By DR W. R. MATTHEWS

To my mind, there is a touch of arrogance in the phrase "my philosophy", because it seems to suggest that one has worked out a whole system of thought entirely by oneself and that no one has ever had the same ideas before. That is certainly not a claim that I would make and, indeed, one of my convictions is that the enterprise of starting, as it were, "from scratch" and thinking out a rational view of the world and of life in it is an impossible one. I suppose there have been great men who have determined to do just that, perhaps Descartes was one, but, when one looks at their philosophies, they are evidently deeply affected by the thoughts of other thinkers and by the intellectual climate of their time. We cannot detach ourselves from history. Even if we revolt against it, the form of our revolt is determined by the situation against which we are reacting. For my part, I have always believed that the sensible course was to admit the existence of a tradition of which one is, in a sense, a part and first of all to try to understand it and to grasp what truth and value it contains. To put the matter bluntly, I stand in the Christian tradition and, when I became a conscious and reflective being, I found myself a member of a more or less Christian civilization and of the Christian Church. So far I have found enough to occupy my reflective faculties in the attempt to understand the implications of all this. I will admit, if you like, that this means a certain dependence on authority; I see no reason to be ashamed of listening respectfully to what “our fathers have told us”, so long as we do not turn this respect into an excuse for not thinking for ourselves.

　　在我的心目中，“我的（人生）哲学”这一词语带有一丝傲慢，因为这词语似乎在提示，独自一个人已经搞出了一整套的思想体系，而且别人在此之前没有过相同的观念。这种自诩，我是肯定不会认同的；说真话，我的坚定信念之一就是，“从零开始”、想出对世界及其中生命的一种理性观点，是不可能的事。我想，决心要那么做的伟人是有的，也许笛卡尔是一个，但当到我们审视他们的哲学，看得出那些哲学深深地受到其他思想家的思想、以及当时的知识氛围所影响。我们无法把自己从历史分拆出来。即使反对它，我们反对的形态却是由我们对那情况的反应所决定。从某种意义来说，与我们息息相关的一种传统是存在的，我个人向来认为合情合理的途径是承认这一点，而且首先还需要努力了解它，掌握其中所含的真理和价值。直截了当地说，我坚信基督教的传统，当我成为具有意识并能思想的人之时，我发现自己可说是基督教文明以及基督教的一份子。到目前为止，在试图了解这一切所牵涉的问题上，我发现已有足够的材料盘踞我的思想官能。我需要承认，这就意味着对权威的若干信赖；尊敬地听从“先人们对我们的训勉”、我找不出理由会觉得可耻，只要我们不把这种尊敬转变为自己不思想的藉口。

　　[篇名讨论：如果把本篇的题目跟全书的书名综合起来加以考虑，本篇篇名比较全面的译名似乎是“（一个）基督徒的人生哲学”，但由于作者博学，而且深知若干现代人对基督教的困惑，所以全文给人的印象更像是阐释“基督教（的）底蕴”，中文篇名的翻译就得自这一看法，尤其是译者发觉这几个字跟英文篇名的字面意义，在实质上可以兼容，是以大胆采用。
　　[Christian: 这个字翻译为“基督教/徒的，基督徒”，应该没有问题，只是有一次听到张贤勇教授指出，由于这个字的中译暧昧，让人们觉得“基督教”和“天主教”是两个宗教，所以有心人士想把“基督教”改称为“基督宗教”，这样，人们可以很方便说，“基督宗教”包括“基督教/耶稣教”和“天主教”等。这一建议的用意的好的，但是这个译法并不容易跟其它的词语结合，例如，我们不便说“基督宗教徒”或“基督宗教义”等等。个人觉得，要建立前面所期望的一个含义比“基督教”用语较为广泛的说法，也许可以试用“泛基督教”，不知这建议合用或妥当否？]

And, of course, we must think for ourselves. Even the acceptance of "what our fathers have told us" involves understanding, unless we are to be content with the repetition of formulas which have no meaning for us, and it is, in the end, unavoidable that understanding should lead to criticism and to the question how far and on what grounds I can embrace the tradition, or whether some amendment and restatement is demanded. Not until I have done this can I begin to speak of "my philosophy of life". The point of all this is that thinking is indeed most necessary, but thinking must start from somewhere and, I hold that it is more promising to begin with the inherited tradition than from some meagre supposed indubitable proposition, such as “I think, therefore I exist”.

　　当然，我们必须自己思想。就是接受“先人们对我们的训勉”，也涉及了解的过程，除非我们自甘把一些没有意义可言的话，一次次地重复；了解之后，不可避免的是走向批评，以及到什么程度、在什么立场上，我能够接受传统，或者是否需要做出某些修正和复述。必须等到我做过这些，我才可以开始谈“我的人生哲学”。所有这些话的要点乃是，思想的确是最为必需的，但是思想必须从某处开始，我认为从承受得来的传统开始，将会超出根据“我思故我在”之类的贫弱的自认为明确的命题为起点所得出的结果。

　　[my philosophy of life: 本段直截了当使用“我的人生哲学”，但全文开始所用的是“my philosophy”；philosophy 有多义，除了“哲学”的意义之外，尚有“人生哲学/人生观”等意义。]

We must observe that, at least in Britain, the professional philosophers are not at present helping us very much in this matter of a philosophy of life. The late Dr C. E. M. Joad wrote a paper during the war in which he asked whether philosophers had anything to say on the great problems of conduct and existence which troubled the hearts of so many and sorrowfully answered that, on the whole, they had not. Many of them indignantly denied that they had any such responsibility. This is a new phenomenon.

　　我们必得指出，在人生哲学这问题上，哲学专家目前所给我们的帮助不大，至少在英国是如此。已故的乔德博士在二次大战时曾写过一篇文章，他在文章中问道，对于许多人感到困惑的有关行为和生存的重大问题、哲学家们是否有什么解答，他接着伤感地回答说，大体而言，他们都哑口无言。他们之中有许多人气愤地否认他们负有那些责任。这是一个新现象。

In the tradition which we all inherit the philosopher has been regarded as a man who has leisure to seek after wisdom for the sake of us all, and it has been expected that he should throw light on the questions which concern everyone of us. He has, in the past, meditated on God, freedom and immortality; he has tried to tell his fellow men what we can know, what we ought to do and what we may hope for, to illuminate the meaning of life and of the good life. Philosophy is passing through an analytical phase in which all these questions are either dismissed as "pseudo problems" or treated in a purely analytical manner. No doubt this is a passing phase and the age long discussion of the great themes will be resumed, but we must recognize that just now the prevailing opinion is that metaphysics is out of court and its pursuit a waste of time. Metaphysics is the department of philosophy which treats of the nature of reality and existence, seeking to give some coherent view of all that is, of the whole system of being. The metaphysician has been politely bowed out and informed that he is asking silly questions and anyway we can do quite well without him.

　　在我们大家承受的传统中，哲学家被认为拥有大量时间，为我们大家寻求智慧，大众也指望他对于大家关切的各种问题，有所启迪。在以往，他曾对上帝、自由和不朽做过深思；在阐述人生以及美好生活的意义上，他曾经告诉人们，我们能知道些什么，我们应该做些什么，我们还能期望些什么。哲学目前正在经历一个分析阶段，哲学家不是把这些问题当作“假设的问题”不予理会，就是纯然以分析的态度应付。无疑地，这只是过渡阶段，长时期以来对重大主题的讨论将重见天日，但我们必须体认，当前流行的意见是：形而上学是不值一顾的，研究形而上学是浪费时间。形而上学是哲学的一个部门，它讨论的是真实和存在的本质，就一切存在和生命的整个系统，找出某种连贯的观点。形而上学家已被礼貌地送走，并直言相告他问的是无聊的问题，我们根本就不需要他。

　　[metaphysics: 这个字译作“形而上学”，借用中文的旧用语“形而上”，应该说挺为理想，请参考《辞海》（台北，1967；上海，1979）和《辞源》（北京，1983）相关各条；从现代汉语与外文对应的立场而言，似可翻译为“超物质学”。
　　[the nature of reality….: 我们在这里的翻译是“真实和存在的本质”，似乎可以过关，但仅就“真实的本质”而言，他跟 the real nature 的中译没有区别；上世纪30年代似乎已建立用“底”来表示领属关系。为了让文字的表达明确一些，似乎有需要在必要时采用“底”（即“领有者”并非明显的名词和代名词之时，最好是以“底” 代“的”）。] （十之一完）