第三段哲學史從17世紀至今，由科學主導，傳統信仰并未消失殆盡但總需要科學的背書。

The third period, from the seventeenth century to the present day, is dominated, more than either of its predecessors, by science; traditional religious beliefs remain important, but are felt to need justification, and are modified wherever science seems to make this imperative.

今天這段，因為我不熟悉，可能詮釋上有些問題，但還是受到從歷史研究思想這個脈絡的啟發(fā)。如果你考察過歷史上不那么強調個人主觀的時代，你或許就會對當代“只要我喜歡有什么不可以”的主張，有更少的迷惑，而能更直面的直接批評“這是一種精神錯亂”吧。

人類從對自然世界的迷信走出來已經許久了，但人類可能陷入一場更困難的迷信，就是”自己“，對自我的盲目崇拜，以個人作為衡量萬物的尺度，不顧及客觀自然界的事實，縱欲的破壞生存環(huán)境并逼迫其他物種；又不顧及同類，或是放縱的炫富，或是成為宅居的米蟲，或是戕害倫理和社會秩序，造成家庭悲劇和社會不安，都是問題。

內心真誠，同時考慮社會效用和自然生態(tài)，可能是修養(yǎng)的大道。

個人主觀的強調

現代思潮的特點是主觀性，無論是哲學還是政治理論。現代哲學始于笛卡爾，他通過確定性他自己和他的思想存在，來認為可以推斷出外部世界。 這只是主觀性發(fā)展的第一階段，接下來，從伯克利、康德、到費希特（Berkeley and Kant, to Fichte），一切都只是自我的散發(fā)。 作者認為，“這是一種精神錯亂”，而且，從這個極端開始，哲學一直試圖逃到日常常識的世界中。

Modern philosophy begins with Descartes, whose fundamental certainty is the existence of himself and his thoughts, from which the external world is to be inferred. This was only the first stage in a development, through Berkeley and Kant, to Fichte, for whom everything is only an emanation of the ego. This was insanity, and, from this extreme, philosophy has been attempting, ever since, to escape into the world of every-day common sense.

路德反抗教宗的精神，產生奇妙的變化，先是宗教理解上的主觀性，后是政治中的無政府主義。在路德的一生中，一派新的“重洗派”（Anabaptisn）發(fā)展了出來，他們認為好人將在每時每刻受到圣靈的引導，圣靈不受常理的約束，因而否認(repudiated )所有法律，招致物質均分和性濫交(promiscuity)的后果，后來被消滅(exterminated )了。他們的學說以軟化的形式傳播到荷蘭、英國和美國。 從歷史上看，它是貴格會（Quakerism）的源頭。后來，19 世紀出現了一種不再與宗教聯系在一起的激烈無政府主義形式，遍及俄國、西班牙和美國，思想來源也可追溯至路德。

主觀性也沖擊了社會倫常，新教教徒還是遵守社會常規(guī)的，但后期在18 世紀，人們對“感性”的崇拜開始瓦解規(guī)范：一種行為受到贊賞，不再是因為它后果良好，或是遵守道德準則，而是因為出于激發(fā)它的情感——個人是美學上令人愉悅的沉思對象。 感性的態(tài)度發(fā)展出“英雄崇拜”，正如卡萊爾和尼采（Carlyle and Nietzsche）的哲學，以及拜倫式（Byronic cult）對暴力激情的崇拜。其后果，用作者生動的比喻來說，就是你非要拆除鐵欄觀賞老虎，結果可能你不堪負荷（The typical romantic removes the bars and enjoys the magnificent leaps with which the tiger annihilates the sheep. He exhorts men to imagine themselves tigers, and when he succeeds the results are not wholly pleasant.）。

But this was a precarious equilibrium. The eighteenth-century cult of "sensibility" began to break it down: an act was admired, not for its good consequences, or for its conformity to a moral code, but for the emotion that inspired it. Out of this attitude developed the cult of the hero, as it is expressed by Carlyle and Nietzsche, and the Byronic cult of violent passion of no matter what kind.

反對極端浪漫思潮的哲學（但可能也是浪漫主義的分支？）

反對主觀浪漫思潮的哲學也有，如，修正派的洛克，他既反對重洗派的極端主觀，同時也不同意盲從權威和傳統；更加絕對的反叛導致國家崇拜（過去天主教地位的另一種形式再現）， 霍布斯、盧梭和黑格爾(Hobbes, Rousseau, and Hegel)代表了這一理論的不同階段，他們的學說在克倫威爾、拿破侖和現代德國（共產主義在理論上與這些哲學相去甚遠，但在實踐中卻產生一種與國家崇拜所產生的社區(qū)非常相似的社區(qū)）都有實際體現。

First, a half-way compromise philosophy, the doctrine of liberalism, which attempted to assign the respective spheres of government and the individual. This begins, in its modern form, with Locke, who is as much opposed to "enthusiasm"--the individualism of the Anabaptists--as to absolute authority and blind subservience to tradition. A more thoroughgoing revolt leads to the doctrine of State worship, which assigns to the State the position that Catholicism gave to the Church, or even, sometimes, to God. Hobbes, Rousseau, and Hegel represent different phases of this theory, and their doctrines are embodied practically in Cromwell, Napoleon, and modern Germany. Communism, in theory, is far removed from such philosophies, but is driven, in practice, to a type of community very similar to that which results from State worship.

兩極社會政治背景下取舍的西方哲學史

總結作者的前言來說，作者呼應了開頭他說的本書將在社會政治的背景下理解哲學（“My purpose is to exhibit philosophy as an integral part of social and political life.”），而整部西方哲學史，都在兩極的社會政治背景下取舍，一端是社會團結，一端是個人自由。

個人自由派，強調主觀性，而不得不或多或少地敵視科學，因為他們的教條無法被經驗證明。 他們幾乎一成不變地教導說，幸福不是好事，而是更喜歡“高貴”或“英雄主義”。他們的反科學的思維傾向，使他們雖然強調個人自由，但卻反而?！疤岢撤N教條體系”，因此作者甚至稱他們?yōu)椤耙?guī)訓者”（disciplinarians）。他們對個人主觀自由的強調，使他們同情人性中非理性的部分，并認為為了個人的自由，有理由反抗（to be inimical to）社會凝聚力。

The disciplinarians have advocated some system of dogma, either old or new, and have therefore been compelled to be, in a greater or less degree, hostile to science, since their dogmas could not be proved empirically. They have almost invariably taught that happiness is not the good, but that "nobility" or "heroism" is to be preferred. They have had a sympathy with the irrational parts of human nature, since they have felt reason to be inimical to social cohesion.

社會團結派，會傾向科學的、功利的、理性的、對暴力激情的敵意。而作者認為，由于社會團結派科學功利的思維傾向，他們也反對于所有太過僵化的教條和宗教形式。除了極端的無政府主義者之外，他們的思想有助團結社會。

The libertarians, on the other hand, with the exception of the extreme anarchists, have tended to be scientific, utilitarian, rationalistic, hostile to violent passion, and enemies of all the more profound forms of religion.

一般來說，重要的文明都是從僵化的迷信體系開始，逐漸放松，到了一定階段，進入了天才輝煌時期，而舊傳統的善依然存在，導致解體的惡尚未發(fā)展（如雅典、文藝復興）。 但隨著極端主觀主義的展開，它會導致無政府狀態(tài)，因此，不可避免地會導致新的暴政，產生由新的教條體系保護的新綜合（如羅馬走向衰落時，基督宗教從斯多葛的搖籃崛起，步入西方哲學的中古時期；如宗教改革發(fā)展到極端后的浪漫主義、和英雄乃至威權崇拜）。

In general, important civilizations start with a rigid and superstitious system, gradually relaxed, and leading, at a certain stage, to a period of brilliant genius, while the good of the old tradition remains and the evil inherent in its dissolution has not yet developed. But as the evil unfolds, it leads to anarchy, thence, inevitably, to a new tyranny, producing a new synthesis secured by a new system of dogma.

誰能不基于理性教條，使個人自由發(fā)揮，又能維持社會秩序，那可能就是政治社會層面上最好的哲學了。