[X] 形而上学的对立THE ANTITHESIS IN METAPHYSICS (24-30)
现在让我们讨论这个势不两立的对立，如何出现在哲学的三个范围里：形而上学，知识论，和价值论。首先，形而上学。
Let us then consider the antithesis in philosophy as it appears in the three subdivisions of philosophy that I distinguished earlier in the chapter: metaphysics, epistemology, and value theory. First, metaphysics.
我在上文曾指出，《圣经》的世界观强调创造主与被造物的区别，上帝的绝对三位格，和祂掌管世界的主权；后者包含掌控，权威，和临在。
As I mentioned, the biblical worldview emphasizes the Creator-creature distinction, the absolute tri-personality of God, and his lordship over the world, understood as control, authority, and presence.
非基督教的哲学，虽然有各种不同的面貌，却统一竭力敌对《圣经》的世界观，虽然有时很吊诡地在某些细节上与之同意（为了种种目的）。
Non-Christian philosophy, though it takes many forms, uniformly seeks to oppose the biblical worldview, though it might paradoxically express agreement with it at various points and for various purposes.
[1] 形而上学上的对立：『超越』和『临在』
ANTITHESIS IN METAPHYSICS: TRANSCENDENCE AND IMMANENCE
我发觉，『超越』和『临在』这两个名词，有用于描述形而上学方面的对立。
I have found it useful to describe the antithesis in metaphysics by use of the terms transcendence and immanence.
这些词汇，一般用在基督教神学上，表达两个强调点。
These terms are commonly used in Christian theology as representing of two biblical emphases.
《圣经》里的超越和临在TRANSCENDENCE AND IMMANENCE IN THE BIBLE
『超越』让人想起，《圣经》中的上帝是在高处的，被高举，崇高，等（《诗篇》7：7；9：2；《以赛亚书》6：1）。
Transcendence evokes the biblical picture of God as “high,” “lifted up,” “exalted,” and so on (Pss. 7:7; 9:2; Isa. 6:1).
『临在』让人想起，《圣经》说上帝临近我们，与我们同在（《创世记》21：22；26：3，24，28；《申命记》4：7；《以赛亚书》7：14；《马太福音》1：23）。
Immanence draws on biblical language about God’s being “near” and “with us” (Gen. 21:22, 26:3, 24, 28; 28:15; Deut. 4:7; Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:23).
神学上的『超越』：错误的用法，和符合《圣经》的用法
TRANSCENDENCE IN THEOLOGY: INCORRECT VS. BIBLICAL SENSE
在神学著作中，『超越』一般带上这样的色彩：上帝远离被造宇宙那么远，我们不可能认识祂，或不能正确地论说（讲论）祂。
In theological writing, transcendence sometimes takes on the meaning that God is so far removed from the creation that we cannot know him or speak truly of him.
但《圣经》里的上帝的『超越性』，并不是这个意思。
But the God of Scripture is not transcendent in that sense.
在《圣经》里，上帝绝对是人能认识的；诚然，永生就是（用某一种方法）认识祂（《约翰福音》17：3）！
In the Bible, God is eminently knowable; indeed, eternal life is knowing him in a certain way (John 17:3).
再者，在《圣经》里，上帝对祂的子民说话，因此他们可以正确的讲论他（17：17）。
And in the Bible, God speaks to his people, so that they can speak truly of him (17:17).
当《圣经》说上帝是崇高的，在高处时，是指祂坐在宇宙的宝座上，祂是主，是君王。
When Scripture speaks of God’s being high or lifted up, it refers to his position on the throne of the universe as Lord and King.
当我们从这个意义上用『超越』，指上的的崇高时，是指祂的主权，特别是祂的掌控和权威。
If we use the term transcendence for his exaltation in this sense, then it refers to his lordship, particularly his control and authority.
神学上的『临在』：不假思索的用法，错误的用法，符合《圣经》的意义
IMMANENCE IN THEOLOGY: UN-CONSCIOUS, INCORRECT, VS. BIBLICAL SENSE
神学上的『临在』，一般指祂的无所不在，对基督徒来说这是无可厚非的，但是我认为，使用这个字时，最好加上圣约的意涵 (with more covenant nuance) 。
Immanence in theology is usually used to refer to God’s omnipresence, which is uncontroversial among Christians, but I think it is better to use the term with more covenant nuance.
不错，上帝无所不在，但是他的临在是带着祂对人的用意的：赐福或审判的旨意。
God is omnipresent, yes, but with personal intentions toward people, either blessing or judgment.
上帝的临在，是祂在圣约中的临在（或译为：是祂立约守约的临在）。
God’s immanence is his covenant presence.
我们必须竭力避免神学家所作的：他们说，上帝是那么『靠近』我们，以致祂不能与世界区别，因此祂放弃了自己的神性。
What we must strenuously avoid is what theologians do: to say that God becomes so “near” that he cannot be distinguished from the world, and that he therefore abandons his divine nature.
结果是：上帝被降低到人的层次，或人被提升到上帝的层次；两者都违背了创造主和被造物的区别。
That either reduces God to the level of man, or raises man to the level of God, in either『 case violating the Creator-creature distinction.
[ 注脚三十六。这种论调，导致 Thomas Altizer 提倡他的基督教无神论；时为1960年代。参：本书，第十章。]
[ Footnote 36. This kind of argument led Thomas Altizer to his Christian atheism in the 1960s. See chapter 10. ]
符合《圣经》的『超越观』和『临在观』，可用图表1.5表达。
These biblical and non-biblical concepts of transcendence and immanence may be illustrated by the following diagram; see fig. 1.5.
符合《圣经》 不符合《圣经》
BIBLICAL NON-BIBLICAL
[1] 超越：Transcendence: [3] 超越：Transcendence:
上帝的掌控与权威 上帝并不在
God’s control and authority God not present
[2] 临在： Immanence: [4] 临在：Immanence:
上帝立约、守约的同在 上帝与世界不能区别
God’s covenant presence God and the world are
Indistinguishabl
Fig. 1.5. 符合《圣经》和不符合《圣经》的超越观和临在观
Concepts of Transcendence and Immanence
[2] 符合《圣经》的超越与临在
BIBLICAL TRANSCENDENCE & IMMANENCE
图表的左边代表符合《圣经》的超越观和临在观。
The left side of the triangle [Footnote 37] represents the biblical views of transcendence and immanence that we have discussed.
[1] 是指符合《圣经》的超越：上帝的统治。祂的统治包括掌控和权威这两个主权属性。
[1] is biblical transcendence: God’s rule. Included in God’s rule are his lordship attributes of control and authority.
[2] 是指符合《圣经》的临在：上帝立约守约的同在。
[2] is biblical immanence: God’s covenant presence.
[ 注脚三十七。下面四段文字，取自《系统神学》，第三章。]
[ Footnote 37. The next four paragraphs are taken from ST, chap. 3. ]
[3] 不符合《圣经》的超越：上帝是全然他者、完全隐藏
不符合《圣经》的临在：上帝其安全显露，人成为上帝
NON-BIBLICAL TRANSCENDENCE: GOD = WHOLLY OTHER/HIDDEN
NON-BIBLICAL IMMANENCE: GOD = WHOLLY REVEALED; MAN BECOMES GOD
图表的右边代表不符合《圣经》的观念。
The right side of the triangle represents the non-biblical views that we have noted.
[3] 是指不符合《圣经》的超越观：上帝是那么的高，离我们那么远，我们不可能认识祂，在时空历史中也不可能会辨认祂。就像巴特所说的，上帝是全然他者，或完全隐藏。
[3] is non-biblical transcendence: that God is so far “above” us that we cannot know him or identify him in history. As Barth would say, he is wholly hidden or wholly other.
[4] 是指不符合《圣经》的临在观：上帝的临在就等于被造物的自主；上帝完全被显露。
[4] is non-biblical immanence: that the immanence of God is in effect the autonomy of creatures, God as wholly revealed.
根据这个观点，人等于成为上帝，或：上帝被降低到人的层次。
On this view, man in effect becomes God, or God is reduced to the level of man.
[4] 彼此敌对、对立的线条
LINES OF OPPOSITION/ANTITHESIS
图表里的斜线代表敌对（对立）。
The diagonal lines are lines of opposition.
[1] 和 [4] 彼此矛盾，因为：若说被造物是自主的 [4] 就与上帝是宇宙至高统治者 [1] 矛盾。
[1] and [4] are contradictory, for to say that creatures are autonomous [4] is to contradict the assertion that God is the supreme ruler of the world [1].
[2] 和 [3] 彼此矛盾，因为：若坚持上帝不可能在时空历史中被辨认 [3]，若认为上帝是不能认识，不能言说的，这与《圣经》对上帝的同在的真理 [2] 矛盾。
[2] and [3] are also opposed, because to insist that God cannot be identified in history [3], that he is unknowable and unspeakable, contradicts the biblical teaching concerning God’s presence [2].
[5] 直线：两个世界观是否一致：
符合《圣经》的观点是一致的，没有内在矛盾（张力）
VERTICAL LINES: RELATIVE CONSISTENCY
BIBLICAL VIEW = CONSISTENT, W/O TENSION
图表的垂直线，是要我们注意两个世界观『一致性』的程度。
The vertical lines draw our attention to the relative consistency of the two approaches.
符合《圣经》的观点是一致的，没有内在矛盾（张力）。
The biblical view is consistent and without tension.
[ 注脚三十八。这并不是说，没有奥秘存在。我们对上帝的认识并不是透知。但是，上帝的自我启示并不包含矛盾。]
[ Footnote 38. This is not to deny that there is mystery. Our knowledge of God is not exhaustive. But what God reveals of himself is not contradictory. ]
不符合《圣经》的观点，充满矛盾（张力）
不符合《圣经》的超越，造成不符合《圣经》的林在
不符合《圣经》的临在，造成不符合《圣经》的超越
NON-BIBLICAL VIEW = FULL OF TENSION
NON-BIBL. TRANSCENDENCE GENERATES NON-BIBL. IMMANENCE
NON-BIBL. IMMANENCE GENERATES NON-BIBL. TRANSCENDENCE
不符合《圣经》的观点充满着内在矛盾（张力）：上帝怎能一方面不能形容，另一方面又与世界等同（例如：诺斯底主义）？
The non-biblical view is full of tension: How can God be both ineffable and identical with the world, as in Gnosticism?
他怎能是完全隐藏，又同时是完全显露的（例如：巴特）？
How can he be wholly hidden and wholly revealed, as in Barth?
不符合《圣经》的超越和临在：一方造成另一方
NON-BIBL. TRANSCENDENCE & IMMANENCE GENERATES EACH OTHER
虽然这个系统充满矛盾，我们也能理解，这种超越观，怎能造成这种临在观，反之亦然。
But although this system is contradictory, we can understand how this view of transcendence generates this particular view of immanence, and vice versa.
上帝若是无名的超越者 (the nameless beyond)，必然的结果是：我们只能自己掌控自己的未来。
If God is the nameless beyond, then necessarily we are left as masters of our own destiny.
因为，实际上祂并不能统治我们。
For, practically speaking, he cannot rule us.
我们建立价值观，作抉择，建立世界观时，不能考虑到祂。
We cannot take account of him in our values, our decisions, or our worldviews.
虽然如此，我们不可能没有至终的价值，因此我们自己就充当上帝了。
Still, we cannot live without ultimate values, so we become god ourselves.
宇宙不能没有至终成因而存在，因此宇宙就充当自己的成因了。
The universe cannot exist without ultimate powers of causation, so it becomes its own cause.
将上帝从宇宙挪去，就让人自主。
Removing God from the world enables human autonomy.
相反地，我们的目标若是要自主 [ 注脚三十九] ，那么我们必须完全否认上帝的存在 [注脚四十] ，或自己说服自己：上帝离开我们太远了，他不会在我们生命中起什么作用。
And conversely, if our goal is to be autonomous [Footnote 39], then we either must deny God’s existence altogether [Footnote 40] or must convince ourselves that God is too far beyond us to have any practical influence in our lives.
[ 注脚三十九。记得：《圣经》教导我们，自主必然是堕落的人的目标。因此，把这种思维归给人类对上帝的叛逆，并不随意。 ]
[ Footnote 39. Remember that Scripture teaches that autonomy is always the goal of fallen man. So it is not arbitrary to ascribe this sort of thinking ultimately to human rebellion against God. ]
[ 注脚四十。无神论是一种极端的（不符合《圣经》的超越 观）见图，[3]。因为无神论者声称，上帝离我们生活的现实世界那么远，祂根本不应被考虑在真实存在者的行列之中。 ]
[ Footnote 40. Atheism is an extreme version of transcendence [3]. For it asserts that God is so far from the real world in which we live, that he should not even be counted among real beings. ]
不符合《圣经》的超越和比符合《圣经》的临在：彼此相依为命
（译者按：范泰尔：他们是『相互依存』的），虽然他们彼此造成张力/吊诡
NON-BIBL. TRANSCENDENCE & NON-BIBL. IMMANENCE REQUIRE EACH OTHER
(NOTE: VAN TIL: THEY ARE CORRELATIVE), EVEN THOUGH THEY CREATE TENSION/PARADOX
因此从某一种意义来看， [3] 需要 [4]，反之亦然，虽然把它们结合起来，会造成张力和吊诡。
So [3] and [4] re quire each other in a sense, even though bringing them together creates tension and paradox.
[6] 垂直线：两种用语言表达的思考的相似性：
（仅是）字面上的相似；事实上，两个系统彼此矛盾
HORIZONTAL LINES: SIMILARITY OF 2 WAYS TO THINK WITH WORDS:
VERBAL SIMILARITIES; CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN 2 SYSTEMS
两条垂直线使我们考虑，两种思维在字面上的相似性。
The horizontal lines lead us to consider the similarity of the two ways of thinking at the verbal level.
两种超越观都诉诸《圣经》，都提到上帝的崇高。两种临在观都描述，上帝参与世界万事。
Both views of transcendence may appeal to the biblical language of God’s exaltation and height. Both views of immanence describe his involvement in all things.
但是，在字面相似的背后，在观念上的差异是非常大的：诚然彼此矛盾。正如我们已经看到，这是两个系统之间的矛盾。
But beneath the verbal similarity, there are enormous conceptual differences, indeed contradictions, as we have seen, between the two systems.
字面上的相似指出，不符合《圣经》的立场，为什么吸引了很多基督徒。
The verbal similarities indicate why the non-biblical positions have attracted many Christians.
但是这些问题是那么地重要，我们必须看穿表面上的相似，进而辨认两种思维势不两立的对立。
But these issues are so important, that we must penetrate beneath the surface similarities to recognize
the antithesis between these two ways of thing.
[7] 『势不两立的对立』对哲学的含义：形而上学
RELEVANCE OF ANTITHESIS TO PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS (METAPHYSICS)
这样看来，这个『势不两立的对立』，对我在上文列出的哲学问题有何含义？
How, then, is the antithesis relevant to the philosophical questions I outlined earlier in the chapter?
[7.1.] 例一：宇宙是『一』？抑或『众』？
EXAMPLE 1: IS THE UNIVERSE ONE? OR MANY?
[1] 宇宙是『一』？抑或『众』？
Is the universe one or many?
这个问题之所以重要，是因为哲学家们想要在世界里（有别于：在《圣经》的上帝那里）找到一个『绝对』。
The reason why this question has been important is that philosophers have wanted to find an absolute in the world, belonging to the world, that is, rather than the God of Scripture.
非基督徒们追寻一个能涵盖性（普遍性）解释一切事物的『绝对』：
一个终极的『一』，或一个终极的『众』：事实上，这是不可能的
NON-CHRISTIANS SEEK COMPREHENSIVE EXPLANATION FOR EVERYTHING:
EITHER ULTIMATE ONE-NESS, OR ULTIMATE PLURALITY:
IMPOSSIBLE
非基督徒哲学家们想要找到一个这样的『绝对』，用以解释宇宙万事（这就显示：形而上学和知识论的关联）。
Non-Christian philosophers have wanted such an absolute to serve as a comprehensive explanation for everything (which indicates the connection between metaphysics and epistemology).
他们会透过两个途径尝试追寻：
They have tried to do that in two ways:
[a] 指出一个『一』 (one-ness)，宇宙万物都约化为这个『一』（例如：泰雷兹的『一切都是水』），或
by identifying a one-ness to which everything can be reduced (as Thales’s “all is water”) and
[b] 寻找一个终极的『众』：把万物砍到最小的零件（成分），去找到宇宙至终（最小，也是终极）的构成单元（德谟克里特的『原子』）。 （参：范泰尔的『个别化原则』。）
by seeking an ultimate plurality: chopping things down into their smallest parts to detect the ultimate constituents of the universe (Democritus’s “atoms”).
但对基督徒来说，这是不可能的（《罗马书》11：33-36）。
But Christians believe this cannot be done (Rom. 11:33-36).
要拥有对宇宙万物的解释，就等于拥有那个唯有上帝自己才有的知识。
To have a comprehensive explanation of everything is to have a kind of knowledge available only to God himself.
这对人类来说，是不可能的。
That is impossible for human beings.
（译者按：这就是范泰尔为什么说，当人类这样探索时，就等于认为自己是无所不知的。傅兰姆的表达比较温和，客气。）
基督徒的观点：三位一体是『一』也是『众』；
三一真神创造了这个反映他的『一而众』的宇宙
CHRISTIAN VIEW: TRINITY = ONE & MANY;
MADE WORLD TO REFLECT ITS ONE-AND-MANY-NESS
这个不可能性又这事实显出：正如上帝是三位一体，『不是一就不是众，反之亦然』；同理，三一真神创造了这个『没有一就没有众，反之亦然』的宇宙。
The impossibility of it is displayed by the fact that, as with the Trinity, there is in the world no one-ness without plurality and no plurality without one-ness.
宇宙是一也是众，因为上帝是『一而众』，而上帝这样创造了宇宙：
祂要宇宙反映他的『一而众』。
The world is both one and many, because God, who is one and many, has made the world in such a way that it reflects him.
对非基督徒：不容易连接『一』和『众』
例如：泰雷兹的『水』是什么？这水如何构成宇宙？抑或：难道宇宙（其他）万物是幻觉？
NON-CHRISTIANS: HARD TO RELATE ONE-NESS TO PLURALITIES
EXAMPLE: THALES: WHAT IS THIS “WATER”? HOW DOES IT GIVE RISE TO REST OF WORLD?
OR IS (REST OF THE) WORLD ILLUSORY?
根据非基督徒思维，很难连接终极的『一』和宇宙的『众』 (pluralities)。
In non-Christian thought, it is difficult to relate the ultimate one-ness to the pluralities of the world.
泰雷兹说万物都是水，明显地宣称，他发现了一个超越原则，一个能解释宇宙万物的原则。
Thales evidently understands “all is water” to state the discovery of a transcendent principle, a principle that explains everything.
但这个超越的『水』，不可能是真实的水：使其他万物弄湿的水。
But this transcendent water cannot be real water, the stuff that makes other things wet.
他的『水』是一个抽象的概念，为要连接宇宙其他万物的性质，却有与之不同。
It is an abstract concept that combines all the qualities of everything else in the universe, but somehow stands apart from them.
（翻译者按：因此对一般没有研究哲学的基督徒来说，『抽象』可以有两个意义：第一，就是玄妙；第二：某某说法很抽象，因为它『不符合《圣经》的世界观』。）
泰雷兹必须面对的一个大问题是：这个超原则，『水』，如何产生宇宙其他万物？
The big question for Thales is: How does water as a super-principle give rise to the rest of the world?
难道：『水』自我改变，变成其他万物？
Does it somehow get transformed into other things?
抑或：其他事物，如怕门尼德所宣称的，至终是『存有』？
Or are the other things, in the end, illusory, as Parmenides claimed for his own super-principle, Being?
柏拉图的难题：
『一』如何够临在，以能解释『众』，而不变成『众』？
PLATO’S STRUGGLE:
HOW CAN ONE-NESS BECOME IMMANENT ENOUGH,
TO EXPLAIN THE MANY, WITHOUT ITSELF BECOMING MANY?
柏拉图必须与一个难题挣扎：一个完美的，不变的，充满『形式』的世界，如何产生一个多变的， 不完美的世界。
Plato struggled with the question of how the world of perfect, changeless Forms could give rise to the changing, imperfect world.
换言之，根据这些观点，一个『一』的原则（其定义就是：它『超越』这世界）能足够地『临在』，以能解释『众』，而自己不变成『众』？
In other words, on these views how can the principle of one-ness, defined by its transcendence over the world, become immanent enough to account for the many without itself becoming many?
终极的『众』也面对同样的难题
SAME DIFFICULTY W/ ULTIMATE PLURALITY
那些追寻一个终极的『众』来解释宇宙万物的哲学家们，也面对同样的难题。
The same is true for philosophers who seek an ultimate plurality as the final explanation for everything.
终极的一/众 = 抽象概念；
『众』：原子）（德谟克里特）
ULTIMATE ONE/ULTIMATE PLURALITY = ABSTRACTIONS
PLURAL: ATOMS (DEMOCRITUS)
德谟克里特的『原子』，虽然是『众』，但是在一个重要的意义上是超越的。
The “atoms” of Democritus, though plural, are transcendent in an important way.
从来没有人看过原子。
Nobody has ever seen an atom.
用『原子』来解释世界万物 = 太『超越』；而用来治理世界 = 太『临在』
ATOMS = TOO TRANSCENDENT TO EXPLAIN WORLD,
TOO IMMANENT/WORLDLY TO GOVERN WORLD
这些原则（概念），如怕门尼德的『存有』和柏拉图的『形式』一样，都是抽象的，与我们一般经验世界抽离。
These, as much as Parmenides’ Being or Plato’s Forms, are abstractions from the flow of our ordinary experience.
因此，原子论者需要解释：原子如何产生人类一般所经验的世界。
So atomists need to explain how the atoms give rise to the world of that ordinary experience.
原子用来解释世界，太超越了；同时，用来治理世界，则太临在了。
The atoms are too transcendent to explain the world, and at the same time too immanent, too worldly, to provide the world with governance.
[7.2] 例二。宇宙最基本的构造是什么？
EXAMPLE 2. WHAT IS BASIC COMPOSITION OF UNIVERSE?
[2] 宇宙最基本的构造是什么？这问题与前面的问题一样，只是较为针对性。
[2] What is the basic composition of the universe? This question is the same as the previous one, but more specific.
那些认为宇宙本质上是『一』的哲学家们需要解释：这个『一』的本质是什么？它是怎样的一个『一』？
Philosophers who believe that the world is essentially one need to explain what that oneness is like, what kind of oneness it is.
它是神圣的？在思想里的？物质的？抑或是什么？
Is it divine, mental, material, or what?
对那些认为宇宙本质上是『众』的哲学家们，也是如此。
Same for philosophers who believe that the universe is essentially many.
与前面的问题一样，在这里我们看到：形而上学的关注，和知识论的关注有重叠。
And as with the previous question, there is an overlap between metaphysical and epistemological concerns.
因为，问这些问题的哲学家们，在试图透知宇宙（寻求对宇宙彻底的知识）。
For the philosophers who ask these questions are seeking exhaustive knowledge of the world.
（译者注：范泰尔认为这种态度，就等于认为自己是无所不知的。）
再说，哲学家所孤立为『宇宙最普及性的本质』（水，空气，火，数字，形式，物质等），若用来指哲学上的终极时，都带上抽象的性质。
But again, the qualities singled out as the comprehensive nature of the world (water, air, fire, number, form, matter …) take on an abstract quality when used as philosophical ultimates.
当泰雷兹用水作为一个超越原则时，他所想到的，并不是我们日常喝的，用来洗涤的水。
When Thales uses water as a transcendent principle, he is thinking of it as something different from the ordinary stuff that we drink and wash with.
归根究底，他用了『水』来扮演上帝的角色，用水来作宇宙万物的终极解释。
Essentially, he is using water to play the role of God, to serve as the ultimate explanation of everything.
但是《圣经》 称此为『偶像敬拜』。而偶像不能充当上帝。
But Scripture calls this idolatry. And idols cannot do the job of God.
认为宇宙中的万物：树木，行星，人类，理智，肺腑，音乐，鱼类真正是『水』，乍眼看来是荒谬的。
The notion that trees, planets, people, minds, lungs, music, fish are “really” water is ludicrous on its face.
因此只有两个可能：水成为一个超越的实在（事物），乃不能描述的；或者：水是一个临在（在世界中）的实在，不能扮演超越的角色（不能解释事物）。
So either water becomes a transcendent reality that cannot be described, or it is an immanent reality that cannot perform any transcendent function.
[7.3] 例三。 共相是真实的吗？抑或，只有殊相是真实的？ 唯实主义，唯名主义
EXAMPLE 3. ARE UNIVERSALS REAL, OR ONLY PARTICULARS? REALISM, NOMINALISM
共相是真实的吗？抑或，只有殊相是真实的？
Are universals real, or only particulars?
让我们用苹果作为例子。
Let us consider apples as an example.
每一只苹果都和其他的不同。
Every apple is different from every other.
但是，所有的苹果在某些层面上是相似的。
But all apples are alike in some respects.
柠檬，梨子，男人，女人，政治理论，科学定律，文学思潮，道德美德，原子分子，星球系…所有事物都是如此。
Same for lemons and pears, men and women, political theories, scientific laws, literary movements, moral virtues, sub-atomic particles, galaxies … same for all objects.
所有类型的事物都有相同之处 (sameness) 和不同之处(differences)；我在本书各处都指出，这就是『共相和殊相』(universals and particulars) 的问题。
All classes of objects exhibit sameness and differences, and that, as we have noted throughout this book, generates the “problem of universals and particulars.”
柏拉图认为：事物之间的相同之处(sameness) 必然处于某某地方：在『形式世界』 (the world of Forms)。
Plato thought that the sameness among things had to be located in a special place, the world of Forms.
亚里斯多特则认为这些相同之处 (sameness) 是这个世界里事物的一些层面 (aspects of things)。
Aristotle thought that these sameness were aspects of things here on earth.
但是，事物的相同之处和不同之处，形式与物质，一直来都是（哲学）难题。
But the relation between sameness and difference, form and matter, has always been problematic.
柏拉图和亚里斯多特被称为唯实论者 (realists)，他们认为苹果的本性 (nature)，它的本质 (essence)，就是它与其他苹果相同之处 (sameness)。
Both Plato and Aristotle, known as “realists,” thought that the real nature of an apple, its essence, is its sameness to other apples.
至于不同之处，它们是『偶发』的(accidental) 。
The differences were “accidental.”
诚然，认真说来，这些不同之处并不存在。
Indeed, in one sense, the differences don’t really exist.
[ 注脚四十一。柏拉图和亚里斯多特都认为，事物不同之处，在『物质』那里。（傅兰姆的批判）但是他们给『物质』的定义是：『没有形式者』 (that which lacks form)；但是，若没有形式，就没有存有，没有实在(no being, no reality)。]
[Footnote 41. Both Plato and Aristotle located differences in “matter.” (Frame’s critique) But they defined matter as that which lacks form, and without form there is no being, no reality.]
同理，黑格尔认为相同之处是最基本的 (the essential thing)，而『辩证』 (the dialectic)至终会抹杀所有不同之处，揭露它们为『仅仅表面上（的不同）』。
Hegel, too, thought that sameness was the essential thing, and that the dialectic, in the end, would wipe out all differences, exposing them as merely apparent.
（批判）但是，那些仅仅是表面上的，是不能接受理性分析的。
And what is merely apparent is incapable of rational analysis.
其他在『唯名论』传统里的哲学家们，认为相同之处只是言说的缩写而已。
Others, philosophers in the nominalist tradition, say that the sameness of things are merely a verbal shorthand.
透过苹果的相同之处（他们都是苹果）来讲论『一篮子苹果』比较容易；指出苹果之间不同之处比较困难，例如：这只苹果有一个突点，从干子数两寸。
It is easier to talk about a bushel of apples by referring only to their sameness (they are “apples”) than by describing all the differences among them: this one has a bump two inches from the stem, for instance.
（批判）但事实上这些不同之处，乃是每一个事物（每一只苹果）的『本质』(makes it what it is)。
But in reality the differences make everything what it is.
了解一只苹果，就是了解每一个突点之处，每一个瘀到之处的构造。
To understand a particular apple is to understand the location of every bump and the composition of every bruise.
对唯名论者来说，实在（现实世界）是个别的，具体的；不是普遍的，抽象的。
To the nominalist, reality is particular and concrete not general and abstract.
因此，真正存在的，乃是那些不同之处。
So it is the differences that really exist.
那些相同之处，只不过是观念，是『说说的』 罢了(only verbal)。
The sameness are only conceptual and verbal.
我在上文诠释的《圣经》哲学，避免了唯实主义和唯名主义。
The biblical philosophy I outlined evades both realism and nominalism.
根据《圣经》的世界观，上帝同时是『一』也是『众』。
In that worldview, God is equally one and many.
上帝永远不变，一上帝，但祂的三位格之间却有不同之处。
He is always the same, one God, but among his three persons there are real differences.
在祂里面，若没有不同，则没有相同；若没有相同，则没有不同。
In him there is no sameness without difference and no difference without sameness.
同样地，祂造一个一而众的世界。
Similarly, he has made the world to be one and many.
世界的实在（实况）展示相同之处和不同之处。
Reality in the world exhibits sameness and difference.
世界是一个世界，但有很多真正不同的层面和事物。
It is one world, with many genuinely different aspects and objects.
我们若只寻找世界万物如何相同，摒弃所有不同之处（例如：黑格尔所作的），我们对世界的理解不会有进步。
We cannot advance our understanding of the world by seeking, as Hegel did, how it is all the same, discarding the differences.
因为，世界中的一般性实在（相同点 ，共相）— 苹果，树木，男人，女人，太阳系，万有引力定律，美德— 之所以如此，是因着那些殊相 (particulars)；是殊相构成共相 (particulars constitute universals)。
For the general realities – apple, tree, man, woman solar system, law of gravitation, virtue – are what they are because of the particulars that constitute them.
而若要辨认个别的殊相，必须用一般性概念（共相）。
And we can identify the particulars only with the use of general concepts.
若要辨认某一只苹果里，从干数起两寸那里的凸点，必须想到一些一般性概念（共相）：苹果，干，凸点。
To identify the bump two inches from the stem of the apple requires us to think of the general concepts apple, stem, and bump.
殊相是由一组共相组成；共相是由一组殊相组成。
Particulars are collections of generalities, and generalities are collections of things.
共相为殊相作定义；殊相为共相作定义。
Universals and particulars define one another.
因此，我们若要理解宇宙，不可把它约化为一般性概念（共相），如柏拉图，亚里斯多特，黑格尔所作的的；也不可把宇宙分割为终极的殊相，如德谟克里特，伊比鸠鲁，罗瑟林，奥卡姆，和早期维根斯坦所作的。
So we cannot accurately understand the universe by reducing it to generalities (as Plato, Aristotle, Hegel), or by dividing it into ultimate particulars (Democritus, Epicurus, Roscellinus, Occam, the early Wittgenstein).
共相和殊相，两者互为视角（are perspectivally related）。
Universals and particulars are perspectivally related.
我认为，这事实破解了人类追求彻底知识（透知）的美梦。
I believe this fact destroys any human dreams of achieving exhaustive knowledge.
宇宙中并没有一个终极的共相，也没有一个终极的殊相，能解释宇宙万物。
There is no ultimate universal or ultimate particular that explains everything.
彻底的知识（透知）是上帝独有的权利。
Exhaustive knowledge is the prerogative of God alone.
[8] 结论 CONCLUSION
关于我所提到的其他议题也是如此，例如：变与不变，宇宙有否目标，成因，精神，知情意，和上帝。
Similar things can be said in response to the other questions I referred to earlier, about change, teleology, cause, mind, mental faculties, and God.
我们在本书中综览哲学史时，都会讨论这些问题。
I will take them up in the course of our historical discussions.
总的来说，哲学的这些问题反映出两个世界观的势不两立对立：非基督教的哲学家在寻找真神的取代品，因此哲学是一门从事偶像敬拜的学问 (an exercise in idolatry)。
In general, the questions themselves reflect the antithesis: non-Christian philosophers are seeking alternatives to God, making the discipline of philosophy an exercise in idolatry.
而基督徒，当他们与自己的信仰一致时，会根据《圣经》的世界观讨论下列问题：
Christians, when they are consistent with their faith, seek answers to these questions within the
biblical worldview:
[8.1] 一而众 ONE AND MANY
世界是一而众，反映三一真神。
The world is both one and many, reflecting the Trinity.
若没有众，就没有一；若没有一，就没有众。
There is no unity without plurality, and no plurality without unity.
[8.2] 宇宙万物不可约化为一个『一』 UNIVERSE CAN’T BE REDUCED TO SOME KIND OF “ONE”
宇宙不可被约化为一个（一种）物体。
The universe cannot be reduced to any single type of object.
[ 注脚底四十二。这包括科学所研究的物体，例如：夸克，玻色子，超弦。 ]
[ Footnote 42. That includes those objects of scientific discussion, such as quarks, bosons, and superstrings. ]
例如：人体包含化学液体，骨，脑物质，神经，指甲，发毛，等等，但不可把整个身体约化为其中一项。
The human body, for example, contains chemical fluids, bones, brain matter, nerves, nails, hair, and so forth, but it cannot be reduced to any of these.
同理，人类的思想也不可被约化为精神的其中一个功能：理智，或意志。
Nor can human thought be reduced to some faculty of the mind such as reason or will.
思考，是整个人的动作。
Thinking is an act of the whole person.
而人，本质上是上帝的形象。
Man is essentially the image of God.
不可以说，人『只是』什么什么（其他）事物。
It cannot be said that he is “only” something else.
整个被造宇宙，也是如此。
Similarly for the creation as a whole.
本质上，它是上帝的被造物。
It is essentially God’s creature.
ccnci.org中华展望圣约学院 [email protected]（PayPal）