|
|
楼主 |
发表于 2009-3-27 15:40:46
|
显示全部楼层
Re:试译：“The humanistic Intellectual: Eleven Theses” R. Rorty6~11
6. We are still expected to make the ritual noises to which the trustees and the funding agencies are accustomed—noises about “objective criteria of excellence,” “fundamental moral and spiritual values,” “the enduring questions posed by the human condition,” and so on, just as the liberal clergy is supposed to mumble their way through creeds written in an earlier and simpler age.
我们还是要向已经习以为常的信托人和基金代理发出仪式噪音——关于“高尚的客观标准”、“基本的道德与精神价值”、“用人类境况发出的恒久问题”等等的噪音，就如自由传道人应该通过在早前较简明时代写好的方式呢喃。
But those of us who have been impressed by the anti-Platonic, anti-essentialist, historicizing, naturalizing writers of the last few centuries (people like Hegel, Darwin, Freud, Weber, Dewey, and Foucault) must either become cynical or else put our own tortured private constructions on these ritual phrases.
而我们之中那些曾为反柏拉图式、反本质主义、历史化、自然化的上数世纪作者（如黑格尔、达尔文、弗洛伊德、韦伯以及福柯等人）影响的必须或者变得犬儒，否则把自己备受鞭烤的私人建构置放于这些仪式阶段之上。
7. This tension between public rhetoric and private sense of mission leaves the academy in general, and the humanistic intellectuals in particular, vulnerable to heresy-hunters.
这公共说词与私人任务感之间的张力，置广至学术界精至人文学人，于怪论猎人伤害之地。
Ambitious politicians like William Bennett—or cynical journalists like the young William Buckley (author of God and Man at Yale) or Charles Sykes (author of Profscam)—can always point out gaps between official rhetoric and actual practice.
有志向的从政者，如威廉贝涅特—或者犬儒新闻人，如青年威廉巴克利（《耶鲁的神与人》作者）查尔斯赛克斯（《教授骗局》作者）—经常可以指出公开说词与实际操作之间的距离。
Usually, however, such heresy-hunts peter out quickly in the face of faculty solidarity.
然而，在学院团结的局面下这些怪论猎捕很快就消散。
The professors of physics and law, people whom nobody wants to mess with, can be relied upon to rally around fellow AAUP members who teach anthropology or French, even if they neither know nor care what the latter do.
物理学以及法学教授，这些无人要冲撞的人，可以依靠在和其他如教导人类学或法语的美利坚大学教授协会会员连成一气。
8. In the current flap about the humanities, however, the heresy-hunters have a more vulnerable target than usual.
然而，在现有的人文之扉后面，这些怪论猎人有比平时更容易伤害的目标。
This target is what Allan Bloom calls “the Nietzscheanized left”.
此目标就是艾伦布罗姆所称的“尼采化左派”。
This left is an anomaly in America.
此左派在美利坚是个怪物。
In the past the American left has asked our country to be true to its ideals, to go still further along the path of expanding human freedom which our forefathers mapped: the path which led us from the abolition of slavery through women’s suffrage, the Wagner Act, and the Civil Rights Movement, to contemporary feminism and gay liberation.
过去美利坚左派呼吁我国坚持理想，在我们先辈划出的扩展人类自由道路上走得更远：带领我们走在由消除奴隶到压制女性、瓦格纳法令、以及民权运动、直到同期的女性主义和同性恋解放的道路上。
But the Nietzscheanized left tells the country it is rotten to the core—that it is a racist, sexist, imperialist society, one which can’t be trusted an inch, one whose every utterance must be ruthlessly deconstructed.
但是尼采化左派告诉国家这些都是烂到核心去的——是种族主义、性别主义、帝国主义社会的，全不可信靠、它所有的话语都必须无情地解构。
9. Another reason this left is a vulnerable target is that it is extraordinarily self-obsessed and ingrown, as well as absurdly over-philosophized.
另一个此左派易受伤害的理由是它格外自恋及内向，乃至荒谬地过度哲学化。
It takes seriously Paul de Man’s weird suggestion that “one can approach the problems of ideology and by extension the problems of politics only on the basis of critical-linguistic analysis”.
它认真看待保罗迪曼“能够单凭批判语言学分析基础伸向意识形态问题以及延伸到政治问题”的怪建议。
It seems to accept Hillis Miller’s fantastic claim that “the millenium [of universal peace and justice among men] would come if all men and women became good readers in de Man’s sense”.
它看来接受希尔斯米勒“[世界和平与人类公平]的千年将会在所有的男男女女在迪曼意义上成为好读者之下来临”的虚幻论述。
When asked for a utopian sketch of our country’s future, the new leftists reply along the lines of one of Foucault’s most fatuous remarks.
询及我国未来的乌托邦构想时，新左派依循福柯最为愚蠢的论调的线上回复。
When asked why he never sketched a utopia, Foucault said, “I think that to imagine another system is to extend our participation in the present system.”
询及他为何不作乌托邦构想时，福柯说：“我认为想象另一个系统是参与现有系统的延续。”
De Man, and Foucault were (and Miller is) a lot better than these unfortunate remarks would suggest, but some of their followers are a lot worse.
迪曼和福柯（及米勒）比这些不幸的论调可能会造成的要好得太多，但是他们的尾随者则要坏得太多了。
This over-philosophized and self-obsessed left is the mirror image of the over-philosophized and self-obsessed Straussians on the right.
这些过度哲学化及自恋的左派是过度哲学化及自恋的斯特劳斯式右派的镜像。
The contempt of both groups for contemporary American society is so great that both have rendered themselves impotent when it comes to national, state, or local politics.
这两派对现今美利坚社会的轻视是那么巨大，乃至当来到国家、州属、地方政治上时把自己变得无能。
This means that they get to spend all their energy on academic politics.
这意味着他们可以花上所有精力在学术政治上。
10. The two groups are currently staging a sham battle about how to construct reading lists.
这两派人目前在如何建立阅读书目上摆了个假擂台。
The Straussians say that the criterion for what books to assign is intrinsic excellence, and the Nietzscheanized left says that it is fairness—e.g., fairness to females, blacks, and Third Worlders.
斯特劳斯派说选入书籍的标准是它的内在优异，而尼采化左派则说是平等——即，对女性、黑人以及第三世界的平等。
They are both wrong.
他们都错了。
Reading lists should be constructed so as to preserve a delicate balance between two needs.
阅读书目应该要在两个需求间保有微妙平衡下建立。
The first is the need of the students to have common reference points with people in previous generations and in other social classes—so that grandparents and grandchildren, people who went to the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater and people who went to Stanford, will have read a lot of the same books.
首要的需求是学生们与上代和其他社会等级之间有共同基点——以便祖辈和孙辈，在怀沃特的威斯康辛大学上学和在斯坦福上学的，会阅读许多同样的书籍。
The second is the need of the teachers to be able to teach the books which have moved them, excited them, changed their lives—rather than having to teach a syllabus handed down by a committee.
其次的需求是教师们能够用感动他们、使他们激动、改变他们生活的书籍来教导——而不是用一个委员会传下来的纲要来教导。
11. Philosophers of education, well-intended committees, and governmental agencies have attempted to understand, define, and manage the humanities.
教育哲学家、善意的委员会、以及政府机关曾尝试理解、界定以及管理人文。
The point, however, is to keep the humanities changing fast enough so that they remain indefinable and unmanageable.
然而，要点在于使人文快速到足以维持在不可界定及不能管理之中来变化。
All we need to keep them changing that fast is good old-fashioned academic freedom.
我们唯一需要维持他们那么快改变的是良好的老式学术自由。
Given freedom to shrug off the heresy-hunters and their cries of “politicization!”, as well as freedom for each new batch of assistant professors to despise and repudiate the departmental Old Guard to whom they owe their jobs, the humanities will continue to be in good shape.
授予以摆脱怪论猎人及他们“政治化！”叫喊的自由，以及每批新副教授厌恶及排斥他们规欠他们职责的院系老守卫的自由，人文就会处于良好的状态。
If you don’t like the ideological weather in the local English department these days, wait a generation.
如果你不喜欢这些日在本地英语部的意识形态气象，等一代吧。
Watch what happens to the Nietzscheanized left when it tries to replace itself, along about the year 2010.
看看大约2010年时尼采化左派尝试自我替代时发生什么事。
I’m willing to bet that the brightest new Ph.D.’s in English that year will be people who never want to hear the terms “binary opposition” or “hegemonic discourse” again as long as they live.
我愿意打赌，那时候最亮眼的英语新博士会是一辈子也不想再听到诸如“二元对立”或“霸权论述”等术语的。 |
|
发表于 2009-3-26 10:32:10
发表于 2009-3-26 11:43:56
发表于 2009-3-26 12:22:23
这类翻译好难！权当凑个热闹吧。
