2000年--外文翻譯--電影的哲學(xué)范圍

1、<p>　　中文4245字,2829單詞，13000英文字符</p><p>　　出處：Russell B. The philosophical limits of film[J]. 2000.</p><p>　　The Philosophical Limits of Film</p><p>　　Bruce Russell</p><

2、;p>　　In this discussion I will argue that film can vividly introduce philosophical problems and can solve some problems by showing us what is possible. But it cannot show us what is probable and sometimes not even wha

3、t is possible</p><p>　　I Why be Moral?</p><p>　　Ever since Plato philosophers have been concerned with the relationship between morality and practical reason. Is it possible for there to be an a

4、ction that is prohibited by morality but permitted, or even required, by practical reason? Surely, if you have a ring that will make you invisible, like the one Soc-rates describes in the Republic, and so will allow you

5、to get away with all sorts of wrongdoing, at least sometimes it will be in your interest to act wrongly. Insofar as practical reason r</p><p>　　Plato, of course, argued that it is always better to be just th

6、an unjust, that is, to be a just than an unjust person. His argument is that there is dis-harmony in the soul of an unjust person and that will ultimately make life worse for him, regardless of how much worldly success h

7、e enjoys.</p><p>　　There are two obvious responses to this argument. First, it does not address the question of whether it is ever practically rational to act immorally since it focuses on the difference bet

8、ween just and unjust persons, or lives, rather than actions. If Plato is right in thinking it is better to be a just than an unjust person, why not be a just person and on rare occasions perform unjust acts when it is pa

9、rticularly beneficial to you and it is very unlikely that you’ll be caught? Second, it seems</p><p>　　II Happiness and Immorality in Two Films</p><p>　　Arguments for acting morally fall into two

10、 general types. The first type says that your internal life will be so horrible if you do what is wrong that</p><p>　　it will not pay in the long run to act immorally. You will be so plagued by guilt and rem

11、orse, or fear of being caught, that the wrongdoing will not pay. The other says that if you act wrongly the probability that you will be discovered and punished is so great that it does not pay to take the risk. Woody Al

12、len’s Crimes and Misdemeanors (Orion, 1989) focuses on the first answer; A Simple Plan (Paramount, 1998; based on a novel and screenplay by Scott B. Smith) focuses on the second answer but ul</p><p>　　After

13、Dolores is killed, Judah imagines a conversation involving his father Sol and his aunt May at a seder dinner where he is present as a child. His father says that if a man kills, one way or another he will be punished. Wh

14、en a friend interjects, ‘‘If he’s caught, Sol,’’ Sol responds, ‘‘that which originates from a black deed will blossom in a foul manner.’’ On the other hand, Judah’s aunt May thinks that if a man kills someone then, ‘‘If

15、he can do it and get away with it and he chooses not t</p><p>　　For a time it looks as if his father is right for soon after the murder we see a nervous, anxious, guilt-ridden, unhappy Judah Rosenthal. Howev

16、er, in a few months things change radically. We see Judah and Clifford Stern (Woody Allen) alone in a back room at the wedding of the niece of Cliff’s wife. Judah tells Cliff his story which he passes off as a fictional

17、account of a murder with ‘‘a(chǎn) very strange twist.’’ We know Judah is talking about himself when he tells Cliff that the murderer in his st</p><p>　　Earlier in the film Judah had said he was a man of science a

18、nd had always been skeptical of religion, even as a child. When talking with Cliff, Judah says that after the murder ‘‘little sparks of his religious background which he had rejected are suddenly stirred up.’’ But he is

19、able to reject that background again and find peace of mind. Clearly, Woody Allen’s message in this film is that crime can pay if you are not caught. The internal sanctions need not be strong enough, or their effects las

20、</p><p>　　Until the end of the movie, the main focus of A Simple Plan is on whether three people will be caught for the crimes they have committed. Hank Mitchell (Bill Paxton), his brother Jacob (Billy Bob T

21、hornton) and Jacob’s friend Lou Chambers (Brent Briscoe) discover a crashed, private plane covered with snow and containing 4.4 million in cash. They surmise the money is drug money and propose to keep it until people di

22、scover the plane in the spring once the snow melts. The original plan is for Hank t</p><p>　　for the money, Hank will burn it all.</p><p>　　When Hank brings home the money, there is a discussion

23、 between Hank and his wife Sarah (Bridget Fonda) about whether keeping it would be stealing and so, wrong. Hank argues that it is not if it is ‘‘dirty’’ drug money, though Sarah thinks it would be stealing in any case. E

24、ventually Sarah finds a newspaper article telling about a 4.4 million dollar ransom that was paid to some kidnappers for the return of someone’s daughter. So eventually it becomes clear that keeping the money is stealing

25、 even </p><p>　　Of course, lots of things go wrong before spring arrives. When Hank and Jacob return to the plane to put a half million dollars back in it to make it look like nothing was taken, a farmer on

26、a snow mobile runs across Jacob who is serving as a look out while pretending to fix a flat tire. Jacob and the farmer know each other and have a brief conversation. When the farmer starts off in the direction of the pla

27、ne and Hank, Jacob hits him in the back of the head with a tire iron and thinks he has ki</p><p>　　The last unexpected turn takes place when one of the kidnappers shows up pretending to be an FBI agent. The

28、kidnapper, the sheriff and Hank go out to the downed plane with Hank having just learned from his wife Sarah that the supposed FBI agent is really one of the kidnappers whose money and dead brother are in the plane. At t

29、he plane, the kidnapper kills the sheriff, and Hank kills the kidnapper. Jacob, who shows up late after talking with Sarah, says that he ‘‘doesn’t want to sit around the re</p><p>　　III Film and Philosophy&l

30、t;/p><p>　　Certainly film can raise philosophical questions in a vivid and interesting way. The question of what makes an action wrong is raised at two points in A Simple Plan. The first is when Hank and Sarah

31、argue over whether taking the money would be stealing if it were drug money and so money to which the owners had no legitimate claim. This film does not raise the issue of whether stealing is always wrong, and so whether

32、 taking the money is wrong even if it is stealing. And it does not raise the ques</p><p>　　A Simple Plan also raises the question of what makes people happy. Early in the film Hank relates that his father to

33、ld him when he was a kid that what it takes to be a happy man is ‘‘a(chǎn) wife that loves you, a decent job, and friends and neighbors who like and respect you.’’ However, the question of what makes, or causes, someone to be

34、happy is not itself a philosophical question. The philosophical question is about what features make a certain state of the person a state of happiness rather than </p><p>　　Of course, the main question thes

35、e two films raise is not about wrongdoing and happiness them-selves but about the relationship between wrong-doing and happiness. A Simple Plan shows that wrongdoing can lead to unhappiness, even when it is not discovere

36、d. Crimes and Misdemeanors shows that the opposite is also possible, that im-morality sometimes pays. So a film can refute a philosophical thesis, say, that necessarily, wrong-doing will make you unhappy or will be contr

37、ary to your self-interest.</p><p>　　But film cannot establish a philosophical thesis. This will obviously be true if all philosophical theses are claims that something is necessarily true, say, that necessar

38、ily, happiness is an intrinsic good or that necessarily, if you know something you are justified in believing it. No one can establish that something holds in all possible worlds by presenting an example or two from a po

39、ssible world depicted in film.</p><p>　　But it will also be true if philosophical claims are only about the actual world. No one can establish on the basis of, for instance, A Simple Plan that people will pr

40、obably get caught or their lives will be made miserable if they commit a heinous deed. It is the actual rate of being caught, and the actual percentage of people who are made unhappy after committing a horrible act, that

41、 determines whether it is reasonable to believe that ‘‘crime doesn’t pay.’’ A film might remind us of the evidenc</p><p>　　And while films can present counterexamples to some claims to necessary truths, they

42、 cannot do that for all such claims. Suppose one grants that Crimes and Misdemeanors shows that it is possible for wrongdoing to be in a person’s self-interest, to be what he most wants to do on reflection and to be what

43、 makes the person the happiest in the situation. Still, one can legitimately ask whether it shows that wrongdoing can ever be practically rational. In part, this is because what is practically rat</p><p>　　B

44、ut, in addition, it is an open question whether </p><p>　　practical rationality is solely a function of self-interest, happiness and desire fulfillment. To defeat the view that it is, a film would have to po

45、rtray a situation where it is practically irrational for someone to do something even though it is clearly in his self-interest, will make him happy and is what on reflection he most wants to do. However, I think our vie

46、ws of practical rationality are not clear enough to allow us, or a film, to present what amounts to a counterexample to the view th</p><p>　　So I conclude that the philosophical contribution of films is limi

47、ted to raising philosophical questions and offering counterexamples to proposed necessary truths, where the concepts involved in their statements are clear enough to allow counterexamples to be constructed. Of course, fi

48、lms can remind us of things we already know, such as the likelihood that something will go awry or that we will be plagued by guilt if we do wrong, and these reminders can have great practical value. Films can also</p

49、><p>　　advice on what will make us happy is. </p><p><b>　　電影的哲學(xué)范圍</b></p><p>　　在本文討論中我認為電影可以生動地介紹哲學(xué)問題和解決一些問題，向我們展示什么是可能的。但它不能告訴我們什么是可能，有時甚至是可能的。</p><p><b&g

50、t;　　為什么要遵守道德？</b></p><p>　　從哲學(xué)家柏拉圖開始就一直關(guān)注道德與實踐理性之間的關(guān)系。是否有可能存在被道德所禁止的，但對實踐理性是允許甚至必須的行為？答案是肯定的。如果你有一個戒指能使你隱身，像Soc-率描述的共和國，因而可以讓你逃脫各種不道德的行為，至少有時候它行事錯誤時也會維護你的利益。實踐理性要求我們在自身利益的范圍內(nèi)采取行動，或如果我們充分了解，不受脅迫和思維清晰時我們

51、會采取行動，那么實踐理性可能需要我們做道德上禁止的事情。</p><p>　　柏拉圖當(dāng)然爭辯說公正總比不公正要好，也就是說，成為一個公正而不是不公正的人。他的理由是在一個不公正人的靈魂中存在不和諧的思想，不管他是多么享受世俗的成功，這將最終使他的生活變得更糟糕。</p><p>　　這個說法有兩種不同的看法。第一，它并沒有解決實踐理性行事不道德，因為它側(cè)重于與正義與非正義的人，或生活的差別

52、，而不是行為的問題。如果柏拉圖是正確的，認為成為一個公正的人比不公正的人要好，為什么不成為一個公正的人在極少數(shù)情況進行不正當(dāng)?shù)珜ψ约河欣男袨?，這也不太可能被抓？第二，一個不正義的人的靈魂中未必會不和諧，這證明柏拉圖對于正義是在靈魂中有和諧思想在的定義是錯誤的。那么，為什么不能是更好地成為一個聰明的小偷，生命是被理性控制而不是一個靈魂受到迫害的圣人？</p><p>　　兩部影片的幸福和不道德</p>

53、<p>　　道德行為的觀點分為兩大類型。第一種說，如果你做了錯事在長遠來看不會受到懲罰，那么你的內(nèi)在生活會變得十分可怕。如果做錯事不受到懲罰的話，你就會被負罪感和懊悔折磨并且害怕被抓。另一說，如果你做錯事，被發(fā)現(xiàn)和懲處的概率是如此之大，是不值得冒這個險的。伍迪·艾倫的犯罪和輕罪（獵戶座，1989）著重于第一個答案; 一個簡單的計劃（派拉蒙，1998;依據(jù)斯科特·B·史密斯的小說和劇本）的重點是

54、第二個答案，但最終偏向第一個答案。在犯罪和輕罪中，猶大羅森塔爾（馬丁·蘭道）是一個富裕成功的眼科醫(yī)生，他想要與多洛雷斯·佩利（當(dāng)歸休斯頓）結(jié)束為期兩年的戀情。但是，洛雷斯主張她為了與猶大在一起，犧牲自己工作和談戀愛的機會，她不想放棄。她寫信給猶大的妻子米利亞姆告訴她這件事并要求與其見面澄清他們?nèi)酥g的事。對猶大幸運的是，在妻子打開信件之前他攔截了信件。猶大曾試圖勸說洛雷斯平靜的解決此事但是失敗。他找到自己的兄弟杰克

55、建議雇傭一個職業(yè)殺手來解決此次紛爭。由于害怕妻子和家庭受到傷害，妻子會因為此事蒙羞，猶大付錢讓杰克處理此事殺死德洛麗絲。</p><p>　　德洛麗絲被殺害后，猶大做了一個夢，在夢中是他小時候有他的父親Sol和姑媽May舉行家宴。他的父親說：“如果一個人殺了人，無論什么方式他都會受到懲罰?！逼渲幸粋€朋友突然說道：“如果他被抓住呢，Sol”。Sol回答說：“源于一個黑色契約以犯規(guī)的方式爆發(fā)?！绷硪环矫妫q大的姑媽M

56、ay認為“如果他殺了人并且逃脫了法律的處分，他選擇不被罪惡困擾，那么他就自由了?！?lt;/p><p>　　我們曾經(jīng)一度認為他的父親是正確的，當(dāng)發(fā)生謀殺案后我們會看到一個緊張，焦慮，充滿負罪感的不快樂的猶大。然而，幾個月后事情徹底改變了。我們看到猶大和克利福德·斯特恩（伍迪艾倫）獨自在克利福德妻子侄女的婚禮的后面的房間里。猶大告訴克里夫他的故事，他通過虛構(gòu)故事描述了這宗奇怪扭曲的謀殺案。我們知道猶大根克利福

57、德講述這個故事時兇手有很深的負罪感，重度恐慌精神瀕臨崩潰，幾乎都快要去自首了。但是，當(dāng)一個長假后的早晨，他醒來看到艷陽高照，家人圍繞在周圍，神秘的危機感解除了。從那之后他的生活重回正軌，他發(fā)現(xiàn)自己沒有受到懲罰而相反卻更蒸蒸日上。他不再被罪惡感困擾，真正的開心起來了。</p><p>　　在這部電影的開始，猶大說過他自己雖然是個科學(xué)家，但是當(dāng)他是個孩子的時候經(jīng)常質(zhì)疑宗教信仰。與克里夫交談時，他說過當(dāng)謀殺發(fā)生后，他曾

58、經(jīng)拒絕的宗教背景的小火花突然被激起。但是，他也能再次拒絕這些宗教背景找回內(nèi)心的寧靜。顯然，伍迪·艾倫的這部電影的傳達的信息是，如果你沒有被抓但是也會為犯罪付出代價。內(nèi)部制裁不一定要足夠強大，效果持續(xù)時間也不一定足夠長，目的是使不法行為是更壞的選擇。如果不是信奉宗教這種方式起作用，因為你不會擔(dān)心上帝會永遠注視你。這正是猶大的父親所主張的，已停留在猶大的內(nèi)心，但隨著拉比本的視力衰弱對猶大的作用也變?nèi)?。猶大的病人和知己在電影的結(jié)尾是

59、完全失明的。</p><p>　　在電影的結(jié)尾，簡單的計劃的主焦點還是這三個人是否會為他們曾經(jīng)犯下的罪而伏法。漢克·米切爾（比爾·帕克斯頓），他的兄弟雅各（比利·鮑伯·松頓）和雅各布的朋友婁錢伯斯（布倫特布里斯科）發(fā)現(xiàn)了一架覆滿積雪含有440萬現(xiàn)金的墜毀的私人飛機。他們猜測這些錢是黑錢，并建議保留直到人們在春季雪融化發(fā)現(xiàn)飛機時。最初的計劃是漢克保存這比錢，一旦飛機被發(fā)現(xiàn)如果

60、無人來尋他們?nèi)齻€平分并且搬離此地。如果有人來尋找，漢克將會把錢燒掉。</p><p>　　當(dāng)漢克將錢帶回家，漢克和他的妻子薩拉（布里奇特·方達）關(guān)于是否保留它會被竊取進行討論。漢克認為，不會因為它是臟錢，但莎拉認為無論如何都會被偷。最后，薩拉找到一篇報紙文章，這筆錢是用來向綁匪贖回女兒的贖金。所以顯而易見的是，即使是黑錢保留這些錢也是偷竊。</p><p>　　當(dāng)然，在春天到來之

61、前發(fā)生許多意想不到的事情。當(dāng)漢克和雅各布返回飛機將一半錢放回飛機讓看起來什么都沒被取走，碰巧遇到一個駕駛雪上汽車的農(nóng)民。雅各布認識那位農(nóng)民并且進行了簡單的對話。當(dāng)農(nóng)民向著飛機的方向出發(fā)時，漢克和雅各布用撬胎棒打了農(nóng)民的后腦并認為殺了他。漢克返回將農(nóng)民放在雪上汽車上，打算將其開下道將他的死偽造成意外。然而，在途中農(nóng)民還有意識，漢克將其勒死繼續(xù)他起初的計劃。漢克和雅各布越陷越深，后來雅各布為救漢克殺死了盧，漢克殺死盧的妻子南希讓這場謀殺看起

62、來是由于家庭內(nèi)部矛盾引發(fā)的。他們能夠說服州長盧試圖槍殺他時誤殺了她妻子（當(dāng)雅各布殺死盧后她實際上試圖槍殺漢克），當(dāng)盧威脅漢克時雅各布殺了盧。</p><p>　　最后一個意想不到的轉(zhuǎn)折發(fā)生了，綁匪之一冒充聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局特工出現(xiàn)了。綁匪，州長和漢克一同前往墜毀的飛機。漢克從他的妻子薩拉那得知假裝的FBI特工是其中一個綁匪，他的錢和死去的兄弟在飛機上。在飛機上，綁匪殺死了州長，漢克殺了綁匪。雅各布與妻子交談較晚出現(xiàn)，他說

63、在他的余生他不想無所事事，讓他的兄弟用綁匪的槍殺掉自己。雅各布威脅漢克如果他不殺他，他就用州長的槍自殺，那么漢克就無法向當(dāng)局解釋清楚。因此，漢克無奈殺了自己的兄弟。在最后，意味著漢克殺了四個人：農(nóng)民，盧的妻子，綁匪和自己的兄弟。最終當(dāng)他得知FBI記下了鈔票百分之十的號碼時他將錢燒了。當(dāng)回想自己的罪惡時他痛不欲生，尤其是親手殺了自己的兄弟。這個故事的寓意是，即使你沒有被逮住犯罪也是劃不來的。不像猶大，漢克無法忘記自己犯下的罪惡。犯罪和輕罪

64、的區(qū)別是犯罪可以償還。簡單的計劃中不能償還。然而，這些結(jié)論是兼容的，如果一個是關(guān)于什么是可能的，其他的什么是可能的說法。</p><p><b>　　電影和哲學(xué)</b></p><p>　　當(dāng)然，電影可以以生動有趣的方式提出哲學(xué)問題。是什么導(dǎo)致了錯誤的行為在一個簡單的計劃提出了兩點。首先是當(dāng)漢克和莎拉爭論如果這筆錢是黑錢拿這筆錢是否就是偷竊，而且所有者針對這筆錢沒有合

65、法要求。這部影片沒有關(guān)注偷竊是否永遠是錯的問題，而是即使錢是偷來的拿這筆錢也是不對的。漢克，雅各布和盧應(yīng)該將這筆錢移交當(dāng)局，它們的工作就是決定誰該擁有這筆錢。盡管它們是黑錢，私自保留也是偷竊。在影片的結(jié)尾第二種情況發(fā)生。根據(jù)兄弟的要求知道當(dāng)他死后每個人的結(jié)局會更好漢克殺死自己的兄弟是否錯了？如果雅各布的自殺是合乎情理的就可能錯了。即使自殺是不合理的也是錯的，因為我們假設(shè)漢克不能阻止這件事？當(dāng)然，漢克能做的無論威脅自殺是否合理，他都不應(yīng)該

66、殺自己的兄弟，他應(yīng)該帶著錢自首。顯然，這是一個很有意思的案例，間接傷害和非間接傷害綜合考慮。</p><p>　　簡單的計劃也提出什么使人們幸福這個問題。在影片的開始漢克講述當(dāng)他小時候父親告訴他怎樣才是一個幸福的人“有一個愛你的妻子，體面的工作，朋友與鄰里互敬互愛”。然而，什么引發(fā)人們幸福不只是個哲學(xué)問題。 哲學(xué)問題是關(guān)于什么特點使人達到幸福的狀態(tài)，而不是別的東西，這就是幸福的本質(zhì)特征。人們是如何幸福是

67、一個哲學(xué)問題。</p><p>　　當(dāng)然，這兩部影片提出的核心問題不是壞事和幸福本身而是兩者之間的關(guān)心。簡單的計劃說明犯罪導(dǎo)致憂愁，即使不被發(fā)現(xiàn)。犯罪和輕罪呈現(xiàn)相反的觀點，不道德有時會得到償還。因此，這部影片能反駁一個哲學(xué)理論即惡行必然會使你憂愁并將與自身利益相悖。</p><p>　　但是影片卻不能建立哲學(xué)理論。這顯然??是真實的，如果所有的哲學(xué)論文聲稱某事是必然真實的，比方說，幸福一定

68、是一種內(nèi)在的善行，如果你知道一些你有理由相信它。通過一個或兩個電影中描述的可能的世界，沒有能包含世界的所有可能性。</p><p>　　哲學(xué)的主張只關(guān)于真實的世界是真實的。例如，在簡單的計劃中當(dāng)他們犯下罪行時他們可能被抓或生活會變得很悲慘。當(dāng)人們犯下罪行被抓或變得不開心的比率決定人們相信罪惡不會得到救贖。電影可能會提醒我們已知的證據(jù)但是不會提供相關(guān)證據(jù)。虛構(gòu)的情境并不能提供真實數(shù)據(jù)。</p><

69、;p>　　雖然電影可以為一些必然真理的主張?zhí)岢龇蠢?，但他們針對所有的主張。假設(shè)一個人主張，犯罪和輕罪表明在這種情況下不法行為是一個人的謀求私利，是他最想做的反射什么，是什么使得人最幸福。然而，人們也可以這樣問這是否意味著犯罪可能有時是實際合理的。在某種程度上，這是因為實際合理是人們考慮這種行為對自身利益和幸福的影響以及欲望的滿足。我也曾經(jīng)說過，這是關(guān)于一個人的行動的影響，這不是在一個虛構(gòu)的電影所提供的證據(jù)證明實際的函數(shù)。</

70、p><p>　　此外，實踐理性僅僅是自身利益，幸福感和欲望滿足的函數(shù)還是一個有爭議的問題。為了打敗這種觀點，電影經(jīng)常會描繪一種實踐不合理情況即使是合乎自己的利益令自己幸福也是自己真正想做的。然而，我認為我們對實踐理性的觀點還不是十分清晰，讓我們或電影去呈現(xiàn)實踐理性只是一個人的自身利益，幸福感和欲望滿足函數(shù)的反例。犯罪和輕罪說明符合某人自身的利益時做道德的錯事，不符合道德的行為是實踐不合理的，實踐不合理是不道德的是不明

71、顯。哲學(xué)論證證明它是，但是電影本身并不包含哲學(xué)觀點。</p><p>　　因此，我得出結(jié)論，電影的哲學(xué)貢獻局限在提出哲學(xué)問題并為提出的必然真理提供反例。必然真理的概念陳述足夠清晰以構(gòu)建反例。當(dāng)然，電影能夠提醒我們已經(jīng)了解的事情，例如某些事情失敗的可能性或如果我們做錯事時會充滿罪惡感，這些提醒有巨大的實際價值。電影也能激勵我們尋求位置的事物或再次檢驗我們已知的事物。顯然，我們能夠享受電影！但是，這些最后三個好處不僅