评论
打印
For indeed, he was there in War and Peace, as Pierre wandering into the midst of the battle—and then?
图灵把自己置身于《战争与和平》中，就像主人公皮埃尔一样，踉跄着走到了战场中央——然后又怎么样？
What did it mean? What was it for?
这意味着什么？这是为了什么？
And he was there in Tolstoy, whose puzzle was not over this or that fact, but what history was.
托尔斯泰的问题是，历史到底是什么？
Could an individual cause an event, hold power, or exercise will, as in the story book kind of history?
一个人，可以像历史故事那样，引发事件、执掌大权、施展抱负吗？
'The subject of history,' he wrote, 'is not the will of man as such but our presentation of it.'
托尔斯泰写道："历史不是人的意志，而是人们对于意志的表象。
It was, in other words, the level of description.
……我们把已知的东西称为客观规律，把未知的东西称为自由意志。
The degree of 'will' would depend upon the kind of description, and 'what is known to us we call the laws of necessity; what is unknown we call free will.
在历史学中，自由意志仅仅是指那些未知的人类规律。"
Free will is for history only an expression connoting what we do not know about the laws of human life.
他还特别指出，自由意志只是一种表达，目前是未知的，所以我们说它是自由的。
