

This account should be instantly recognizable as the state of modern democracy in some ways.

在某些方面，这种描述应该立即被认为是现代民主的状态。

There exists, as Plato and Socrates clearly understand, a very real tendency within democracy to identify the good human being, the good man with, you might say, the good sport, the regular guy, the cooperative fellow, you know, someone who goes along and gets along with others.

正如柏拉图和苏格拉底清楚地理解的那样，民主制度中存在着一种非常真实的倾向，即认定好人，好人，你可以说，好运动，普通人，合作伙伴，你知道，与他人相处融洽的人。

By educating citizens to cooperate with each other in a friendly manner, democracy seems, so Plato is suggesting, they stand in danger of devaluing people who are prepared to stand alone, of rugged individualists who will go down with the ship if need be.

柏拉图认为，通过教育公民以友好的方式相互合作，民主似乎面临着贬低那些准备独立的人的危险，贬低那些在必要时会随船沉没的顽固的个人主义者。

It is precisely this kind of creeping conformism, this kind of easy going toleration, this sort of soft nihilism that democracies tend to foster in which not only Plato, but modern thinkers like Emmerson, and Tocqueville, and Mill, John Stewart Mill, very much warned about.

民主国家往往会滋生的正是这种悄然发生的因循守旧、这种随和的宽容、这种软弱的虚无主义，不仅柏拉图，而且现代思想家如艾默生、托克维尔和约翰·斯图尔特·密尔（John Stewart Mill）都对这种现象发出了非常强烈的警告。

What bothers Socrates most about our democracy is a certain kind of instability, its tendency to be pulled between extremes of anarchy, between lawlessness and tyranny.

我们的民主最让苏格拉底烦恼的是某种不稳定，它倾向于陷入无政府状态、无法无天和暴政的极端之间。

It is in this section of the Republic , Adeimantus asks, won't we with Aeschylus say whatever comes to our lips?

阿德曼托斯问道，正是在《理想国》的这一部分中，我们难道不会和埃斯库罗斯一起说什么就说什么吗？

Won't we say with Aeschylus whatever comes to our lips?

我们难道不会跟埃斯库罗斯一样说任何到嘴边的话吗？

The idea of having the liberty to say whatever comes to our lips sounds to Plato like a kind of blasphemy.

在柏拉图看来，有自由说任何话的想法听起来像是一种亵渎。

The view that nothing is shameful, that everything should be permitted, to say whatever comes to our lips…

这种观点认为，没有什么是可耻的，一切都应该被允许，说任何我们想说的话……

There is a kind of license that comes from the denial of any restraints on our desires or a kind of relativistic belief that all desires are equal and all should be permitted.

有一种许可来自于拒绝对我们的欲望进行任何限制，或者来自于一种相对主义信念，即所有欲望都是平等的，并且一切都应该被允许。

Plato's views on democracy were not all negative, to be sure.

可以肯定的是，柏拉图对民主的看法并不全是负面的。

He wasn't only a critic of democracy.

他不仅是民主的批评者。

It was, after all, a democracy that produced Socrates and allowed him to philosophize freely until his seventieth year.

毕竟，正是民主制度造就了苏格拉底，并让他能够自由地进行哲学思考，直到七十岁。

Would this have been permitted in any other city of the ancient world?

这在古代世界的任何其他城市会被允许吗？

And he surely would not be allowed to philosophize in many cities and countries today.

今天，他肯定不会被允许在许多城市和国家进行哲学思考。

Remember the letter that Plato wrote near the end of his life, when he compares the democracy to a golden age, at least in comparison to what went after.

还记得柏拉图在晚年写的一封信吗？他将民主比作黄金时代，至少是与之后的时代相比。

Plato here seems to agree with Winston Churchill that democracy is the worst regime except for all the others.

柏拉图在这里似乎同意温斯顿·丘吉尔的观点，即除了所有其他政体之外，民主是最糟糕的政体。

It's the worst that's been tried except for everything else.

这是除了其他一切之外尝试过的最糟糕的方法。

So what is the function of Kallipolis, this perfect, this beautiful city?

那么卡利波利斯这座完美、美丽的城市有什么功能呢？

What purpose does it serve?

它有什么目的？

The philosopher-king, he tells us, may be an object of hope or wish but Plato realizes that this possibility is not really to be expected.

他告诉我们，哲学家国王可能是希望或愿望的对象，但柏拉图意识到这种可能性并不是真正值得期待的。

The philosophic city is introduced as a metaphor to help us understand the education of the soul.

引入哲学城市作为比喻，帮助我们理解灵魂的教育。

The reform of politics may not be within our power but the exercise of self-control always is.

政治改革也许不在我们的能力范围内，但自我控制的行使却始终是我们的能力范围。

The first responsibility of the individual who wishes to engage in political reform is to reform themselves.

政治改革者的首要责任是改革自己。

All reform seems to begin at home.

所有改革似乎都从国内开始。

And we see this very vividly when we look at so many politicians today in public scolds who teach us and who are hectoring us about living a certain way of life, living a certain, living according to their likes and then we will find out of course something very shameful about them.

当我们今天看到如此多的政客在公开场合责骂我们时，我们可以清楚地看到这一点，他们教导我们，威胁我们过某种生活方式，过某种生活方式，按照他们的喜好生活，然后我们当然会发现他们有一些非常可耻的事情。

I'm thinking of a couple of people in particular, I won't mention any names in the public sphere.

我特别想到了几个人，我不会在公共领域提及任何名字。

Plato's judgment seems to be "you need to reform yourself before you can think about reforming others." This is a point that is often lost in the Republic , that it is first of all a work on the reform of the soul.

柏拉图的判断似乎是“你需要先改造自己，然后才能考虑改造别人”。这是《理想国》中经常被忽视的一点，即它首先是一部关于灵魂改造的作品。

That is not to say at all that it teaches withdrawal from political responsibilities, it does not.

这根本不是说它教导人们逃避政治责任，事实并非如此。

Philosophy and certainly Socratic philosophy requires friends, comrades, conversations.

哲学，当然还有苏格拉底哲学，需要朋友、同志、对话。

It is not something that can simply be pursued in isolation.

这不是可以简单地孤立地追求的事情。

Socrates understands that those who want to reform others must reform themselves, but many who've tried to imitate him have been less careful.

苏格拉底明白，那些想要改造别人的人必须改造自己，但许多试图效仿他的人却不太小心。

It is easy to confuse, as many people have done, the Republic, with a recipe for tyranny.

正如许多人所做的那样，很容易将共和国与暴政的秘诀相混淆。

The twentieth century, and even the beginnings of our own, is littered with the corpses of those who have set themselves up as philosopher-kings, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khamenei, to name just some of the most obvious.

二十世纪，甚至是我们这个世纪之初，到处都是那些自封为哲学家国王的人的尸体，列宁、斯大林、希特勒、毛泽东、哈梅内伊，仅举几个最明显的例子。

But these men are not philosophers.

但这些人不是哲学家。

Their professions to justice are just that, they are professions or pretensions expressing their vanity and their ambition.

他们的职业正义只是这样，他们是表达他们的虚荣心和野心的职业或借口。

For Plato, philosophy was in the first instance, a therapy for our passions in a way of setting limits to our desires.

对于柏拉图来说，哲学首先是通过限制我们的欲望来治疗我们的激情。

And this is precisely the opposite of the tyrant who Plato describes as a person of limitless desires who lacks the most rudimentary kind of governance, namely self-control.

而这恰恰与柏拉图描述的暴君相反，暴君是一个欲望无限的人，缺乏最基本的治理，即自我控制。

The difference between the philosopher and the tyrant illustrate two very different conceptions of philosophy.

哲学家和暴君之间的区别说明了两种截然不同的哲学概念。

For some, philosophy represents a form of liberation from confusion, from unruly passions and prejudices, from incoherence.

对于某些人来说，哲学代表着一种从混乱、不羁的激情和偏见、不连贯的状态中解放出来的形式。

Again, a therapy of the soul that brings peace and contentment and a kind of justice.

再次，这是一种带来和平、满足和正义的灵魂疗法。

And yet for others, philosophy is the source of the desire to dominate.

然而对于其他人来说，哲学是统治欲望的源泉。

It is the basis of tyranny in the great age of ideologies through which we are still passing.

这是我们仍在经历的意识形态伟大时代暴政的基础。

The question is that both tendencies are at work within philosophy and how do we encourage one side but not the other.

问题是，这两种倾向都在哲学中起作用，我们如何鼓励其中一方而不是另一方。

As that great philosopher Karl Marx once asked, "Who will educate the educators?" It's the wisest thing he ever said.

正如伟大哲学家卡尔·马克思曾经问的：“谁来教育教育家？”这是他说过的最明智的话。

Who will educate the educators, who do we turn to for help?

谁来教育教育工作者，我们向谁寻求帮助？

There is obviously no magic solution to this question but the best answer I know of is Socrates.

这个问题显然没有神奇的解决方案，但我所知道的最好答案是苏格拉底。

He showed people how to live, and just as importantly, he showed them how to die.

他向人们展示了如何生活，同样重要的是，他向人们展示了如何死亡。

He lived and died not like most people but better, and even his most vehement critics will admit to that.

他的生活和死亡与大多数人不同，但更好，即使是他最激烈的批评者也会承认这一点。

Thank you very much.

非常感谢。

I'll see you next Wednesday, and we'll start Aristotle.

下周三见，我们将从亚里士多德开始。