最高相似度示例 · 非人工确认结果
目标片段这个张力不仅仅是对于某一个具体意识形态的批评，这是一个根本的有关现代社会根基的核心矛盾的反思。所以鲁巴乔夫这个在革命过程中被打成反动派的老革命派。对于他来说，他的鸦片不是激进的乌托邦式的意识形态本身。对于他来说，他的鸦片可能是理性，可能是把政治理论抽象化的这种倾向。这是一整个现代政治所生产出来的所有意识形态的总体的倾向。不管你是自由派保守派社会主义这个主义那个主义都是一种抽象的理论化的倾向，对吧？
来源片段You could be a revolutionary nihilist, you could be a nihilist, and this is the implication of Dostoyevsky, who falls very easily into violent terrorism. You can be a communist nihilist, you can be an anarchist nihilist. Bazarov is none of those things. He lays out his philosophy to anyone who wants to hear it. His nihilism is a rejection of established values and established conventions that includes moral values, political values, social values. In the name, not of some political ideal, but of science.
查看片段位置
4 个展示片段 · 共 5 个展示片段（含上方示例）— 点击展开
S1：2 个窗口回退
来源片段
It's, in some ways, a parody of it, but it's also actually pretty sympathetic to it, not to the philosophy itself, but to the thought that if you are in that generation, if you are in your 20s, it would be deeply appealing. What makes Dostoevsky so angry about Fathers and Sons is he thinks that Togenev ultimately is pandering to nihilism, trying to understand it, being quite polite about it. What makes Chanochevsky so furious about Fathers and Sons is that he thinks that Togenev is mocking nihilism and giving a typically aloof older person's take on what he sees as a younger person's fashion, whereas for Chanochevsky, nihilism is the truth.
目标片段
就是你如果能够试图举出其他20世纪的作家中，有更像托斯托耶夫斯基的人，我觉得不可能，我非常乐意改变我的观点。但是目前我觉得不可能，我期待你来说服我。另外一点，我想说的是，这个作者匈牙利人、库兹勒他的政治轨迹跟托斯托耶夫斯基很像这两个人都在年轻时期信仰。当时这种高端精英知识分子中流行的理性主义和空想社会主义色彩。总体来说，相信的是理性万岁，理性万岁，科学万岁，直到现实，大铁锤子一棍子把他们抡成了这个时代最伟大的小说家。
来源片段
And to tell the truth, the truth being none of that stuff is true. The truth comes from science, it comes from a material understanding of the world, and it has to yet be fully constructed. Bazarov doesn't think that scientists have understood everything, but he thinks the potential for understanding anything requires giving up on moral, literary, religious values, and sticking to the science. That's his philosophy, and it's a liberating philosophy because it frees him up to do what he likes, so he doesn't have to abide by conventional values, he doesn't have to be polite.
目标片段
基于这种对于历史的逻辑必然性的理解之上播客的最后我们来讲，我在之前已经铺垫过的这个在正午的黑暗。这本小说中，鲁巴乔夫对于什么是个体，他内心的思考，以及他对于什么是科学实验，就是这个科学史观，他内心的思考。我在这里强调的是，大家应该发现了鲁巴乔夫是一个在逻辑上自洽的革命派。他坚信，自己所拥有的立场是把科学历史、科学史观的必然性，严格执行到极致的立场，他必然带来的结果是什么？当然是个体，不存在了，在他心中只有集体没有个体。
S2：2 个窗口回退
来源片段
Philosophy generally has no power over public opinion, over public institutions, and in such an age as our own that we might designate as a public age, philosophy therefore seems destined to perish. Only a facsimile of it remains among the senile academics. The public mind moves according to what is fashionable, and all that we find in philosophy is unfashionable. We could put it like that. And yet by authoring this very work Nietzsche is not passively accepting this state of affairs. He's in fact setting himself up against it.
目标片段
听到这里可能身处于现代的听众。我们被这个现代理论禁营的大脑根本就无法意识到，还有没有什么其他理解个体的方式。当然有啊所有的古代人都不是这么理解个体的。孔子的君君臣臣富富子子就不是一种抽象的个体，对抗抽象的集体。这种理解个人的方式。亚历士多德的人是政治的动物，也不是抽象个体对抗抽象集体的。对于个体的理解人，在这个人是政治的动物中的人，是具体的集体，也是具体的集体，就是你所出身的城邦集体，
来源片段
But as Nietzsche would go on to argue in his later works, such as Beyond Good and Evil, we haven't changed all that much, insofar as philosophers are governed by one ruling thought. Philosophy is a confession, a revelation of who one is. The prepletonics do this, but without any of the adulteration, any of the sophistication of the modern philosopher, who may have, for example, ideas about the dialectic, that the objective truth can be found through this process of logical investigation.
目标片段
现在你能看到最常见的阅读这个小说的方法就是把它读成什么，对苏共的批判，什么自由派小说家也没错嘛，但是是一个很肤浅的解读。因为他在这个书中关心的核心问题跟托斯托耶夫斯基关心的核心问题是一样的，那就是现代知识分子把正体建立在某种理论之上，在逻辑上无懈可击，在辩证法上无懈可击。谁能够反驳天赋人权呢？但是为什么在现实层面一次又一次的带来了如此可怕的暴政，在道德层面的正确和在逻辑层面的正确。如果发生冲突的话，我们应该如何选择？