Chapter 6 Pain and pleasure in the same body

(1) Can this ideological mystery be closed here? If the case could have been closed here, Büchner probably wouldn't have suffered the fatal high fever. In the process of hearing the case of Danton's beheading, Büchner has seen the irreconcilable opposition between the two views of freedom, the view of the country, and the view of morality.But Büchner feels that there are still some doubts in this ideological mystery that have not been fully clarified.His eyes of thought detectives were keenly aware that the revolutionist Danton and the prostitute Marion did not recognize the general morality and its opposite evil at all, but only recognized the simple sense of existence, while Robespierre advocated the general morality, but thought The basis is also a simple sense of existence.The morality of the general will and the morality of individual enjoyment only seem to be opposed, but they actually arise from the same sense of existence.

What is the basis of legitimacy of the morality of the public will of the people?At first glance, unlike Marion the prostitute's principle of justification (enjoyment), the justification of the people's morality comes from the pain of the human body."Pain is the only sin, suffering is the only evil; I will be a virtuous man," said the people Laflotte. The moral appeal of the people is nothing but a medium for the compensation of private sufferings. The morality of the general will only sounds to eliminate the sins and evils of the world, but in fact it is to compensate for the pain of one's own body, as the poor man Oyzek knew of Büchner said "Money, money! Whoever has no money—then nothing but morality is to be expected in this world!"

If Marion, who advocates pleasure, thinks that there is no evil in the world, and general morality is superfluous, and Laflotte, who feels his own physical pain, thinks that the world is full of evil and that general morality is necessary for society, then is there one of them? Feeling getting the facts of existence wrong? Marion really didn't feel physical pain, just pleasure or displeasure, as her mother said. The body that feels pleasure or pain is the same body, the body is the body, there is no difference in physical body.You feel bodily pleasure, I feel bodily pain, or vice versa, don't they all feel the same?

no the same! Pain is the damage to the natural nature of the body or the inhibition of natural desires.Büchner brought his own life experience into the analysis of the case.Once, he personally felt the natural physical injury of his body.When he was traveling in the mountains, he stayed at a farm family, just in time to meet the family's several-year-old boy who died.When Büchner touched the little boy's cold body, he couldn't help shivering in survival: "Why is this child abandoned like this?...Should this appearance, such a peaceful face, be rotten?" (2) Suffering is induced by this "should" inquiry, which is based on a supernatural principle.Don't the Dantons know the pain of the body?Büchner thought that this was a doubtful point in the case that could not be ignored.

After all, Danton and Robespierre were comrades and comrades-in-arms in the same trench. They were able to revolution together, first of all, based on some common beliefs.For example, they both believe in natural rights, which comes from their shared atheism.When Büchner further checked the archives of this ideological mystery, he found a discussion about the existence of God, which sharply touched the Aris' heel of modern theology: theodism was invalidated by personal pain.In this discussion, Danton and Robespierre have the same position: the world cannot be imagined to be perfect, so how can we infer the perfect existence of the Creator?Danton's accomplice Pei En said: Only by eliminating the imperfection of life in the world can the existence of God be proved; I can not talk about the evil in the world, but I cannot ignore my pain.Theodism uses human reason to prove the existence of God, but human emotion constantly protests. "Why am I suffering? This is the mainstay of my atheism. The slightest convulsion of pain, even if it involves only a hair, will tear a wide gap in the concept of creation from beginning to end."

This view of the Danton faction was fully agreed with by Robespierre's disciple, the chief prosecutor Xiao Meite: "Yes, absolutely right!" Suffering has become the mainstay of atheism, which is entirely the trouble caused by theism itself: God is the same as the best and the best, and if there is God, there should be no pain.If there is no God, there will be no perfection and happiness, and pain is just a "coupling" in the natural order, and it cannot be a "pillar" of any kind.It will be recalled that Ivan of Dostoevsky raised the question again later, with a more vocal tone and eloquence.

Danton and Robespierre presented the mainstay of atheism, based on the same physical suffering.Their differences lie only in the way of overcoming suffering not by divine righteousness but by human righteousness: the natural individual enjoyment or the terrorist revolution of general morality.Isn't this the direction of Nietzsche's thought and Marx's thought?The prostitutes Marion and Danton are the pioneers of Nietzsche, who demanded the negative freedom of pleasure to overcome pain, and Robespierre, the pioneer of Marx, demanded that the social system of moral general will established by positive freedom overcome pain.

The individual morality of pleasure refuses to use the supernatural to overcome occasional wounds. Danton believes that both the morality of enjoyment and the morality of the "dao robe" are just to make the occasional individual body "peace of mind". The transfer of natural injury to the court of due for reassessment eliminates the possibility of raising the morality of due based on physical suffering.Painful feeling is based on confusing nature with what should be, confusing the natural meaning of existence with the moral meaning of existence.That's why Danton feels that it is immoral for the moral appeal derived from suffering to lead to the freedom to carry out a moral revolution for the "should be".Hedonic morality sticks to the natural meaning of existence, follows natural (negative) freedom, and rejects should-be (positive) freedom.If we cannot distinguish the difference between the moral meaning and the natural meaning of life, we cannot distinguish the difference between positive freedom and negative freedom.The body is natural, and bodily sensations are naturally ambiguous.As long as the principle of what should be does not intervene in the sensory area of ​​existence, and let existence be in the rhythm of natural cycles, it will not go to the point of exaggerating pain and calling for justice.The meaning of existence is only the occasional natural occurrence of existence, and the rhythm of the natural cycle cannot be interrupted by the principle of what should be, and life should be arranged as it should be.Furthermore, one cannot set the "should" of general morality based on one's own sense of pain, and deduce the legitimacy of positive free behavior for general morality.Returning to naturalness, there is no such thing as should, and no one feeling has the right to morally take precedence over the other.This is what Marion meant when she said "whether it is flowers or toys, the feeling is the same", and it is also the reason why Marion wants to maintain the sense of enjoyment of existence and deny the sense of pain of existence.However, the principle of what Robespierre’s priestly morality is based on is not purely supernatural, just like the supernatural God of Christianity. Rather, its revolutionary jurisprudence has a natural basis of another kind of feeling.

(3) You might as well listen to Just, the Minister of Propaganda in charge of ideology, at the National People's Congress: "There seem to be some ears in our hall who are particularly sensitive to the word 'bleeding'. I will cite a few very common phenomena to convince you that we are no more cruel than nature or history. Great Nature embodies its own laws calmly and irresistibly; if human beings conflict with it, they will be wiped out... If it were not for the few corpses lying dead by the side of the road, nature would have turned over this world almost without leaving any traces. Page.

I would now like to ask you a question: Should our spiritual world show more prudence in revolutions than our natural world?Should not spiritual concepts, like physical laws, annihilate that which resists and blocks it?Can any initiative that changes the entire moral world, that is to say, human beings, be accomplished without shedding a drop of blood?The universal spirit has our arms in the spiritual realm as it has volcanoes and floods in the natural realm.What difference does it make whether they died in the plague or in the revolution? ... All men are created under the same conditions, and all men are equal except for differences in endowment. ... From this point of view, if the torrent of revolution has to rush out a few dead bodies at every stage and every turning point, what is there to be surprised about? "

What is the difference between this and Simon's wife?The revolution is natural sex, and how does its pain and bleeding differ from the pain and bleeding of a maiden's first prostitution?As Simon's wife asked, "Where will the pain go? Huh?" Besides, the ultimate goal of the revolution is to make the body stronger.Just concluded his eloquent speech at the People's Congress with the following words: "The revolution is like the daughter of Pelias: the dismemberment of the human body is only to rejuvenate him. When human beings stand up again from the blood pot, they will grow strong and strong like the earth emerging from the flood. We will be as full of infinite energy as we were created for the first time." (Long-lasting applause, some of which represent standing up excitedly.) What do you do after getting your body back into shape?Marcuse, the modern thinker who followed Robespierre and the father of revolutionary thought in the 1960s, replied: for the free enjoyment of sex.Aren't the Robespierres finally consistent with the prostitute Marion's living morality?The natural organism——Physik is a thing that naturally enjoys pleasure. The natural enjoyment of the body is as natural as you are. The principle of survival and the principle of the state must be based on the ultimate goal of natural enjoyment.From this point of view, the difference between Danton and Robespierre lies only in the choice of the way to return to natural humanity: either by the appropriation of pleasure, or by the revolutionary appropriation of morality and terror. Danton and Robespierre stand on the same bench of humanism: using the body to justify the body, to justify the misery of the body.However, the styles of the humanistic benches of the two are different, and the consequence is already a huge historical difference.Hedonic ethics is based on natural principles, while the terrifying revolutionary adaptive ethics of people's justice creates a secular divine principle (the general will of the people).Danton refutes that the justification for killing in the name of the morality of the people is the natural right of every body: the general will of the people makes killing "as it should" unjust not because it is cruel or hurts the innocent, but because it is performed on the guillotine. The man of the revolutionary butcher has the same body as the slain moral scum.For Robespierre, the terror of the people's justice is only to eliminate the pain of the human body, and the legitimacy of the people's democratic dictatorship is still based on the feeling that belongs to the body after all, rather than the super-body "should".