Chapter 11 Wisdom, Science and Politics

Mathieu - what do you think of this quote from the great physicist Erwin Schrodinger, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1933: "The picture that science gives me of the world around me is sorely lacking It provides a large amount of information that only narrates facts, and puts all our experiences in a strict order. This order is certainly magnificent, but it has no meaning for all things that are really close to our hearts and have real significance to us. It is eerily silent." Jean-François - I would say the problem here is one of banality.It is not very novel to think that science does not speak to the hearts of each of us in the individual quest for happiness!Besides, science has never claimed to answer this question, except perhaps those of the human sciences.The failure of the West is not science.On the contrary, science is the success of the West.The question that is asked is to know if science is enough.There is, however, one area where science is clearly inadequate.The failure of the West is first of all the failure of the non-scientific culture of the West, especially the failure of Western philosophy.In what sense has Western philosophy failed?We say that in general, until the seventeenth century, that is to say, until Descartes and Spinoza, the duality of philosophy, as it has been pursued since its birth, has always existed.On the one hand, it is the attribute of science, or the purpose of science.Then there is another attribute, the attainment of wisdom, the discovery of a divinely endowed life, and perhaps a meaning of life other than a divinely endowed human life.This dual nature of philosophy is still to be found in Descartes, although he speaks of a "provisional" morality.But for him, philosophy is still both science and wisdom.The final philosophy, however, in which these two aspects are brought face to face and converge, is that of Spinoza.In his Philosophy, for the last time, the thought is shown, that the highest knowledge is equal to the joy of the philosopher, who, through understanding how real things work, feels happiness from this knowledge itself, which is the highest good ( Souverain bien).

Mathieu—but why does philosophy no longer provide a model for life? Jean-Francois - During the last three centuries, philosophy has abandoned its intellectual function.It is limited only to awareness.But at the same time, it is gradually deprived of its scientific function by science itself.With the emergence of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, as these sciences developed into independent disciplines, and followed standards that no longer had the slightest resemblance to the way of thinking of philosophers, from this moment, as Kant rightly in The scientific function of philosophy has thus been excluded from its object, though philosophers have said so little at once.Philosophy was killed by its own success after all, because its purpose was to produce these different kinds of science.As for the other quality, the quality of wisdom, which includes the pursuit of justice as well as the pursuit of happiness, it is no longer affirmed on the personal side, that is, on the acquisition of an individual wisdom, and this individual Aspects are still valued in Montaigne's or Spinoza's theory.

Mathieu - isn't that the main problem of the West? Jean-François - not necessarily, because in the eighteenth century this second characteristic was transferred to the political sphere.The attainment of justice, the attainment of happiness, ultimately becomes the art of organizing a just society that seeks to make each of its members happy through collective justice.In other words, the simultaneous pursuit of goodness, justice, and happiness is ultimately a revolution, a social, cultural, and political revolution.At this moment, the entire moral branch of philosophy is embedded in political institutions.In the nineteenth century we entered the age of gigantic utopian fantasies that wanted to rebuild society from the ground up.

From this point of view, the moral function of philosophy takes as its own purpose the establishment of a thoroughly just society from scratch.The first great attempt in this sense was the French Revolution, and it was at this time that the modern conception of the word revolution arose.Once the initiators of a revolution have in mind a model of society which they believe to be perfect, they consider it their right to impose it and, if necessary, to exterminate those who resist such an intention.This became all the more crisp when the Bolshevik Revolution came to provide itself with a concrete realization.All of these systems usually have a central idea, which is that the pursuit of good and the construction of a "new human" should be realized through the utopia of power and the revolutionary transformation of society.

①The word revolution is derived from the Latin verb revolvers, which originally means to rotate, especially referring to the revolution of one planet around another planet. Mathieu - If the meaning of freedom or personal responsibility is written off by political institutions, what does morality consist of? Jean-François - Morality consists in serving this ideal, in making people capable of absolute revolution.Hence there is no individual morality, no pursuit of individual wisdom.Individual morality is participation in a collective morality.We also see this idea of ​​human regeneration in fascism and Nazism.For Mussolini and Hitler, a bourgeois society ruled by money, by plutocracy, by a Jewish-controlled parliamentary system, that is, capitalist society, was immoral.Humanity must be recreated by building a whole new society from toe to head, from nothing to infinity, by "purging" everything that is suspected of opposing it.Revolutionary action superseded philosophy, even religion.

Mathieu - Revolutionary action has replaced philosophy and religion with "success" as we know it in Russia.The problem with these utopian visions that are not based on the exploitation of human qualities is that although they preach egalitarianism, such as the equal sharing of wealth, these ideals are quickly distorted and those who control power As a tool to oppress and exploit their "comrades". Jean-François - all these huge institutions are down.They are all crushed in absolute evil.Likewise, recent manifestations of this ambition have revealed the most extreme features, such as in Cambodia, where Pol Pot pushed the logic of the system to its limits.In order to create a new human race, uproot the old, and produce a society that will eventually be absolutely just, it is necessary to destroy at the outset all those who currently exist and have been more or less corrupted by the previous society.Over the past three hundred years, although not all of them have reached such ridiculous and cruel extreme levels, the vast majority of intellectuals agree that the improvement of human morality and justice must be achieved through the creation of a more just, more balanced, and more equal new society to achieve.

The political failure and moral dishonesty of the political utopian system is the major event at the end of the twentieth century, and I call it the failure of Western civilization in non-scientific fields.Social reform was supposed to take the place of moral reform, and it led to disaster, so that people now feel themselves confronted with a void, utterly bewildered.Thereby revived interest in the more modest philosophies aimed at giving practical, empirical, spiritual, moral advice as to the means of directing one's own daily existence; Curiosity for doctrines of wisdom that, like Buddhism, speak of man, of compassion, without seeking to recreate the world by destroying it, or to recreate man by killing him.This revival of interest and curiosity is explained by the astonishing dismantling of those gigantic political institutions, the gigantic utopias I have just described.Science bears no responsibility for this catastrophe, which was caused by a frenzy external to science.

Mathieu - I don't think any Buddhist would dispute your analysis.I would venture to add a thought or two, not to criticize science itself, but to understand why science, prematurely regarded as a panacea, should obscure the quest for wisdom.Science is analytical in nature and thus has a tendency to get lost in the infinite complexity of phenomena.Science involves such a vast field of discovery that it has attracted the interest and curiosity of the most eminent minds of our time.This brings to mind the endless chase for gold.Spirituality has a very different approach, considering principles that deal with knowledge and ignorance, the happiness and unhappiness of beings.Science looks only at those material or mathematical arguments, whereas spirituality recognizes the validity of conviction intime arising from a contemplative life.

Jean-Francois - Attention!Science must be distinguished from scientism.Scientific success stories have the effect of convincing one that one can deal with all problems in a scientific way.Let me remind you that the phenomenon of obligatory utopia that I have just outlined very briefly is one that calls itself "scientific," but there is clearly nothing scientific about it.Quite the opposite.But it is very interesting that people try to apply some scientific standards to the reform of human society.And this is an evil deviation from scientific concepts that has done much damage. Mathieu - The danger of science, of real science, is to go too far in its analytical impact, so as to arrive at a kind of horizontal diffusion of knowledge.An Arabic proverb says that when a man starts counting, he can no longer stop.When I studied geology at the Polytechnic we did a lot of practical work on the morphology of sand grains.There are "smooth round grit", there is "shiny round grit" and so on.From this we can deduce the age of rivers or the origin of sand grains, knowing whether they came from a river or the ocean.This kind of research can be exciting, but is it really worth the toil?

Jean-François – The study of grains of sand happens to be very informative in order to reconstruct the history of the Earth, the climate, and the transitions between ice ages and warming periods.Secondly, understanding the laws of nature is undoubtedly a yearning for human beings.Philosophy is born of this. Mathieu - These studies, while so interesting, I don't think they should be ahead of intellectual pursuits. Jean-François - Science, or rather good science, is a form of intelligence only when it is utterly disinterested.Great scientific discoveries are often made by researchers who are told that the field in which you have devoted your energy is useless.Research, however, is subordinated first to the desire to know and secondarily to the desire to be useful.Moreover, the history of science demonstrates that the most useful discoveries have always been made by researchers when they succumbed solely to intellectual curiosity.But they weren't looking for usefulness in the first place.So, there is a detachment in scientific research, which is a form of wisdom.

Mathieu - This desire to know should be applied to something worth dedicating one's life to, and this "wisdom" should lead researchers to make themselves and others better human beings.Otherwise, what kind of wisdom is this?Is curiosity, albeit altruistic, an end in itself? Jean-François - your point of view is close to that of Pascal... In my opinion, the limitation of scientific culture in our western society is that not all people have the possibility to benefit from it, but very few people involved.Only a handful of people know how the universe, matter, and life work.But I'm one of the millions of people who take a few aspirin a day and don't know why aspirin has an effect on their temporary discomfort.It is not absolutely possible for those who use the means of transportation to understand all the knowledge that led to the creation of airplanes and computers.When we say that human beings live in the age of science, it is not entirely true!It should be said that human beings live in parallel with the age of science.A thoroughly illiterate enjoys the bounty of science as much as a great scholar.But since the vast majority of the Western population, the cradle of ancient and modern science, has also not participated in scientific thought, something else must be offered to them.This other thing has been religion until very recent times, and then political utopia.Religion no longer fulfills this function, except Islam, and utopias collapse in blood and absurdity.Then there is a vacuum. Mathieu – I would like to mention the Buddhist definition of laziness because it is similar to what we have discussed about science and wisdom.People speak of three forms of laziness.The first is simply to spend time eating and sleeping.The second is to say to yourself: "A person like me will never be able to perfect myself." According to Buddhism, this kind of laziness leads people to think: "Efforts are useless, I will never reach spiritual perfection." Make it happen." Discouragement makes us prefer not to start any effort.And the third kind of laziness, which seems to us the most interesting, is to spend one's whole life on some minor tasks, and never reach the essence.People spend their time trying to solve small problems that are endlessly intertwined like ripples on the surface of a lake.People think: "When I finish this or that project, I'm going to work on giving meaning to my existence." I think that the lateral diffusion of knowledge belongs to this kind of laziness, even if people work hard all their lives. . Jean-François - you talk about "little" issues.In my opinion, this is not a good distinction.It should be said that some are related to spiritual realization and some are not.But a problem, while unrelated to spiritual fulfillment, can be a big one. Mathieu - It all depends on how people look at it.Financial collapse is a huge problem to an ambitious banker and a small problem to one who is tired of the affairs of the world.But let's talk about laziness again.The antidote to the first form of laziness, that of wanting nothing but food and sleep, is reflection on death and impermanence.One cannot foresee the moment of death, nor the circumstances that lead to it.Therefore, one should not waste a second turning to the essential question.The antidote to the second type of laziness, the laziness that prevents us from committing ourselves to a spiritual pursuit, is to reflect on the benefits of such inner transformation.The antidote to the third kind of laziness, the one that puts details before substance, is the clear realization that the only means of fulfilling our infinite plans is to drop them and not wait too long to turn to that which gives meaning to existence. things.Life is short and if one wants to develop some inner quality, it is never too early to dedicate himself to it. Jean-François – you're repeating Blaise Pascal's definition of "entertainment," which distracts us from our essentials.He also divided among entertainments scientific studies—that is, the Lbido sciendi—in which he himself was eminently distinguished.This is a mistake.Spiritual realization should not be required from science, nor should spiritual realization be considered a substitute for science.Science and technology answer certain questions.They satisfy above all the thirst for knowledge, which is in any case an essential attribute of the human being.And, through their practical application, they solve many human problems.In that respect I am a son of the eighteenth century.I believe in the advancement of technology.I believe in the benefits of technological advancement when it is well directed.I believe in the improvement of the human condition through technological progress.But it leaves a vacuum in what we will collectively call the realm of morality, in the realm of wisdom, in the pursuit of personal balance and safe salvation. ①Latin: desire to know.For Pascal’s writings about the thirst for knowledge, see Sections 458 and 460 of Book VII of “Thoughts Records”. dominandi (desire to feel, desire to know, desire to rule).Mr. He Zhaowu translated it as "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the lust of pride", and pointed out that it can be found in Chapter 2, Section 16 of the "First Book of John" in the "Bible".The French version of the "Bible" reads: "Everything in the world, the desires of the flesh, the desires of the eyes, and the display of abilities, do not come from the Father, but come from this world." I feel that this vacuum can be filled on two levels.On the first level, Buddhism is one of the examples.And this also explains its current spread in the West, which is all the more concerning because it does not make any militant propaganda in contrast to traditionalist Islam.It goes somewhere only when it is asked to go, or is compelled to go somewhere by being driven away, which is of course unfortunate.The second attribute, or the second tool to fill this vacuum—here, I come back to what I said earlier—is still, I believe, the reorganization of political society.I think the basic intuitions of the eighteenth century are still valid.It's just people doing it wrong.I certainly believe in the value of a democratic society, and in the profound moral significance of the fact that every individual is capable of democratic responsibility, of making it possible for him to challenge those whom he elects to exercise power, his agents. question.Totalitarian bias should not convince us that we should abandon our assumptions about building a just society.The collapse of the totalitarian system should not divert us from thinking that a certain attribute of justice is achieved through the construction of a just world society, but, on the contrary, should make us think that, by allowing totalitarianism to usurp Democratic aspirations, we have been enormously late in this construction. Mathieu – What we lack in this field is a wider perspective, the so-called "world responsibility".Because it is unacceptable that some parts of the world thrive at the expense of other parts. Jean-François – Yes, but it is also unacceptable for every part of the world to do what it wants, including stupid things. Mathieu - come back to the failure of modern philosophy.Among the many philosophies from the seventeenth century onwards, the one that struck me the most is that those who are looking for a point of reference, looking for principles to give their lives a meaning, make very little use of philosophy.These philosophies, separated from the practical application required by any spiritual path whose aim is a genuine internal transformation, may allow themselves to multiply unrestrained ideas, all kinds of ideas, though extremely complex, but An extremely useless mind game.The world of ideas (le monde des idees) differs from the world of being (le monde deletre) to such an extent that those who promulgate these philosophical systems no longer need themselves to be the living exponents of their systems.A man can be a great philosopher and at the same time be, personally, a man whom no one wants to be a role model, and that is perfectly permissible at this moment.We have already emphasized that the first characteristic of the philosopher is that he is the flesh and blood exposition of the Perfection he teaches.And this perfection is not merely in harmony with a system of thought, it should manifest and express itself in all aspects of the person.It is entirely possible for a philosopher to lose his way in his personal problems, or a scholar in his emotions, and an apprentice devoted to a spiritual path, if he realizes that in a period of months or even years If, instead of growing, his human qualities such as kindness, tolerance, and peace with himself and with others decline, he will know that he is on the wrong track.I would also like to explain this failure of philosophy by the fact that thought can turn to the void without affecting the body. Jean-François - I believe that the example you have just given, which is extremely common in Western societies, illustrates precisely the empty, yet unusually precious place left by scientific inquiry.I know only one thinker who lived in the twentieth century exactly as he wrote.This is Cioran, the Romanian-born French moralist.Cioran is a deeply pessimistic writer, with a keen awareness of the limits of human existence, what philosophers call the "finitude" of human existence, and he lives in perfect harmony with his principles.As far as I know, he has never engaged in any purely professional activity, and he has always refused honor.I once called to suggest that he accept a literary prize which had been awarded with considerable dignity.I knew he was poor and thought he would be happy to accept it.But he flatly declined, saying he would never accept any official reward, whatever it might be.This is an example of an intellectual who lives in harmony with his principles, or at any rate with his analysis of the human condition. The picture you have just sketched sums up what one might call the essential trauma of Western civilization, which is, in fact, the difference between the intellectual or artistic feat an individual can achieve and his moral life, or simply It is the dissonance, antagonism, and contradiction between the constant poverty of his morality itself.This actually represents the vacuum left by philosophy's abandonment of the pursuit of individual wisdom.Since the seventeenth century this position has traditionally been filled by what we call moralists.The spiritual treasury of La Rochefoucauld, La Bruyère, or Chanfort brings us the most correct things in human psychological knowledge.But they did not chart a clear path as to how to behave.They end up reaching a sort of withdrawn morality.They realize that all men are crazy.The world is filled only with careerists, politicians with an absurd will to power, sleazy sycophants who follow these politicians to rip off their profits, who think they are geniuses or would rather have themselves cut to pieces for a little honour. The vain hypocrite.So don't mingle in all this, but look at the spectacle with a sneer, and be careful not to let yourself fall into such eccentricities.Well... we could say that's the starting point of wisdom, but unfortunately, it's not a morality that benefits everyone.The only morality that benefits all is that which seeks to build a just society. ① All three are famous moralists in French history.François, Duke of La Rochefoucauld was born in 1613 and died in 1608. He joined the army in his early years and was known for his bravery.Involved in an anti-Richelieu conspiracy, was arrested and sent to the Bastille.After being exiled, he participated in the war against Marsaran.Seriously wounded, he retired from military service, was pardoned, reconciled with the king, and began a secular life.Afflicted by illness and bereavement in his later years, he was melancholic and loved "the conversation of decent people". He wrote "A Collection of Moral Maxims", which revealed egoistic motives in emotions, feelings or social relations.Jean de La Bruyère was born in 1645 and died in 1696.Born in a bourgeois family, he used to be a lawyer. On the recommendation of Bossuet, he served as the tutor of the Prince of Condé's family, and later as the secretary of the Duke of Bourbon.He once translated "Theory of Character" by the ancient Greek writer Theophrastus into French, and wrote his own "Theory of Character".Champfort, whose real name was Sebastien Roche-Nicolas, was born in 1741 and died in 1794.Although loved by aristocratic society for his intelligence, he is passionate about revolution.He was imprisoned repeatedly because he was dissatisfied with the terrorist methods of the Great Revolution, and finally committed suicide.His works include "A Collection of Maxims and Thoughts" and so on. A diseased utopian and totalitarian system that constitutes modern political thought, their collapse and the moral vacuum left by various modern philosophies have led in the present day to a very ambiguous morality called the rights of man, humanity Humanism...that's not bad, but it's still ill-defined...Humanism aimed at caring for the less fortunate and feeding them is very respectable, and I have the greatest respect for the people who do it.It's just that there's no need to just swab the blood if nothing is done to suture the wound.There would be no point in sending doctors to Liberia if people continued to let the various rebel leaders in Liberia do what they did, or if they simply continued to arm these shameless bandits.So there is only one kind of political reform that touches things at the source and really works.From this perspective, human rights politics in democracies is simply not enough.This kind of human rights politics is nothing more than people making vague verbal statements when they greet the leader of a totalitarian state, or when they go to meet them, while at the same time crawling at their feet to get some contracts. Mathieu – You gave me the example of Cioran, a pessimistic philosopher who lived in harmony with his own thoughts.I think there is an important difference between this and the philosopher.To be a philosopher, it is not enough to live in harmony with your own thoughts.This thought must also be brought into line with a true wisdom, a realization that frees the spirit from all chaos and all suffering, a wisdom manifested in human perfection.Otherwise, at the extreme, an Arsène Luban, or worse, a Joseph Stalin, could live in harmony with their own ideas.When it comes to political institutions, no one but those who are interested in having democratic values ​​ridiculed will deny that democracy is the healthiest political institution in our time.Democracy, however, is a bit like an empty house... One must know what those who live in it are going to do in it: are they going to maintain it, beautify it, or let it crumble bit by bit? ①The protagonist in the novel Arsène Lupin, the Gentleman of Thieves by French writer Maurice LeBlanc (1864-1941), is a typical hypocrite. Jean-François - very correct. Mathieu—In the concept of human rights, what is neglected is the responsibility of the individual to society.World responsibility has become especially necessary in ours, a world that has "narrowed" by the ease with which people can travel from one side of the globe to the other in a single day.It is quite evident that it is difficult to implement the ideals of democracy without developing a sense of responsibility in the hearts of all individuals who share this earth. Jean-François – what you just described could simply be called civisme. Mathieu - what I remember from my civic education lessons at the municipal elementary school hardly enlightens me!Inevitably we come back to the need for personal improvement through the person, through some value similar to wisdom or a spiritual path, although spirituality as we speak here is not necessarily religious spirituality. Jean-Francois - how to define it? Mathieu - This question leads us to the concept of altruism, which is often very misunderstood.Altruism is not about performing a few good actions now and then, but about worrying about and caring about the well-being of others all the time.This is a very rare attitude in our society.In a truly democratic system, a society should maintain a balance between the desire of the individual to obtain the greatest possible benefit for himself and the consensus of the whole. is no longer tolerable.But few people genuinely care about the happiness of others.This state of mind also affects the sphere of politics, for those whose mission is to care for the well-being of all often consider their mission as a career in which they personally occupy a very important place.Under such conditions, it is difficult for them to put aside the present, especially their popularity among the people, and consider things that are in the interests of all in the long run. Jean-François - a very rare indeed among politicians! Mathieu—The purpose of anyone who devotes himself to political and social life should not be to win the praise and gratitude of others, but to sincerely try to improve their lot.In this respect, the example of environmental protection is very revealing of a general lack of responsibility.While the detrimental consequences of pollution, extinction of animal species, and destruction of forests and natural beauty are undeniable and, in the vast majority of cases, are not Tolerated, all did not respond.Some drastic measures to stop the decline of the ozone layer may not come into effect until ordinary citizens can no longer sunbathe, and when children must be banned from looking at the sky, since ultraviolet rays would be extremely dangerous to their eyes.The former is already happening in Australia, and the latter is starting to happen in Patagonia.These consequences were foreseeable long ago, but they have never manifested themselves in the present danger that threatens everyone's selfish enjoyment.I therefore believe that this lack of accountability is one of the greatest weaknesses of our time.It is also in this sense that a personal wisdom and a spiritual practice can be useful. Jean-François - I totally agree...however, what people today in the west call with some irony "the rights of humanity", and ecology, are kind of like a failed alternative to the socialist political ideal Taste.Those who have been on the left for a long time, now that there is no longer any rigorous doctrine of social transformation, seize on humanism and ecology in order to continue to tyrannize their fellow men. Mathieu - Don't kill ecology prematurely!It also needs to grow in strength and effectiveness.I remember when I was fifteen years old and Rachel Carlsson's book "A Quiet Spring" was published, when some people who were passionately devoted to nature conservation were regarded as eccentric "people of the woods". Jean-François - I am for human rights and nature conservation.It is just unfortunate that the weight of failed ideologies continues to weigh on these new ventures.People realize that those who are busy with human rights and environmental protection usually have two weights and two scales.For example, the vast majority of humanitarians are more likely to be on the left.So they will immediately expose the existence of political prisoners in Morocco.Why?Because Morocco is a traditional monarchy, belongs to the American camp, belongs to the Western camp, and is a capitalist country.Instead, they will wait a long time to expose far more serious human rights violations in Algeria.The same is true for the environment: at the time of the Chernobyl disaster, Greenpeace held some demonstrations.Which nuclear power plants are you against?Western nuclear power plants!These nuclear power plants are much safer!But Greenpeace never organized any rally against the USSR! ...although Greenpeace objected to French nuclear tests in the Pacific Ocean in 1995, which is its right ... and the same organization has been extremely incautious with regard to far worse pollution, it is It is the nuclear waste dumped by Russia and the "former Soviet Union" in the Arctic Ocean, and the leaked Russian oil pipeline caused an unknown number of millions of tons of oil to flow into the Arctic Ocean... Therefore, I can no longer believe in the integrity of this organization.As long as the struggle for human rights or the fight against pollution has long been tainted by old ideologies, by old prejudices that make what are called "ecologists" generally leftists Out of balance, well, we won't get any result!Such struggles can only be respected if they are directed according to reality and not according to the prejudices of those who direct them. Mathieu - I also want to add a word to emphasize the "human" rights that people always talk about, but limiting this right to people reflects Judeo-Christian values ​​in self-proclaimed secular democracies , these values ​​remain fundamental to Western civilization.According to this view, animals have no souls and exist only for human consumption.This kind of thinking is specific to certain religions, but it is no longer acceptable on the world level. Jean-François – There is an animal rights association in the West. Mathieu - This association does not appear to be able to change laws that treat animals as "agricultural products".我想在此引述莱奥纳多·达·芬奇的一句话，他在他的笔记本中写道：“终有一天，像我一样的人们看待屠杀动物就如同他们今天看待屠杀人一样。”而乔治·伯纳德·萧也说：“动物是我的朋友……我不吃自己的朋友。”问题并不是要否认，在动物与人类存在者之间存在着一些智能上的差别，而且，相对而言，一个人类存在者的生命比一个动物的生命更有价值。但是为什么生活的权利就必须仅仅是人类的特权呢？所有的有生命物都希求幸福，都意欲逃避痛苦。所以，窃取权利，以终年杀害成百万的动物，这完全是在行使强者的权利。几个世纪以前，人们还认为“乌木”，也就是黑非洲奴隶的贩运是可以接受的。在我们今天，奴隶制度还存在于印度、巴基斯坦、苏丹……在那里人们将儿童卖到工厂或农村去工作，将女孩卖去卖淫。但是，总体上说，奴隶制被视为一种可憎的事物。当人们、民族被剥削被压迫时，他们做什么？他们组织起来，联合起来，进行反抗……动物没有这样做的能力，于是就被屠杀。我想这是一个应该被彻底重新思考的问题。我还想要补充说这种轻率在“疯牛”危机时尤其令人震惊。英国农业大臣和他在欧洲大陆上的同僚们一开始即宣布他们准备“毁灭”（detruire）——这是他们的话——几百万头牛！如果有一千五百万头牛拥进伦敦的大街小巷以维护它们的生活权，政府就肯定会重新考察自己的观点了。 让-弗朗索瓦——这还不是确实的！ 马蒂厄——在那时，人们甚至都还没有肯定，那十五或二十个死于被认为是由食用牛肉而引起的精神疾病的人真的是被这些动物的肉传染的。如果他们是受牛肉传染的，这不是由于牛的错，而是由于那些饲养者的错，他们用反自然的饲料来喂养他们的牲畜。大体上说，人们将一头牛的生命的价值估计为一个人的生命的价值的一千五百万分之一。 让-弗朗索瓦——你推论起来，好像只有人才杀害动物。可是动物自己互相杀害！只要随便看看哪一部有关海底生命的电影就足以知道它们相互吞食。每一个动物都不断地生活在会被另一个动物吞食的恐惧之中！那么，以佛教的观点你怎么解释？ 马蒂厄——由被拘禁在这个世界中的所有存在者体验到的痛苦，乃是佛陀所教诲的四条尊贵真理①的第一条。佛经也提到了你谈论的问题。其中之一说道：“大动物吞食不可计数的小动物，而众多的小动物又会聚起来以吞食大动物。”既然人们不断地谈论所谓文明世界的“进步”，我认为，人们应该能够将我们为了自己的利益而施加给其他有生命存在者的痛苦的全面减少纳入这个进步之中。有许多别的手段养活自己，而不必有系统地屠杀动物。 ①前文提到的四谛，或曰四贵谛。 让-弗朗索瓦——可是在等待全体西方人都变成素食者——这不会马上发生——的同时，人们还是能够进行斗争——而且人们已经开始这样做了——以使家养动物被饲养在比起在现代工业化饲养中占优势的那类条件要不野蛮的条件里。因为它们在工业化饲养下的命运比起在传统饲养方法中的动物的命运来说，已经变得恶化了，在我童年时，我在弗朗什一贡代曾经见识过这种传统的饲养方法。牲畜们平静地在牧地上吃草。冬天，在牛栏里，人们给它们以干草，从来没有人工的、化学的饲料，或是羊的废弃物，正是这引起了疯牛病。现在，不幸的牲畜们都是在极坏的条件下被饲养、圈押和运送…… 马蒂厄——在这一点上，技术伪进步（Pseudo－Progres technique）即使动物的痛苦加剧，似乎还给人类创造了新的病因。可悲的进步。 让-弗朗索瓦——我同意你的说法。