亞特蘭提斯、庫什和圖蘭：史賓格勒遺作中古代文明的史前矩陣(翻譯)
本文發佈於史賓格勒循環史觀整理與簡介
2021-12-27
|閱讀時間 ‧ 約 52 分鐘
本篇文章翻譯Robert Steuckers的文章，內容與史賓格勒死後文本的研究相關，裡面一些歷史看法與現今的考古學研究可能有差異，但是其思考與論點對於歷史哲學有興趣的人來說仍然是有趣且值得參考的。
Atlantis, Kush, and Turan: Prehistoric Matrices of Ancient Civilizations in the Posthumous Work of Spengler
Oswald Spengler's morphologies of cultures and civilizations in his most famous work,The Decline of the West, are widely known. However, Spengler's positions changed after the publication ofDecline. So claims the Italian Germanist Domenico Conte in his recent work on Spengler Catene di civiltà: Studi su Spengler (Napoli: Ed. Scientifiche Italiane, 1994), which is a thorough study of the posthumous texts published by Anton Mirko Koktanek, especiallyFrühzeit der Weltgeschichte[The Early Period of World History], which gathers the fragments of a projected but never completed workThe Epic of Man.
亞特蘭蒂斯、庫什和圖蘭：史賓格勒遺作中古代文明的史前矩陣
In his reflections immediately following the publication ofThe Decline of the West, Spengler distinguished four stages of human history which he designates simply as A, B, C, and D.
在《西方的衰落》出版后不久的反思中，史賓格勒區分了人類歷史的四個時期，他簡單地將其命名為A，B，C和D.
Stage A lasted a hundred thousand years, from the first phases of hominization up to the lower Paleolithic. It is during this stage that the importance of the "hand" for man appears. It is, for Spengler, the age of Granite.
時代 A 持續了約十幾萬年，從人類化的第一階段到舊石器時代的晚期。正是在這個時代，「手」對人類的重要性顯現出來。對於史賓格勒來說，這是花崗岩的時代。
Stage B lasted ten thousand years and lay in the lower Paleolithic, between 20,000 and 7,000–6,000 BCE. During this age the concept of interior life was born: then appeared the true soul, as unknown to men of stage A as it is to a newborn baby.In this stage in our history man was first "able to produce traces/memories" and to understand the phenomenon of death. For Spengler, it is the age of the Crystal.
Stages A and B are inorganic.
時代 B 持續了一萬年，位於舊石器時代晚期，為西元前20000年至7000-6000年之間。在這個時代，內在生活的概念誕生了：而隨之出現真正的靈魂，在時代 A 的人類看來，就如同新生的孩童是未知的。在我們歷史的這個階段，人類開始「能夠描繪/記憶」事物並理解死亡現象。對於斯賓格勒來說，這是水晶的時代。
時代 A 和 B 是無機的。
Stage C lasted 3,500 years: it starts with the Neolithic era, running from the sixth millennium BCE to the third. It is the stage when thought started to be articulated in language and the most complex technological achievements became possible. In this stage are born "cultures" whose structures are "amoebic."
時代 C 持續了3500年：它始於新石器時代，從西元前六千年到第三千年。這是思想開始用語言表達的階段，複雜的技術成就變的有可能。在這個階段，誕生了型態為「阿米巴」的「文化」。
Stage 'D' is that of "world history" in the conventional sense of the term. It is the stage of "great civilizations," each of which lasts approximately 1,000 years. These civilizations have structures of the "vegetable" type.
Stages C and D are organic.
時代 D 是傳統意義上的「世界歷史」。這是「偉大文明」的時代，每個文明持續約1000年。這些文明具有「植物」類型的型態。
時代 C 和 D 是有機的。
Spengler preferred this psychological-morphological classification to the classifications imposed by the directors of museums who subdivided the prehistoric and historical eras according to materials used for the manufacture of tools (stone, bronze, iron). In keeping with this psychological-morphological classification, Spengler also rejected the idea of the "slow, phlegmatic transformation"or continuous development, rooted in the progressivist ideas of the 18th century.
史賓格勒更喜歡這種心理形態學分類，而不是博物館管理者們強加的分類，後者根據用於製造工具的材料（石頭，青銅，鐵）對史前和歷史時代進行了劃分。為了與這種心理形態學分類保持一致，斯賓格勒也拒絕了「緩慢的、黏稠般的轉變」或持續進步的想法，這種想法植根於18世紀的進步主義思想。
Evolution, for Spengler, is a matter of catastrophic blows, sudden irruptions, unexpected changes. The history of the world proceeds from catastrophe to catastrophe, without any concern with whether we are able to understand them. Today, following H. de Vries, we call them "mutations". It is an internal transformation, which affects without warning all the members of a species, without "cause", naturally, like everything else in reality. Such is the mysterious rhythm of the world (Man and Technics). There is thus no slow evolution but abrupt "epochal" transformations.
對於史賓格勒來說，進化是一個災難性的打擊，突然的刺激，意想不到的變化。世界的歷史從一場災難走向另一場災難，而不關心我們是否能夠理解它們。今天，在雨果·馬里·德弗里斯(H. de Vries)的研究之後，我們稱它們為「突變」。這是一種內在的轉變，它毫無徵兆地影響一個物種的所有成員，沒有「原因」，自然而然地，就像現實中的其他一切一樣。這就是世界的神秘節奏。因此，不存在(如同達爾文那種)緩慢的進化，而是突然的「劃時代」轉變。
三種文化阿米巴 Three Culture-Amoebas
In stage "C" where the matrices of human civilization actually emerge, Spengler distinguishes three "culture-amoebas": Atlantis, Kush, and Turan. This terminology appears only in his posthumous writings and letters. The civilizational matrices are "amoebas" and not "plants" because amoebas are mobile, not anchored to a particular place. The amoeba is an organism that continuously pulsates along an ever-shifting periphery. Then the amoeba subdivides itself as amoebas do, producing new individualities that move away from the amoeba-mother. This analogy implies that one cannot delimit with precision the territory of a civilization of stage "C" because its amoebic emanations can be widely dispersed in space, extremely far away from the amoeba-mother.
在人類文明矩陣實際出現的「C 時代」中，史賓格勒區分了三種「文化阿米巴」：亞特蘭蒂斯、庫什和圖蘭。 這個術語只出現在他死後的著作和信件中。 文明矩陣是「變形蟲」而不是「植物」，因為變形蟲是移動的，而不是固定在特定的地方。 變形蟲是一種沿著不斷變化的外圍不斷脈動的有機體。 然後變形蟲像變形蟲一樣細分自身，產生遠離變形蟲母體的新個體。 這個類比意味著人們無法精確劃定「C」階段文明的領土，因為它的阿米巴放射物可以廣泛分佈在空間中，離阿米巴母體極遠。
"Atlantis" is the "West" and extends from Ireland to Egypt. "Kush" is the "South-east," an area ranging between India and the Red Sea. "Turan" is the "North" extending from Central Europe to China. Spengler, explains Conte, chose this terminology recalling "old mythological names" in order not to confuse them with later historical regions of the "vegetable" type, which are geographically rooted and circumscribed, whereas they are dispersed and not precisely localized.
「亞特蘭提斯」位於「(歐亞大陸的)西方」，從愛爾蘭一直延伸到埃及。 「庫什」位於「(歐亞大陸的)東南部」，介於印度和紅海之間的地區。「圖蘭」位於「(歐亞大陸的)北方」，從中歐延伸到中國。 孔特解釋說，史賓格勒選擇「古老的神話名稱」作為命名術語，是為了不將它們與後來的「植物」類型的歷史領域混淆，這些區域在地理上是有根有據的，但它們是分散的，而不是精確定位的。
Spengler does not believe in the Platonic myth of Atlantis, the sunken continent, but notes that an ensemble of civilizational remnants are locatable in the West, from Ireland to Egypt. "Kush" is a name that one finds in the Old Testament to indicate the territory of the ancient Nubians, the area inhabited by the Kushites. But Spengler places the culture-amoeba "Kush" more to the East, in an area between Turkestan, Persia, and India, undoubtedly inspired by the anthropologist Frobenius. As for "Turan" it is "North" the Turanic high-plateau, which he thought was the cradle of the Indo-European and Ural-Altaic languages. It is from there that the migrations of "Nordic" peoples departed (Spengler is not without racial connotations) to descend on Europe, India, and China.
史賓格勒不相信柏拉圖神話中的亞特蘭提斯-沉沒的大陸，但他指出，從愛爾蘭到埃及，歐亞大陸的西方都可以找到類似文明遺蹟的集合。「庫什」是在舊約中發現的一個名稱，表示古代努比亞人的領土-庫什人居住的地區。 但史賓格勒將文化阿米巴「庫什」更多地置於(努比亞的)東方，在土耳其斯坦、波斯和印度之間的地區，這無疑受到了人類學家弗羅貝尼烏斯(Frobenius)的啟發。 至於「圖蘭」，則是位於歐亞大陸的「北方」-圖蘭高原，他認為那裡是印歐語系和烏拉爾-阿爾泰語系的發源地。正是從那裡「北方的」民族的開始遷徙（史賓格勒並非沒有種族內涵）來到歐洲、印度和中國。
亞特蘭提斯:精湛與若水；庫什:熱情與知足 Atlantis: Hot and Mobile; Kush: Tropical and Content
Atlantis, Kush, and Turan are cultures bearing morphological principles emerging mainly in the spheres of religion and the arts. The religiosity of Atlantis "hot and mobile" is centered on the worship of the dead and the preeminence of the ultra-telluric sphere. The forms of burials, notes Conte, testify to the intense relationship with the world of the dead: the tombs always have a high profile, or are monumental; the dead are embalmed and mummified; food is left or brought for them. This obsessional relationship with the chain of ancestors leads Spengler to theorize the presence of a "genealogical"principle. The artistic expressions of Atlantis, adds Conte, are centered on stone constructions, as gigantic as possible, made for eternity, signs of a feeling of life which is not turned towards a heroic surpassing of limits, but towards a kind of "inert complacency."
亞特蘭提斯、庫什和圖蘭是能夠被形態學原則定義的文化，主要顯現在宗教和藝術領域。亞特蘭提斯「精湛與若水」的宗教信仰集中在對死者的崇拜和超越大地領域(ultra-telluric sphere)的卓越性上。孔特指出，墓葬的形式證明了與死者世界的密切關係：墳墓總是引人注目，或者是不朽的；死者經過防腐處理並製成木乃伊；為他們留下或帶來食物。這種與祖先鏈的強迫關係導致史賓格勒將「譜系」原則的存在理論化。孔特補充說，亞特蘭提斯的藝術表現以石頭建築為中心，盡可能地巨大，為永恆而生，這是一種生命感的標誌，它不是轉向英雄式的超越極限，而是轉向一種「惰性的自滿」。(譯註:史賓格勒在此使用HOT這個詞來表示精湛的意義，可能是要圖蘭的冷酷作為對比)
Kush developed a "tropical" and "content" religion. The problem of ultra-telluric life is regarded with far less anxiety than in Atlantis, because in the culture-amoeba of Kush a mathematics of the cosmos dominates (of which Babylon will be the most imposing expression), where things are "rigidly given in advance". Life after death is a matter of indifference. If Atlantis is a "culture of the tombs," in Kush tombs have no significance. One lives and procreates but forgets the dead. The central symbol of Kush is the temple, from which priests scrutinize celestial mathematics. If in Atlantis, the genealogical principle dominates, if the gods and goddesses of Atlantis are father, mother, son, daughter, in Kush, the divinities are stars. A cosmological principle dominates.
庫什發展了一種「熱情與知足」宗教。與亞特蘭蒂斯相比，人們對超越大地領域生命問題的擔憂要少得多，因為在庫什的文化阿米巴中，宇宙數學占主導地位（巴比倫將是最令人印象深刻的表達），其中事物「嚴格地推進」。死後的生活是無關緊要的。如果亞特蘭蒂斯是一種「古墓文化」，那麼在庫什古墓中沒有任何意義。一個人活著並生養後代，但將死者遺忘。庫什的中心像徵是神殿，祭司們從那裡仔細研究天體的數學。在亞特蘭蒂斯，宗譜原則占主導地位，如果亞特蘭蒂斯的神祇和女神是父親、母親、兒子、女兒；在庫什，神性是星辰。宇宙學原理占主導地位。
圖蘭:英雄們的文明 Turan: The Civilization of Heroes
Turan is the civilization of heroes, animated by a "cold" religiosity, centered on the mysterious meaning of existence. Nature is filled with impersonal powers. For the culture-amoeba of Turan, life is a battlefield: "for the man of the North (Achilles, Siegfried)", Spengler writes, "only life before death, the fight against destiny, counts". The divine-human relationship is no longer one of dependence: "prostration ceases, the head remains high; there is ‘I’ (man) and you (gods)".
圖蘭是英雄們的文明，以「冷酷」的宗教信仰為活力，以存在的神秘意義為中心。大自然充滿了非個人的力量。對於圖蘭的文化阿米巴來說，生命是一個戰場：「對於北方人（阿喀琉斯、齊格弗里德）」史賓格勒寫道「只有死前的生命，與命運的鬥爭，才是重要的」。神人關係不再是依賴：「頂禮止息，首仍昂揚；只有我（人）和你（眾神）」。
Sons guard the memory of their fathers but do not leave food for their corpses. There is no embalming or mummification in this culture, but cremation. The bodies disappear, are hidden in underground burials without monuments, or are dispersed to the four winds. All that remains of the dead is their blood in the veins of their descendants. Turan is thus a culture without architecture, where temples and burials have no importance and where only the terrestrial meaning of existence matters. Man lived alone, confronted with himself, in his house of wood or in his nomad's tent.
兒子們守護來自於父親們的記憶，但不會為他們的屍體留下食物。在這種文化中沒有防腐或木乃伊化，而是火葬。屍體消失，或隱藏在沒有紀念碑的地下墓葬中，或分散到四風中。死者僅有的遺物是他們後代血管中的血液。因此，圖蘭是一種沒有建築的文化，在那裡寺廟和墓葬不重要，只有在地面上存在的意義才是重要的。人們在木屋或游牧民族的帳篷裡獨自生活，面對自我。
戰車The War Chariot
Spengler reserved his sympathy for the culture-amoeba of Turan, whose bearers were characterized by the love of adventure, implacable will power, a taste for violence, and freedom from vain sentimentality. They are "men of facts." The various peoples of Turan were not bound by blood ties or a common language. Spengler does not utilize archaeological and linguistic research aiming to find the original fatherland of the Indo-Europeans or at reconstituting the source language of all the current Indo-European idioms: the bond which links the people of Turan is technical; it is the use of the war chariot.
史賓格勒對圖蘭的文化阿米巴保留了他的同情，其繼承者者的特點是熱愛冒險、堅定的意志力、對暴力的嗜好以及從徒勞的感傷中獲得自由。 他們是「事實的人」。 圖蘭的各個民族不受血緣或共同語言的束縛。史賓格勒沒有利用考古學和語言學研究來尋找印歐人的原始起源地或重建所有當前印歐語習語的源語言：連接圖蘭人的紐帶是技術-戰車的使用。
In a lecture given in Munich on February 6th, 1934 entitled Der Streitwagen und the Seine Bedeutung für den Gang der Weltgeschichte ("The War Chariot and its Significance for the Course of World History"), Spengler explains why this weapon constitutes the key to understanding the history of the second millennium BCE It is, he says, the first complex weapon: One needs a war chariot (with 2 wheels and not a less mobile carriage with 4 wheels), a domesticated and harnessed animal, a meticulously trained warrior who will henceforth strike his enemies from above. With the war chariot is born a type of new man. The chariot is a revolutionary invention on the military plane, but also the formative principle of a new humanity. The warriors became professional because the techniques they had to handle were complex, and they came together as a caste of those who love risk and adventure; they made war the meaning of their life.
在 1934 年 2 月 6 日在慕尼黑舉行的題為 「戰車及其對世界歷史進程的意義」（Der Streitwagen und the Seine Bedeutung für den Gang der Weltges-chichte）的演講中，史賓格勒解釋了為什麼這種武器是理解公元前二千年的歷史的關鍵，他說這是第一種複雜的武器：一個人需要一輛戰車（有 2 個輪子，而不是一輛機動性較差的 4 輪馬車），一個馴養和馴服的動物，一個訓練有素的戰士 來從上擊打他的敵人。 隨著戰車誕生了一種新人類。 戰車是軍事層面的革命性發明，也是新人類的形成法則。 戰士之所以成為職業，是因為他們必須掌握的技術很複雜，而且他們是一群熱愛風險和冒險的人； 他們使戰爭成為他們生活的意義。
The arrival of these castes of impetuous "charioteers"upset very ancient orders: the Achaeans invaded Greece and settled in Mycenae; the Hyksos burst into Egypt. To the East, the Kassites descended on Babylon. In India , the Aryans bore down on the subcontinent, "destroyed the cities", and settled on the ruins of the civilization of Mohenjo Daro and Harappa. In China, the Zhou arrived from the north, mounted on their chariots, like the Hyksos and their Greek counterparts.
這些衝動的「戰車長」種姓的到來擾亂了非常古老的秩序：亞該亞人入侵希臘並在邁錫尼定居；希克索斯人闖入埃及。在東方，卡西特人來到巴比倫。在印度，雅利安人向次大陸發起進攻，「摧毀了當地的城市」，並定居在摩亨佐·達羅(Mohenjo Daro)和哈拉帕文明(Harappa)的廢墟上。在中國，周人像希克索斯人和希臘人一樣，騎著戰車從北方來到這裡。
From 1,200 BCE, warlike princes reigned in China, in India, and in the ancient world of the Mediterranean. The Hyksos and Kassites conquered two older civilizations of the South. Then three new civilizations carried by "dominating charioteers" emerged: the Greco-Roman, the Aryan civilization of India, and the Chinese civilization resulting from Zhou. These new civilizations, whose princes came from North, Turan, are "more virile and energetic that those born on banks of the Nile and Euphrates." According to Spengler, however, these warlike charioteers sadly succumbed to the seductions of the softening South.
從公元前 1,200 年起，好戰的諸侯統治了中國、印度和地中海的古代世界。希克索斯人和卡西特人征服了南方的兩個古老文明。隨後出現了由「戰車長」所繼承的三個新文明：希臘羅馬、印度的雅利安文明和源自周的華夏文明。這些新文明來自圖蘭北部的領導者們「比出生在尼羅河和幼發拉底河沿岸的人更有男子氣概且精力充沛」。然而，根據史賓格勒的說法，這些好戰的戰車長可悲地屈服於軟弱南方的誘惑。
常見的英雄基質 A Common Heroic Substrate
The theory of the rough simultaneity of the invasions of Greece, Egypt, India, and China was shared by Spengler and the sinologist Gustav Haloun. Both held that there is a common substrate, warlike and chariot-borne, of Mediterranean, Indian, and Chinese civilizations. It is a "heroic" civilization, as shown by the weapons of Turan. They are different from those of Atlantis. In addition to the chariot, they are the sword and the axe, which imply duels between combatants, whereas in Atlantis, the weapons are the bow and arrow, that Spengler judges "vile" because they make it possible to avoid direct physical confrontation with the adversary, "to look him right in the eyes".
史賓格勒和漢學家古斯塔夫· 哈隆(Gustav Haloun)認同(雅利安人對)希臘、埃及、印度和中國入侵大致同時發生的理論。兩者都認為地中海、印度和中國文明有一個共同的基礎，好戰和戰車傳播。正如圖蘭的武器所顯示的那樣，這是一個「英雄般的」文明。它們與亞特蘭蒂斯的不同除了戰車之外就是劍和斧，這意味著戰鬥人員之間的決鬥，而在亞特蘭蒂斯，武器是弓箭，斯賓格勒認為這是「卑鄙的」，因為弓箭(的使用者)可以避免與那些「直視他們眼睛」的敵人直接發生身體對抗。
In Greek mythology, Spengler claims, the bow and arrows are remnants of earlier, pre-Hellenic influences: Apollo the archer originated in Asia Minor; Artemis is Libyan, as is Hercules. The javelin is also telamon [= Atlantid] while the jousting lance is "Turanic." To understand these distant times, the study of the weapons is more instructive than that of kitchen utensils or jewels, Spengler concludes.
史賓格勒聲稱，在希臘神話中，弓箭是早期希臘前影響的殘餘：弓箭手阿波羅起源於小亞細亞；阿爾忒彌斯與赫拉克勒斯是利比亞。標槍則是亞特蘭提斯式，而長槍是圖蘭式的。 史賓格勒總結道，要了解這些遙遠的時代，對武器的研究比對廚房用具或珠寶的研究更有啟發意義。
The Turanic soul also derives from a particular climate and a hostile landscape. Man must fight unceasingly against the elements, thus becomes harder, colder, more wintry. Man is not only the product of a "genealogical chain," but equally of a "landscape." Climatic rigor develops "moral strength." The tropics soften the character, bringing us closer to a nature perceived as more matriarchal, supporting female values.
圖蘭的靈魂也來自特定的氣候和充滿敵意的景觀。人類必須不斷地與元素作鬥爭，因此變得更堅強、更冷酷、更嚴厲。人不僅是「家譜譜系」的產物，而且同樣是「風景」的產物。氣候嚴酷使「道德力量」發展。而(接近)熱帶的地區則軟化了這個角色，讓我們更靠近一種被認為更具有母權制、支持女性價值觀的自然。
Spengler's late writings and correspondence thus show that his views changed after the publication of The Decline of the West, where he valorized Faustian civilization to the detriment primarily of ancient civilization. His focus on the "chariot" gives a new dimension to his vision of history: the Greeks, the Romans, the Indo-Aryans, and the Chinese found favor in his eyes.
因此，史賓格勒晚期的著作和信件表明，在《西方的衰落》出版後，他的觀點發生了變化，在那裡他重視浮士德文明，而輕視了主要的古代文明。他對「戰車」的關注為他的歷史視野提供了一個新的維度：希臘人、羅馬人、印度-雅利安人和中國人在他的眼中受到青睞。
In The Decline of the West the mummification of the Pharaohs was considered as the Egyptian expression of a will to duration, which he opposed to the oblivion implied by Indian cremation. Later, he disdained "telamon" mummification as an obsession with the beyond, indicating an incapacity to face terrestrial life."Turanic" cremation, on the other hand, indicates a will to focus one's powers on real life.
在《西方的衰落》中，法老的木乃伊被認為是埃及人對持續意志的表達，他反對印度火葬所暗示的遺忘。後來他鄙視亞特蘭提斯的木乃伊文化，認為它是一種對超越的痴迷，表明無法面對現世的生活。另一方面，圖蘭的火葬表明將自己的力量集中在現實生活中的意願。
由環境決定的看法? A Change of Optics Dictated by Circumstances?
Spengler's polycentric, relativistic, non-Eurocentric, non-evolutionist conception of history in The Decline of the West fascinated researchers and anthropologists outside the circles of the German right, particularly Alfred Kroeber and Ruth Benedict. His emphasis on the major historical role of castes of charioteers gives his late work a more warlike, violent, mobile dimension than revealed in Decline.
斯賓格勒在《西方的衰落》中的多中心、相對主義、非歐洲中心、非進化論的歷史觀讓德國右翼圈子之外的研究人員和人類學家著迷，尤其是阿爾弗雷德·克羅伯 (Alfred Kroeber) 和露絲·本尼迪克 (Ruth Benedict)。他對戰車者種姓的主要歷史作用的強調使他的晚期作品比《衰落》中所揭示的更具戰爭性、暴力性和流動性。
Can one attribute this change of perspective to the situation of a vanquished Germany, which sought to ally itself with the young USSR (from a Eurasian-Turanian perspective?), with India in revolt against Great Britain (that he formerly included in "Faustian civilization," to which he then gave much less importance), with China of the "great warlords," sometimes armed and aided by German officers?
可以將這種觀點的變化歸因於被征服的德國的情況，它尋求與年輕的蘇聯結盟（從歐亞-圖蘭的角度來看？），印度反抗英國（他以前將其包括在「浮士德文明」中 ，然後他就不太重視了），有時由德國軍官武裝和援助的中國「大軍閥」？
Did Spengler, by the means of his lecture on the charioteers, seek to give a common mythology to German, Russian, Chinese, Mongolian, and Indian officers or revolutionaries in order to forge a forthcoming brotherhood of arms, just as the Russian "Eurasianists" tried to give the newborn Soviet Russia a similar mythology, implying the reconciliation of Turco-Turanians and Slavs? Is the radical valorization of the "Turanic" chariot charge an echo of the worship of "the assault" found in "soldatic nationalism," especially of the Jünger brothers and Schauwecker?
史賓格勒是否通過他關於戰車的演講，試圖為德國、俄羅斯、中國、蒙古和印度的軍官或革命者提供一個共同的神話，以期像俄羅斯的「歐亞主義者」一樣建立一個即將到來的兄弟情誼試圖給新生的蘇維埃俄羅斯一個類似的神話，暗示突厥-圖蘭人和斯拉夫人的和解？ 圖蘭戰車衝鋒的激進肯定是否是對「軍人民族主義」(soldatic nationalism)中的「突擊」崇拜的迴聲，尤其是對榮格兄弟和紹韋克的崇拜？
Lastly, why didn't Spengler write anything on the Scythians, a people of intrepid warriors, masters of equestrian techniques, who fascinated the Russians and undoubtedly, among them, the theorists of the Eurasiansm? Finally, is the de-emphasis on racial factors in late Spengler due to a rancorous feeling toward the English cousins who had betrayed Germanic solidarity? Was it to promote a new mythology, in which the equestrian people of the continent, which include all ethnic groups (Mongolian Turco-Turanians, descendants of the Scythians, Cossacks and Germanic Uhlans), were to combine their efforts against the corrupt civilizations of the West and the South and against the Anglo-Saxon thalassocracies?
然後，為什麼史賓格勒沒有寫任何關於斯基泰人的文章，他們是一群勇敢的戰士，是馬術技術的大師，他們讓俄羅斯人著迷，毫無疑問，其中包括歐亞主義的理論家？最後，史賓格勒晚期不再強調種族因素是因為對背叛日耳曼團結的英國表親懷有敵意嗎？是為了推廣一個新的神話，在這個神話中，包括所有民族（蒙古突厥-圖蘭人、斯基泰人的後裔、哥薩克人和日耳曼烏蘭人）在內的大陸馬術人民將聯合起來反對腐敗的西方和南方文明反對盎格魯-撒克遜的海洋帝國？
Don't the obvious parallels between the emphasis on the war chariot and certain theses in Man and Technics amount to a concession to the reigning futuristic ideology, insofar as Spengler gives a technical rather than a religious explanation of the Turanian culture-amoeba? These are topics that the history of ideas will have to clarify in-depth.
以史賓格勒對圖蘭文化阿米巴的技術性而非宗教性解釋來說，強調戰車與人與技術中的某些明顯相似論點，難道不等於對主導的未來主義意識形態的讓步嗎？這些是思想史必須深入闡明的主題。
Commentaires
Enregistrer un commentaire