黔驴技穷

柳宗元《三戒》之二: 黔之驴

• 三戒并序

吾恒恶世之人，不知推己之本，而乘物以逞，或依势以干非其类，出技以怒强，窃时以肆暴，然卒迨于祸。有客谈麋、驴、鼠三物，似其事，作《三戒》。

• 临江之麋

临江之人畋，得麋麑，畜之。入门，群犬垂涎，扬尾皆来。其人怒，怛之。自是日抱就犬，习示之，使勿动，稍使与之戏。积久，犬皆如人意。麋麑稍大，忘己之麋也，以为犬良我友，抵触偃仆，益狎。犬畏主人，与之俯仰甚善，然时啖其舌。

三年，麋出门，见外犬在道甚众，走欲与为戏。外犬见而喜且怒，共杀食之，狼藉道上，麋至死不悟。 　　

• 黔之驴

黔无驴，有好事者船载以入，至则无可用，放之山下。虎见之，庞然大物也，以为神。蔽林间窥之，稍出近之，慭慭然，莫相知。

他日，驴一鸣，虎大骇，远遁，以为且噬己也，甚恐。然往来视之，觉无异能者。益习其声，又近出前后，终不敢搏。稍近益狎，荡倚冲冒，驴不胜怒，蹄之。虎因喜，计之曰：“技止此耳！”因跳踉大 ，断其喉，尽其肉，乃去。

噫！形之庞也类有德，声之宏也类有能。向不出其技，虎虽猛，疑畏，卒不敢取；今若是焉，悲夫！

• 永某氏之鼠

永有某氏者，畏日，拘忌异甚。以为己生岁直子；鼠，子神也，因爱鼠，不畜猫犬，禁僮勿击鼠。仓廪庖厨，悉以恣鼠，不问。由是鼠相告，皆来某氏，饱食而无祸。某氏室无完器，椸无完衣，饮食大率鼠之馀也。昼累累与人兼行，夜则窃啮斗暴，其声万状，不可以寝，终不厌。

数岁，某氏徙居他州。后人来居，鼠为态如故。其人曰：“是阴类，恶物也，盗暴尤甚，且何以至是乎哉？”假五六猫，阖门，撤瓦灌穴，购僮罗捕之。杀鼠如丘，弃之隐处，臭数月乃已。

呜呼！彼以其饱食无祸为可恒也哉！

我常常痛恨世上这样一类人。他们没有自知之明，靠外表或外力逞强，要么仗着势头去招惹不该惹的对象，要么卖弄仅有的一点本事去激怒强者，要么借着机会肆意妄为，最后统统招来灾祸。有客人同我谈起麋、驴、鼠三种动物的结局，我觉得与那些人的情形差不多，于是就作了这篇《三戒》。

任飞侠: 《三戒》三篇恰好对应这三种典型情形，逻辑完全对称：《临江之麋》里的小鹿仗着主人宠爱去挑衅群狗，对应“依势以干非其类”；《永某氏之鼠》里的老鼠借着主人迷信肆意破坏，对应“窃时以肆暴”；《黔之驴》里的驴没半点真本事，却胡乱逞能、惹怒强者，正是“出技以怒强”。

任飞侠: 柳宗元明明是讽刺：外表庞大好像有德，声音洪亮好像有能耐，实际上全是空壳。不暴露自己的底细，老虎再猛也不敢轻易吃你；自己逞能暴露底细，才落得这下场，实在可悲。如果这也算赞美，全文找不到一句对驴的正面描述。这句“悲夫”，是对虚张声势、自取灭亡者的清醒的批评。

Kant

• a priori and a posteriori

Kant uses them to mean the “before” and the “after” refer to experience. An a priori concept or content is neither derived from experience nor dependent on it; in this sense it is “before” experience or precedes it. On the other hand an a posteriori concept or content is possible only on the basis of some sensible experience (inner or outer) and is derived from it.

• transcendental and transcendent

Not only does a (valid) transcendental element not depend on experience, but experience itself depends on it and is made possible by it. As we are to see later, such are the pure categories of the understanding, which make the world of experience possible. Every transcendental element is also a priori, but not vice versa: our understanding and discourse contain many a priori elements that are not transcendental, because the possibility of experience does not depend on them; for example, all the judgments Kant calls analytic.

A transcendental element (a concept, a principle) has the following features: (a) it is not derived from experience; (b) the possibility of experience depends on it; (c) it has no meaning and no valid use except in application to the world of experience. Such elements are the foundations of Kant’s critical metaphysics and the pillars of the objective world as he conceives it. ”

On the other hand, a transcendent element shares only in the first feature. It is not derived from experience, and is also inapplicable to experience. Hence it is not restrained and controlled by sensation and observation, but breaks the boundaries of the empirical world altogether, which renders it empty and invalid. This is the domain of illusory metaphysics that serves as principal target of the Critique’s negative function.

• analytic and synthetic judgements

A judgment is a unit of discourse that combines a subject and a predicate.2 When the concept of the predicate is contained (implied) in the concept of the subject, and can be derived from it by mere logical analysis without additional information, the judgment is analytic. For example, “the building occupies a place in space” or “my uncle is a relative of mine.” In such judgments we need not go beyond the information contained in the subject; we merely explicate what it implies. Basically an analytic judgment is tautological, because its predicate only repeats what is implicitly said in the subject and makes it explicit. But sometimes the implication is so veiled and indirect, that one needs a rather complex analysis to bring it to light. Therefore analytic judgments have often a significant role in the process of knowledge, although they do not expand it.

An analytic judgment is always a priori and necessary, since its truth derives from its very meaning. Its test, says Kant, is the law of noncontradiction; that is, when negating the judgment generates a self-contradiction, the judgment is analytic. (The sentence “my uncle is not my relative” actually says, “my relative is “not my relative,” and the sentence “the building does not occupy a place in space” actually says, “a thing that occupies a place in space does not occupy a place in space.”)

On the other hand, in a synthetic judgment the concept of the predicate goes beyond the concept of the subject and adds more information to it. For example, “the building occupies a place on Broadway” or “my uncle is a relative of the mayor.” The additional information differs from everything contained in the subject and no analysis or dismantling can lead to it. Therefore the negation of a synthetic judgment will not generate a contradiction, although it can be false. In other words, a synthetic judgment can be either true or false, but its falsity will be due to its failure to correspond to the state of affairs to which it points, and not self-contradiction.

Typical examples of synthetic judgments that extend knowledge are those drawn from experience. Such judgments are a posteriori by definition, and the connection they set between subject and predicate lacks necessity, whereas analytic propositions are a priori, and the connection they establish between subject and predicate is a necessary one.

文革

• 宋永毅

links

• 品葱