列奥·施特劳斯与美国右派

出版时间：2006年7月  出版社：华东师范大学出版社  作者：[加]德鲁里  页数：241  字数：234000  译者：刘华等  
Tag标签：无  

内容概要

列奥·施特劳斯（Leo Strauss）是一位神秘的政治哲学家。在里根、老布什执政时期，美国许多政府机构的重要职位都被施特劳斯的弟子们占据。到了小布什当政时期，特别是在“9·11”之后，探究强硬派政客与施特劳斯派之间的关系，成为公共传媒讨论的热门话题。本书的作者站在自由主义的立场上，对施特劳斯的政治哲学作出了激烈的批评，并指出，如果以这种理论来引导现实政治，那将会导致严重的后果，可能危及自由民主政体的根本基础。作者的许多观点对于知识界的自由派和自由左派具有相当强的感召力，本书也就成为论战中经常被征引的重要参考。

书籍目录

《列奥·施特劳斯与美国右派》的背景与作者（代中译本序）第一章　华盛顿的施特劳斯派　魏玛的幽灵　自由主义如何破坏了宗教，带来了虚无主义　自由主义、虚无主义与纳粹　施特劳斯派的政治设想　精英主义还是民粹主义　与基督教右派的联盟　美国的自由主义与保守主义第二章　施特劳斯的犹太遗产　犹太问题的界定　反现代的犹太特性　同化之不可能　被举荐的犹太民族主义　抛弃的莱辛的智慧　对迈蒙尼德的再阐释　施特劳斯的批判第三章　施特劳斯的德国渊源：海德格尔和施米特　尼采、海德格尔和纳粹　为什么施特劳斯对海德格尔的批判是可疑的　施特劳斯的假冒权威：柏拉图和尼采　谎言与政治　卡尔‘施米特对自由民主制的谴责　施米特对政治的颂扬　施特劳斯对施米特的激进化第四章　施特劳斯主义哲学在美国的应用　哈里‘雅法：美国的古代血统　平等与《独立宣言》　美国的保守主义背叛　原初意图　对雅法的批评　艾伦.布鲁姆：美国不可救药的现代性　美国的自由主义　教育　平权法案　爱、性与女权主义　威尔默.肯德尔：民粹主义疗法第五章　新保守主义：施特劳斯的遗产　新保守主义“新”在何处　对资产阶级精神的颂扬　二元思考：正统主义及其敌人　美国的分崩离析　民族主义还是爱国主义　知识分子的叛逆　民众主义的策略　新保守主义保守在何处　两个世界中最糟的一个　家庭的价值：对妇女不宣而战　新保守主义在政治上的成功附录　部分译名对照

用户评论 (总计17条)

•   列奥.施特劳斯，当代美国保守主义政治哲学的缔造者，生前神秘而沉寂，死后却声誉日隆。其学说不仅在学术界吸引了人们的兴趣，而且更重要的是在实践中直接指导了美国政治上的保守主义，尤其是小布什的内外政策。施特劳斯本人的著述晦涩难懂，而加拿大学者的这本介绍和评论施特劳斯政治哲学的著作，通俗易懂，并且侧重分析了施特劳斯学派对美国保守主义政治思潮的影响。喜欢政治哲学和理论，以及研究美国文化的人，都应该一读。当然，即使是纯粹消遣，读读也无妨。
•   　　《施特劳斯与美国右派》这部论战小册子，甚至比布鲁姆《美国心灵的封闭》更加通俗地阐释了施特劳斯的古典政治哲学及其所属于的美国保守主义阵营，虽然篇名以施特劳斯为名，但实际上却主要是对于以施特劳斯为首的美国保守主义阵营进行的总批判，从而展现出美国自由主义派与保守主义之间的矛盾与冲突。
  　　全书分为五章，第一章揭露了施特劳斯为首的保守主义阵营如何控制了美国政治，以及如何对于美国政治施加影响，并指出美国这种保守主义是如何使国家转向极权和独裁。这种揭露很令我吃惊，毕竟当年刘军宁在《保守主义》一书中，将保守主义塑造成为自由至上主义，或者说保守主义本质上就是自由主义，为何德鲁里会认为保守主义造成了美国政治的极权？在甘阳那本小册子中，已经对于美国保守主义的转型进行了大体的分析，而德鲁里的揭露也进一步印证了这一点。不过，我还是会产生一种疑问，自由主义与保守主义之间的差异究竟在哪里呢？
  　　在第二章，德鲁里以浅显易懂的方式，对施特劳斯的哲学进行了诠释，虽然后来被曼斯菲尔德认为过于肤浅了，但我们也不能否认是一种自由主义视角下的解读。在这一章中，德鲁里紧紧抓住了施特劳斯是犹太人这一事实，通过对于施特劳斯关于犹太人与现代性、世俗化的冲突与矛盾，揭示出施特劳斯古典政治哲学是以犹太人命运为起点，民族、传统和神秘主义为特征的宗教保守主义，因而反对世界性、现代性和理性为特征的现代主义。并通过，解读施特劳斯的莱辛与迈蒙尼德的研究，认为施特劳斯以犹太人的视角扭曲了莱辛著作的本意，而以自己之心揣度迈蒙尼德，从而成功地以自己的视角替代了迈蒙尼德的原意。
  　　在第三章中，德鲁里进一步挖掘了施特劳斯的思想渊源，指出除了犹太教传统外，施特劳斯还受到了同时代的存在主义大师海德格尔与纳粹法学家施米特的影响。并针对海德格尔对现代性的批判，并认为海德格尔的存在主义与纳粹有着深刻的联系。而施特劳斯正是接受了海德格尔对于现代性的批判，从而在内心中也接受了所谓的纳粹主义洗礼。而另一位纳粹法学家施米特更是德鲁里攻击的对象。作为曾经在纳粹政权服务过的法学家施米特，以其尖刻地对自由主义抨击而著名。德鲁里认为，他这一批判深刻影响到了施特劳斯，使得施特劳斯的古典政治哲学充满了决断论的味道在其中。经德鲁里这么一揭发，真觉得施特劳斯散发着一股纳粹的味道，但是我们必须与前一章相联系，发现施特劳斯毕竟是犹太人，他怎么也不会是同情纳粹的，而且据其《剖白》中自云，认为纳粹是虚无主义的政治灾难，为何德鲁里要将纳粹与施特劳斯联系在一起呢？难道施特劳斯作为犹太人对于纳粹德国的仇恨，还抵不上自由主义对于极权主义的憎恶吗？
  　　在随后的两章中，德鲁里着重批判了施特劳斯的门内学生及其同路人。在第四章中，德鲁里分别批判了雅法、布鲁姆和肯德尔，在最后一章中重点批判了美国保守主义代表克里斯托。分别就雅法的美国史研究、布鲁姆的《走向封闭的美国精神》等问题展开逐一批判。不过说回来，德鲁里以自由主义为立场，对保守主义进行炮火猛烈的攻击，其实不免也陷入一种尴尬的境地，如果自由主义允许自由表达的话，为什么保守主义不能有自己的声音呢？而如果说，保守主义对于美国政治影响深远的话，那自由主义对于美国经济的影响可以说是无孔不入了。这一切又都从何谈起呢？
  　　通过阅读这个这部书，其实还是很有收获，至少我们可以分清楚自由主义与保守主义之间究竟有哪些不同，而不是被刘军宁忽悠着认为保守主义就是自由主义，另外德鲁里一直在说施特劳斯反对自由主义，而不反对民主制，这个论断我在阅读施特劳斯的著作中其实很难看到影子，反而是是施特劳斯申明自己支持古典自由主义，而反对现代自由主义（见施氏《古今自由主义》）。最后，还要说一点，由于德鲁里是一位女性作者，因此其又在书中特别强调了女性主义的立场，这不禁让我哑然失笑，其实施特劳斯关于女性的论述并不多，而对此问题有所涉及的布鲁姆也不过是谴责了学校中日渐败坏的风气，却不料被德鲁里敏感的政治正确抓到了，并大肆进行攻击——其实，曼斯菲尔德倒是有一本《男子气概》，专门谈论这一主题，却不知道为何德鲁里却只字未提。
  　　阅读此书，是为了更好地学习古典政治哲学——从自由主义者的眼里，施特劳斯的古典哲学究竟是怎样的形象，也有助于我们从反面把握古典政治哲学的一些命题。
•   　　Noble lies and perpetual war: Leo Strauss, the neo-cons, and Iraq
  　　Are the ideas of the conservative political philosopher Leo Strauss a shaping influence on the Bush administration’s world outlook? Danny Postel interviews Shadia Drury – a leading scholarly critic of Strauss – and asks her about the connection between Plato’s dialogues, secrets and lies, and the United States-led war in Iraq.
  　　
  　　By Danny Postel
  　　
  　　10/18/03: (openDemocracy) What was initially an anti-war argument is now a matter of public record. It is widely recognised that the Bush administration was not honest about the reasons it gave for invading Iraq.
  　　Paul Wolfowitz, the influential United States deputy secretary of defense, has acknowledged that the evidence used to justify the war was “murky” and now says that weapons of mass destruction weren’t the crucial issue anyway (see the book by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Weapons of Mass Deception: the uses of propaganda in Bush’s war on Iraq (2003.)
  　　
  　　By contrast, Shadia Drury, professor of political theory at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, argues that the use of deception and manipulation in current US policy flow directly from the doctrines of the political philosopher Leo Strauss (1899-1973). His disciples include Paul Wolfowitz and other neo-conservatives who have driven much of the political agenda of the Bush administration.
  　　
  　　If Shadia Drury is right, then American policy-makers exercise deception with greater coherence than their British allies in Tony Blair’s 10 Downing Street. In the UK, a public inquiry is currently underway into the death of the biological weapons expert David Kelly. A central theme is also whether the government deceived the public, as a BBC reporter suggested.
  　　
  　　The inquiry has documented at least some of the ways the prime minister’s entourage ‘sexed up’ the presentation of intelligence on the Iraqi threat. But few doubt that in terms of their philosophy, if they have one, members of Blair’s staff believe they must be trusted as honest. Any apparent deceptions they may be involved in are for them matters of presentation or ‘spin’: attempts to project an honest gloss when surrounded by a dishonest media.
  　　
  　　The deep influence of Leo Strauss’s ideas on the current architects of US foreign policy has been referred to, if sporadically, in the press (hence an insider witticism about the influence of “Leo-cons”). Christopher Hitchens, an ardent advocate of the war, wrote unashamedly in November 2002 (in an article felicitously titled Machiavelli in Mesopotamia) that:
  　　
  　　“[p]art of the charm of the regime-change argument (from the point of view of its supporters) is that it depends on premises and objectives that cannot, at least by the administration, be publicly avowed. Since Paul Wolfowitz is from the intellectual school of Leo Strauss – and appears in fictional guise as such in Saul Bellow’s novel Ravelstein – one may even suppose that he enjoys this arcane and occluded aspect of the debate.”
  　　Perhaps no scholar has done as much to illuminate the Strauss phenomenon as Shadia Drury. For fifteen years she has been shining a heat lamp on the Straussians with such books as The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (1988) and Leo Strauss and the American Right (1997). She is also the author of Alexandre Kojève: the Roots of Postmodern Politics (1994) and Terror and Civilization (forthcoming).
  　　She argues that the central claims of Straussian thought wield a crucial influence on men of power in the contemporary United States. She elaborates her argument in this interview.
  　　
  　　A natural order of inequality
  　　
  　　Danny Postel: You’ve argued that there is an important connection between the teachings of Leo Strauss and the Bush administration’s selling of the Iraq war. What is that connection?
  　　
  　　Shadia Drury: Leo Strauss was a great believer in the efficacy and usefulness of lies in politics. Public support for the Iraq war rested on lies about Iraq posing an imminent threat to the United States – the business about weapons of mass destruction and a fictitious alliance between al-Qaida and the Iraqi regime. Now that the lies have been exposed, Paul Wolfowitz and others in the war party are denying that these were the real reasons for the war.
  　　
  　　So what were the real reasons? Reorganising the balance of power in the Middle East in favour of Israel? Expanding American hegemony in the Arab world? Possibly. But these reasons would not have been sufficient in themselves to mobilise American support for the war. And the Straussian cabal in the administration realised that.
  　　
  　　Danny Postel: The neo-conservative vision is commonly taken to be about spreading democracy and liberal values globally. And when Strauss is mentioned in the press, he is typically described as a great defender of liberal democracy against totalitarian tyranny. You’ve written, however, that Strauss had a “profound antipathy to both liberalism and democracy.”
  　　
  　　Shadia Drury: The idea that Strauss was a great defender of liberal democracy is laughable. I suppose that Strauss’s disciples consider it a noble lie. Yet many in the media have been gullible enough to believe it.
  　　
  　　How could an admirer of Plato and Nietzsche be a liberal democrat? The ancient philosophers whom Strauss most cherished believed that the unwashed masses were not fit for either truth or liberty, and that giving them these sublime treasures would be like throwing pearls before swine. In contrast to modern political thinkers, the ancients denied that there is any natural right to liberty. Human beings are born neither free nor equal. The natural human condition, they held, is not one of freedom, but of subordination – and in Strauss’s estimation they were right in thinking so.
  　　
  　　Praising the wisdom of the ancients and condemning the folly of the moderns was the whole point of Strauss’s most famous book, Natural Right and History. The cover of the book sports the American Declaration of Independence. But the book is a celebration of nature – not the natural rights of man (as the appearance of the book would lead one to believe) but the natural order of domination and subordination.
  　　
  　　The necessity of lies
  　　
  　　Danny Postel: What is the relevance of Strauss’s interpretation of Plato’s notion of the noble lie?
  　　
  　　Shadia Drury: Strauss rarely spoke in his own name. He wrote as a commentator on the classical texts of political theory. But he was an extremely opinionated and dualistic commentator. The fundamental distinction that pervades and informs all of his work is that between the ancients and the moderns. Strauss divided the history of political thought into two camps: the ancients (like Plato) are wise and wily, whereas the moderns (like Locke and other liberals) are vulgar and foolish. Now, it seems to me eminently fair and reasonable to attribute to Strauss the ideas he attributes to his beloved ancients.
  　　
  　　In Plato’s dialogues, everyone assumes that Socrates is Plato’s mouthpiece. But Strauss argues in his book The City and Man (pp. 74-5, 77, 83-4, 97, 100, 111) that Thrasymachus is Plato’s real mouthpiece (on this point, see also M.F. Burnyeat, “Sphinx without a Secret”, New York Review of Books, 30 May 1985 [paid-for only]). So, we must surmise that Strauss shares the insights of the wise Plato (alias Thrasymachus) that justice is merely the interest of the stronger; that those in power make the rules in their own interests and call it justice.
  　　
  　　Leo Strauss repeatedly defends the political realism of Thrasymachus and Machiavelli (see, for example, his Natural Right and History, p. 106). This view of the world is clearly manifest in the foreign policy of the current administration in the United States.
  　　
  　　A second fundamental belief of Strauss’s ancients has to do with their insistence on the need for secrecy and the necessity of lies. In his book Persecution and the Art of Writing, Strauss outlines why secrecy is necessary. He argues that the wise must conceal their views for two reasons – to spare the people’s feelings and to protect the elite from possible reprisals.
  　　
  　　The people will not be happy to learn that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior, the master over the slave, the husband over the wife, and the wise few over the vulgar many. In On Tyranny, Strauss refers to this natural right as the “tyrannical teaching” of his beloved ancients. It is tyrannical in the classic sense of rule above rule or in the absence of law (p. 70).
  　　
  　　Now, the ancients were determined to keep this tyrannical teaching secret because the people are not likely to tolerate the fact that they are intended for subordination; indeed, they may very well turn their resentment against the superior few. Lies are thus necessary to protect the superior few from the persecution of the vulgar many.
  　　
  　　The effect of Strauss’s teaching is to convince his acolytes that they are the natural ruling elite and the persecuted few. And it does not take much intelligence for them to surmise that they are in a situation of great danger, especially in a world devoted to the modern ideas of equal rights and freedoms. Now more than ever, the wise few must proceed cautiously and with circumspection. So, they come to the conclusion that they have a moral justification to lie in order to avoid persecution. Strauss goes so far as to say that dissembling and deception – in effect, a culture of lies – is the peculiar justice of the wise.
  　　
  　　Strauss justifies his position by an appeal to Plato’s concept of the noble lie. But in truth, Strauss has a very impoverished conception of Plato’s noble lie. Plato thought that the noble lie is a story whose details are fictitious; but at the heart of it is a profound truth.
  　　
  　　In the myth of metals, for example, some people have golden souls – meaning that they are more capable of resisting the temptations of power. And these morally trustworthy types are the ones who are most fit to rule. The details are fictitious, but the moral of the story is that not all human beings are morally equal.
  　　
  　　In contrast to this reading of Plato, Strauss thinks that the superiority of the ruling philosophers is an intellectual superiority and not a moral one (Natural Right and History, p. 151). For many commentators who (like Karl Popper) have read Plato as a totalitarian, the logical consequence is to doubt that philosophers can be trusted with political power. Those who read him this way invariably reject him. Strauss is the only interpreter who gives a sinister reading to Plato, and then celebrates him.
  　　
  　　The dialectic of fear and tyranny
  　　
  　　Danny Postel: In the Straussian scheme of things, there are the wise few and the vulgar many. But there is also a third group – the gentlemen. Would you explain how they figure?
  　　
  　　Shadia Drury: There are indeed three types of men: the wise, the gentlemen, and the vulgar. The wise are the lovers of the harsh, unadulterated truth. They are capable of looking into the abyss without fear and trembling. They recognise neither God nor moral imperatives. They are devoted above all else to their own pursuit of the “higher” pleasures, which amount to consorting with their “puppies” or young initiates.
  　　
  　　The second type, the gentlemen, are lovers of honour and glory. They are the most ingratiating towards the conventions of their society – that is, the illusions of the cave. They are true believers in God, honour, and moral imperatives. They are ready and willing to embark on acts of great courage and self-sacrifice at a moment’s notice.
  　　
  　　The third type, the vulgar many, are lovers of wealth and pleasure. They are selfish, slothful, and indolent. They can be inspired to rise above their brutish existence only by fear of impending death or catastrophe.
  　　
  　　Like Plato, Strauss believed that the supreme political ideal is the rule of the wise. But the rule of the wise is unattainable in the real world. Now, according to the conventional wisdom, Plato realised this, and settled for the rule of law. But Strauss did not endorse this solution entirely. Nor did he think that it was Plato’s real solution – Strauss pointed to the “nocturnal council” in Plato’s Laws to illustrate his point.
  　　
  　　The real Platonic solution as understood by Strauss is the covert rule of the wise (see Strauss’s – The Argument and the Action of Plato’s Laws). This covert rule is facilitated by the overwhelming stupidity of the gentlemen. The more gullible and unperceptive they are, the easier it is for the wise to control and manipulate them. Supposedly, Xenophon makes that clear to us.
  　　
  　　For Strauss, the rule of the wise is not about classic conservative values like order, stability, justice, or respect for authority. The rule of the wise is intended as an antidote to modernity. Modernity is the age in which the vulgar many have triumphed. It is the age in which they have come closest to having exactly what their hearts desire – wealth, pleasure, and endless entertainment. But in getting just what they desire, they have unwittingly been reduced to beasts.
  　　
  　　Nowhere is this state of affairs more advanced than in America. And the global reach of American culture threatens to trivialise life and turn it into entertainment. This was as terrifying a spectre for Strauss as it was for Alexandre Kojève and Carl Schmitt.
  　　
  　　This is made clear in Strauss’s exchange with Kojève (reprinted in Strauss’s On Tyranny), and in his commentary on Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political (reprinted in Heinrich Meier, Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue). Kojève lamented the animalisation of man and Schmitt worried about the trivialisation of life. All three of them were convinced that liberal economics would turn life into entertainment and destroy politics; all three understood politics as a conflict between mutually hostile groups willing to fight each other to the death. In short, they all thought that man’s humanity depended on his willingness to rush naked into battle and headlong to his death. Only perpetual war can overturn the modern project, with its emphasis on self-preservation and “creature comforts.” Life can be politicised once more, and man’s humanity can be restored.
  　　
  　　This terrifying vision fits perfectly well with the desire for honour and glory that the neo-conservative gentlemen covet. It also fits very well with the religious sensibilities of gentlemen. The combination of religion and nationalism is the elixir that Strauss advocates as the way to turn natural, relaxed, hedonistic men into devout nationalists willing to fight and die for their God and country.
  　　
  　　I never imagined when I wrote my first book on Strauss that the unscrupulous elite that he elevates would ever come so close to political power, nor that the ominous tyranny of the wise would ever come so close to being realised in the political life of a great nation like the United States. But fear is the greatest ally of tyranny.
  　　
  　　Danny Postel: You’ve described Strauss as a nihilist.
  　　
  　　Shadia Drury: Strauss is a nihilist in the sense that he believes that there is no rational foundation for morality. He is an atheist, and he believes that in the absence of God, morality has no grounding. It’s all about benefiting others and oneself; there is no objective reason for doing so, only rewards and punishments in this life.
  　　
  　　But Strauss is not a nihilist if we mean by the term a denial that there is any truth, a belief that everything is interpretation. He does not deny that there is an independent reality. On the contrary, he thinks that independent reality consists in nature and its “order of rank” – the high and the low, the superior and the inferior. Like Nietzsche, he believes that the history of western civilisation has led to the triumph of the inferior, the rabble – something they both lamented profoundly.
  　　
  　　Danny Postel: This connection is curious, since Strauss is bedevilled by Nietzsche; and one of Strauss’s most famous students, Allan Bloom, fulminates profusely in his book The Closing of the American Mind against the influence of Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger.
  　　
  　　Shadia Drury: Strauss’s criticism of the existentialists, especially Heidegger, is that they tried to elicit an ethic out of the abyss. This was the ethic of resoluteness – choose whatever you like and be loyal to it to the death; its content does not matter. But Strauss’s reaction to moral nihilism was different. Nihilistic philosophers, he believes, should reinvent the Judæo-Christian God, but live like pagan gods themselves – taking pleasure in the games they play with each other as well as the games they play on ordinary mortals.
  　　
  　　The question of nihilism is complicated, but there is no doubt that Strauss’s reading of Plato entails that the philosophers should return to the cave and manipulate the images (in the form of media, magazines, newspapers). They know full well that the line they espouse is mendacious, but they are convinced that theirs are noble lies.
  　　
  　　The intoxication of perpetual war
  　　
  　　Danny Postel: You characterise the outlook of the Bush administration as a kind of realism, in the spirit of Thrasymachus and Machiavelli. But isn’t the real divide within the administration (and on the American right more generally) more complex: between foreign policy realists, who are pragmatists, and neo-conservatives, who see themselves as idealists – even moralists – on a mission to topple tyrants, and therefore in a struggle against realism?
  　　
  　　Shadia Drury: I think that the neo-conservatives are for the most part genuine in wanting to spread the American commercial model of liberal democracy around the globe. They are convinced that it is the best thing, not just for America, but for the world. Naturally, there is a tension between these “idealists” and the more hard-headed realists within the administration.
  　　
  　　I contend that the tensions and conflicts within the current administration reflect the differences between the surface teaching, which is appropriate for gentlemen, and the ‘nocturnal’ or covert teaching, which the philosophers alone are privy to. It is very unlikely for an ideology inspired by a secret teaching to be entirely coherent.
  　　
  　　The issue of nationalism is an example of this. The philosophers, wanting to secure the nation against its external enemies as well as its internal decadence, sloth, pleasure, and consumption, encourage a strong patriotic fervour among the honour-loving gentlemen who wield the reins of power. That strong nationalistic spirit consists in the belief that their nation and its values are the best in the world, and that all other cultures and their values are inferior in comparison.
  　　
  　　Irving Kristol, the father of neo-conservatism and a Strauss disciple, denounced nationalism in a 1973 essay; but in another essay written in 1983, he declared that the foreign policy of neo-conservatism must reflect its nationalist proclivities. A decade on, in a 1993 essay, he claimed that “religion, nationalism, and economic growth are the pillars of neoconservatism.” (See “The Coming ‘Conservative Century’”, in Neoconservatism: the autobiography of an idea, p. 365.)
  　　
  　　In Reflections of a Neoconservative (p. xiii), Kristol wrote that:
  　　
  　　“patriotism springs from love of the nation’s past; nationalism arises out of hope for the nation’s future, distinctive greatness…. Neoconservatives believe… that the goals of American foreign policy must go well beyond a narrow, too literal definition of ‘national security’. It is the national interest of a world power, as this is defined by a sense of national destiny … not a myopic national security”.
  　　The same sentiment was echoed by the doyen of contemporary Straussianism, Harry Jaffa, when he said that America is the “Zion that will light up all the world.”
  　　It is easy to see how this sort of thinking can get out of hand, and why hard-headed realists tend to find it naïve if not dangerous.
  　　
  　　But Strauss’s worries about America’s global aspirations are entirely different. Like Heidegger, Schmitt, and Kojève, Strauss would be more concerned that America would succeed in this enterprise than that it would fail. In that case, the “last man” would extinguish all hope for humanity (Nietzsche); the “night of the world” would be at hand (Heidegger); the animalisation of man would be complete (Kojève); and the trivialisation of life would be accomplished (Schmitt). That is what the success of America’s global aspirations meant to them.
  　　
  　　Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man is a popularisation of this viewpoint. It sees the coming catastrophe of American global power as inevitable, and seeks to make the best of a bad situation. It is far from a celebration of American dominance.
  　　
  　　On this perverse view of the world, if America fails to achieve her “national destiny”, and is mired in perpetual war, then all is well. Man’s humanity, defined in terms of struggle to the death, is rescued from extinction. But men like Heidegger, Schmitt, Kojève, and Strauss expect the worst. They expect that the universal spread of the spirit of commerce would soften manners and emasculate man. To my mind, this fascistic glorification of death and violence springs from a profound inability to celebrate life, joy, and the sheer thrill of existence.
  　　
  　　To be clear, Strauss was not as hostile to democracy as he was to liberalism. This is because he recognises that the vulgar masses have numbers on their side, and the sheer power of numbers cannot be completely ignored. Whatever can be done to bring the masses along is legitimate. If you can use democracy to turn the masses against their own liberty, this is a great triumph. It is the sort of tactic that neo-conservatives use consistently, and in some cases very successfully.
  　　
  　　Among the Straussians
  　　
  　　Danny Postel: Finally, I’d like to ask about your interesting reception among the Straussians. Many of them dismiss your interpretation of Strauss and denounce your work in the most adamant terms (“bizarre splenetic”). Yet one scholar, Laurence Lampert, has reprehended his fellow Straussians for this, writing in his Leo Strauss and Nietzsche that your book The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss “contains many fine skeptical readings of Strauss’s texts and acute insights into Strauss’s real intentions.” Harry Jaffa has even made the provocative suggestion that you might be a “closet Straussian” yourself!
  　　
  　　Shadia Drury: I have been publicly denounced and privately adored. Following the publication of my book The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss in 1988, letters and gifts poured in from Straussian graduate students and professors all over North America – books, dissertations, tapes of Strauss’s Hillel House lectures in Chicago, transcripts of every course he ever taught at the university, and even a personally crafted Owl of Minerva with a letter declaring me a goddess of wisdom! They were amazed that an outsider could have penetrated the secret teaching. They sent me unpublished material marked with clear instructions not to distribute to “suspicious persons”.
  　　
  　　I received letters from graduate students in Toronto, Chicago, Duke, Boston College, Claremont, Fordham, and other Straussian centres of “learning.” One of the students compared his experience in reading my work with “a person lost in the wilderness who suddenly happens on a map.” Some were led to abandon their schools in favour of fresher air; but others were delighted to discover what it was they were supposed to believe in order to belong to the charmed circle of future philosophers and initiates.
  　　
  　　After my first book on Strauss came out, some of the Straussians in Canada dubbed me the “bitch from Calgary.” Of all the titles I hold, that is the one I cherish most. The hostility toward me was understandable. Nothing is more threatening to Strauss and his acolytes than the truth in general and the truth about Strauss in particular. His admirers are determined to conceal the truth about his ideas.
  　　
  　　My intention in writing the book was to express Strauss’s ideas clearly and without obfuscation so that his views could become the subject of philosophical debate and criticism, and not the stuff of feverish conviction. I wanted to smoke the Straussians out of their caves and into the philosophical light of day. But instead of engaging me in philosophical debate, they denied that Strauss stood for any of the ideas I attributed to him.
  　　
  　　Laurence Lampert is the only Straussian to declare valiantly that it is time to stop playing games and to admit that Strauss was indeed a Nietzschean thinker – that it is time to stop the denial and start defending Strauss’s ideas.
  　　
  　　I suspect that Lampert’s honesty is threatening to those among the Straussians who are interested in philosophy but who seek power. There is no doubt that open and candid debate about Strauss is likely to undermine their prospects in Washington.
  　　
  　　
  　　--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  　　
  　　
  　　
  　　Who is Leo Strauss?
  　　Leo Strauss was born in 1899 in the region of Hessen, Germany, the son of a Jewish small businessman. He went to secondary school in Marburg and served as an interpreter in the German army in the first world war. He was awarded a doctorate at Hamburg University in 1921 for a thesis on philosophy that was supervised by Ernst Cassirer.
  　　
  　　Strauss’s post-doctoral work involved study of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, and in 1930 he published his first book, on Spinoza’s critique of religion; his second, on the 12th century Jewish philosopher Maimonides, was published in 1935. After a research period in London, he published The Political Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes in 1936.
  　　
  　　In 1937, he moved to Columbia University, and from 1938 to 1948 taught political science and philosophy at the New School for Social Research, New York. During this period he wrote On Tyranny (1948) and Persecution and the Art of Writing (1952).
  　　
  　　In 1949, he became professor of political philosophy at the University of Chicago, and remained there for twenty years. His works of this period include Natural Right and History (1953), Thoughts on Machiavelli (1958), What is Political Philosophy? (1959), The City and Man (1964), Socrates and Aristophanes (1966), and Liberalism Ancient and Modern (1968).
  　　
  　　Between 1968 and 1973, Strauss taught in colleges in California and Maryland, and completed work on Xenophon’s Socratic discourses and Argument and Action of Plato’s Laws (1975). After his death in October 1973, the essay collection Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy (1983) was published.
  　　
  　　Recommended articles on Leo Strauss, neo-conservatism, and Iraq
  　　
  　　M.F. Burnyeat, “Sphinx without a Secret”, New York Review of Books, 30 May 1985 [paid-for only]
  　　
  　　Stephen Holmes, “Truths for Philosophers Alone?”, Times Literary Supplement, 1-7 December 1989; reprinted in Stephen Holmes, The Anatomy of Antiliberalism (1996)
  　　
  　　Robert B. Pippin, “The Modern World of Leo Strauss,” Political Theory Vol. 20 No. 3 (August 1992) [affiliate only]
  　　
  　　Gregory Bruce Smith, “Leo Strauss and the Straussians: An Anti-democratic Cult?”, PS: Political Science & Politics Vol. 30 No. 2 (June 1997) [affiliate only]
  　　
  　　Michiko Kakutani, “How Books Have Shaped U.S. Policy,” The New York Times, 5 April 2003 [paid-for only]
  　　
  　　Alain Frachon and Daniel Vernet, “The Strategist and the Philosopher”, Le Monde, 15 April 2003
  　　
  　　James Atlas, “A Classicist’s Legacy: New Empire Builders,” The New York Times, 4 May 2003 [paid-for only]
  　　
  　　Jeet Heer, “The Philosopher,” The Boston Globe, 11 May 2003 [paid-for only]
  　　
  　　Jim Lobe, “The Strong Must Rule the Weak: A Philosopher for an Empire,” Foreign Policy in Focus, 12 May 2003
  　　
  　　Seymour Hersh, “Selective Intelligence,” The New Yorker, 12 May 2003
  　　
  　　William Pfaff, “The long reach of Leo Strauss”, International Herald Tribune, 15 May 2003
  　　
  　　Peter Berkowitz, “What Hath Strauss Wrought?”, Weekly Standard, 2 June 2003
  　　
  　　“Philosophers and kings,” The Economist, 19 June 2003
  　　
  　　Steven Lenzner & William Kristol, “What was Leo Strauss up to?”, The Public Interest, Fall 2003
  　　
  　　Laura Rozen “Con Tract: the theory behind neocon self-deception”, Washington Monthly, October 2003
  　　
  　　Copyright © Danny Postel, 2007 2003. Published by http://www.opendemocracy.net
  　　
  　　
•   　　——一个偏执的自由主义者的妄想
  　　德鲁里女士“令人惊讶的”罗列出一长串曾经或仍旧活跃于美国政治舞台上的所谓施特劳斯主义者的名单，这些人身居要职、名声显赫；她也没有忘记为共和党起草纲领性文件《与美国的契约》（The Contract with America）的议会发言人纽特•金里奇（Newt Gingrich）寓所里长期聚集的基督教联盟的说客；当然，她还提到《纽约时报》的一个说法：“施特劳斯是1994年共和党《与美国的契约》之政纲的教父。”德鲁里女士丰富的联想能力让她从这些千丝万缕的关联中感到一阵巨大恐惧，她发现广大美国人民很可能生活在被一个叫作施特劳斯的犹太裔德国流亡学者一手编织、培育起来的邪恶轴心组织的阴谋统治下，即便这个阴谋还没实现，但如果不将它戳穿，灾难终会到来，整个自由民主政体将岌岌可危。
  　　德鲁里女士这番杞人之忧与被她斥为新保守主义与之有共同喜好的反犹分子帕特•罗伯特的异想天开堪称伯仲，后者将世界历史叙述为犹太人、共济会员和国际金融家的一场阴谋。当然罗伯特的奇思妙想远非首创，自中世纪以来就有种种类似攻击犹太人的谣言，20世纪初在俄国流传、后来成为希特勒迫害犹太人的口实、至今仍被哈马斯宪章采纳的《犹太贤士议定书》是其最著名的版本。德鲁里女士倒也谦虚地承认新闻记者们早就揭露出施特劳斯主义者自老布什政府以来对美国政策产生了令人不安的影响，不过，她大概想成为学院里的“深喉”，“施特劳斯门事件”的揭密英雄。正如美国记者们将水门事件视为典范，从而将此后的诸多政府阴谋和丑闻冠之以“门”的称号，德鲁里女士也从中发现了政治阴谋的好莱坞式样板剧情，她用这种剧情描画施特劳斯所产生的思想影响。
  　　可惜的是，政治思想并非如政治事件那样可以发现确凿的因果实证，德鲁里女士于是使用了危险而可疑的“逻辑思路”——施特劳斯的政治哲学与美国新保守主义的意识形态有着必然的逻辑关联，他们分享共同的核心论题，施特劳斯的思想潜藏着“政治操纵”的主题。顺着这条逻辑思路，她顺藤摸瓜揪住了施特劳斯的思想源头：他对犹太遗产的继承，他的德国渊源海德格尔和施米特。后两位与纳粹摆不脱的干系尤其让德鲁里女士兴奋不已，显然，证明了施特劳斯与他们的思想亲缘，也就坐实了他与极权统治的暧昧纠葛。所以，在讨论海德格尔思想与纳粹的关系问题时，德鲁里女士一方面借助施特劳斯对海德格尔的批判：海德格尔的哲学直接将他导向纳粹，一方面又力图证明施特劳斯并不像他自己认为的那样与自己的老师划清了界线。（p79以下）她搬起施特劳斯的石头砸了施特劳斯的脚，非常聪明，在贬低了施特劳斯的智商后她确实显得很聪明。
  　　事实上，这种精神连坐法的伎俩并不鲜见，德鲁里女士的自由主义前辈卡尔•波普尔在《开放社会及其敌人》一书中就将自柏拉图至马克思的诸多哲人划归为历史主义者，把他们看作极权主义的思想根源，统统打入开放社会的敌人阵营。从德鲁里女士的一句叫嚣——“毫无疑问，德国浪漫主义促成了德意志民族病态的民族主义，并点燃了对犹太人杀气腾腾的仇恨”（p46）——中，仍然可以听到波普尔的回音。波普尔坚定的敌友划分为他在冷战时期赢得了英国女王授予的爵士头衔，谁来为德鲁里女士戴上英雄的桂冠呢？她为了给前辈报一箭之仇吗？波普尔上个世纪50年代谋求芝加哥大学教职时，曾被施特劳斯和另一位政治哲学家沃格林（Eric Voegelin）联手封杀，在两位思想家看来，波普尔纯粹是不学无术之徒。并不需要深入分析，想像一下，一位柏拉图学者皓首穷经钻研柏翁思想，波普尔却在一本著作中将诸多思想大家逐一批判，着实让人生疑。德鲁里继承了波普尔的恶习，相比施特劳斯一生埋首解读经典，笔耕不辍，她研究施特劳斯的著作从1988年到1997年不过薄薄两本，便号称批判施特劳斯。中译前言倒也明言，德鲁里在“学术上”不一定有多大贡献，可还是给她戴了顶“敏感的洞察”的高帽子。这位近20年前写了本研究一个当时鲜为人知的学院知识分子的著作（《列奥•施特劳斯的政治思想》）的女士，十多年后借着媒体炒作以这一本口水论战集俨然成了“公共知识界”施特劳斯专家的人有着怎样的敏感洞察呢？
  　　这种逻辑推进如何面对尼采的这一反驳：尼采在《道德的谱系》开篇说到，所有思想都在至深根源上缠绕交织，一棵树木必然生出同一种果实，“我们的果实合你们的口味吗？但这与那棵树有何想干？这与我们，我们哲人有何想干？”德鲁里女士会喊到：“砍掉那棵树！让‘自恋的’哲人闭嘴！”
  　　并非只有德鲁里女士会使用思想株连罪式的审判。德鲁里批判的敌人卡尔•施米特1939年写下一篇文章《中立与中立化——评施泰丁的〈帝国与欧洲文化之病〉》，标题中提到的著作将布克哈特、尼采、格奥尔格、托马斯•曼、弗洛伊德和卡尔•巴特等人一应划入“其终极目的为非政治化、中立化、无决断状态、虚无主义，而最后则是布尔什维主义的文化阵线里”，1939年的施米特仍旧明白混杂树敌的可疑，他提到一句俗语“不要审判，免得你们自己受审判”。德鲁里女士显然没听过这句经验之谈，于是她也不得不接受“审判”——用思想株连罪对待一个人是轻而易举的勾当，欲加之罪，何患无辞呢？从参加一战的德国士兵背包里发现最多的是格奥尔格诗集，荷尔徳林诗集被像弹药一样送上二战战场，于是二者与好战成性的德意志民族主义不仅有逻辑关联还有历史关联，那么从参加越战的美国大兵裤兜里搜出《花花公子》能说明什么呢？美利坚民族色情狂式的帝国主义吗？
  　　况且以子之矛攻子之盾，并非全然无理。德鲁里女士一心拥护的自由主义凭什么能逃脱这种逻辑审查？她要让我们唱一曲自由主义的赞歌吗？“自由啊并且主义！过往一切思想都肮脏无比，唯有你纯洁无暇，有如处女！”
  　　因此她指责布鲁姆混淆了自由主义现实与自由主义理想，否认“美国自由社会是自由主义理想的现实体现，或是这些理念的逻辑的、不可避免的结果”，她仍旧保持对资本疯狂逐利、个人生活的冷漠放纵和虚无主义的批评。（p134）奇怪，这些不正是她所尊敬的密尔所说的为了自由必须付出的代价吗？甚至这些不就是自由主义的自由本身吗？难道，德鲁里女士有着更高尚、更光荣的自由主义理想，更崇高的梦幻？若是那样，“为崇高的梦幻忍受痛苦，当然比受益于肮脏的现实并摇摆其间更高贵”，施特劳斯这句让她嘲笑的话对她这样的自由主义者倒更合适。
  　　什么样的自由主义者呢？伪自由主义者！这位伪自由主义者处处表示出道德义愤。荒谬！自由主义者有什么资格就道德问题发表见解？对于自由主义者只有严格的、实证的合法性，只有法律维护的个人权利，除此而外谈论什么个人道德？自由主义者没有理由指责任何一组约束条件下个人的自利行为，只要当时的法律允许，即使背叛、告密、出卖也无罪。德鲁里女士却为了印证自己的道德崇高感表示出对写下《鲜花圣母》、《玫瑰奇迹》的“皮条客、同性恋者、小偷和向纳粹领赏的告密者”圣•热内的不齿，以此证明存在主义的极端个人主义伦理学“违背传统和人类共享的行为准则”，甚至不惜拉出美国诗人爱默生一块陪斩，因为后者鼓励人们忠实于内心魔鬼的声音。（p80）德鲁里不是诚实的自由主义者，诚实的自由主义者必定是相对主义者，相对的相对主义者或绝对的相对主义者，前者保留自己的价值观，但也不对其他价值观发表意见，后者没有任何自己的价值观，什么都可以，只要不犯法，虚无主义者是他的另一个名称。自由主义者只能坚守一个中立领域——技术化计算的经济利益领域。
  　　亚里士多德说，愤怒是唯一需要陈辞和说理的激情。研究施米特的迈尔问过，施米特的道德义愤来自何处，他深究了施米特坚定的启示信仰。德鲁里女士的道德义愤却是无源之水、无本之木。
  　　德鲁里女士时不时嘲笑对手是玩火自焚的魔法小学徒，其实她自己更像。她声称美国立国思想没有任何亚里士多德的东西，因为他设定了某种特定的善，而独立宣言奠定下的个人权利优先于任何给定善，（p129）那么自由主义肯定不是为了追求某种善好的生活，是为自由而自由。她也确实说自由和美德具有同等价值，人们却必须在二者之间排出次序，自由主义者选择了自由，便坦然面对美德的丧失。（p130）可令人困惑的是，她又承认不同政治共同体可能代表相互冲突、不可公度的善（p107），一会儿又说还有传统和人类共享的行为准则。她引证德沃金对商业主义的批评，批评商业放纵危及个人自由，个人将自己的信念和传统传给其子孙的自由。（p134）这个批评本就站不住脚，难道德鲁里女士的子女混乱放荡时她该打他们屁股吗？
  　　在美德和自由之间进行选择一说在更致命的一点让德鲁里女士自打耳光。既然承认她的右派对手有选择美德的自由，作为一位自由主义者为什么不维护这种自由呢？她没有古典自由主义者们“虽然不同意你的意见，却誓死捍卫你说话的权利”的风度，立刻指称选择美德就会扼杀自由（p156），引申的结论自然是必须扑灭右派将美国推上美德之路的自由。
  　　德鲁里女士还处处表白自己的真诚——对真诚信仰的真诚赞美（p53），对施特劳斯掩盖丑陋真理的“高贵谎言”表示恶心。可真诚的基督徒一旦加入右派民团，真诚的清教徒一旦放弃自由主义，她就无法忍受了。她会立刻猜测，一定有人在背后操纵。她同样拒绝海德格尔对个人本真性的追求，大概在她看来，要真诚，但不要足够真诚。看来是她而不是施特劳斯“深受一种自欺的严重状况的折磨”，忍受着“严重性格变态的灵魂谎言的痛苦”。（p65）
  　　学术上的浅薄无知更让人无法忍受。仅仅因为施特劳斯对哲学之爱欲（Eros）的重视，她便讥诮施特劳斯的思想诲淫诲盗、充满色情。（p67）当她读过莱辛的几部剧作后便自认为理解了莱辛要说的一切，她说莱辛没有隐秘的思想，莱辛相信理性可以解决宗教的争端，（p48-53）可我们至少从狄尔泰研究德国文学的名著《体验与诗》中就能看到支持施特劳斯的说法（《体验与诗》，三联2003年版，p19，p76以下）。她对尼采的了解大概仅仅限于超人和金发野兽这两个名号。她洋洋自得地声称自己曾指出施特劳斯的自然法概念是马基雅维利式的“结果论”，也许她的逻辑也不大好，自由主义的功利主义和实用主义色彩何曾摆脱过这种结果论？
  　　对施特劳斯学派的批判性研究自然值得展开，可惜德鲁里这本书粗制滥造、一无是处。也许有人认为她揭露了施特劳斯派的政治野心，而施特劳斯是个古典学者，他的学生们也该老老实实呆在学院里做学问。难道自由主义学者进行公共讨论就是维护正义与自由，施特劳斯的弟子们介入政治就是别有用心？德鲁里总结的新保守主义之“新”也毫无新意：她认为新保守主义丧失了老保守主义的温和与谦逊，变得激进而危险。且不说激进保守主义早就不是什么新鲜事物，哈贝马斯1980年的观点：始于施特劳斯的“旧保守主义”，“首先是不让自己受文化现代性的丝毫污染”（《现代性：一个尚未完成的规划》），已经明确其激进特征。但思想上的激进未必代表实践的激进，德鲁里过度强调右派的激进特征方才显得激进，一种急于将对手置诸死地的激进。德鲁里女士扬言自由辩论能实现真理，但她总显得真理在握。比起布鲁姆坦诚“帕斯卡说我们知道的太少因而当不了独断论者，但又因为知道得太多不能成为怀疑主义者，这个说法完美描述了我们现在真实经历的人类状况”（《巨人与侏儒》，华夏2003年版，p300），德鲁里显得毫无风度。美国公共政治辩论如果都是如此水准，实在让人泄气。
  　　[美]德鲁里著：《列奥•施特劳斯与美国右派》，刘华等译，新星出版社，2006年7月，20元。
  　　
•   　　列奥·施特劳斯将继续热下去，起码在小布什下台之前注定如此。《列奥·施特劳斯与美国右派》算得上赶得上末班车的施氏思想快速入门书。遗憾的是，作者莎蒂亚·B·德鲁里（加拿大）既将施特劳斯过分简单化了，且没有抓住他的关键之处。当年科耶夫说此公之说为“神学”，伯林称其有“魔眼”，都是极敏锐之士的极敏锐之评，非一般人可做到的。
  　　〈南方都市报〉今天有一篇谈此书的评论。其中说到施特劳斯的学生阿兰·布鲁姆（Allan Bloom）。文中似乎把他和哈罗德·布鲁姆（Harold Bloom）混淆了。此书的翻译也颇成问题，一本书中，布鲁姆的名字一会儿是阿兰，一会儿是艾伦，有的翻译更是与原意相反，叫人莫衷一是。
•   极权主义作为人类历史上已知的最大灾难，早已被纳入最不政治正确的垃圾堆一列。然而可笑的是，为了在政治上获得自己的话语权，如今的各大党派纷纷将与自己意见不合的人扣上极权的帽子，却忽略了唯有经济社会思想等的全盘控制才能被定义为极权主义。这种政治正确的泛滥，反而消解了这个话题的严肃性。
•   总要给人家一个自我辩护的机会，说自己高尚就高尚了，就noble了？我看不出鲁丽怎么歪曲施特劳斯了。
•   说得Strauss好可怕，正好我是要被藏起来不给知道的那个平民百姓……
•   这也是一篇毫无风度的评论。中国施特劳斯门徒（世界上最庞大的一群）很没风度的一篇杰作。
•   呵呵，自由主义者有什么资格就道德问题发表见解？对于自由主义者只有严格的、实证的合法性，只有法律维护的个人权利，除此而外谈论什么个人道德？自由主义者没有理由指责任何一组约束条件下个人的自利行为，只要当时的法律允许，即使背叛、告密、出卖也无罪。
  ===============================================
  这个我不赞成。
•   自由主义者不是不能发表道德问题的见解，而是作为一个自由主义者不能以在公共领域反对自由主义的政治学说的基础，否则还做什么自由主义者。他可以以公民或私人的身份，但是不是自由主义的身份在公共领域发表违背自由主义主张的言论，就如同共产主义者不能在公共言论中支持自由主义一样，私下言论却不一样。这才是自由主义者的理想。
  不要随便说什么施特劳斯门徒，这个词难道和自由主义者一样，成为一个党派了。
•   施特劳斯...施米特...海德格尔...尼采...这些人啊...都是好的文学家...不要把他们扯进政治...政治是肮脏的
•   　事实上，这种精神连坐法的伎俩并不鲜见，德鲁里女士的自由主义前辈卡尔•波普尔在《开放社会及其敌人》一书中就将自柏拉图至马克思的诸多哲人划归为历史主义者，把他们看作极权主义的思想根源，统统打入开放社会的敌人阵营。
  ————————————
  我想作为一种谱系学的写作方法，写思想史的人都在寻找历史上的思想脉络，这是无法避免的。思想史不是general history，确实无法找到你要的那种直接证据，因为并不是每个思想家都写日记或者自述师承，也不是每个由此习惯的思想家的日记都完好地保存了下来。有这样的自述是最好了，如果没有，思想史的做法就不得不有点你说的“精神连坐法”的意味了。布鲁姆不是在《美国精神的封闭》里也使用了相同的谱系学方法么？
•   如同鞭炮一样的愤青语言，对施特劳斯如圣人般不假思索的崇拜，思维肤浅的批评
•   太阳晒善人也晒恶人。。。
•   确实翻译得极差，提不起阅读的兴致。内容本身也很糟。
•   说不上"极差"吧,刘擎老师统校过,但毕竟不是一个人翻译的.作者立场非常鲜明,本来就不是给中国人"启蒙"用的.
  自己把毒药当补药喝,怪谁呢?