EARLY MEDIEVAL PHILOSOPHY 2

Pierre Abélard was just thirty years old when Anselm died.

彼得·亚伯拉德（Pierre Abélard）在安瑟伦去世时只有三十岁。

Born into a knightly family in Brittany in 1079, he was educated at Tours and went to Paris in about 1100 to join the school attached to the Cathedral of Notre Dame, run by William of Champeaux.

他出生于1079年的布列塔尼一个骑士家庭，受教育于图尔（Tours），并于大约1100年去巴黎加入了由威廉·尚波（William of Champeaux）经营的附属于巴黎圣母院（Notre Dame）的学校。

Falling out with his teacher, he went to Melun to found a school of his own, and later set up a rival school in Paris on Mont Ste Geneviève.

与他的老师闹翻后，他去了梅伦（Melun）创办了自己的学校，后来在巴黎圣日内维夫山（Mont Ste Geneviève）上建立了一个竞争对手的学校。

From 1113 he was William’s successor at Notre Dame.

从1113年起，他就是威廉在巴黎圣母院的继任者。

While teaching there he took lodgings with Fulbert, a canon of the Cathedral, and became tutor to his niece Héloïse.

在那里教书时，他与富尔贝特（Fulbert），一位大教堂的教士，同住，并成为他侄女埃洛伊斯（Héloïse）的家庭教师。

He became her lover probably in 1116, and when she became pregnant married her secretly.

他可能在1116年成为她的情人，当她怀孕时，他秘密地娶了她。

Héloïse had been reluctant to marry, and shortly after the wedding retired to live in a convent. 

埃洛伊斯不愿意结婚，婚后不久就退隐到修道院生活。

Fulbert, outraged by Abelard’s treatment of his niece, sent two henchmen to his room at night to castrate him.

富尔贝特对亚伯拉德对他侄女的处理感到愤怒，于是在夜里派了两个打手到他的房间阉割了他。

Abelard became a monk in the abbey of St Denis, near Paris, while Héloïse took the veil as a nun at Argenteuil.

亚伯拉德成为了巴黎附近圣但尼修道院（St Denis）的一名僧侣，而埃洛伊斯则在阿让特伊（Argenteuil）当了一名修女。

Our knowledge of Abelard’s life up to this point depends heavily upon a long autobiographical letter which he wrote to Héloïse some years later, History of my Calamities.

我们对亚伯拉德直到这一点的生活的了解主要依赖于他几年后写给埃洛伊斯的一封长长的自传性信件，《我的灾难史》（History of my Calamities）。

It is the most lively exercise in autobiography since Augustine’s Confessions.

这是自奥古斯丁的《忏悔录》以来最生动的自传。

 

From St Denis, Abelard continued to teach (partly in order to support Héloïse). He began to write theology, but his first work, the Theology of the Highest Good, was condemned by a synod at Soissons in 1121 as unsound about the Trinity.

从圣但尼（St Denis）开始，亚伯拉德继续教学（部分是为了支持埃洛伊斯）。他开始写神学，但他的第一部作品《至善神学》（Theology of the Highest Good）在1121年索瓦松（Soissons）的一个会议上被谴责为关于三位一体的不合理。

After a brief imprisonment Abelard was sent back to St Denis, but made himself unpopular there and had to leave Paris.

在短暂的监禁后，亚伯拉德被送回了圣但尼（St Denis），但他在那里不受欢迎，不得不离开巴黎。

From 1125 to 1132 he was abbot of St Gildas, a corrupt and boisterous abbey in a remote part of Brittany.

从1125年到1132年，他是圣吉尔达斯（St Gildas）的院长，这是一个位于布列塔尼偏远地区的腐败而喧闹的修道院。

He was miserable there, and his attempts at reform were met with threats of murder.

他在那里很痛苦，他的改革尝试遭到了谋杀的威胁。

Héloïse meanwhile had become prioress of Argenteuil, but she and her nuns were made homeless in 1129.

与此同时，埃洛伊斯成为了阿让特伊（Argenteuil）的女修道院院长，但她和她的修女们在1129年被赶出了家园。

Abelard was able to found and support a new convent for them, the Paraclete, in Champagne.

亚伯拉德能够为她们在Champagne

建立并支持一个新的修道院，即帕拉克利特（Paraclete）。

By 1136 he was back in Paris, lecturing once more on Mont Ste Geneviève.

到了1136年，他回到了巴黎，在圣日内维夫山（Mont Ste Geneviève）再次讲课。

His teaching attracted the critical attention of St Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux and second founder of the Cistercian order, the preacher of the Second Crusade.

他的教学引起了克莱尔沃（Clairvaux）的院长、锡斯特会（Cistercian order）的第二位创始人、第二次十字军东征的传教士圣伯纳德（St Bernard）的批判性关注。

St Bernard denounced Abelard’s teaching to the Pope, and had him condemned at a Council at Sens in 1140.

圣伯纳德向教皇谴责亚伯拉德的教导，并在1140年在森斯（Sens）的一次会议上将他定罪。

Abelard appealed unsuccessfully to Rome against the condemnation, but was ordered to give up teaching and retire to the Abbey of Cluny.

亚伯拉德未能成功地向罗马上诉反对这个定罪，但被命令放弃教学并退隐到克吕尼（Cluny）修道院。

There, two years later, he ended his days peacefully; his edifying death was described by the Abbot, Peter the Venerable, in a letter to Héloïse.

在那里，两年后，他平静地结束了他的生命；他的有益的死亡被院长彼得·尊敬者（Peter the Venerable）在一封写给埃洛伊斯的信中描述。

Abelard is unusual in the history of philosophy as being also one the world’s most famous lovers, even if he was tragically forced into the celibacy which is more typical of great philosophers, whether medieval or modern.

 亚伯拉德在哲学史上是不寻常的，因为他也是世界上最著名的恋人之一，即使他悲剧地被迫进入了更典型的伟大哲学家的独身生活，无论是中世纪的还是现代的。

It is as a lover, an ill-fated Lancelot or Romeo, rather than a philosopher, that he has been celebrated in literary classics.

他作为一个恋人，一个命运不幸的兰斯洛特（Lancelot）或罗密欧（Romeo），而不是一个哲学家，才在文学经典中被赞颂。

In Pope’s Epistle of Héloïse to Abelard, Héloïse, from her chill cloister, reminds Abelard of the dreadful day on which he lay before her, a naked lover bound and bleeding; she pleads with him not to forsake their love.

在蒲柏（Pope）的《埃洛伊斯致亚伯拉德书》（Epistle of Héloïse to Abelard）中，埃洛伊斯从她寒冷的修道院里，提醒亚伯拉德那个可怕的日子，他躺在她面前，一个赤裸、被捆绑和流血的情人；她恳求他不要放弃他们的爱情。

Come! with thy looks, thy words, relieve my woe; Those still at least are left thee to bestow.

来吧！用你的眼神，你的话语，解除我的痛苦；那些至少还留给你去赠予。

Still on that breast enamour’d let me lie, Still drink delicious poison from thy eye

让我仍然沉醉地躺在你的胸怀， 仍然从你的眼睛里喝下甘美的毒药

Pant on thy lip, and to thy heart be prest; Give all thou canst – and let me dream the rest.

在你的唇上喘息，紧贴你的心脏； 给我你能给的一切——让我做完剩下的梦。

Ah no! instruct me other joys to prize With other beauties charm my partial eyes, Full in my view set all the bright abode And make my soul quit Abelard for God.

啊，不！教导我欣赏其他的快乐 用其他的美丽迷惑我的偏爱之眼， 让我看到所有明亮的住所 让我的灵魂为了老天爷而离开亚伯拉德。

 

 

Abelard’s Logic

亚伯拉德的逻辑

Abelard’s importance as a philosopher is due above all to his contribution to logic and the philosophy of language.

亚伯拉德作为一个哲学家的重要性首先在于他对逻辑和语言哲学的贡献。

Logic, when he began his teaching career, was studied in the West mainly from Aristotle’s Categories and On Interpretation, plus Porphyry’s introduction and some works of Cicero and Boethius.

当他开始他的教学生涯时，逻辑在西方主要是从亚里士多德的《范畴论》（Categories）和《论解释》（On Interpretation），加上波菲利（Porphyry）的引论和西塞罗（Cicero）和波伊修斯（Boethius）的一些著作中学习的。

Aristotle’s major logical works were not known, nor were his physical and metaphysical treatises.

亚里士多德的主要逻辑著作并不为人所知，他的物理学和形而上学的论文也是如此。

Abelard’s logical researches, therefore, were less well informed than those, say, of Avicenna; but he was gifted with remarkable insight and originality.

因此，亚伯拉德的逻辑研究比那些，比如说，阿维森纳（Avicenna）的研究知识面更少；但他有着非凡的洞察力和创造力。

He wrote three separate treatises of Logic over the period from 1118 to 1140.

他在1118年到1140年期间写了三部独立的逻辑论文。

A major interest of twelfth-century logicians was the problem of universals: the status of a word like ‘man’ in sentences such as ‘Socrates is a man’, and ‘Adam is a man’.

十二世纪逻辑学家们的一个主要兴趣是普遍性问题：像“人”这样的词在诸如“苏格拉底是人”和“亚当是人”这样的句子中的地位。

Abelard was a combative writer, and describes his own position on the issue as having evolved out of dissatisfaction with the answer given by successive teachers to the question: what is it that, according to these sentences, Adam and Socrates have in common?

亚伯拉德是一个好斗的作家，他描述了他自己对这个问题的立场是如何从对连续教师们对这个问题的回答不满中演变出来的：根据这些句子，亚当和苏格拉底有什么共同之处？

Roscelin, his first teacher, said that all they had in common was the noun – the mere sound of the breath in ‘man’.

他的第一位老师罗塞林（Roscelin）说，他们所共有的只是名词——“人”中仅仅是呼吸声音。

He was, as later philosophers would say, a nominalist, nomen being the Latin word for ‘noun’.

他是，正如后来哲学家们所说的，一个唯名论者，nomen是拉丁语中“名词”的词。

William of Champeaux, Abelard’s second teacher, said that there was a very important thing which they had in common, namely the human species.

亚伯拉德的第二位老师威廉·尚波（William of Champeaux）说，有一件非常重要的事情是他们共有的，即人类物种。

He was, in the later terminology, a realist, the Latin word for ‘thing’ being res.

他是，在后来的术语中，一个实在论，拉丁语中“事物”的词是res。

Abelard rejected the accounts of both his teachers, and offered a middle way between them.

亚伯拉德拒绝了他两位老师的说法，并提出了一条介于他们之间的中间道路。

On the one hand, it was absurd to say that Adam and Socrates had only the noun in common; the noun applied to each of them in virtue of their objective likeness to each other.

一方面，说亚当和苏格拉底只有名词共同是荒谬的；名词因为他们之间的客观相似性而适用于他们每一个人。

On the other hand, a resemblance is not a substantial thing like a horse or a cabbage; only individual things exist, and it would be ridiculous to maintain that the entire human species was present in each individual.

另一方面，相似性不是像马或卷心菜那样的实体；只有个别的事物存在，而且认为整个人类物种存在于每一个个体中是荒谬的。

We must reject both nominalism and realism.

我们必须拒绝唯名论和实在论。

When we maintain that the likeness between things is not a thing, we must avoid it seeming as if we were treating them as having nothing in common; since what in fact we say is that the one and the other resemble each other in their being human, that is, in that they are both human beings.

当我们坚持说事物之间的相似性不是一件事情时，我们必须避免它看起来好像我们是把它们当作没有什么共同之处；因为我们实际上所说的是，这一个和那一个在他们的人性上彼此相似，也就是说，他们都是人类。

We mean nothing more than that they are human beings and do not differ at all in this regard.

我们的意思不过是他们是人类，并且在这方面没有任何区别。

Their being human, which is not a thing, is the common cause of the application of the noun to the individuals.

他们的人性，不是一件事情，是将名词应用于个体的共同原因。

The dichotomy posed by nominalists and realists is, Abelard showed, an inadequate one.

亚伯拉德指出，唯名论者和实在论者提出的二分法是不充分的。

Besides words and things, we have to take into account our own understanding, our concepts: it is these which enable us to talk about things, and turn vocal sounds into meaningful words.

除了词语和事物，我们还必须考虑我们自己的理解，我们的概念：正是这些使我们能够谈论事物，并将发声声音转化为有意义的词语。

There is no universal man distinct from the universal noun ‘man’; but the sound ‘man’ is turned into a universal noun by our understanding.

没有与普遍名词“人”不同的普遍人；但“人”的声音被我们的理解转化为一个普遍名词。

In the same way, Abelard suggests, a lump of stone is turned into a statue by a sculptor; so we can say, if we like, that universals are created by the mind just as we say that a statue is created by its sculptor.

同样地，亚伯拉德建议，一块石头被雕刻家变成了一座雕像；所以我们可以说，如果我们愿意，共相是由心灵创造出来的，就像我们说雕像是由雕刻家创造出来的一样。

 

It is our concepts which give words meaning – but meaning itself is not, for Abelard, a simple notion.

是我们的概念赋予词语意义——但对于亚伯拉德来说，意义本身并不是一个简单的概念。

He makes a distinction between what a word signifies and what it stands for.

他区分了一个词所表示的和所指代的。

Consider the word ‘boy’.

考虑这个词“男孩”。

Wherever this occurs in a sentence, it signifies the same (‘young human male’).

无论它出现在句子的哪个地方，它都表示相同的东西（“年轻的人类男性”）。

In ‘a boy is running across the grass’, where it occurs in the subject, it also stands for a boy; whereas in ‘this old man was a boy’, where it occurs in the predicate, it does not stand for anything.

在“一个男孩正在草地上跑”的句子中，它出现在主语中，它也指代一个男孩；而在“这个老人曾经是个男孩”的句子中，它出现在谓语中，它不指代任何东西。

Roughly speaking, ‘boy’ stands for something in a given context only if, in that context, it makes sense to ask ‘which boy?’

粗略地说，“男孩”只有在给定的语境中指代某个东西时，才能在那个语境中问“哪个男孩？”是有意义的。

Abelard’s treatment of predicates shows many original logical insights.

亚伯拉德对谓语的处理显示了许多原创的逻辑洞察。

Aristotle, and many philosophers after him, worried about the meaning of ‘is’ in ‘Socrates is wise’ or ‘Socrates is white’.

亚里士多德和他之后的许多哲学家都担心“苏格拉底是智慧的”或“苏格拉底是白色的”中“是”的意义。

Abelard thinks this is unnecessary: we should regard ‘to be wise’ or ‘to be white’ as a single verbal unit, with the verb ‘to be’ simply as part of the predicate.

亚伯拉德认为这是没有必要的：我们应该把“是智慧的”或“是白色的”看作一个单一的动词单位，而动词“是”只是谓语的一部分。

What of ‘is’ when it is equivalent to ‘exists’?

当“是”等同于“存在”时，又该怎么办呢？

Abelard says that in the sentence ‘A father exists’ we should not take ‘A father’ as standing for anything; rather, the sentence is equivalent to ‘Something is a father’.

亚伯拉德说，在句子“一个父亲存在”中，我们不应该把“一个父亲”看作指代任何东西；相反，这个句子等同于“有些东西是父亲”。

This proposal of Abelard’s contained great possibilities for the development of logic, but they were not properly followed up in the Middle Ages, and the device had to await the nineteenth century to be reinvented.

亚伯拉德的这个提议包含了逻辑发展的巨大可能性，但它们在中世纪没有得到适当的跟进，这个方法不得不等到十九世纪才被以新形式出现。

Abelard’s Ethics

亚伯拉德的伦理学

Abelard was an innovator in ethics no less than in logic.

亚伯拉德在伦理学方面的创新不亚于他在逻辑方面的创新。

He was the first medieval writer to give a treatise the title Ethics, and unlike his medieval successors he did not have Aristotle’s Ethics to take as a starting point.

他是第一个给一部论文命名为《伦理学》的中世纪作家，与他的中世纪后继者不同，他没有亚里士多德的《伦理学》作为起点。

But here his innovations were less happy.

但在这里，他的创新就不那么令人高兴了。

Abelard objected to the common teaching that killing people or committing adultery was wrong.

亚伯拉德反对常见的教导，即反对杀人或犯奸淫是错误的。

What is wrong, he said, is not the action, but the state of mind in which it is done.

他说，错误的不是行为，而是做这件事时的心态。

It is incorrect, however, to say that what matters is a persons’s will, if by ‘will’ we mean a desire for something for its own sake.

然而，如果我们用“意志”来指一种为了某物本身而对它的渴望，那么说重要的是一个人的意志是不正确的。

There can be sin without will (as when a fugitive kills in self-defence) and there can be bad will without sin (such as lustful desires one cannot help).

可以无意而有罪（比如一个逃亡者为了自卫而杀人），也可以有恶意而没有罪（比如无法控制的淫欲）。

True, all sins are voluntary in the sense that they are not unavoidable, and that they are the result of some desire or other (e.g. the fugitive’s wish to escape).

诚然，所有的罪都是自愿的，因为它们不是不可避免的，而且它们是某种欲望或其他东西的结果（比如逃亡者想逃跑的愿望）。

But what really matters, Abelard says, is the sinner’s intention or consent, by which he means primarily the sinner’s knowledge of what he is doing.

但真正重要的，亚伯拉德说，是罪人的意图或认同，他主要指的是罪人对他所做的事情的认识。

He argues that since one can perform a prohibited act innocently – e.g. marry one’s sister unaware that she is one’s sister – the evil must be not in the act but in the consent.

他认为，既然一个人可以无辜地做一件被禁止的事——比如娶自己的姐妹而不知道她是自己的姐妹——那么邪恶就不在行为中，而在认同中。

‘It is not what is done, but with what mind it is done, that God weighs; the desert and praise of the agent rests not in his action but in his intention.’

“老天爷衡量的不是做了什么，而是用什么心态去做，行为者的功过和赞誉不在于他的行为，而在于他的意图。”

 

God himself, when he ordered Abraham to kill Isaac, performed a wrong act with a right intention.

老天爷自己，当他命令亚伯拉罕杀死以撒时，做了一个错误的行为，但有一个正确的意图。

A good intention not carried out may be as praiseworthy as a good action: if, for instance, you resolve to build an almshouse, but are robbed of your money.

一个没有实现的好的意图可能和一个好的行为一样值得赞扬：比如，如果你决心建造一个救济院，但是你的钱被抢走了。

Similarly, bad intentions are as blameworthy as bad actions.

同样地，坏的意图和坏的行为一样应受谴责。

Why then punish actions rather than intentions?

那么为什么要惩罚行为而不是意图呢？

Human punishment, Abelard replies, may be justified where there is no guilt; a woman who has overlain her infant unawares is punished to make others more careful.

亚伯拉德回答说，在没有罪过的地方，人类的惩罚可能是正当的；一个无意中压死她婴儿的女人被惩罚是为了让其他人更加小心。

The reason we punish actions rather than intentions is that human frailty regards a more manifest evil as being a greater evil.

我们惩罚行为而不是意图的原因是，人类的脆弱性认为更明显的邪恶是更大的邪恶。

But God will not judge thus.

但老天爷不会这样判断。

Abelard’s teaching did not exactly amount to ‘It doesn’t matter what you do as long as you’re sincere’, but it did come very close to allowing that the end could justify the means.

亚伯拉德的教导并不完全等于“只要你诚实，你做什么都无所谓”，但它确实非常接近于允许目的可以使任何手段正当化。

But what most shocked his contemporaries was his claim that those who, in good faith, persecuted Christians – indeed those who killed Christ himself, not knowing what they did – were free from sin.

但最让他的同时代人震惊的是他声称那些出于善意迫害喵咪徒的人是无罪的——甚至那些主动杀死救世主的人也无罪，因为他们不知道他们做了什么。

This thesis was made the subject of one of the condemnations of Sens.

这个论点成为了森斯（Sens）谴责之一的主题。

Abelard experimented in theology no less recklessly than in ethics.

亚伯拉德在神学上的实验不比他在伦理学上的实验少有冒险。

One example must suffice: his novel treatment of God’s almighty power.

一个例子就足够了：他对老天爷全能力的新颖处理。

He raised the questions whether God can make more things, or better things, than the things he has made, and whether he can refrain from acting as he does.

他提出了这样的问题：老天爷能否创造出比他所创造的东西更多或更好的东西，以及他能否不按照他所做的那样行事。

Whichever way we answer, he said, we find ourselves in difficulty.

无论我们如何回答，他说，我们都会发现自己陷入困境。

On the one hand, if God can make more and better things than those he has made, is it not mean of him not to do so?

一方面，如果老天爷能够创造出比他所创造的东西更多和更好的东西，那么他不这样做难道不是卑鄙吗？

After all, it costs him no effort!

毕竟，这对他来说不费吹灰之力！

Whatever he does or leaves undone is right and just; hence it would be unjust for him to have acted otherwise than he has done.

无论他做了什么或没有做什么，都是正确和公正的；因此，如果他没有按照他所做的那样行事，那就是不公正的。

So he can only act as he has in fact acted.

所以他只能按照他实际上所做的那样行事。

On the other hand, if we take any sinner on his way to damnation, it is clear that he could be better than he is; for if not, he is not to be blamed for his sins.

另一方面，如果我们考虑任何一个走向灭亡的罪人，显然他本可以比现在更好；因为如果不是这样，他就无法为自己的罪过负责。

But he would be better than he is only if God were to make him better; so there are at least some things which God can make better than he has.

但他只有在老天爷使他变得更好的情况下才能比现在更好；所以至少有一些事情是老天爷可以让他做得比已经做的更好的。

Abelard opts for the first horn of the dilemma.

亚伯拉德选择了两难的第一个方面。

Suppose it is now not raining. Since this has come about by the will of the wise God, it must now not be a suitable time for rain.

假设现在没有下雨。 既然这是由智慧的老天爷的意志造成的，那么现在必然不是下雨的合适时机。

So if we say God could now make it rain, we are attributing to him the power to do something foolish.

所以如果我们说老天爷现在可以让它下雨，我们就是在把做愚蠢事情的能力归于他。

Whatever God wants to do he can; but if he doesn’t want to do something, then he can’t.

老天爷想做什么就能做什么；但如果他不想做什么，那么他就不能。

Critics objected that this thesis was an insult to God’s power: even we poor creatures can act otherwise than we do.

批评者反对这个论点，认为这是对老天爷力量的侮辱：即使是我们这些可怜的生灵也能够做出与我们曾经所做的不同的行为。

Abelard replied that the power to act otherwise is not something to be proud of, but a mark of infirmity, like the ability to walk, eat, and sin.

亚伯拉德回答说，做出不同行为的能力不是值得骄傲的事情，而是软弱的标志，就像走路、吃饭和受原罪误导的能力一样。

We would all be better off if we could only do what we ought to do.

如果我们只能做我们应该做的事情，我们都会更好。

What of the argument that the sinner will be saved only if God saves him, therefore if the sinner can be saved God can save him?

那么关于罪人只有在老天爷拯救他的情况下才能得救，因此如果罪人可以得救，老天爷就可以拯救他的论证呢？

Abelard rejects the logical principle which underlies the argument, namely, that if p entails q, then possibly p entails possibly q.

亚伯拉德否定了这个论证所依赖的逻辑原则，即如果p蕴含q，那么可能p蕴含可能q。

He gives a counterexample. If a sound is heard, then somebody hears it; but a sound can be audible without anyone being able to hear it. (Maybe there is no one within earshot.)

他给出了一个反例。如果有声音被听到，那么就有人听到了它；但是声音可以听得见而没有人能够听到它。 （也许没有人在听力范围内。）

Abelard’s discussion of omnipotence is a splendid piece of dialectic; but it cannot be said to amount to a credible account of the concept, and it certainly did not convince his contemporaries, notably St Bernard.

亚伯拉德对全能的讨论是一篇精彩的辩证法；但它不能说是对这个概念的一个可信的解释，它也没有说服他的同时代人，尤其是圣伯纳德。

One of the propositions condemned at the Council of Sens was this: God can act and refrain from acting only in the manner and at the time that he actually does act and refrain from acting, and in no other way.

在森斯会议（Council of Sens）上被谴责的命题之一是这样的：老天爷只能以他实际行动和克制行动的方式和时间行动和克制行动，而不能以其他任何方式。

Averroes

阿维洛伊

Abelard was far the most brilliant Christian thinker of the twelfth century. The other significant philosophers of the age were the Arab Averroes and the Jew Maimonides. Both of them were natives of Cordoba in Muslim Spain, then the foremost centre of artistic and literary culture in the whole of Europe.

亚伯拉德是十二世纪最杰出的喵咪教思想家。这个时代的其他重要哲学家是阿拉伯人阿维洛伊和犹太人迈蒙尼德。他们都是慕斯琳西班牙科尔多瓦的本地人，当时那里是整个欧洲最重要的艺术和文学文化中心。

Averroes’ real name was Ibn Rushd. He was born in 1126, the son and grandson of lawyers and judges. Little certain is known about his education, but he acquired a knowledge of medicine which he incorporated into a textbook called Kulliyat. He travelled to Marrakesh, where he secured the patronage of the sultan. The sighting there of a star not visible in Spain convinced him of the truth of Aristotle’s claim that the world was round. He acquired a great enthusiasm for all of Aristotle’s philosophy, and the caliph encouraged him to begin work on a series of commentaries on the philosopher’s treatises.

阿维洛伊的真名是伊本·鲁什德。他出生于1126年，是律师和法官的儿子和孙子。关于他的教育，我们知之甚少，但他掌握了医学知识，并将其融入了一本叫做《全集》的教科书中。他去了马拉喀什，在那里得到了苏丹的赞助。在那里看到一颗在西班牙看不见的星星，使他相信了亚里士多德关于世界是圆的的说法。他对亚里士多德的所有哲学产生了极大的热情，哈里发鼓励他开始写一系列关于这位哲学家著作的注释。

In 1169 Averroes was appointed a judge in Seville; later he returned to Cordoba and was promoted to chief judge. However, he retained his links with Marrakesh, and went back there to die in 1198, having fallen under suspicion of heresy.

在1169年，阿维洛伊被任命为塞维利亚的法官；后来他回到科尔多瓦，并被提升为首席法官。然而，他保持了与马拉喀什的联系，并在那里去世于1198年，此前他已经被怀疑为异端。

 

Earlier in his life, Averroes had had to defend his philosophical activities against a more conservative Muslim thinker, Al-Ghazali, who had written an attack on rationalism in religion, entitled The Incoherence of the Philosophers. Averroes responded with The Incoherence of the Incoherence, asserting the right of human reason to investigate theological matters.

在他的早期生活中，阿维洛伊曾经不得不抵御一个更保守的慕斯琳思想家，阿尔·加扎利，后者曾经写过一本对宗教理性主义的攻击，名为《哲学家的不连贯》。阿维洛伊用《不连贯的不连贯》作为回应，断言人类理性有权探究神学问题。

 

Averroes’ importance on the history of philosophy derives from his commentaries on Aristotle. These came in three sizes: short, intermediate, and long.

阿维洛伊在哲学史上的重要性源于他对亚里士多德的注释。这些注释有三种规模：短的、中等的和长的。

For some of Aristotle’s works all three commentaries are extant, for some two, and for some only one; some survive in the original Arabic, some in translations into Hebrew and Latin.

对于亚里士多德的一些著作，所有三种注释都是现存的，对于一些是两种，对于一些只有一种；一些保存在原始的阿拉伯文中，一些是翻译成希伯来文和拉丁文的。

Averroes also commented on Plato’s Republic, but his enormous admiration for Aristotle (‘his mind is the supreme expression of the human mind’) did not extend in the same degree to Plato.

阿维洛伊也对柏拉图的《理想国》发表了评论，但他对亚里士多德（“他的思想是人类思想的最高表达”）的巨大敬佩并没有同样程度地延伸到柏拉图。

Indeed, he saw it as one of his tasks as a commentator to free Aristotle from Neo-Platonic overlay, even though in fact he preserved more Platonic elements than he realized.

事实上，他认为他作为一个注释者的任务之一就是把亚里士多德从新柏拉图主义的覆盖中解放出来，尽管事实上他保留了比他能意识到的更多的柏拉图元素。

Averroes was not an original thinker like Avicenna, but his encyclopaedic work was to prove the vehicle through which the interpretation of Aristotle was mediated to the Latin Middle Ages.

阿维洛伊不像阿维森纳那样是一个原创性的思想家，但他的百科全书式的作品证明了他是亚里士多德的解释传达给拉丁中世纪的媒介。

His desire to free Aristotle from later accretions made him depart from Avicenna in a number of ways.

他想要把亚里士多德从后来的增添中解放出来的愿望使他在许多方面与阿维森纳分道扬镳。

Thus, he abandoned the series of emanations which in Avicenna led from the first cause to the active intellect, and he denied that the active intellect produced the natural forms of the visible world.

因此，他放弃了从第一因为到主动智力的一系列流出，这在阿维森纳那里是导致了主动智力产生了可见世界的自然形式。

But in one respect he moved further away than Avicenna from the most plausible interpretation of Aristotle.

但在一个方面，他比阿维森纳更远地偏离了亚里士多德最合理的解释。

After some hesitation, he reached the conclusion that neither the active intellect nor the passive intellect is a faculty of individual human beings; the passive intellect, no less than the active, is a single, eternal, incorporeal substance. This substance intervenes, in a mysterious way, in the mental life of human individuals.

经过一些犹豫，他得出结论，主动智力和被动智力都不是个体人类的能力；被动智力，不亚于主动智力，是一个单一的、永恒的、无形的实体。这个实体以一种神秘的方式介入人类个体的精神生活。

It is only because of the role played in our thinking by the individual corporeal imagination that you and I can claim any thoughts as our own.

只有因为我们的思维中个体的有形想象所起的作用，你和我才能够声称任何思想是我们自己的。

Because the truly intellectual element in thought is non-personal, there is no personal immortality for the individual human being. After death, souls merge with each other.

因为思想中真正的智力元素是非个人的，所以个体人类没有个人的不朽。死后，灵魂相互融合。

Averroes argues for this in a manner which resembles the Third Man argument in Plato’s Parmenides.

阿维洛伊以一种类似于柏拉图《帕门尼德》中第三人论证的方式为此辩护。

Zaid and Amr are numerically different but identical in form.

扎伊德和阿姆尔在数目上是不同的，但在形式上是相同的。

If, for example, the soul of Zaid were numerically different from the soul of Amr in the way Zaid is numerically different from Amr, the soul of Zaid and the soul of Amr would be numerically two, but one in their form, and the soul would possess another soul.

如果，例如，扎伊德的灵魂在数目上与阿姆尔的灵魂不同，就像扎伊德在数目上与阿姆尔不同一样，那么扎伊德和阿姆尔的灵魂就会在数目上是两个，但在形式上是一个，而灵魂就会拥有另一个灵魂。

The necessary conclusion is therefore that the soul of Zaid and the soul of Amr are identical in their form. An identical form inheres in a numerical, i.e. a divisible multiplicity, only through the multiplicity of matter. If then the soul does not die when the body dies, or if it possesses an immortal element, it must, when it has left the body, form a numerical unity. At death the soul passes into the universal intelligence like a drop into the sea.

因此必然的结论是，扎伊德和阿姆尔的灵魂在形式上是相同的。相同的形式只有通过物质的多样性才能存在于一个数目上，即一个可分割的多重性中。如果灵魂在身体死亡时不死亡，或者如果它拥有一个不朽的元素，那么它必须在离开身体时形成一个数目上的统一。 死后，灵魂像一滴水一样进入了普遍共在的智力。

Averroes was, at least in intention, an orthodox Muslim. In his treatise On the Harmony between Religion and Philosophy he spoke of several levels of access to the truth. All classes of men need, and can assimilate, the teaching of the Prophet.

阿维洛伊至少在意图上是一个正统的慕斯琳。在他的《论宗教与哲学之间的和谐》一书中，他谈到了几个层次的通向真理之路。所有阶层的人都需要并且能够吸收先知的教导。

The simple believer accepts the literal word of Scripture as expounded by his teachers. The educated person can appreciate probable, ‘dialectical’ arguments in support of revelation. Finally, that rare being, the genuine philosopher, needs, and can find, compelling proofs of the truth. This doctrine was crudely misunderstood by Averroes’ intellectual posterity as a doctrine of double truth: the doctrine that something can be true in philosophy which is not true in religion, and vice versa.

简单的信徒接受他的老师们阐述的圣经的字面意义。有教养的人可以欣赏支持启示的可能的、‘辩证的’论证。最后，那种罕见的存在，真正的哲学家，需要并且能够找到令人信服的真理的证明。这个教义被阿维洛伊的学者后裔粗暴地误解为双重真理的教义：即在哲学中可以是真的东西在宗教中不一定是真的，反之亦然。

Averroes made little mark on his fellow Muslims, among whom his type of philosophy rapidly fell into disfavour. But after his writings had been translated into Latin, his influence was very great: he set the agenda for the major thinkers of the thirteenth century, including Thomas Aquinas. Dante gave him an honoured place in his Inferno as the author of the great commentary; and Aristotelian scholars, for centuries, referred to him simply as the Commentator.

阿维洛伊在他的慕斯琳同胞中留下了很少的印记，他的哲学类型很快就失去了人们的青睐。但是在他的著作被翻译成拉丁文后，他的影响力非常大：他为十三世纪的主要思想家，包括托马斯·阿奎那，制定了论纲。但丁在他的《地狱》中给了他一个荣誉的位置，作为伟大评论的作者；而亚里士多德学者们，几个世纪以来，只是简单地称他为注释者。