Thursday, September 19, 2013

月下夜思

Chardin 的 Glass of Water and Coffee Pot
大文豪普魯斯特 (Marcel Proust) 的人生活在浮華之上 —— 他認識王孫貴胄,出入巴黎麗池酒店 (The Ritz) ,參加無數舞會,但吊詭地他教人生活簡單,家裡的一碟一瓶,都是欣賞的對像,客廰中的陳設,都可以美麗動人,令人感到幸福。到羅浮宮不要看巍峨宮闕,而是要看 Chardin 的畫,描寫普通人的生活,描畫靜物的美態。

縱然貴族朋友多的是,他的好友卻是貴族的僕人、司機。為甚麽?皆因就是他見得太多一般人以為那些很「美好」的人和事 —— 那些盛名的人,堂皇的酒店大堂,覺得不甚了了。普魯斯特説,不要以為擁有盛名顯赫的名字的後裔,真的如神話般一樣,現實他們不過都是粗鄙、八卦、庸俗的人而已,與其跟他們為伍,倒不如躲在家裡讀書(由於健康不佳,他真的整天躲在家裡,因此寫了一部洋洋百萬字的巨著《追憶似水年華》)。

相反那些人家覺得地位低微的人,普魯斯特往往發現他們的睿智。普魯斯特並不是要説,貴族就不好,有名的人都名不符實,而是如果單單以名聲、教育、階層去判别一個人,委實太單純了。

我不是普魯斯特,腦裡藏不下《追憶似水年華》,也没有他的能力可以讓自己無需為生活而煩惱,專心在家寫作,但推掉晚上外出「去玩」的無謂應酬,總還可以。是夜中秋,發覺今年的月亮真得很圓、很光、很美麗。看着皎潔的明月,躺在家裡翻幾頁書,搜索論壇上人們的嬉笑怒駡,人生之大樂。

之前論壇上見有人問「海德格所指的存在和存有的分别」,這樣的問題,不是三言兩語可以説明。然而我只有三言兩語,在僅有的知識中,想想甚麽是存在,甚麽是存有。

存在的「在」有佔用空間的意思,一件存在的事物 ,即系這件事物是佔用了空間,所以我們可以看到,觸摸到。而且我們看到的事物會因為時間,人的角度的改變而改變,例如十年前這個人是一個青年,今天是一個成年人,五十年後就變成一個老年人(時間的改變),又例如,我從前鍾愛某一首歌,年紀大了,閲歷豐富了,同一首歌,已經不覺得那麽好(價值、角度的改變),會變是存在事物,或者叫存有物(英文是用細楷的 being)的特徵。而「存有」(Being) 是事物的本質,是不變的。

古希臘的哲學家説明存有不變,being is selfsame (存有乃自同的),但是其存有物則呈現不同的面貌 (appearing as many)。存有物,其呈現得多姿多彩,例如你可以覺得一個人漂亮,我認為她不太漂亮。她是一個漂亮的人,漂亮的存有就是漂亮本身,柏拉圖就此把「存有乃自同,呈現卻多變」的説法一錘定音,對西方哲學界影响深遠,直到現代哲學的出現,存有才有不同的説法。

就我所知,海德格對存有的探問,就是這個不變的而且被柏拉圖(海德格認為是錯誤地)奠定了的「存有」,但要解釋這位大哲的思想,恕我無能為力。只有聽一首瑞典新星 Lights & Motion 的 Requiem,繼續夜靜沉思。




4 comments:

  1. Reality and truth and Life are all spheres: it may have a certain centre around which the surfaces revolve: everything moves, except the centre which provides point around which they move but that centre is not a "thing" and in that sense has no 'existence": it is merely a metaphysical "concept", a "hypothesis", a physical "non-being" or an "absence". To me Being includes both that absent centre and the surfaces and "beings" but often we travel only upon its surface. But there is not just one such centre in reality/Being but many such and different people may build their lives upon different centres. Some build their lives around reason, others on sensation and feelings. Philosophers tend to be of the former type, and artists of the latter type but as in everything, there are exceptions. eg. Nietzsche and some of the so-called "postmodern" thinkers. If "Being" is self-same, that's because it's something ever changing: like the Tao; it's a nothing yet a nothing that begets everything.
    I like the sound of Lights and Motions: it conveys that sense of hollowness of the "Being" of existence: all waves and vibrations. Thanks for sharing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for sharing with me your Philosophy of Spheres. Really look forward to reading the whole of it.

      Delete
  2. You said the moon is so round, so bright, so beautiful. Is beauty synonymous with perfection? Is perfection a sphere? Is beauty synonymous with the light of reason or the light of sensation or partly both? Do we always need to live only in the realm of reason?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beauty lies within perfection and is part of perfection. I think a sphere is a closest representation of perfection that human minds can conceive of. There must be a reason why we see beauty as beauty, yet it seems impossible to define it by reason alone. Reason is what we need to live but the beauty of the human mind is it is capable of more than reasoning.

      Delete