“Come on,—I’ll show you the real dirt,” Brissenden said to him, one evening in January.
They had dined together in San Francisco, and were at the Ferry Building, returning to Oakland, when the whim came to him to show Martin the “real dirt.” He turned and fled across the water-front, a meagre shadow in a flapping overcoat, with Martin straining to keep up with him. At a wholesale liquor store he bought two gallon-demijohns of old port, and with one in each hand boarded a Mission Street car, Martin at his heels burdened with several quart-bottles of whiskey.
If Ruth could see me now, was his thought, while he wondered as to what constituted the real dirt.
“Maybe nobody will be there,” Brissenden said, when they dismounted and plunged off to the right into the heart of the working-class ghetto, south of Market Street. “In which case you’ll miss what you’ve been looking for so long.”
“And what the deuce is that?” Martin asked.
“Men, intelligent men, and not the gibbering nonentities I found you consorting with in that trader’s den. You read the books and you found yourself all alone. Well, I’m going to show you tonight some other men who’ve read the books, so that you won’t be lonely any more.”
“Not that I bother my head about their everlasting discussions,” he said at the end of a block. “I’m not interested in book philosophy. But you’ll find these fellows intelligences and not bourgeois swine. But watch out, they’ll talk an arm off of you on any subject under the sun.”
“Hope Norton’s there,” he panted a little later, resisting Martin’s effort to relieve him of the two demijohns. “Norton’s an idealist—a Harvard man. Prodigious memory. Idealism led him to philosophic anarchy, and his family threw him off. Father’s a railroad president and many times millionnaire, but the son’s starving in ‘Frisco, editing an anarchist sheet for twenty-five a month.”
Martin was little acquainted in San Francisco, and not at all south of Market; so he had no idea of where he was being led.
“Go ahead,” he said; “tell me about them beforehand. What do they do for a living? How do they happen to be here?”
“Hope Hamilton’s there.” Brissenden paused and rested his hands.“Strawn-Hamilton’s his name—hyphenated, you know—comes of old Southern stock. He’s a tramp—laziest man I ever knew, though he’s clerking, or trying to, in a socialist cooperative store for six dollars a week. But he’s a confirmed hobo. Tramped into town. I’ve seen him sit all day on a bench and never a bite pass his lips, and in the evening, when I invited him to dinner—restaurant two blocks away—have him say, ‘Too much trouble, old man. Buy me a package of cigarettes instead.’ He was a Spencerian like you till Kreis turned him to materialistic monism. I’ll start him on monism if I can. Norton’s another monist—only he affirms naught but spirit. He can give Kreis and Hamilton all they want, too.”
“Who is Kreis?” Martin asked.
“His rooms we’re going to. One time professor—fired from university—usual story. A mind like a steel trap. Makes his living any old way. I know he’s been a street fakir when he was down. Unscrupulous. Rob a corpse of a shroud—anything. Difference between him—and the bourgeoisie is that he robs without illusion. He’ll talk Nietzsche, or Schopenhauer, or Kant, or anything, but the only thing in this world, not excepting Mary, that he really cares for, is his monism. Haeckel is his little tin god. The only way to insult him is to take a slap at Haeckel.”
“Here’s the hang-out.” Brissenden rested his demijohn at the upstairs entrance, preliminary to the climb. It was the usual two-story corner building, with a saloon and grocery underneath. “The gang lives here—got the whole upstairs to themselves. But Kreis is the only one who has two rooms. Come on.”
No lights burned in the upper hall, but Brissenden threaded the utter blackness like a familiar ghost. He stopped to speak to Martin.
“There’s one fellow—Stevens—a theosophist. Makes a pretty tangle when he gets going. Just now he’s dish-washer in a restaurant. Likes a good cigar. I’ve seen him eat in a ten-cent hash-house and pay fifty cents for the cigar he smoked afterward. I’ve got a couple in my pocket for him, if he shows up.”
“And there’s another fellow—Parry—an Australian, a statistician and a sporting encyclopaedia. Ask him the grain output of Paraguay for 1903, or the English importation of sheetings into China for 1890, or at what weight Jimmy Britt fought Battling Nelson, or who was welter-weight champion of the United States in ’68, and you’ll get the correct answer with the automatic celerity of a slot-machine. And there’s Andy, a stone-mason, has ideas on everything, a good chess-player; and another fellow, Harry, a baker, red hot socialist and strong union man. By the way, you remember Cooks’ and Waiters’ strike—Hamilton was the chap who organized that union and precipitated the strike—planned it all out in advance, right here in Kreis’s rooms. Did it just for the fun of it, but was too lazy to stay by the union. Yet he could have risen high if he wanted to. There’s no end to the possibilities in that man—if he weren’t so insuperably lazy.”
Brissenden advanced through the darkness till a thread of light marked the threshold of a door. A knock and an answer opened it, and Martin found himself shaking hands with Kreis, a handsome brunette man, with dazzling white teeth, a drooping black mustache, and large, flashing black eyes. Mary, a matronly young blonde, was washing dishes in the little back room that served for kitchen and dining room. The front room served as bedchamber and living room. Overhead was the week’s washing, hanging in festoons so low that Martin did not see at first the two men talking in a corner. They hailed Brissenden and his demijohns with acclamation, and, on being introduced, Martin learned they were Andy and Parry. He joined them and listened attentively to the description of a prize-fight Parry had seen the night before; while Brissenden, in his glory, plunged into the manufacture of a toddy and the serving of wine and whiskey-and-sodas. At his command,“Bring in the clan,” Andy departed to go the round of the rooms for the lodgers.
“We’re lucky that most of them are here,” Brissenden whispered to Martin. “There’s Norton and Hamilton; come on and meet them. Stevens isn’t around, I hear. I’m going to get them started on monism if I can. Wait till they get a few jolts in them and they’ll warm up.”
At first the conversation was desultory. Nevertheless Martin could not fail to appreciate the keen play of their minds. They were men with opinions, though the opinions often clashed, and, though they were witty and clever, they were not superficial. He swiftly saw, no matter upon what they talked, that each man applied the correlation of knowledge and had also a deep-seated and unified conception of society and the Cosmos. Nobody manufactured their opinions for them; they were all rebels of one variety or another, and their lips were strangers to platitudes. Never had Martin, at the Morses’, heard so amazing a range of topics discussed. There seemed no limit save time to the things they were alive to. The talk wandered from Mrs. Humphry Ward’s new book to Shaw’s latest play, through the future of the drama to reminiscences of Mansfield. They appreciated or sneered at the morning editorials, jumped from labor conditions in New Zealand to Henry James and Brander Matthews, passed on to the German designs in the Far East and the economic aspect of the Yellow Peril, wrangled over the German elections and Bebel’s last speech, and settled down to local politics, the latest plans and scandals in the union labor party administration, and the wires that were pulled to bring about the Coast Seamen’s strike. Martin was struck by the inside knowledge they possessed. They knew what was never printed in the newspapers—the wires and strings and the hidden hands that made the puppets dance. To Martin’s surprise, the girl, Mary, joined in the conversation, displaying an intelligence he had never encountered in the few women he had met. They talked together on Swinburne and Rossetti, after which she led him beyond his depth into the by-paths of French literature. His revenge came when she defended Maeterlinck and he brought into action the carefully-thought-out thesis of “The Shame of the Sun.”
Several other men had dropped in, and the air was thick with tobacco smoke, when Brissenden waved the red flag.
“Here’s fresh meat for your axe, Kreis,” he said; “a rose-white youth with the ardor of a lover for Herbert Spencer. Make a Haeckelite of him—if you can.”
Kreis seemed to wake up and flash like some metallic, magnetic thing, while Norton looked at Martin sympathetically, with a sweet, girlish smile, as much as to say that he would be amply protected.
Kreis began directly on Martin, but step by step Norton interfered, until he and Kreis were off and away in a personal battle. Martin listened and fain would have rubbed his eyes. It was impossible that this should be, much less in the labor ghetto south of Market. The books were alive in these men. They talked with fire and enthusiasm, the intellectual stimulant stirring them as he had seen drink and anger stir other men. What he heard was no longer the philosophy of the dry, printed word, written by half-mythical demigods like Kant and Spencer. It was living philosophy, with warm, red blood, incarnated in these two men till its very features worked with excitement. Now and again other men joined in, and all followed the discussion with cigarettes going out in their hands and with alert, intent faces.
Idealism had never attracted Martin, but the exposition it now received at the hands of Norton was a revelation. The logical plausibility of it, that made an appeal to his intellect, seemed missed by Kreis and Hamilton, who sneered at Norton as a metaphysician, and who, in turn, sneered back at them as metaphysicians.Phenomenon and noumenon were bandied back and forth. They charged him with attempting to explain consciousness by itself. He charged them with word-jugglery, with reasoning from words to theory instead of from facts to theory. At this they were aghast. It was the cardinal tenet of their mode of reasoning to start with facts and to give names to the facts.
When Norton wandered into the intricacies of Kant, Kreis reminded him that all good little German philosophies when they died went to Oxford. A little later Norton reminded them of Hamilton’s Law of Parsimony, the application of which they immediately claimed for every reasoning process of theirs. And Martin hugged his knees and exulted in it all. But Norton was no Spencerian, and he, too, strove for Martin’s philosophic soul, talking as much at him as to his two opponents.
“You know Berkeley has never been answered,” he said, looking directly at Martin. “Herbert Spencer came the nearest, which was not very near. Even the stanchest of Spencer’s followers will not go farther. I was reading an essay of Saleeby’s the other day, and the best Saleeby could say was that Herbert Spencer nearly succeeded in answering Berkeley.”
“You know what Hume said?” Hamilton asked. Norton nodded, but Hamilton gave it for the benefit of the rest. “He said that Berkeley’s arguments admit of no answer and produce no conviction.”
“In his, Hume’s, mind,” was the reply. “And Hume’s mind was the same as yours, with this difference: he was wise enough to admit there was no answering Berkeley.”
Norton was sensitive and excitable, though he never lost his head, while Kreis and Hamilton were like a pair of cold-blooded savages, seeking out tender places to prod and poke. As the evening grew late, Norton, smarting under the repeated charges of being a metaphysician, clutching his chair to keep from jumping to his feet, his gray eyes snapping and his girlish face grown harsh and sure, made a grand attack upon their position.
“All right, you Haeckelites, I may reason like a medicine man, but, pray, how do you reason? You have nothing to stand on, you unscientific dogmatists with your positive science which you are always lugging about into places it has no right to be. Long before the school of materialistic monism arose, the ground was removed so that there could be no foundation. Locke was the man, John Locke. Two hundred years ago—more than that, even in his ‘Essay concerning the Human Understanding,’ he proved the non-existence of innate ideas. The best of it is that that is precisely what you claim. Tonight, again and again, you have asserted the non-existence of innate ideas.
“And what does that mean? It means that you can never know ultimate reality. Your brains are empty when you are born. Appearances, or phenomena, are all the content your minds can receive from your five senses. Then noumena, which are not in your minds when you are born, have no way of getting in—”
“I deny—” Kreis started to interrupt.
“You wait till I’m done,” Norton shouted. “You can know only that much of the play and interplay of force and matter as impinges in one way or another on our senses. You see, I am willing to admit, for the sake of the argument, that matter exists; and what I am about to do is to efface you by your own argument. I can’t do it any other way, for you are both congenitally unable to understand a philosophic abstraction.”
“And now, what do you know of matter, according to your own positive science? You know it only by its phenomena, its appearances. You are aware only of its changes, or of such changes in it as cause changes in your consciousness. Positive science deals only with phenomena, yet you are foolish enough to strive to be ontologists and to deal with noumena. Yet, by the very definition of positive science, science is concerned only with appearances. As somebody has said, phenomenal knowledge cannot transcend phenomena.”
“You cannot answer Berkeley, even if you have annihilated Kant, and yet, perforce, you assume that Berkeley is wrong when you affirm that science proves the non-existence of God, or, as much to the point, the existence of matter. —You know I granted the reality of matter only in order to make myself intelligible to your understanding. Be positive scientists, if you please; but ontology has no place in positive science, so leave it alone. Spencer is right in his agnosticism, but if Spencer—”
But it was time to catch the last ferry-boat for Oakland, and Brissenden and Martin slipped out, leaving Norton still talking and Kreis and Hamilton waiting to pounce on him like a pair of hounds as soon as he finished.
“You have given me a glimpse of fairyland,” Martin said on the ferryboat. “It makes life worth while to meet people like that. My mind is all worked up. I never appreciated idealism before. Yet I can’t accept it. I know that I shall always be a realist. I am so made, I guess. But I’d like to have made a reply to Kreis and Hamilton, and I think I’d have had a word or two for Norton. I didn’t see that Spencer was damaged any. I’m as excited as a child on its first visit to the circus. I see I must read up some more. I’m going to get hold of Saleeby. I still think Spencer is unassailable, and next time I’m going to take a hand myself.”
But Brissenden, breathing painfully, had dropped off to sleep, his chin buried in a scarf and resting on his sunken chest, his body wrapped in the long overcoat and shaking to the vibration of the propellers.
“走,我要讓你看看真正的精英?!痹吕锏囊惶彀恚ι菍λ@樣說道。
他們一道在舊金山吃了飯,來到渡口,準(zhǔn)備返回奧克蘭時(shí),他突發(fā)奇想,要引著馬丁去見見“真正的精英”。他轉(zhuǎn)身飛快地跑過沙灘,消瘦的軀體上披的那件外套上下飄動(dòng)著,馬丁跟在一邊緊趕慢趕。在一家批發(fā)酒商店里,他買了兩壇一加侖裝的紅葡萄老酒,一手拎起一壇,到米森大街上了電車,而馬丁提著幾瓶一夸脫裝的威士忌,緊隨其后。
他一邊想著露絲此時(shí)見到他將會出現(xiàn)怎樣一幅情景,一邊想著那些“真正的精英”是些什么人。
“鬧不定那兒連個(gè)人影也沒有呢?!碑?dāng)他們下了電車,向右拐入市場街南邊工人區(qū)的中心時(shí),勃力森登說道,“要是真沒有人,那你就失去了一次等待已久的機(jī)會?!?/p>
“到底是些什么人呢?”馬丁問。
“是聰明的人,他們可不是我在那個(gè)商人窩里看到你結(jié)交的那種胡言亂語的笨蛋。你讀了些書,就發(fā)現(xiàn)自己孤傲不群。今天晚上我要讓你見見另外一些讀書人,這樣你就不會再感到寂寞了。
“這倒不是說我對他們那種沒完沒了的討論感興趣,”走過一個(gè)街區(qū)之后,他說道,“我對書本上的哲學(xué)缺乏興趣。不過,你會發(fā)現(xiàn)他們與資產(chǎn)階級的蠢豬不同,而是些有頭腦的人。但你得留點(diǎn)神,因?yàn)椴还苣阏勈裁礃拥脑掝},他們都非要爭得讓你無以對答不可。
“但愿諾頓能在場,”隔了一會兒,他一邊推辭著不讓馬丁幫他拎那兩壇酒,一邊氣喘吁吁地說,“諾頓是個(gè)唯心論者——哈佛大學(xué)畢業(yè)生,記憶力好得驚人。唯心主義觀點(diǎn)引他走上了無政府主義道路,家里人把他趕了出來。做父親的是一家鐵路公司的總裁,資產(chǎn)超過百萬富翁許多倍,可為兒子的卻在舊金山忍饑挨餓,編一份無政府主義的報(bào)紙,每月收入二十五塊錢。”
馬丁不熟悉舊金山,對市場街南面更是一無所知,弄不清勃力森登要帶他到哪兒去。
“接著講啊,”他說道,“先把他們的情況介紹一下。他們是靠什么為生的?怎么會跑到這種地方來?”
“希望漢密爾頓也能在場?!辈ι鞘兆∧_步,歇了歇手,“他叫斯特朗-漢密爾頓——要知道,名字中間還有連字符呢——,出身于南方的一個(gè)古老世家。他是一個(gè)流浪漢,是我所見到的最懶的人。他在一家社會主義合作商店里當(dāng)?shù)陠T,或者說竭力當(dāng)?shù)陠T,一星期掙六塊錢,可他積習(xí)難改,叼空就進(jìn)城游蕩。一次,我見他在一條長凳上坐了一整天,一口東西也沒吃,晚上我請他下館子——到飯館只消走兩段街區(qū)——,誰知他卻說:‘太麻煩了,老伙計(jì),還是給我買盒煙算啦。’起先他跟你一樣,是斯賓塞的信徒,后來克拉斯使他信了唯物一元論。如有可能,我要讓他談?wù)勔辉摗VZ頓也是一元論者——只不過他否定一切,僅強(qiáng)調(diào)精神的作用。他辯論起來,可以叫克拉斯和漢密爾頓難以招架?!?/p>
“克拉斯是何人?”馬丁問。
“咱們這就是到他家去。他在大學(xué)里當(dāng)教授,后來被解雇——也是因?yàn)槟蔷壒?。他才思敏捷,可為了糊口什么都干。?jù)我所知,他窮困潦倒之時(shí),便走上街頭行騙,一點(diǎn)廉恥都不顧。諸如扒死人的衣服,他什么事情都干得出來。他和資產(chǎn)階級的區(qū)別在于,他敢搶敢騙,不想入非非。他喜歡談尼采、叔本華、康德,什么都談,但在這個(gè)世界上,他甚至對他的瑪麗都漠不關(guān)心,唯有一元論才真正讓他感興趣。海克爾[1]是他崇拜的偶像。只有抨擊??藸?,對他才是奇恥大辱。
“這兒就是他們聚會的地方?!鄙蠘侵?,勃力森登在樓梯口放下酒壇歇手。這是一幢很普通的街角二層樓,樓下開著一家酒館和一家食品店?!澳菐腿硕甲≡谶@里,他們把樓上的房間全包了。不過,只有克拉斯一人占的是兩間房。隨我來吧?!?/p>
樓上的過廳里沒有點(diǎn)燈,可勃力森登自如地在漆黑一團(tuán)中穿行,活似一個(gè)熟門熟路的幽靈。這時(shí)只見他停下來跟馬丁說話。
“還有一個(gè)叫史蒂文斯的人,他是個(gè)神智學(xué)者,一開口便語驚四座。眼下他在一家餐館當(dāng)洗碟工,喜歡抽高級雪茄,一次我見他吃飯時(shí)只肯花一角錢,飯后卻花五角錢買雪茄抽。我口袋里裝著幾支雪茄,他要在就送給他。
“另外還有個(gè)叫帕里的家伙,他來自澳大利亞,是個(gè)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)家,恰似一部包羅萬象的百科全書。隨你問他一九○三年巴拉圭的糧食產(chǎn)量,一八九○年英國向中國出口床單的數(shù)量,吉米·布里特和巴特靈·尼爾遜的那場拳擊賽是哪個(gè)量級的,或者美國一八六八年次重量級拳擊冠軍為何人,你都會得到準(zhǔn)確無誤的答案,而且像自動(dòng)售貨機(jī)一樣迅捷。再者,還有個(gè)叫安迪的石匠,凡事都有自己的看法,且下得一手好象棋。另一個(gè)叫哈里的面包師,狂熱地推崇社會主義,是個(gè)堅(jiān)定不移的工會會員。順便提一句,你可記得那次廚師和侍者的大罷工嗎?工會組織人以及罷工籌劃者就是漢密爾頓,事先他就是在這里——在克拉斯的房間里運(yùn)籌帷幄的。他那樣做只是為了取樂,后來由于人太懶惰,沒有和工會一道堅(jiān)持到底。不過,他要是有意往上爬,完全可以如愿。他懶得沒法提,要不然,他定會前途錦繡、鵬程萬里?!?/p>
勃力森登在黑暗中行進(jìn)著,直至瞧見一線光亮,來到一處門檻前。他敲敲門,里邊應(yīng)了一聲便把門打開了。馬丁發(fā)現(xiàn)和自己握手的克拉斯是個(gè)皮膚微黑的英俊男子,牙齒白得耀眼,一抹黑髭兩端下垂,兩只烏黑的眼睛又大又亮?,旣愂莻€(gè)金發(fā)少婦,正在小套間里洗碟子,那個(gè)套間既做廚房又充為餐廳。外間屋又當(dāng)臥室又為客廳。一星期來洗的衣物掛在頭頂,如彩飾般低垂,使得馬丁沒能一下子看到有兩個(gè)人在角落里談話。那兩人瞧見勃力森登和他的兩壇酒,便歡呼了起來。經(jīng)介紹,馬丁得知他們倆就是安迪和帕里。他跟他們坐到一起,聚精會神地聽帕里描繪頭天晚上看的一場拳擊賽。這當(dāng)兒,勃力森登得意揚(yáng)揚(yáng)地調(diào)制了一杯甜酒,接著便把葡萄酒、威士忌和蘇打水一杯杯朝上端。他吩咐去把大伙兒都叫來,于是安迪就出去挨著房間請人。
“很幸運(yùn),他們多半都在家?!辈ι堑吐晫︸R丁說,“那兩位是諾頓和漢密爾頓;走,去見見他們。聽說,史蒂文斯出去了。我要想辦法讓他們談?wù)勔辉摗K麄儙妆坡涠?,就會打開話匣子?!?/p>
起初,大家扯東拉西地閑談著,但馬丁仍然能夠看得出來,他們的思路非常敏捷。他們的觀點(diǎn)雖然常常相互沖突,可他們的確有獨(dú)到的見解。他們妙語連珠,詼諧幽默,同時(shí)又不膚淺。馬丁很快就發(fā)現(xiàn),無論談任何話題,他們當(dāng)中的每個(gè)人都能夠旁征博引地運(yùn)用自己的知識,并且對社會及宇宙有著深刻、完整的看法。他們的觀點(diǎn)并非別人為他們準(zhǔn)備好的;他們?nèi)际欠磁颜撸贿^類型不同罷了,他們的口中吐出的沒有一絲一毫的陳詞濫調(diào)。在摩斯的府內(nèi),馬丁從未聽到過涉及面如此廣泛的談話。若非時(shí)間的關(guān)系,他們的話題范圍似乎會無邊無際。他們從亨弗萊·華德夫人[2]的新作談到蕭伯納最近的劇本,從戲劇的前途扯到對曼斯斐爾德[3]的懷念。他們對晨報(bào)上的社論或贊美或譏諷,話題從新西蘭勞工的狀況一下子就跳到亨利·詹姆士[4]和勃蘭德爾·馬修斯[5]那兒,接著轉(zhuǎn)向德國對遠(yuǎn)東的覬覦以及“黃禍”[6]引起的經(jīng)濟(jì)問題,還對德國的選舉和倍倍爾[7]最近發(fā)表的演說爭論不休,最后談到了當(dāng)?shù)氐恼?、勞工黨組織的最新舉措以及黨內(nèi)的丑聞,談到了海員大罷工的幕后操縱勢力。馬丁見他們掌握著如此多的內(nèi)幕消息,不由感到吃驚。他們對那些報(bào)紙上從不登載的東西無所不曉——諸如秘密事件和操縱傀儡活動(dòng)的幕后人物。叫馬丁覺得意外的是,那個(gè)叫瑪麗的年輕女子也加入了討論,而且顯露出超群的智慧,這在他所結(jié)識的女性當(dāng)中是絕無僅有的。他們在一起談?wù)撍箿夭骱土_塞蒂[8],隨即,她把馬丁引向一個(gè)陌生的天地,談起了法國文學(xué)。待她站在梅特林克一邊說話的時(shí)候,他尋到了報(bào)復(fù)的機(jī)會,把《太陽的恥辱》一文中精心構(gòu)思的論點(diǎn)搬出來向她實(shí)施攻擊。
其他的幾個(gè)人也加入了辯論,屋子里煙霧繚繞、空氣混濁。這時(shí),勃力森登揮起了挑戰(zhàn)的紅旗。
“這下,你又有了新的目標(biāo)了,克拉斯,”他說,“一個(gè)似白玫瑰般純潔的年輕人,懷著一腔對赫伯特·斯賓塞的熱愛??茨隳懿荒馨阉兂珊?藸柕男磐??!?/p>
克拉斯如夢方醒,眼睛里像有塊磁性金屬一樣閃閃發(fā)光。而諾頓同情地瞧了瞧馬丁,臉上掛著女性的甜蜜的微笑,似乎在宣布他要全力保護(hù)馬丁。
克拉斯端直開始向馬丁發(fā)起攻擊,諾頓則步步干涉,到了后來,他們倆針鋒相對地辯論了起來。馬丁聽著聽著,真想揉揉眼睛看到底是怎么回事。這簡直不可能是真事,更不用說發(fā)生在市場街南邊的工人區(qū)里啦。書本上的知識在這些人的心中活躍著。他們的話語熱烈,充滿了激情,智慧的力量在刺激著他們,就像他見過烈酒和憤怒刺激得有些人熱血沸騰一樣。他聽到的可不是書本上那種干巴巴的哲學(xué)理論,也不是康德及斯賓塞那班半偶像式的神話人物筆下的言辭。這是一種有血有肉、富于生命力的哲理,體現(xiàn)在這兩個(gè)人的身上,使他們的面部表情激動(dòng)異常。別的人不時(shí)也插進(jìn)去幾句,大家都帶著全神貫注的神情傾聽著這場辯論,手中的香煙熄滅了也全然不顧。
唯心論從未引起過馬丁的興趣,可這種理論一落入諾頓的手中,就變成了叫人耳目一新的東西。唯心論在邏輯上似乎是合乎道理的,深深打動(dòng)了他的心,可克拉斯和漢密爾頓好像就看不到這一點(diǎn),他們嘲笑諾頓是形而上學(xué)者,諾頓也嘲笑他們是形而上學(xué)者?!艾F(xiàn)象”和“本體”這兩個(gè)名詞被拋來拋去。他們譴責(zé)他妄圖用意識本身解釋意識。他則譴責(zé)他們在玩文字游戲,說他們的推理方式不是從事實(shí)到理論,而是從字眼到理論。一聽這話,他們都呆了。他們推理的基本模式,正是從事實(shí)出發(fā),再給這些事實(shí)冠以名稱呀。
當(dāng)諾頓談到康德的錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜的理論時(shí),克拉斯提醒他說,微不足道的德國哲學(xué)流派一旦失勢,就都跑到了牛津去。過了一會兒,諾頓提出了漢密爾頓的“節(jié)儉律”[9],而他們則聲稱他們的每一個(gè)推理過程都運(yùn)用的是這條定律。馬丁抱著膝蓋,聽得樂不可支??芍Z頓并非斯賓塞的信徒,十分想影響馬丁的哲學(xué)觀,所以講話時(shí)一方面針對自己的兩個(gè)敵手,一方面針對他。
“要知道,貝克萊[10]提出的問題從來就沒有人解答過,”他用眼睛直勾勾地望著馬丁說,“相比較而言,赫伯特·斯賓塞離答案最近,但還近得不夠。就連斯賓塞最忠實(shí)的信徒也不敢再朝前邁一步。一天,我看了薩利倍[11]的一篇論文,他至多只能說,赫伯特·斯賓塞幾乎解答了貝克萊的問題?!?/p>
“你們知道休謨[12]都說了些什么嗎?”漢密爾頓問道。
諾頓點(diǎn)了點(diǎn)頭,可漢密爾頓為了讓別人也知道,還是說了出來?!八f貝克萊的問題既不可能解答,又不可能讓人信服。”
“那是休謨自己的觀點(diǎn)?!睂Ψ交鼐吹?,“休謨的看法與你們的如出一轍,所不同的是,他還算聰明,承認(rèn)貝克萊的問題不能夠解答?!?/p>
諾頓又敏感又興奮,可是卻不慌亂,而克拉斯和漢密爾頓則像兩個(gè)冷酷無情的野蠻人,專門尋找薄弱環(huán)節(jié)下手。天色漸晚,諾頓見對方老是指責(zé)他是一個(gè)形而上學(xué)者,不由惱火起來,用手緊緊抓住椅子才不至于跳起身來,灰色的眼睛噴發(fā)著怒火,姑娘般的面孔變得嚴(yán)厲和堅(jiān)毅,隨即對敵陣發(fā)起了全面進(jìn)攻。
“好吧,你們這些??藸柕男磐剑退阄彝评砥饋硐駛€(gè)醫(yī)生一樣,那么請問,你們是怎樣推理的呢?你們這些不講科學(xué)的武斷者,連一點(diǎn)根據(jù)都沒有,只會把你們的那套實(shí)證理論往不適當(dāng)?shù)牡胤桨?。早在唯物一元論學(xué)派興起之前,所謂的基礎(chǔ)就毀于一旦了,所以再不可能有根據(jù)可言了。那是洛克的作為,他叫約翰·洛克[13]。兩百年前——甚至比這還要早一些呢——他曾在《悟性論》一書中論證天賦觀念是壓根不存在的。最為可笑的是,這正是你們所強(qiáng)調(diào)的理論。今天晚上,你們一遍又一遍地宣稱天賦觀念是不存在的。
“這說明了什么問題呢?這說明你們永遠(yuǎn)都不可能了解基本的實(shí)在。你們生下來時(shí),大腦空空如也。通過五官,你們的大腦只能夠掌握事物的表層或現(xiàn)象。出生時(shí),你們的大腦里沒裝事物的本體,以后也沒法了解——”
“我否認(rèn)——”克拉斯企圖插嘴。
“請等我把話說完?!敝Z頓吼道,“通過五官的接觸,你們對力與物質(zhì)之間的作用和反作用也只能了解一二。要知道,為了順利辯論起見,我情愿承認(rèn)物質(zhì)的存在;我要做的是用你們自己的論點(diǎn)駁倒你們。我只能采取這種方法,因?yàn)槟銈儌z天生就無法理解哲學(xué)上的抽象概念。
“請問,根據(jù)你們自己的實(shí)證理論,你們對物質(zhì)有哪些了解呢?你們只了解物質(zhì)的現(xiàn)象和表面。你們只知道物質(zhì)的變化,或者說,只知道那些在你們的意識里引起變化的物質(zhì)的內(nèi)在變化。實(shí)證理論只涉及現(xiàn)象,可你們笨得意想當(dāng)本體論者,拿物質(zhì)的本體當(dāng)研究對象。不過,根據(jù)實(shí)證理論的定義來看,科學(xué)只涉及事物的表象。有一位人士曾這樣說過,從現(xiàn)象中獲得的知識絕不可能超越現(xiàn)象本身。
“即便將康德駁得體無完膚,你們也解答不了貝克萊的問題。可是你們又非得假定貝克萊是錯(cuò)的,因?yàn)槟銈円獜?qiáng)調(diào)科學(xué)已證明上帝是不存在的,或者換句同樣確切的話來說,已證明了物質(zhì)的存在。——要明白,我承認(rèn)物質(zhì)的存在,只是為了讓你們能聽懂我的論點(diǎn)。你們?nèi)绻敢?,那就?dāng)你們的實(shí)證理論家吧。不過,本體論在實(shí)證學(xué)科是沒有地位的,所以就別把它搬出來了。斯賓塞的不可知論是正確的,可如果他——”
該搭最后一班渡輪回奧克蘭去了,勃力森登和馬丁躡手躡腳溜出了房門。而諾頓仍在高談闊論,克拉斯和漢密爾頓則像一對獵犬一樣,只等他一講完就撲到他身上去。
“你讓我看到了人間仙境,”馬丁在渡輪上說,“能結(jié)識這樣的人,才不枉活一世。我的大腦感到非常興奮。以前我從不贊同唯心觀,現(xiàn)在我對它也無法接受。你知道我永遠(yuǎn)都將是一個(gè)唯實(shí)論者,大概這是我的天性。不過,我真想回敬克拉斯和漢密爾頓幾句,而且我認(rèn)為自己對諾頓也有微詞可言。依我看,斯賓塞的觀點(diǎn)仍未被駁倒。我激動(dòng)得真像一個(gè)頭一次看馬戲的孩子。看來,我還得多讀些書。我要掌握薩利倍的論點(diǎn)。我還是認(rèn)為斯賓塞的觀點(diǎn)不容置疑,下次我要給他們露一手?!?/p>
可是,勃力森登吃力地喘著氣,已經(jīng)睡著了,只見他的下巴埋在圍巾里,抵在凹陷的胸脯上,身子裹在長大衣里,隨著螺旋槳的振動(dòng)而顫抖。
* * *
[1] 19世紀(jì)德國生物學(xué)家,唯物一元論者。
[2] 19世紀(jì)英國著名小說家。
[3] 19世紀(jì)美國著名演員。
[4] 19世紀(jì)美國小說家。
[5] 19世紀(jì)美國評論家,對劇壇影響頗大。
[6] 白人種族主義者害怕東方黃種人強(qiáng)大起來,稱其為“黃禍”。在當(dāng)時(shí)的美國,尤指工資低廉的黃種人對白種工人構(gòu)成的所謂“威脅”。
[7] 德國社會民主黨領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人。
[8] 19世紀(jì)英國詩人兼畫家,拉斐爾前派的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人。
[9] 邏輯學(xué)上的一條定律,蘇格蘭19世紀(jì)的形而上學(xué)者威廉·漢密爾頓曾在《形而上學(xué)》一書中做過闡述。
[10] 17世紀(jì)的一位愛爾蘭主教,唯心主義哲學(xué)家。他否認(rèn)物質(zhì)世界的存在,認(rèn)為“存在即被感知”。
[11] 19世紀(jì)英國優(yōu)生學(xué)家兼社會學(xué)家。
[12] 18世紀(jì)蘇格蘭經(jīng)驗(yàn)派哲學(xué)家,著有《人性論》一書。
[13] 17世紀(jì)英國經(jīng)驗(yàn)派哲學(xué)家,其名著為《悟性論》。
瘋狂英語 英語語法 新概念英語 走遍美國 四級聽力 英語音標(biāo) 英語入門 發(fā)音 美語 四級 新東方 七年級 賴世雄 zero是什么意思鄭州市馬渡新村2號院英語學(xué)習(xí)交流群