→ s20953:我觉得在战场上保存性命是无关性别的 因此用性别来看兵事存 08/14 01:41 → s20953:废 过於偏颇 08/14 01:41 ... since biography shows that differences of opinion are many, it is plain that there must be some one reason which prevails in order to bring about this overpowering unanimity. Shall we call it, for the sake of brevity, "patriotism"? What then, we must ask next, is this "patriotism" which leads you to go to war? Let the Lord Chief Justice of England interpret it for us: Englishmen are proud of England. For those who have been trained in English schools and universities, and who have done the work of their lives in England, there are few loves stronger than the love we have for our country. When we consider other nations, when we judge the merits of the policy of this country or of that, it is the standard of our own country that we apply... Liberty has made her abode in England. England is the home of democratic institutions... It is true that in our midst there are many enemies of liberty—some of them, perhaps, in rather unexpected quarters. But we are standing firm. It has been said that an Englishman's Home is his Castle. The home of Liberty is in England. And it is a castle indeed—a castle that will be defended to the last... Yes, we are greatly blessed, we Englishmen. That is a fair general statement of what patriotism means to an educated man and what duties it imposes upon him. But the educated man's sister—what does "patriotism" mean to her? Has she the same reasons for being proud of England, for loving England, for defending England? Has she been "greatly blessed" in England? History and biography when questioned would seem to show that her position in the home of freedom has been different from her brother's; and psychology would seem to hint that history is not without its effect upon mind and body. Therefore her interpretation of the word "patriotism" may well differ from his. And that difference may make it extremely difficult for her to understand his definition of patriotism and the duties it imposes. Cited from Virginia Woolf, "Three Guineas," Part I. 吴尔芙在上述段落中讨论「爱国情操」，一种透过军队国防来进行卫国的 战争行动背後的理念或态度，到底是什麽？以及到底从何而来？ 并且引述了一段英国首席大法官对「爱国情操」的解释。解释了英国的人 民为了英国这个国家对他们的栽培和照顾，应该对自己的母国自然而然地 生产出一种伟大的爱，而这种对母国的爱，将引领民众对抗外侮、保卫英 国这个民主的堡垒…… 吴尔芙在这段文字里看见了性别的差异，因为如果对祖国的爱，以及不惜 以战争来保卫国家的「爱国情操」，是自然而然地由祖国对他们的栽培与 照顾之中生出来的，显然英国的女人们不会像她们的兄弟般「爱国」，因 为英国并未如照顾其辖下的男人们般照顾女人们。 你或许会质疑这是一个「历史的事实」，而如今已不复存在，或者宣称在 台湾，国家对女人的照顾与对男人的照顾一样好（甚至更好）。如果有任 何人这样认为，我不会想要浪费时间与力气争辩这个题目。 但不能否认的事实是，至少就「在战场上保存性命无关性别，因此用性别 来看兵事的存废是偏颇的」这个全称命题而言，吴尔芙这段历史的描述却 是一个大大的反例了。 在战场上保存性命当然关乎性别，如果女人不像男人一样有充份地理由为 了这个国家做战，那麽她们自然没有理由拿自己的性命在战场上当成两个 国家之间的筹码来交锋。 当然，吴尔芙提出这个事实并不是打算主张女人不用当兵，这种愚蠢的看 法不用这个板上的任何人提醒，吴尔芙自己都能够明白。 她想要表达的是一种女性反战的性别观点，是针对她兄长写信问她要如何 止战的意见，她回信（约六万字）中的一小段罢了。 而我提出这一段来供人参考，也不是打算说明军事问题（或徵兵问题）必 然和性别有关，只打算主张，「性别观点确实在某些情况下，被拿来考虑 军事问题并不显得偏颇」。 所以如果有人想要质疑，吴尔芙的描述不适用於台湾，我也不会打算与之 争辩。因为适用性不是只有「一一符应」才能适用，往往依赖於个人的抽 象能力，才能看出两个不同的时空环境，如何能够在同一个观点之下考虑 其不同的处境。 处境不同，不表示观点就「必须」改变。如果不同意这一点的话，我当然 也不会与之争辩。　:) （这麽说来，我还会争辩任何事吗？我也不知道。） --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 114.45.215.106 ※ 编辑: nominalism (124.9.192.232), 09/16/2015 00:10:07