are the result of a sort of miracle that took place 250 years ago.

這是250年前所發生都奇蹟，所產生的結果。

That miracle is called the Enlightenment, a moment in history when philosophers suddenly

這個奇蹟被稱為「啟蒙運動」，這是一個歷史中的時刻，當哲學

overthrew religious dogma and tradition and replaced it with human reason.

推翻了宗教教義和傳統，並且用人類的理性作為替代。

Harvard professor Steven Pinker puts it this way: “Progress is a gift of the ideals of

哈佛大學教授史提反平克這樣解釋：「前進（progress）是啟蒙運動所賜的觀念」。

the Enlightenment.”

這種說法，唯一的問題就是

There's just one problem with this claim.

：這並非是真的。

It isn't really true.

以美國憲法來說，它常常被說為是啟蒙運動思想的產物。

Consider the U.S. Constitution, which is frequently said to be a product of Enlightenment thought.

但是，你只要去讀英國的「普通法」——就是亞力山大翰彌頓和詹姆士麥迪舜曾經做的事，你就知道事情並非如此。

But you only need to read about English common law—which Alexander Hamilton and James Madison

早在15世紀的時候，英國法學家約翰福特斯就曾詳細說明了「支票和結餘」的觀念、

certainly did—to see that this isn't so.

合法訴訟程序、和在取得個人自由和經濟成功中，

Already in the 15th-century, the English jurist John Fortescue elaborated the theory of “checks

個人財產所扮演的角色。

and balances,” due process, and the role of private property in securing individual

同樣地，美國人權法案的根源出自於1600年代的英國普通法。

freedom and economic prosperity.

現代科學和醫學也是如此。

Similarly, the U.S. Bill of Rights has its sources in English common law of the 1600s.

比啓蒙運動更早之前，受傳統束縛的英國國王們，就已經贊助了突破性的科學組織，

Or consider modern science and medicine.

如同：皇家物理學院，在1518年成立，以及

Long before the Enlightenment, tradition-bound English kings sponsored path-breaking scientific

在1660年成立的倫敦協會

institutions such as the Royal College of Physicians, founded in 1518, and the Royal

事實是，政治家和哲學家，特別是在英國和荷蘭，

Society of London, founded in 1660.

在美國被成立的幾世紀之前，就已經清楚地制定了自由政府的諸原則。

The truth is that statesmen and philosophers, especially in England and the Netherlands,

既然如此，為什麼要完全歸功於啓蒙運動呢？

articulated the principles of free government centuries before America was founded.

顯然的，這是因為要承認，現代文明最好的和最重要的部分，

So why give the Enlightenment all the credit?

幾乎都是從那些持守保守宗教信仰和政治理念的人而來的

Apparently because it doesn't look good to admit that the best and most important

宣稱所有好東西都是從啓蒙運動而來的這種想法

parts of modernity were given to us by individuals who nearly all held conservative religious

，與18世紀德國哲學家康德有關

and political beliefs.

對康德來說，「理性」是普世性的、無誤的，和獨立於經驗之外的。

The claim that all good things come from the Enlightenment is most closely associated with

他那特異的哲學教義堅持認為，科學、道德和政治的每一個問題，

the late-18th-century German philosopher, Immanuel Kant.

其正確的答案只能有一個

For Kant, reason is universal, infallible, and independent of experience.

要達到那一個正確的答案，人類必須從過去的鏈索綑綁下釋放出來——

His extraordinarily dogmatic philosophy insisted that there can be only one correct answer

就是從歷史、傳統和經歷中被釋放出來

to every question in science, morality and politics.

但是，啟蒙運動的觀點，不僅是錯誤的，而且是危險的。

And that to reach the one correct answer, mankind had to free itself from the chains

當人類的理性，被歷史、傳統、和經歷的約束下被鬆綁後

of the past—that is, from history, tradition and experience.

就會產生許多瘋狂的想法。

But this Enlightenment view is not only wrong, it's dangerous.

啓蒙運動哲學家盧梭是一個很好的例子。

Human reason, when cut loose from the constraints imposed by history, tradition and experience,

他快速地推翻來法國政府，導致法國大革命，就是恐怖統治

produces a lot of crazy notions.

和拿破崙戰爭

The abstract Enlightenment philosophy of Jean Jacques Rousseau is a good example.

當拿破崙的軍隊試圖在歐洲，按照啓蒙運動哲學所倡導的唯一正確的政治理論，

It quickly pulled down the French state, leading to the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror,

重新建立各個政府的時候，有上數百萬的人死亡。

and the Napoleonic Wars.

今天，啓蒙運動的啦啦隊卻企圖忽略這個故事。

Millions died as Napoleon's armies sought to rebuild every government in Europe in light

他們也略過了一個事實：共產主義之父，馬克斯，也把自己看為

of the one correct political theory he believed was permitted by Enlightenment philosophy.

是在提倡一個普世性的理想

Today's cheerleaders for the Enlightenment tend to skip this part of the story.

他的新經濟「科學」結果在20世紀

They also pass over the fact that the father of communism, Karl Marx, saw himself as promoting

造成了上億的人的死亡。

universal reason as well.

納粹主義的科學競爭理論也是如此。

His new “science” of economics ended up killing tens of millions of people in the

現代文明最大的災難，就是受到那些宣稱運用自己的理性的人所造成的。

20th century.

相反的，我們大多數的進步，都是從那些

So did the supposedly scientific race theories of the Nazis.

公開懷疑人類理性的保守傳統而來的

The greatest catastrophes of modernity were engineered by individuals who claimed to be

批判啟蒙運動的人包括：

exercising reason.

約翰瑟爾頓，大衛休模，亞當史密斯，和埃德曼布克，強調「抽象的理性」是不可靠的

In contrast, most of the progress we've made comes from conservative traditions openly

並且，極力主張我們要緊隨傳統，歷史，和所有事情的經歷。

skeptical of human reason.

這些都把我們帶到今天對啟蒙運動偶像化的核心錯誤上。

The Enlightenment's critics, including John Selden, David

那些帶頭領導人物，沒有持懷疑的態度，開放讓歷史和經驗來教導我們

Hume, Adam Smith, and Edmund Burke, emphasized the unreliability of “abstract reasoning”

他們的目的，是要創造他們自己的系統，認為是無誤的真理，與經驗是獨立的。

and urged us to stick close to custom, history, and experience in all things.

在這樣的追求下，他們正如最固執的中世紀思想一樣。

Which brings us to the heart of what's wrong with today's idolization of the Enlightenment.

英-蘇的保守主義人士卻持守著一種非常不同的目標。

Its leading figures were not skeptics open to what history and experience might teach us.

他們維護國家和宗教的傳統的同時，他們也

Their aim was to create their own system of supposedly infallible truths independent of

培養出一種所謂的「適度的懷疑」，就是一種被稱為「普通常識」的組合。

experience.

這些日子中，當我看到美國和歐洲菁英們喧嚷「現在就是啟蒙運動」的時候，

And in that pursuit, they were as rigid as the most dogmatic medievals.

我就常想到普通常識這件事。

Anglo-Scottish conservatives had a very different goal.

他們急著要擁抱各種流行的「主義」—社會主義、女性主義、環保主義

They defended national and religious tradition, even as they cultivated what they called a

等等，他們宣稱這些是具有普世確定性的，並且是「政治上正確的」想法。

“moderate skepticism”—a combination that became known as “common sense.”

他們對那些不抱持和他們一樣教義的人，表現反對，把他們貼上「沒有啟蒙的人」

I think a lot about common sense these days, as I see American and European elites clamoring

「不自由的人」、「可悲的人」和更糟糕的標籤。

for “Enlightenment Now.”

但是，這些新的教義值得受到那些古老的，英-蘇懷疑論的迎接。

They rush to embrace every fashionable new “ism”—socialism, feminism, environmentalism,

啟蒙運動對理性過份的自信，已經太多次帶領我們走偏了路。

and so on—declaring them to be universal certainties and the only “politically correct”

我是 尤藍哈宗尼，The Virtue of Nationalism 一書的作者, Prager University.

way of thinking.

They display contempt towards those who won't embrace their dogmas, branding them “unenlightened,”

“illiberal,” “deplorable,” and worse.

But these new dogmas deserve to be greeted with some of that old Anglo-Scottish skepticism.

Enlightenment overconfidence in reason has led us badly astray too many times.

I'm Yoram Hazony, author of The Virtue of Nationalism, for Prager University.