论愚蠢--节选自《狱中书简》
论愚蠢
对于善来说，愚蠢是比恶意更加危险的敌人。你可以抵抗恶意，你可以揭下它的面具，或者凭借力量来防止它。恶意总是包含着它自身毁灭的种子，因为它总是使人不舒服，假如不是更糟的话。然而面对愚蠢，根本无法防卫。要反对愚蠢，抵抗和力量都无济于事，愚蠢根本不服从理性。假如事实与一己的偏见相左，那就不必相信事实，假如那些事实无法否认，那就可以把它们干脆作为例外推开不理。所以同恶棍相比，蠢人总是自鸣得意。而且他很容易变成危险，因为要使他挥拳出击，那是易如反掌的。所以，比起恶意来，愚蠢需要加倍小心地对付。我们不要再三努力同蠢人论理，因为那既无用又危险。
要恰当地对待愚蠢，认识它的本来面目是必不可少的。十分肯定的是，愚蠢是一种道德上的缺陷，而不是一种理智上的缺陷。有些人智力高超，但却是蠢人，还有些人智力低下，但绝非蠢人，作为某些特定环境的产物，我们惊讶地发现了这种情况。我们得到的印象是：愚蠢是养成的，而不是天生的；愚蠢是在这样一些环境下养成的，在这种环境下，人们把自己养成蠢人，或者允许别人把自己弄成蠢人。我们还进一步注意到，比起不善交际或孤寂独处的人来，在倾向于或注定要群居或交往的个人或团体当中，愚蠢要普遍得多。由此看来，愚蠢是一个社会学问题，而不是一个心理学问题。它是历史环境对人的作用的一种特殊形式，是特定的外部因素的一种心理副产品。更进一步观察就会发现，任何暴力革命，不论是政治革命或宗教革命，都似乎在大量的人当中造成了愚蠢的大发作。事实上，这几乎成了心理学和社会学的一项规律。一方的力量，需要另一方的愚蠢。这并不是人的某种天生能力，例如理智上的能力遭到了阻碍或破坏。正相反，是力量的高涨已变得如此可怕，它剥夺了人的独立判断，人们放弃了（或多或少是无意识地放弃了）自己评价新的事态的努力。蠢人可能常常十分顽固，但我们切不可因此而误认为他很有独立性。人们多多少少会感到，尤其是在同蠢人谈话时会感觉到，简直不可能同他本人谈话，不可能同他进行肝胆相照的交谈。同他谈话时，你碰到的不是他本人，而是一连串标语口号以及诸如此类的东西，这些东西有力量控制他。他已被他人作祟，他的眼已遭蒙蔽，他的人性已被利用、被糟蹋。一旦他交出了自己的意志，变成了纯粹的工具，就再也没有什么罪恶的极限是蠢人所不会到达的了，但他仍然始终不可能了解那是罪恶。在此有一种恶魔般地扭曲人性的危险，它会对人造成无可补救的损害。
然而正是在这个方面，我们意识到，蠢人不可能靠教育来拯救。他所需要的是救赎，此外别无他法。迄今为止，企图用理性论证去说服他，丝毫没有用处。在这种事态中，我们可以完全明白，为什么试图去发现“人民”真的在想什么是徒劳无益的，为什么这个问题对于负责地思考和行动的人来说也完全多余。正如圣经所言： “对上帝的畏惧，就是智慧的开端。”换言之，治疗愚蠢的唯一办法，是灵性上的救赎，因为唯有这样，才能使一个人像上帝眼中负责任的人那样生活。
不过，在对人的愚蠢的这些思考中，也有一点可慰之处。我们没有任何理由认为，大多数人在所有的环境中都是愚蠢的。长期起重大作用的是：我们的统治者是希望从人们的愚蠢之中，而不是从人们的独立判断和敏锐思想之中，获得更多的东西。
---------
Of Folly
Dietrich Bonhoeffer，1906-1945
Folly is a more dangerous enemy to the good than malice. You can protest against malice, you can unmask it or prevent it by force. Malice always contains the seeds of its own destruction, for it always makes men uncomfortable, if nothing worse. There is no defence against folly. Neither protests nor force are of any avail against it, and it is never amenable to reason. If facts contradict personal prejudices, there is no need to believe them, and if they are undeniable, they can simply be pushed aside as exceptions. Thus the fool, as compared with the scoundrel, is invariably self-complacent. And he can easily become dangerous, for it does not take much to make him aggressive. Hence folly requires much more cautious handling than malice. We shall never again try to reason with the fool, for it is both useless and dangerous.
To deal adequately with folly it is essential to recognize it for what it is. This much is certain, it is a moral rather than an intellectual defect. There are men of great intellect who are fools, and men of low intellect who are anything but fools, a discovery we make to our surprise as a result of particular circumstances. The impression we derive is that folly is acquired rather than congenital; it is acquired in certain circumstances where men make fools of themselves or allow others to make fools of them. We observe further that folly is less common in the unsociable or the solitary than in individuals or groups who are inclined or condemned to sociability. From this it would appear that folly is a sociological problem rather than one of psychology. It is a special form of the operation of historical circumstances upon men, a psychological by-product of definite external factors. On closer inspection it would seem that any violent revolution, whether political or religious, produces an outburst of folly in a large part of mankind. Indeed, it would seem to be almost a law of psychology and sociology. The power of one needs the folly of the other. It is not that certain aptitudes of men, intellectual aptitudes for instance, become stunted or destroyed. Rather, the upsurge of power is so terrific that it deprives men of an independent judgement, and they give up trying--more or less unconsciously--to assess the new state of affairs for themselves. The fool can often be stubborn, but this must not mislead us into thinking he is independent. One feels somehow, especially in conversation with him, that it is impossible to talk to the man himself, to talk to him personally. Instead, one is confronted with a series of slogans watchwords, and the like, which have acquired power over him. He is under a curse, he is blinded, his very humanity is being prostituted and exploited. Once he has surrendered his will and become a mere tool, there are no lengths of evil to which the fool will not go, yet all the time he is unable to see that it is evil. Here lies the danger of a diabolical exploitation of humanity, which can do irreparable damage to the human character.
But it is just at this point that we realize that the fool cannot be saved by education. What he needs is redemption. There is nothing else for it. Until then it is no earthly good trying to convince him by rational argument. In this state of affairs we can well understand why it is no use trying to find out what 'the people' really think, and why this question is also so superfluous for the man who thinks and acts responsibly. As the Bible says, 'the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom'. In other words, the only cure for folly is spiritual redemption, for that alone can enable a man to live as a responsible person in the sight of God.
But there is a grain of consolation in these reflections on human folly. There is no reason for us to think that the majority of men are fools under all circumstances. What matters in the long run is whether our rulers hope to gain more from the folly of men, or from their independence of judgement and their shrewdness of mind.
对于善来说，愚蠢是比恶意更加危险的敌人。你可以抵抗恶意，你可以揭下它的面具，或者凭借力量来防止它。恶意总是包含着它自身毁灭的种子，因为它总是使人不舒服，假如不是更糟的话。然而面对愚蠢，根本无法防卫。要反对愚蠢，抵抗和力量都无济于事，愚蠢根本不服从理性。假如事实与一己的偏见相左，那就不必相信事实，假如那些事实无法否认，那就可以把它们干脆作为例外推开不理。所以同恶棍相比，蠢人总是自鸣得意。而且他很容易变成危险，因为要使他挥拳出击，那是易如反掌的。所以，比起恶意来，愚蠢需要加倍小心地对付。我们不要再三努力同蠢人论理，因为那既无用又危险。
要恰当地对待愚蠢，认识它的本来面目是必不可少的。十分肯定的是，愚蠢是一种道德上的缺陷，而不是一种理智上的缺陷。有些人智力高超，但却是蠢人，还有些人智力低下，但绝非蠢人，作为某些特定环境的产物，我们惊讶地发现了这种情况。我们得到的印象是：愚蠢是养成的，而不是天生的；愚蠢是在这样一些环境下养成的，在这种环境下，人们把自己养成蠢人，或者允许别人把自己弄成蠢人。我们还进一步注意到，比起不善交际或孤寂独处的人来，在倾向于或注定要群居或交往的个人或团体当中，愚蠢要普遍得多。由此看来，愚蠢是一个社会学问题，而不是一个心理学问题。它是历史环境对人的作用的一种特殊形式，是特定的外部因素的一种心理副产品。更进一步观察就会发现，任何暴力革命，不论是政治革命或宗教革命，都似乎在大量的人当中造成了愚蠢的大发作。事实上，这几乎成了心理学和社会学的一项规律。一方的力量，需要另一方的愚蠢。这并不是人的某种天生能力，例如理智上的能力遭到了阻碍或破坏。正相反，是力量的高涨已变得如此可怕，它剥夺了人的独立判断，人们放弃了（或多或少是无意识地放弃了）自己评价新的事态的努力。蠢人可能常常十分顽固，但我们切不可因此而误认为他很有独立性。人们多多少少会感到，尤其是在同蠢人谈话时会感觉到，简直不可能同他本人谈话，不可能同他进行肝胆相照的交谈。同他谈话时，你碰到的不是他本人，而是一连串标语口号以及诸如此类的东西，这些东西有力量控制他。他已被他人作祟，他的眼已遭蒙蔽，他的人性已被利用、被糟蹋。一旦他交出了自己的意志，变成了纯粹的工具，就再也没有什么罪恶的极限是蠢人所不会到达的了，但他仍然始终不可能了解那是罪恶。在此有一种恶魔般地扭曲人性的危险，它会对人造成无可补救的损害。
然而正是在这个方面，我们意识到，蠢人不可能靠教育来拯救。他所需要的是救赎，此外别无他法。迄今为止，企图用理性论证去说服他，丝毫没有用处。在这种事态中，我们可以完全明白，为什么试图去发现“人民”真的在想什么是徒劳无益的，为什么这个问题对于负责地思考和行动的人来说也完全多余。正如圣经所言： “对上帝的畏惧，就是智慧的开端。”换言之，治疗愚蠢的唯一办法，是灵性上的救赎，因为唯有这样，才能使一个人像上帝眼中负责任的人那样生活。
不过，在对人的愚蠢的这些思考中，也有一点可慰之处。我们没有任何理由认为，大多数人在所有的环境中都是愚蠢的。长期起重大作用的是：我们的统治者是希望从人们的愚蠢之中，而不是从人们的独立判断和敏锐思想之中，获得更多的东西。
---------
Of Folly
Dietrich Bonhoeffer，1906-1945
Folly is a more dangerous enemy to the good than malice. You can protest against malice, you can unmask it or prevent it by force. Malice always contains the seeds of its own destruction, for it always makes men uncomfortable, if nothing worse. There is no defence against folly. Neither protests nor force are of any avail against it, and it is never amenable to reason. If facts contradict personal prejudices, there is no need to believe them, and if they are undeniable, they can simply be pushed aside as exceptions. Thus the fool, as compared with the scoundrel, is invariably self-complacent. And he can easily become dangerous, for it does not take much to make him aggressive. Hence folly requires much more cautious handling than malice. We shall never again try to reason with the fool, for it is both useless and dangerous.
To deal adequately with folly it is essential to recognize it for what it is. This much is certain, it is a moral rather than an intellectual defect. There are men of great intellect who are fools, and men of low intellect who are anything but fools, a discovery we make to our surprise as a result of particular circumstances. The impression we derive is that folly is acquired rather than congenital; it is acquired in certain circumstances where men make fools of themselves or allow others to make fools of them. We observe further that folly is less common in the unsociable or the solitary than in individuals or groups who are inclined or condemned to sociability. From this it would appear that folly is a sociological problem rather than one of psychology. It is a special form of the operation of historical circumstances upon men, a psychological by-product of definite external factors. On closer inspection it would seem that any violent revolution, whether political or religious, produces an outburst of folly in a large part of mankind. Indeed, it would seem to be almost a law of psychology and sociology. The power of one needs the folly of the other. It is not that certain aptitudes of men, intellectual aptitudes for instance, become stunted or destroyed. Rather, the upsurge of power is so terrific that it deprives men of an independent judgement, and they give up trying--more or less unconsciously--to assess the new state of affairs for themselves. The fool can often be stubborn, but this must not mislead us into thinking he is independent. One feels somehow, especially in conversation with him, that it is impossible to talk to the man himself, to talk to him personally. Instead, one is confronted with a series of slogans watchwords, and the like, which have acquired power over him. He is under a curse, he is blinded, his very humanity is being prostituted and exploited. Once he has surrendered his will and become a mere tool, there are no lengths of evil to which the fool will not go, yet all the time he is unable to see that it is evil. Here lies the danger of a diabolical exploitation of humanity, which can do irreparable damage to the human character.
But it is just at this point that we realize that the fool cannot be saved by education. What he needs is redemption. There is nothing else for it. Until then it is no earthly good trying to convince him by rational argument. In this state of affairs we can well understand why it is no use trying to find out what 'the people' really think, and why this question is also so superfluous for the man who thinks and acts responsibly. As the Bible says, 'the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom'. In other words, the only cure for folly is spiritual redemption, for that alone can enable a man to live as a responsible person in the sight of God.
But there is a grain of consolation in these reflections on human folly. There is no reason for us to think that the majority of men are fools under all circumstances. What matters in the long run is whether our rulers hope to gain more from the folly of men, or from their independence of judgement and their shrewdness of mind.
