The rational as a tragedy

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

《偶像的黄昏：如何用锤子从事哲学》

Götzen-Dämmerung, oder Wie man mit dem Hammer philosophiert

  Write down this subject without doubting about the rationalistic faith. Contrarily, it means a kind of infatuation as a tragedy infatuated by human. Of course, itself could not be rational.

  We infatuate nous in the case of its enchantment that it shows up our emptiness directly and limits the boundary of episteme inexorably.It’s obvious that nous is coming with tragic color when the thin and weak mannamed Socrates declared the emptiness of humanity for the first time under the inscription(To achieve self-knowledge) of Delphi temple and in the afterglow of setting sun. As we known, the first scene rang down the curtain with a cup of blood-red poison wine. Under stage, something altisonant based on going after and worshipping an Omniscience made insects named by Aurelius despise and laugh at ones like Socrates. Maybe, the scene under stage was a comedy with distress forever yet. Suppose an Omniscience worshipped by insects exists, whether the tragedy on or comedy under was just a humor to it eventually.

  Tragedy progresses calmly all the time, as the great drama of existence said by Bohr, we are both onlooker and player upand down calmly as the same. We seem to be vocative listening to Descartes respectfully in the name of that “I think, therefore I am.” and go to theself-important astray bewitched by Laplace goblin.

  We are conditioned to make logos equal tologic because logic is as the carrier of logos to us, even the inchoation orend-result. We don’t know whether logic leads to logos absolutely, but itpresents obviously that the alogical means the reverse of logos.

  Finally, let’s uncover the veil of tragedy.There is full of chapter and verse in such a few of words, and it’s called appealing to authority as the language on logic. I construct logos through betraying logic while the self-contradictory brings the naissance of tragedy. What’s worse, I have no choice but to do like this.

   Like insects, I have to worship the ground Omniscience treads on to impetrate the oracle standing high above the masses:

   Should something from the irrational be named the rational?

2010

悲剧般的理性

写下这样的题目，并不带半点对理性信仰的怀疑。恰恰相反，那是一种迷恋，一种人对悲剧的迷恋。当然，这种迷恋本身也许就是非理性的。

对理性的迷恋来自于理性的魅力，而理性的魅力在于直指我们的无知，在于无情地划定我们认知的疆界。当形销骨立的Socrates在德尔菲神庙的铭言下，在落日的余晖中第一次宣告人类的无知时，理性就被渲染上了浓重且永恒的悲剧色彩。众所周知，悲剧的第一场在一杯血红的鸩酒中落下了大幕。台下充斥着Aurelius笔下虫豸们的鄙夷与嘲笑，那是崇高的驱使，来自于对全知乃至全能的追逐与膜拜。或许这是一幕喜剧，却伴随着宿世痛苦。假设存在着虫豸们膜拜的全知，台上的悲剧与台下的喜剧最终只是一个幽默。

悲剧的演绎始终是悄无声息的，就像Bohr所谓的宇宙这幕伟大的戏剧，我们既是观众又是演员，来而复去，同样地悄无声息。我们似乎受Descartes的感召，在“我思故我在”的指引下悄然入戏，却又在Laplace goblin的蛊惑下，走入了极度膨胀与自我陶醉的歧途。

我们习惯于把理性(logos)约化为逻辑(logic)，是因为逻辑乃理性之承载，甚至有可能也是理性的发端与归宿。我们不知道逻辑是否最终能够绝对地导向理性，但我们至少明白非逻辑的必然开启理性的反面。

行将结束，让我来揭开悲剧的面纱。在这寥寥数百字中，我不厌其烦地引经据典，用逻辑的术语——诉诸权威。我背叛逻辑，却申述理性，自相矛盾的悖谬意味着悲剧的诞生。更为甚者，除此之外，别无他法！

我不得不匍匐于虫豸们的全知之下，祈求高高在上的训示：

获之以非理性者，是否能名之以理性？