| 強權政治是今天具有了民主意識的大眾們所普遍厭惡的，但是許多滋生強權政治的文化卻又是不論什麼政治傾向的大眾們所喜好的，而人們所景仰的強者的光環就是這種文化的基本要素之一。對於強者的光環的推崇在華語文化中好象尤為突出，這是因為傳統的黑白色的文化至今在華語文化圈仍有着極大的影響。歷史上或現實中的名人在眾人心目中是兩極式的人物：毫無瑕疵的強者和一無是處的壞蛋。對於強者，人們發自內心地要給他們戴上光環，如果有人膽敢給這光環抹黑，那是一定要對之進行譴責的；而一旦那個原先的強者被證明了有很不好的劣跡或弱點時，他就會從強者的地位一落千丈，一下子跌倒一無是處的壞蛋的地位。 這種對於強者的光環的崇拜實際上對於人們的日常生活以及社會的政治文化的發展是有着人們所普遍忽視了重大負面影響的。其主要要害是通過對於不具有光環的普通人的壓抑來強化社會固有的競爭機制，使得人們所追求的不是真理和對社會的實際貢獻而是那個光環。這是因為現實中的真實的人不論他的智慧能力或品行有多高超，都是有瑕疵的，因而都不具備人們心目中的那種理想的強者光環，人們唯獨通過社會的強勢才可以為自己戴上光環。這就導致了為了爭奪光環的人更在意的不是真理，不是實際的社會貢獻，而是如何通過權勢的爭鬥而給自己戴上光環，這必然加重社會原有的競爭的慘烈程度。 過去幾個星期里，我抽空在讀傑斯帕斯（Karl Theodor Jaspers 23 February 1883 – 26 February 1969）的一些文章，從中看到一些與上述的推崇強者光環的文化相反的例子，比如本文將選擇介紹的傑斯帕斯對柯克加德（Søren Aabye Kierkegaard，5 May5, 1813 – November 11, 1855）和尼采（Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche，October 15, 1844 – August 25, 1900）的一些評論。 柯克加德被普遍認為是西方近代存在主義的創始人而尼采則是大家所熟悉的可以說是與康德齊名的西方近代哲學家，這兩個人都是傑斯帕斯心目中的強者，但這並不妨礙他在對兩個人進行非常正面的評論的同時看到他們的人性上的弱點。我這裡將有選擇地介紹傑斯帕斯對柯克加德和尼采的相對來說不那麼“光環”的評論。 傑斯帕斯本人生於1883年2月23日，他因自出身於富裕家庭而不認為自己具有成為哲學家的先天條件。他曾選擇了不同的專業，成為一名臨床心理醫師，但是，最終他的作為哲學家的本能還是讓他走上了哲學的道路並成為近代歐洲存在主義的代表人物之一。下面的介紹節選自他的“Reason and Existenz”的英譯版（http://www.olimon.org/uan/jaspers_reason_and_existenz.pdf）。 。。。。 Their being as exceptions They were exceptions in every sense. Physically, their development was in retard of their character. Their faces disconcert one because of their relative unobtrusiveness. They do not impress one as types of human greatness. It is as if they both lacked something in sheer vitality…. 他們（柯與尼）自己的不正常的存在： 從任何意義上來說他們倆都是不正常的。生理上來說，他們的發 育與人們心目中的他們的形象不符。他們的長相相對不起眼到讓人不舒服。他們不會讓人覺得有任何偉大的氣質。他們都好象缺乏一點讓人覺得與（人們心目中的）他們的身份相符的東西。。。 ….. In the circumstances of their lives, one finds astonishing and alien features. They have been called simply insane. They would be in fact objects for a psychiatric analysis, if that were not to the prejudice of the singular height of their thought and the nobility of their natures. Indeed, then they would first come to light. But any typical diagnosis or classification would certainly fail. 人們倒是可以在他們的人生方面找到令人刮目和不平凡之處。他們倆都被人們當作精神病人。實際上，即便不對他們與眾不同的思想高度和傲慢的人格有所歧視和偏見，他們也確實可以作為精神分析的對象。實際上，這正是他們的閃光之處。但是，對他們進行任何常規的診斷和分類都註定是不會成功的。 They cannot be classed under any earlier type (poet, philosopher, prophet, savior, genius). With them, a new form of human reality appears in history. They are, so to speak, representative destinies, sacrifices whose way out of the world leads to experiences for others. They are by the total staking of their whole natures like modern martyrs, which however, they precisely denied being…. 他們不能被歸為任何已知的類別（詩人，哲學家，先知，救世者，天才）。人類由於他們而具有了史無前例的新的類別。他們是未來的代表，是用他們自己在人世間創出的路為他人積累經驗的犧牲品。以他們自身的素質來說，他們是人類現代的真正的衛道士，但是，他們卻恰恰是作為離經叛道者而被世界所拋棄。。。 …… Both made literary reputation in their first publications; but then their new books followed unceasingly, and they had to print what they wrote at their own expense. 他倆都主要因自己的第一部著作而獲得寫作的聲譽；但他們隨後的新書就接踵而來，而且他倆都不得不自己掏腰包來出書（看來那兩個人還是挺有錢的J---博主注）。 …… One of the motives in common for the comprehensive expression of their self-understanding is the will not to be mistaken for someone else. This was, they said, one of their deepest concerns….. 他倆努力表達對他們自己的認識的一個共同的原因是為了讓別人不會錯將他們當作他人。他們說，那是他們心中最深處的一個願望。。。 Their consciousness of failure, of exceptionality, of loneliness But this well-grounded self-consciousness, momentarily expressed and then suppressed again, is always with Kierkegaard moderated through the humility of his Christian attitude and, with both, is tempered by the psychological knowledge of their human failure. The astonishing thing with them again is that the precise mode of their failure is itself the condition of their greatness. For this greatness is not absolute greatness, but something that uniquely belongs to the situation of the epoch. 他們對於失敗，不正常，孤獨的自我意識 但在柯克加德那裡，這種很有基礎的自發地表達出來又隨即壓抑下去的自我意識，總是能得到他作為基督徒的謙卑的態度的調整，而對於他們倆共同的一點是，他們又都喜歡尋找他們作為人而失敗的心理原因。令人注目的是，他們這種失敗感正是導致他們的偉大的一個條件。因為這種偉大不是絕對的，而是屬於他們的時代的特殊之處。 It is noteworthy how they both came to the same metaphors for this side of their natures. Nietzsche compared himself to the “scratching which an unknown power makes on paper, in order to test a new pen.” The positive value of his illness is his standing problem. Kierkegaard thought he indeed “would be erased by God’s mighty hand, extinguished as an unsuccessful experiment.” He felt like a sardine squashed against the side of a can. The idea came to him that, “in every generation there are two or three who are sacrifices for the others, who discover in frightful suffering what others shall profit by.” He felt like an “interjection in speaking, without influence upon the sentence,” like a “letter which is printed upside down in the line.” He compared himself with the paper notes in the financial crisis of 1813, the year in which he was born. “There is something in me which might have been great, but due to the unfavorable market, I’m only worth a little.” 值得注意的是，他們倆對自己的本質都得出了相同比喻。 尼采將自己比喻成“一個神秘的力量為了實驗一種新的筆而在紙上塗的鴉。”他的疾病的陽性反應是他的永存的問題。柯克加德則認為他自己“將被上帝的大能之手抹去，如一個不成功的實驗一樣地消失。”他覺得自己象一隻擠壓在罐頭壁上的沙丁魚。他有這樣一種想法，“每一代人中都會有兩三個人作為他人的犧牲品，他們用非常的痛苦得來的發現將為他人日後獲利。”他感到自己就象“一篇演講中的象聲詞，對整個句子沒有任何影響，”象一個“在句子行中印反了字母。”他把自己比作1813年，即他出生的那年，的經濟危機時期的紙幣。他說，“我身上可能有什麼偉大之處，但是因為不好的市場，我只值很少錢。” Both were conscious of being exceptions. Kierkegaard developed a theory of the exception, through which he understood himself: he loved the universal, the human in men, but as something other, something denied to him. Nietzsche knew himself to be an exception, spoke “in favor of the exception, so long as it never wants to become the rule.” He required of the philosopher “that he take care of the rule, since is the exception.” 他倆都意識到自己不正常。柯克加德發展出了一套關於不正常的理論並用來認識他自己：他熱愛他人身上的普通的正常的人性，但那對他自己來說是一種不屬於他的異類。尼采知道自己不正常，且為“不正常說好話，只要這種不正常不成為一般的法規。”他並因此要求哲學家們“讓他來制定規則，因為他不正常。” Thus the last thing either wished was to become exemplary. Kierkegaard looked upon himself as “a sort of trial man.” “In the human sense no one can imitate me….I am a man as he could become in a crisis, an experimental rabbit, so to speak, for existence. ” Nietzsche turned those who would follow him: “Follow not me, but you!” 所以他倆最不願意做的一件事就是成為他人的榜樣。柯克加德把自己看作是“一種用來實驗的人。”他說，“按照人的意義，沒有人能夠象我。。。我是一個人們只有在危機時才能成為的人，可以說是作為一個被實驗的兔子而存在。”尼采拒絕想要學他樣的人說，“不要學我，學你自己！” ….. A terrible loneliness, bound up with their exceptionality, was common to both. Kierkegaard knew that he could have no friends. Nietzsche suffered his own growing loneliness in full consciousness to the limit where he felt he could endure it no longer.... 與他倆的不正常相伴的是他倆共同的孤獨。柯克加德知道他無法有朋友。尼采則被不斷增加的孤獨感折磨得無法忍受。。。 。。。。。。 相關鏈接：老子的坦蕩與失落 | 
